Okay. Fair enough.
I was going off this particular quote, where they notes that Trump was indeed bragging about sexual assault and that the framing in the rest of the media ignore this. Honestly, it likely depends on which media you consume. Maybe the post consumes mostly conservative-leaning media and if that were the case, I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t see much acknowledgement of this fact.
Which reminds me that the “lying under oath” regarding Lewinsky centered around the phrase “sexual relations”, which had already been used in a previous legal predicament to describe specifically PIV penetration – indicating an understood difference between sexual acts in general and intercourse specifically; splitting hairs, no question, but technically not the same as lying – so why is it that non-PIV penetration in this case is given a pass?
I did, but they’re not making a connection to the fact that there’s a good chance that he was being literal. They’re leaving it as an off color joke. As if it’s just a matter of taste.
There’s exceptions, like the Groper in Chief op ed in the times on Sunday, but for thr most part this is being excused as just words.
As I said I’m referring mostly to the New York Times. (I haven’t owned a TV in 20 years, so no clue about cnn, fox, etc). But it’s pretty shocking how the times is implicitly going along with the trump party line that these are just words. And they seem to do their best to shoot him down, half the frickin paper is dedicated to anti trump articles on any given day. Certainly the top 5 articles in the times app are, for months now.
Maybe it’s for the best. Maybe their thinking is that it they successfully make the case that trump is, in fact, a serial mollester that he’ll have to step down, and then Pense will run, who has a far greater chance of getting elected. If that’s their logic then I mostly salute it, though I’d prefer that they didn’t game the truth.
OT, but that made me laugh!
You’re on the internet, dude…you can watch all the TV news you want, right here!
Or I can get a TV. But I don’t, for the same reason. (Hint: it’s not because it’s technically hard to do.)
ETA: and I’m also referring to the coverage shown on Google News. That’s a pretty wide sampling of the global print media and it’s also mostly dismissing this incident as just words.
'Tis a shame you’re claiming ignorance on the rest of the internet’s reaction to the leaked video. Most of the media, including noted shithead Shep Smith, are calling it an admission of having committed sexual assault.
Minimize at your own risk.
I heard this earlier today:
Hayes pointed out that the comments in the leaked audio of Trump amount to sexual assault. To make his point, he sked how Farenthold would feel hearing a tape of someone saying he loved raping women.
The representative pushed on with his defense, saying, “It depends. You don’t know the context.”
Hayes doubled down and asked if Farenthold would unendorse the candidate if he heard him talking about raping women.
“Again, I — I — that would be bad,” replied the other man. “I would have to consider — I’d consider it.”
OK, my jaw is now on the floor.
Bloody fucking hell, what shitegobs.
This guy, apparently (in the natty pjs):
It’s okay, though. He just got confused by the hypothetical.
Yeaaahhh, suuuurrre.
Want to comment negatively about that pic, refraining. Still want to. Baaaad.
None are so blind as those who will not see.
What rape culture? What are you talking about? Nothing to see here /s
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
