Introduction: This is not new news, nor is it terribly organized, but it's a list of many of the reasons to recognize that the reality is that Trump is most likely a deviant sexual predator...
According
to polls, a majority of US citizens (and a large majority of US women)
believe that Trump has likely sexually assaulted women... we believe the
women who've made allegations against Trump more than we believe Trump.
For those who support Trump generally, they tend to NOT believe the
allegations, again, according to polls.
"58% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the allegations of sexual misconduct made by several women against Trump
Women (63%) are more likely than men (53%) to believe the allegations of sexual misconduct made against Trump.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats and
55% of voters not affiliated with either major party believe the women’s allegations,
compared to just 34% of Republicans."
55% of voters not affiliated with either major party believe the women’s allegations,
compared to just 34% of Republicans."
And
let me be clear: We who believe Trump likely has sexually assaulted
women (and is likely a sexual predator) are NOT saying that he should be
arrested and sent to jail because we believe he's a predator,
regardless of any conviction. We still support the criminal process.
But, there's a difference between thinking there's not sufficient
evidence to bring a conviction versus believing he's trustworthy around
women. Sometimes, there may be insufficient evidence to convict, but
more than enough to be dubious and think, "I'm going to leave teen-aged
girls alone with this man... and I do not trust him to run the
country..." We don't have to have a conviction to not trust and find
someone unfit.
And I should be clear that I don't think that reasonable doubt should just pop up based on very little evidence.
But we don't have "very little" evidence about Trump's sexual predatory nature.
We have ~24 women who have accused him of sexual assault/rape/sexual misconduct.
We have a president who presents as having narcissistic behaviors and the data that shows that narcissistic males are more likely to engage in sexual assault/rape.
"If multiple people have accused an elected official of sexual harassment or sexual assault,
66 percent of Americans say that official should resign,
while 24 percent say the official should not resign."
66 percent of Americans say that official should resign,
while 24 percent say the official should not resign."
And I should be clear that I don't think that reasonable doubt should just pop up based on very little evidence.
But we don't have "very little" evidence about Trump's sexual predatory nature.
We have ~24 women who have accused him of sexual assault/rape/sexual misconduct.
We have a president who presents as having narcissistic behaviors and the data that shows that narcissistic males are more likely to engage in sexual assault/rape.
We
have a president who is ON TAPE laughing about how he "moves on women"
without waiting for permission and that he can "grab them by the
[crotch]" and get away with it because of his power and position.
We
have a president who went on radio and laughed and boasted about how he
could use his power, wealth and position to force his way into a beauty
pageant and ogle teen-aged girls getting dressed.
We
have a president who has a history of speaking abusively towards women
in the most vulgar, rape-y, misogynistic and oppressive terms.
We have the data that shows that such a sense of entitlement and privilege and power is a sign of a sexual predator.
Here are "four thinking patterns" of sexual predators...
"Four thinking patterns figure prominently in the commission of sexual offenses in the workplace.
The pursuit of power and control. A critical part
of the perpetrator’s self-image is being able to dominate others. He
proceeds to do this as he pursues whomever he finds attractive.
A sense of uniqueness. Everyone is unique – physically, psychologically, and experientially. But the person who engages in sexual harassment, assault, or rape considers himself one of a kind. Part of this self-perception is his certainty that he is irresistible to women, the answer to every woman’s desires. When it comes to right and wrong, he makes his own rules.
A sense of uniqueness. Everyone is unique – physically, psychologically, and experientially. But the person who engages in sexual harassment, assault, or rape considers himself one of a kind. Part of this self-perception is his certainty that he is irresistible to women, the answer to every woman’s desires. When it comes to right and wrong, he makes his own rules.
Deception. These individuals are often extremely intelligent, charismatic,
and talented. Even people who know them well cannot conceive that they
are even capable of exploiting others sexually. Such predators are
masters of deceit.
An ability to compartmentalize and shut off fear of consequences.
Perpetrators of sexual harassment, assault, and rape know right from
wrong. They are fully aware of the potential consequences of being
apprehended. They have an uncanny ability to ignore them long enough to
do what they want, all the while maintaining a sense of invincibility.
They eliminate considerations of conscience
behaving as they please without regard to emotional, physical, or other
damage they might inflict. When they are unmasked, their chief regret
is getting caught with little or no remorse for the victim. Instead,
they regard themselves as victims because of the unpalatable
consequences they must face."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201712/the-thinking-processes-sexual-predators
We can read this and see that these are characteristics of Trump (with the exception of being "extremely intelligent," something he gives no indication of being.)
In short, we have a huge amount of testimony, including the president's own words, which lead us inescapably to the conclusion that Trump is almost certainly a sexual predator, and an unrepentant one.
It is for this reason that over half the nation recognizes that, whatever you may think of his policies, he is fundamentally unfit for office. We've put up with this reality for over three years and it is sickening to people from across the political spectrum and around the world.
If you are someone who has been saying to yourself, "Well, he's never been CONVICTED of sexual assault... therefore, we MUST ASSUME he is innocent..." no, we do not have to force ourselves to ignore all these warning signs. Trump is a narcissistic, damaged human being who is almost certainly a sexual predator. We have no reason to assume that two dozen (plus??) women are making up these claims, made independently across several decades. This should make him unfit for office, period. There doesn't have to be any further discussion, he IS unfit for office. We cannot abide having sexual predators in office, even if they have policies you like.
Read these articles. Listen to expert testimony about sexual predators/rapists/men who sexually assault women. Trump is a stereotypical rapist/sexual predator type of person. Listen to the women who've accused him. Listen to his own vulgar, disgusting, perverted, misogynistic words.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201712/the-thinking-processes-sexual-predators
We can read this and see that these are characteristics of Trump (with the exception of being "extremely intelligent," something he gives no indication of being.)
In short, we have a huge amount of testimony, including the president's own words, which lead us inescapably to the conclusion that Trump is almost certainly a sexual predator, and an unrepentant one.
It is for this reason that over half the nation recognizes that, whatever you may think of his policies, he is fundamentally unfit for office. We've put up with this reality for over three years and it is sickening to people from across the political spectrum and around the world.
If you are someone who has been saying to yourself, "Well, he's never been CONVICTED of sexual assault... therefore, we MUST ASSUME he is innocent..." no, we do not have to force ourselves to ignore all these warning signs. Trump is a narcissistic, damaged human being who is almost certainly a sexual predator. We have no reason to assume that two dozen (plus??) women are making up these claims, made independently across several decades. This should make him unfit for office, period. There doesn't have to be any further discussion, he IS unfit for office. We cannot abide having sexual predators in office, even if they have policies you like.
Read these articles. Listen to expert testimony about sexual predators/rapists/men who sexually assault women. Trump is a stereotypical rapist/sexual predator type of person. Listen to the women who've accused him. Listen to his own vulgar, disgusting, perverted, misogynistic words.
It's time, US. It's time
conservatives. Listen to your own preachers (like ultra-conservative
Reverend Al Mohler, who has said that white evangelicals are destroying
their reputation by supporting this sexual predator). This isn't something I'm making up as a liberal. It's not fake news. It's just the likely reality that Trump is a sexual predator who has managed to abuse women for years and get away with it only because of his wealth and privilege, which only makes it more perverse and disgusting.
Let's end the reign of this predator, decisively, conclusively. Vote him out for this reason, if nothing else.
Let's end the reign of this predator, decisively, conclusively. Vote him out for this reason, if nothing else.
21 comments:
The standard for supporting someone for President should be higher than the evidence he's already given that reveals his open and harassing misogyny. Far from rebuking him, Republicans embraced him, none more tightly than evangelicals.
Clearly conservative Christians are sick in the head and in desperate need of confession and repentance.
We cannot try him as if we are a court. That's not the point.
We should be able to draw basic moral lines. But 60+ million Americans could not.
I don't know if we can diagnose some 30% of the nation (conservative Trump supporters/defenders) as sick in the head, but it is a strange and disturbing phenomena. Yes, we should be able to draw reasonable moral lines against those sexual predators like Trump who cause so much harm with his open record of misogyny.
It's not presuming guilty instead of presuming innocence. That's the standard of legal conviction. It is, instead, recognizing a bad tree by its bad fruit. If the fruit is rotten and sick and toxic, then the tree is rotten, sick and toxic. Beware the wolves amongst you, Jesus warned.
If you want to be naive when the only harm is going to be done to you (for instance, handing Trump some of your money for safe-keeping), you're welcome to do so. Don't be naive when your naivete causes harm to the historically oppressed.
“ A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness.”
https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/scientists-have-established-a-link-between-religious-fundamentalism-and-brain-damage-heres-how/
I’ll take the risk.
Please define, specifically and objectively, these “basic moral lines”, and explain what authority undergirds them.
I'll answer that question gladly, as I generally do. But part of the reason I've asked you not to comment here any more is your tendency to not answer questions, not acknowledge/understand reality and your general vague snarkiness and empty charges you make. So, before I give you the answer (that I WILL provide), I'm going to ask you to demonstrate that you're willing to engage in good faith give and take conversations.
So, first, please answer:
Do you recognize the reality that you can NOT objectively prove that God opposes gay folk marrying or that God opposes abortion?
If you don't recognize that reality, please point to some one who (you think) has objectively "proven" that.
Otherwise, just go away if you're not going to answer questions directly/recognize reality.
"Do you recognize the reality that you can NOT objectively prove that God opposes gay folk marrying or that God opposes abortion?"
Yes, I realize that neither of these claims can be "objectively" proven.
And do you recognize that it can't be objectively proven, not just "objectively" proven? Why the scare quotes?
So, can you say, "I, Craig, cannot objectively prove that God is opposed to abortion and gay folks marrying... my opinions about these topics are, I think, reasonable and moral, but they ARE my subjective opinions, not objective facts... "?
It's a simple question, Craig. Please answer it straightforward and directly. No scare quotes. No quotation marks. Just answer the question directly.
I have answered it clearly and directly exactly the way you wanted, twice. No scare quotes to be found. This time I’ll remove the punctuation so you won’t be confused.
I Craig cannot objectively prove that God is opposed to abortion and gay folks marrying my opinions about these topics are I think reasonable and moral but they are my subjective opinions not objective facts.
This is literally the 4th time I’ve answered your question.
Your turn.
It has nothing to do with anything other than Dan trying to exert dominance.
Craig shows exactly how he, Marshal, and today’s conservativecevangelicals are sick in the head: they think asserting facts and truths regarding both our responsibility to lead by reason AND observing its limitations is an attempt at dominance. Craig wants to save irrationality from losing power to drive bigoted, hateful, oppressive white brutality.
Anyone with a working mind has recognized Trump’s incompetence and lies to the American public for years now.
“At a private event last week, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, stated a reality that economists treat as conventional wisdom but that the Trump administration routinely ignores: The United States needs immigration to fuel future economic growth.
“We are desperate, desperate for more people,” Mr. Mulvaney told a crowd in England, according to an audio recording provided to The New York Times. “We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth.” He said the country needed “more immigrants” but wanted them in a “legal” fashion.”
Marshal keeps drinking that Kool-Aid.
“Federal courts have prevented President Donald Trump from implementing a proclamation he signed last month that would make White House adviser Stephen Miller’s dreams of restricting legal immigration a reality.”
From Forbes: “New data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) show legal immigration declined by almost 87,000, by more than 7%, between FY 2016 and FY 2018. “Excluding refugees means 122,412 fewer legal immigrants became lawful permanent residents in FY 2018 than in FY 2016, a decline of 11.5%,” according to a National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) analysis. Refugees approved in years prior to the Trump presidency were finally (and appropriately) counted as permanent residents in FY 2018, which obscures some of the reduction in immigration. Trump administration policies now blocked in court by lawsuits would lead to deeper reductions in immigration.”
Craig... Please define, specifically and objectively, these “basic moral lines”, and explain what authority undergirds them.
DO NOT HARM OTHERS AGAINST THEIR WILL. This is one of the basic moral outlines that is so obvious as to be nearly universal. Of course, there are rules that have changed over the millennia. It used to be acceptable to enslave others or to deny rights to others, but we have progressed, thankfully.
What authority undergirds the notion not to harm others against their will? Just basic common sense? Basic decency? Basic recognition of universal human rights?
In other words,
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that ALL HUMANS are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Do you disagree with the notion that these truths are self-evident, or do you agree?
Can we PROVE that there is a God? No. Can we PROVE that this God does or does not approve of abortion or gay folk marrying? No.
BUT it IS self evident that self determination, not being harmed, not being restricted from pursuit of happiness (so long as that pursuit does not infringe upon the rights of others) IS a good and necessary thing.
Do you agree?
It took you three days for that vague, subjective undefined answer.
But, it’s an answer, so I should probably be happy.
Marshal, you can't comment here ever again until such time as you apologize for using sexual predatory, women-shaming, misogynistic words that serve to attack women. Period. Or at least apologize for using them here.
You. Will. NOT. Attack. Women. On. My. Blog.
It's that simple.
Craig, I will delete you, as well, IF you don't answer the questions put to you. Thanks for your earlier answer, even though it was like pulling teeth to get you to state it clearly that YOU, CRAIG, recognize that you can't objectively prove your opinions about God's opinion on topics of morality (and neither can I, as I've been quite clear).
My answer IS THE direct and quite specifically clear answer that is reasonable to the majority of the world. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MY ANSWER?
It IS a clear and direct and reasonable answer so of course you should be happy. It is THE main, big answer to that question.
Do you disagree with my answer? Do you think it is NOT self evident that all humans are created equal? That all humans are deserving of rights?
If you don't disagree (and good Lord, I hope you don't), then what's wrong with the answer? Do you think you can give a less vague, less subjective answer? If so, give it and I will thank you. If not, then quit with the little snipes and casual attacks.
As a sop to your impatience, I’ll answer your question briefly and expand later.
It’s virtually impossible to disagree with something so nonspecific, subjective, and vague. So I agree with your answer within the limits of the answer.
Thankfully I’ve documented/time stamped the answer you deleted.
...he said, in a vague and non-specific manner with ZERO support. If there's a problem with my answer, explain the problem.
Giving vague non-specific and unsupported accusations to my pretty clear and obvious and self-evident answer is not helpful.
This is why you have been invited to stay away from this blog, Craig. Because you don't answer questions, and when you do, you don't answer them directly or clearly, and you almost always accompany them with vague and unspecific and unsupported complaints about... something being... wrong, without saying what. That and your tendency to not acknowledge reality.
If you want to answer the questions put to you, then answer them. Clearly and directly. Otherwise, just go away.
Craig, I am being Grace-full. If you actually want to come in here and answer questions, I'm allowing you to. I'm just asking you not to waste space with meaningless blather and empty accusations. Take your time. If you have something of substance to say, you can say it. IF you have something of substance to say.
Craig’s moral imbecility is mesmerizing.
He claims that two immoral women cannot be trusted. There’s video and photograph evidence, after all, right?
But this guy gets Craig’s vote to lead the country:
“I moved on her and I failed,” Trump says. "I’ll admit it. I did try and f*** her. She was married. “That’s huge news,” another man responds, laughing. It is unclear whether the speaker is Bush. "And I moved on her very heavily," Trump continues. "In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, 'I'll show you where they have some nice furniture.' I moved on her like a b**ch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married," Trump adds.
“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs," Trump says, "just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.” Trump continues, "And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
Hillary Clinton response is different from Craig’s. "This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.”
We can presume that she didn’t single out the women because, well, they are not running for anything dependent upon public trust, are they?
Post a Comment