Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 139: The Price for Tickets is $400,000

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sounds like Trump is pretty mad at Tillerson for the moron comment.

Less so for the comment itself, but more for the fact that Tillerson was getting all the press instead of Trump's trip to Vegas. I believe Tillerson got the "full confidence" assurance, so I expect him to be gone by the end of next week.
---

I like how Tillerson never even denied it
---

Really thought that link was gonna be about Far Cry's upcoming game, not a series built about fighting Nazis and has been so since the 1990s when the FPS genre more or less began.
---

I'll be pretty disappointed if Rex gets the boot. I still think he's woefully unqualified for his position, but he has been one of the few members of this administration that hasn't acted like a complete moron 100% of the time.
---

What next SJWs? You gonna cram your Antifa agenda into CoD WWII?
---

Just wait until Halo has you splitting missions with foreign aliens.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

Not a whole lot there was surprising though I did like the part where he seemed to have some kind of journalistic integrity and said "we should pull this, it isn't true" and Bannon just went OFF on him.

As someone who followed GamerGate closer than I probably should have...yeah, this makes sense. Milo always had some level of journalistic integrity--like if he was writing a story about someone, he would reach out for comment. The general consensus was that you shouldn't give him a comment, cause he would quote part of the comment out of context. But he would still sort-of do what journalists were supposed to do.

---

Meanwhile...hey, hey, remember when Trump held a rainbow flag and said he would be the best LGBT president ever? Yeah, um

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/354023-sessions-reverses-doj-policy-on-transgender-employee

Yeah...fuck Jeff Sessions.

---

In other news, I've been aware for a while that Mensch was emblematic of fake news on the left, but wow, this twitter thread though:

https://twitter.com/nadinevdVelde/status/902346228184236036
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Why do so many of the people on the right complain about how leftists get offended by EVERYTHING, then... get offended by everything else, and say that's okay because it's actually offensive.

"leftists are snowflakes!

...now, let's go vote for a man who can't handle the slightest bit of criticism!"
---

Every accusation that the right throws out is a simple projection.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/kwelkernbc/status/916086906621956096

What the fuck is he about to do now?

Hopefully it was the calm before the storm of all those military people yelling at him in private about how he can't start wars on Twitter

Let's pray it has nothing to do with the upcoming standard issue Friday afternoon news dump.
---

Trump loves touting the monthly job reports to take credit for the positive

September jobs were down 33,000. Will he address this?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

September jobs were down 33,000. Will he address this?

Obama's fault
---

SO MANY JOBS were lost. SO MANY JOBS, PEOPLE.
---

https://twitter.com/OliviaMesser/status/915905427816222720

Quite the political cartoon.
---

Realistically though it's because of the hurricanes.
---

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/harvey-weinstein-donations/index.html

Good moral test for Dems

Returning the money to Harvey himself is a really silly idea, but I love the idea to donate it.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

https://twitter.com/OliviaMesser/status/915905427816222720

Quite the political cartoon.

That's a great one

Where's the one from that "DEBT" guy?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/harvey-weinstein-donations/index.html

Good moral test for Dems

Returning the money to Harvey himself is a really silly idea, but I love the idea to donate it.

I agree.

The fact that the GOP is the group publicly calling for this is utterly hilarious though.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Trump loves touting the monthly job reports to take credit for the positive

September jobs were down 33,000. Will he address this?

So Trump ended, what, 86 months straight of job growth?
---

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stealthing-rape-sexual-assault-us-lawmakers-condom-remove-no-consent-a7984561.html

this is insane. what is going on? tl;dr: law to say that a man removing a condom during sex without consent is rape

1) it should be considered a different crime. there are a million different classifications for murder/manslaughter/wrongful death, why not for sexual crimes? it dilutes the definition

2) why only for this specific act? does this law only apply to men? should lying about being on birth control be rape? should neglecting to disclose STDs? just seems strange

the optics on this are just really, really bad.

not sure if stuff is common, it just showed up on one of my feeds
---

not really sure why i got such a knee-jerk reaction from that article, but there you have it
---

banananor posted...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stealthing-rape-sexual-assault-us-lawmakers-condom-remove-no-consent-a7984561.html

this is insane. what is going on? tl;dr: law to say that a man removing a condom during sex without consent is rape

1) it should be considered a different crime. there are a million different classifications for murder/manslaughter/wrongful death, why not for sexual crimes? it dilutes the definition

2) why only for this specific act? does this law only apply to men? should lying about being on birth control be rape? should neglecting to disclose STDs? just seems strange

the optics on this are just really, really bad.

not sure if stuff is common, it just showed up on one of my feeds

How can you prove removing the condom vs broken condom or condom slipping off or even miscommunication?

That said, in theory, it would be a good law (not rape like you said but some varying degree of a crime... actually I dunno maybe rape is a good term since it could result in an abortion or std which could cost a life or way of life). Like texting while driving though, is it really enforceable?
---

banananor posted...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stealthing-rape-sexual-assault-us-lawmakers-condom-remove-no-consent-a7984561.html

this is insane. what is going on? tl;dr: law to say that a man removing a condom during sex without consent is rape

1) it should be considered a different crime. there are a million different classifications for murder/manslaughter/wrongful death, why not for sexual crimes? it dilutes the definition

2) why only for this specific act? does this law only apply to men? should lying about being on birth control be rape? should neglecting to disclose STDs? just seems strange

the optics on this are just really, really bad.

not sure if stuff is common, it just showed up on one of my feeds

1. It absolutely should be rape. Consent is the key to all sexual encounters and you have to consent to the type of sex as well. If you tell him "no anal" and he sticks it in your ass, that's still very much rape.

2. It absolutely should be rape the other way around, too. Unfortunately the stigma against men saying they were raped is still prevalent in our society.

I'll admit to something of a bias here. My ex-girlfriend was a victim of a man taking his condom during sex and got her pregnant at 16. Dude's now a cop, too.
---

banananor posted...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stealthing-rape-sexual-assault-us-lawmakers-condom-remove-no-consent-a7984561.html

this is insane. what is going on? tl;dr: law to say that a man removing a condom during sex without consent is rape

1) it should be considered a different crime. there are a million different classifications for murder/manslaughter/wrongful death, why not for sexual crimes? it dilutes the definition

2) why only for this specific act? does this law only apply to men? should lying about being on birth control be rape? should neglecting to disclose STDs? just seems strange

the optics on this are just really, really bad.

not sure if stuff is common, it just showed up on one of my feeds

This seems... Pretty fair?
---

HashtagSEP posted...

banananor posted...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stealthing-rape-sexual-assault-us-lawmakers-condom-remove-no-consent-a7984561.html

this is insane. what is going on? tl;dr: law to say that a man removing a condom during sex without consent is rape

1) it should be considered a different crime. there are a million different classifications for murder/manslaughter/wrongful death, why not for sexual crimes? it dilutes the definition

2) why only for this specific act? does this law only apply to men? should lying about being on birth control be rape? should neglecting to disclose STDs? just seems strange

the optics on this are just really, really bad.

not sure if stuff is common, it just showed up on one of my feeds

This seems... Pretty fair?

His point is that the specific crime should probably be something else. Which is arguably true, but, uh, what would you actually call it?
---

Trojan Horsing
---

I mean there is 'theft by deception' so why not 'rape by deception'
---

Well, arguing it should be considered a different crime is basically arguing it should be considered a lesser crime, which I disagree with.
---

banananor posted...

1) it should be considered a different crime. there are a million different classifications for murder/manslaughter/wrongful death, why not for sexual crimes? it dilutes the definition

I completely agree, though radicalized feminism would argue that any sexual act without a permission slip is as heinous as attacking and brutally raping a woman at gunpoint.

I'm not sure how each jurisdiction defines this, but there should 100% be a sliding scale for sex crimes:

-2nd degree sexual assault/battery (ie groping a woman without consent): misdemeanor at most
-1st degree sexual assault/battery (ie, fingering/sodomizing a woman without consent): misdemeanor to felony, depending on circumstance
-2nd degree statutory rape (ie banging a consenting drunk girl at a party): misdemeanor at most
-1st degree statutory rape (ie finding a passed out girl and having sex with her unconscious body): felony
-capital rape (ie, using violence to have sex with a woman): execution

I think that's pretty fair.

EDIT: the Trojan Horsing thing would probably fall into the 1st degree sexual assault/battery category.
---

Mershaaay posted...

1st degree sexual assault/battery (ie, fingering/sodomizing a woman without consent): misdemeanor to felony, depending on circumstance

Under what circumstance would that be a misdemeanor?

Also you keep saying "women" when it should be anyone
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Mershaaay posted...

1st degree sexual assault/battery (ie, fingering/sodomizing a woman without consent): misdemeanor to felony, depending on circumstance

Under what circumstance would that be a misdemeanor?

Also you keep saying "women" when it should be anyone

yeah yeah

I think, say, you're having sex with a woman from behind and you decide to finger her butthole without asking. She could theoretically press charges for that, but I think calling it a felony would be way too much.
---

For capital rape, would that include stuff like slipping roofies into a drink first? I think it would have to.
---

Consenting Drunk is an oxymoron.
---

https://twitter.com/xieish/status/916298916190179328

Relevant to this topic
---

Jakyl25 posted...

For capital rape, would that include stuff like slipping roofies into a drink first? I think it would have to.

Nope, I think violence adds a certain element that makes a person impossible to rehabilitate.
---

Mershaaay posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Mershaaay posted...

1st degree sexual assault/battery (ie, fingering/sodomizing a woman without consent): misdemeanor to felony, depending on circumstance

Under what circumstance would that be a misdemeanor?

Also you keep saying "women" when it should be anyone

yeah yeah

I think, say, you're having sex with a woman from behind and you decide to finger her butthole without asking. She could theoretically press charges for that, but I think calling it a felony would be way too much.

see I read this like she didn't even consent to any sex at all ala grope charge just above and you're just sticking your finger in there
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Consenting Drunk is an oxymoron.

Whenever people say this I always wonder if they have ever actually been to a party with alcohol. There is certainly a difference between a drunk girl whispering "fuck me" and a drunk girl who has no idea what is happening and is too intoxicated to say no.
---

Mershaaay posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

For capital rape, would that include stuff like slipping roofies into a drink first? I think it would have to.

Nope, I think violence adds a certain element that makes a person impossible to rehabilitate.

Having sex with an unconscious person kinda IS violence
---

Yeah, drawing a line between violence and drugging somebody is odd, since both are still forcing the person
---

I've never understood how the onus is on the guy in drunk situations.

Like, yes, if a guy plies a girl into unconsciousness with liquor and then has sex with her, that is rape.

But if both the guy and the girl are four drinks in and both decide to have sex, how is that still rape?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Mershaaay posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

For capital rape, would that include stuff like slipping roofies into a drink first? I think it would have to.

Nope, I think violence adds a certain element that makes a person impossible to rehabilitate.

Having sex with an unconscious person kinda IS violence

Oh I don't disagree

But I think there is still a spectrum to it. I think the rapist with a knife or the rapist who beats someone's face in first warrants immediate execution or life in prison, whereas the roofie rapist may be able to get some help.
---

Mershaaay posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

For capital rape, would that include stuff like slipping roofies into a drink first? I think it would have to.

Nope, I think violence adds a certain element that makes a person impossible to rehabilitate.

Also this is kind of an odd blanket statement

I can understand the death penalty for people proven to be incapable of remorse or rehabilitation, but that's gonna be different person to person.
---

FFDragon posted...

I've never understood how the onus is on the guy in drunk situations.

Like, yes, if a guy plies a girl into unconsciousness with liquor and then has sex with her, that is rape.

But if both the guy and the girl are four drinks in and both decide to have sex, how is that still rape?

It's the same reason why the man has to pay alimony in a divorce. Feminists only want "equality" when it benefits them.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Mershaaay posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

For capital rape, would that include stuff like slipping roofies into a drink first? I think it would have to.

Nope, I think violence adds a certain element that makes a person impossible to rehabilitate.

Also this is kind of an odd blanket statement

I can understand the death penalty for people proven to be incapable of remorse or rehabilitation, but that's gonna be different person to person.

My point is that I think sentencing should be different for Bill Cosby vs the Central Park jogger rapist
---

Mershaaay posted...

It's the same reason why the man has to pay alimony in a divorce.

The patriarchy?
---

Mershaaay posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Mershaaay posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

For capital rape, would that include stuff like slipping roofies into a drink first? I think it would have to.

Nope, I think violence adds a certain element that makes a person impossible to rehabilitate.

Also this is kind of an odd blanket statement

I can understand the death penalty for people proven to be incapable of remorse or rehabilitation, but that's gonna be different person to person.

My point is that I think sentencing should be different for Bill Cosby vs the Central Park jogger rapist

And I really don't

Not that either automatically warrants the death penalty.
---

FFDragon posted...

But if both the guy and the girl are four drinks in and both decide to have sex, how is that still rape?

Again, the patriarchy.
It's been established for centuries that women are weaker than men and thus are at the man's mercy in any sexual encounter.

A lot of these legal issues that seemingly unfairly benefit women that MRA's complain about only exist because of the grandfathered in concept that men are superior.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/harvey-weinstein-donations/index.html

Good moral test for Dems

Returning the money to Harvey himself is a really silly idea, but I love the idea to donate it.

Nice move to donate, yes. I look forward to the Republican counter regarding how Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly helped so many of their careers too.
---

Mershaaay posted...

capital rape (ie, using violence to have sex with a woman): execution

Hey, something we agree on.
---

Mershaaay posted...

Dancedreamer posted...

Consenting Drunk is an oxymoron.

Whenever people say this I always wonder if they have ever actually been to a party with alcohol. There is certainly a difference between a drunk girl whispering "fuck me" and a drunk girl who has no idea what is happening and is too intoxicated to say no.

Many in these topics socially don't have real interaction so lack common sense or street smarts.

Many women are legally drunk after 2 drinks. There are women you cannot even tell are drunk after 10 drinks. Also, the everyday person is not supposed to be trained to know when a person is or carry around breathanalyzers to know.

In fact, in many/most cases a girl has sex when drunk the man in the scenario is legally drunk also. Again, how do you prove this?

If someone is drunk, it should be their responsibility for their actions not the other parties. You got drunk and come onto a dude and ask him to go to your house to bone, that is not rape. That is a consenting adult who by choice chose to impair judgment and make a bad decision. It is like saying the automobile maker should be responsible if someone drinks and drives.

Now, spiking drinks, drugging, and sex with someone who is unconcious/unable to control motor functions from drinking should all be rape and punished according to the law.

Saying that the girl is not responsible for her actions and was raped if she has sex while drunk is like saying no one is ever responsible for any crime they commit or action they make while drunk.

Man rapes woman. Man was drunk so he couldn't have raped her because not responsible for his actions. Judgment was impaired.

Person drinks and drives. Person was drunk so judgment was impaired and can't be responsible for actions.

Person trespasses and steals property. Person was drunk not responsible.

Saying any time a girl is drunk and has sex it is rape is so far from reality that you know the person who says it is likely socially outcast or a virgin. I would venture to say almost 25-30%+ of sexual encounters that at least 1 party is legally drunk.
---