President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Oh, that's problematic too, obviously. We shouldn't have members suffering from Alzheimer's representing us.

If you're not able to do the job, get the fuck out. Look, I think Mark Kirk should have resigned when he suffered his stroke, and was unable to do his job for some time. We don't have deputy senators. Serving in congress is a public service. If you can't provide the service, let someone who can do it.

Every one of these guys thinks they are irreplaceable. They're not.

But... I was still surprised to see the current owner of the pharmacy talking on the record about the kinds of prescriptions he fills for members. I'm happy to have read it. it was an interesting article. Just surprised.

 

I just assumed the source in Inky's excerpt was a former employee. Was shocked to see it was the owner.

I just don't think it's in his best interest to be quoted on the record in this manner.

We see lots of questionable use of anonymous sources, but I'm shocked he didn't ask for anonymity to discuss such specifics.

 

He didn't really discuss any specifics.

 

Here goes. I guess the best way to go about this is to reply to your post point-by-point, and then add other thoughts at the end. Sorry for any typos or assorted awkwardness ahead of time. Trying to dash this off before I have to start the work day here.

You are putting a word in my mouth - "inaction" - that assists your argument, but that I have not used. It is not my argument. "They let you do it" may imply "inaction," of course. Or it may imply consent, whether it's as Double Down conceives of consent or as Cal Berkeley conceives of consent.

"Let you," or some form of it, is a phrase that you hear repeatedly, in every day usage.

"Will the court let you file it electronically?"

"Did she let you brush her teeth?"

"Let me see that magazine."

"Do they let you walk around the lower deck concourse if you upper deck tickets?"

It doesn't necessarily imply inaction, or passivity. It's a colloquial phrase that can and often does mean consent.

Again, to begin, I reject your premise here, which is key to your argument here, that he is inarguably talking about passivity. I know that he said, "I don't even wait," when it comes to kissing women. But to blanket state that that justifies writing, "He bragged about sexual assault," is very troublesome. First of all, I don't think most readers would understand "sexual assault" to include kissing without waiting. I tried to scan the Indiana Code for it, and it's a labrynith and wasn't immediately obvious. I wonder if anyone has done a 50-state survey on it. Second of all, Trump supplies very little context here. Is he not waiting because he thinks he believes she's signaled consent? Is he exaggerating? That's what it sounds like to me. He's admiring beautiful women ("I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women"), in the context of the conversation, and trying to put into words how irresistible he finds them.

I have probably kissed 50 to 60 women in my life. In nearly every instance, I, arguably, "didn't even wait." You read the moment. That, arguably, is what he's talking about.

That all feels like an aside. As to your core point, yes, part of what troubles me is that I think that to state that someone "bragged" about something connotes that the person believes and understands that they committed the act.

It is really cold outside. A 6-year-old gets ahold of a lighter and sets the family cat on fire. 6-year-old comes inside, "Mommy, Daddy, I helped the cat get warm!"

Mom screams: "Oh, my God! You bragged about killing the cat!"

Did he?

It's even worse when someone writes that Trump "admitted" to sexual assault, which I've seen, as well.

I think that if you are matter-of-factly writing that someone "admitted to" or "bragged" about something, it would be commonly understood by the reader that you are referring to the speaker's perspective, yes.

I reject your premise in multiple ways. First of all, again, the sentence is being written from an omniscient Trump point of view. And it's being done that way on purpose, as a kind of sleight of hand. Second, we don't know which women he's talking about, so, no, it doesn't at all mean that it must be true that "[a]ll of the women he ever groped (he didn't use that word, FYI) or grabbed by the pussy were ok with it, and in letting him do it, giving their consent." We don't have to think that. It just has to be arguable that Trump thinks that.

Also, and this is not going to be a popular statement, but despite the weight of the evidence, this is still a he said-she said situation, at bottom. "Sexual assault" is a legal term of art. This hasn't been charged. This hasn't been tried. Their statements haven't been formally vetted or scrutinized in any way. Do I believe that Trump, at some point, made unwanted sexual advances on some or all of these women? Of course I do. But to play judge and jury in such a pat manner is a bridge way, way too far.

This is where context is very important. You are writing to serve your readers, and writing as an established fact that, "Trump bragged about/admitted sexual assault" is very pat, and doesn't give readers enough context to understand what actually was said, to whom, and in what context. "Bragged about committing sexual assault," to most minds, I think, would mean that someone affirmatively confessed and boasted about committing something against someone's will or without consent a sexual act. Certainly for most people planting a kiss on someone, arguably reading the moment wrong, would not qualify.

It reminds me of the arguments against sabermetrics that people make here quite often. You can't use BABIP and WAR and wOBA in a general interest beat story, because most of your readers don't know what the fuck those things are. Same with this broad new understanding of "sexual assault." I realize that the definition and the law is moving in a certain direction there. But it is not even close to widespread or well-understood enough at this point that you can matter-of-factly write as an undisputed fact that Trump "bragged about sexual assault" without explaining what that actually entailed. It may make the reporter feel like he or she is on the right side of history, but it disserves your reader terribly.

 

There are only 535 members of Congress. He revealed that at least one of them takes medication for Alzheimer's.

Now, that's not very specific, but when you start to look at older members, it narrows significantly.

 

Is it sexual assault if you crawl up your own ass?

 

It happens to people in their forties or fifties.

Younger/Early Onset | Alzheimer's Association

 

Give it a try and let us know ...

 

Texas officials rename Robert E. Lee High School to... L.E.E. HS

 

You and @Riptide actually PM each other with names to call me.

Think about that for a second.

You are a total douchebag and one of the biggest phonies I have run across in my life. And Riptide is a pathetic lackey and teacher's pet and always has been. The next original thought he has will be his first. He was the first to jump to Ragu's defense last night, and his avatar was even based on your insult for some time. He's pathetic. And that's your board ally now. You two dickheads deserve each other.

 

OK. I guess you didn't find it surprising or unethical for the pharmacist to say what he did.

That's cool.

I was surprised.

 

I'm just saying, while he certainly violated his customers' trust, he doesn't appear to have violated any privacy laws.

Plus, I'm guessing if they send up to 100 prescriptions a day to the Capitol, they have to be serving more than just members. If not, that's a whole separate debacle.