A Republican o.k. with Mormon Genocide

[Calm]

As far as legal definition, kissing for sexual reasons (as opposed to kissing as friends or relatives) without consent might qualify.  I would like to hear from a lawyer or law enforcement officer on that:

"Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient."

https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

"Sexual assault is any unwanted sexual contact, including unwanted intercourse (rape), unwanted touching, and unwanted kissing. It is a crime of violence, power and control in which sex is used as the weapon. Sexual assault can take the form of rape, child molestation, incest or sexual harassment"

http://www.wrcnrv.org/helpingYou/sa_whatIs.shtml

I don't know if the last is a legal explanation or the opinion of the website, but from the legal definition above it, I see no reason why it would be wrong.

PS:. In Canada, unwanted kissing is legallysexual assault, at least in some provinces.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Calm

[Darren10]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My rebuttal... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/16/fact-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/ 

 

Is there a specific part which rebuttals my statement that no help was sent?

[Darren10]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

As far as legal definition, kissing for sexual reasons (as opposed to kissing as friends or relatives) without consent might qualify.  I would like to hear from a lawyer or law enforcement officer on that:

"Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient."

https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

 

Cal, from your link:

Quote

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

In my book, kissing alone does not even come close to these acts. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Darren10

[Calm]

According to this site, it is a misdemeanor assault...which I assume means sexual assault considered of a minor nature, but still illegal and still assault:

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-sexual-battery-if-someone-tries-to-kiss-you--2116323.html

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Cal, from your link:

In my book, kissing alone does not even come close to these acts. 

Not saying it does, but kissing is sexual contact (speaking of the kind we mean and not with friends or family), is it not?  Misdemeanors can carry up to one year of imprisonment.

Stealing $1,500 doesn't come close to stealing a $1,000,000, but it can still get you jail time, especially if you are a multiple offender.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Calm

[BCSpace]

On 11/5/2016 at 11:38 AM, california boy said:

I just watched a short video by Bill Maher (warning, bad language) thanking Donald Trump for exposing the hypocritical evangelics.  At the end he gives a big shout out to the Mormons for not following along, but standing up for their beliefs.  Unfortunately he pokes a little fun at Mormons at the end for some of the church's beliefs.  Not recommending you listen to the segment mostly because of language and irreverence, but it is certainly nice that he praises Mormons in general (only 19% support Trump) for standing by their principles rather than following a party nominee at all costs.

The problem with that logic is that in voting for McMullin, Mormons abandon their beliefs completely.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, ERayR said:

How about using a charitable foundation trust as a front for selling influence.  Do you remember Vince Foster, Ron Jones and others.  Please see article

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-death-list-33-most-intriguing-cases/

No, I do not remember Alma the Younger saying to his son Corianton that that was near to murder. Still bad of course.

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, BCSpace said:

The problem with that logic is that in voting for McMullin, Mormons abandon their beliefs completely.

I can understand how someone could decide to vote for Trump. I cannot comprehend how someone could imagine that one is somehow sinning and violating their covenants to God if they find him morally repugnant and refuse to vote for him because, you know, he is morally repugnant.

I try to imagine the prophets in the Book of Mormon exhorting the saints on which gadianton politician they should be supporting because he promises to build a wall to keep out the Lamanites and is going to deport all those filthy Ammonite immigrants.

[The Nehor]

The sun will come out tomorrow. This theatrical farce has a silver lining:

 

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Darren10 said:

He said that as a celebrity he *could* grab a woman by her *****. 

He did say he would just start kissing women "like a magnet" without asking. If that's sexual assault then I guess you're right, Trump did admit to sexual assault. I just do not classify "kissing" as sexual assault, and frankly hope it is not. Improper, absolutely but not and "assault" of a grievous sexual nature. 

He jokes about a more serious form of sexual assault, yes. Unwanted kissing is also a form of sexual assault. 

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Don't let Deseret News dictate your conclusion on whom the Bretheren support or not. I've no doubt some will or have voted for Trump, and some for Hillary, and perhaps even Johnson, Stiller, or McMullin.  

I think you're kidding yourself. If they supported trump the Desert News would reflect that. None of them are going to support a wanton adulterer and philander for president. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Gray

[Rain]

7 hours ago, BCSpace said:

The problem with that logic is that in voting for McMullin, Mormons abandon their beliefs completely.

Interesting. Doing a number of tests over the last few weeks to see who I side with more I fall in line with Mcmullin in the low 70s. With Trump and Clinton both in the high 20s/low 30s. Few were lower. Sadly, McMullin is as high as I get with any candidate. 

So if I were looking at abandonment of beliefs it would be for Clinton and Trump before others. 

So no matter who I voted for I would differ from them at least 27% of the time. 

But then there has NEVER been a candidate who lines up with me 100% of the time so I have to figure out just what issues come in as most important.

 

[halconero]

Trump crossed my personal red-line when he advocated a policy of torture and the assassination of family member's of suspected terrorists.

I have family members who are survivors of torture. It's one thing when torture occurs by governmental entities against current policy, and people are scandalized when it comes up and there are efforts of reform. It's another when you make it a cornerstone of your platform. I don't quite understand how you can stand on your moral high ground and be okay with a such a policy.

[bluebell]

For some, this election is all about "the end justifies the means," where, as long as Clinton isn't the end, whatever means it takes for that to happen is moral.

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Is there a specific part which rebuttals my statement that no help was sent?

You stated this (bold mine): 

My contention on Hillary over Benghazi is her negligence. The reason thst there was no evidence of a standown order made was because no help was ever given until several hours after the attack. Then she lied to the family of  victims of that attack as per the family's testimony. 

 Me: see this portion of my link.

Did Hillary Clinton know that more security was needed?

On the issue of security at the outpost in Benghazi, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul put the blame on Hillary Clinton.:

"I think it's pretty important that she accept blame for not providing security," Paul said. "She was asked repeatedly to provide security in Benghazi on several occasions including direct cables, and she says she never read the cables on security. I find that inexcusable and a dereliction of duty."

The State Department was asked repeatedly for additional U.S. security staff in Libya. But we see no evidence that Clinton herself was made aware of those requests. For example, there’s no "direct cable" that automatically appears on the secretary of state’s desk. Instead, all cables would have carried her name, and only those passed up the chain by staff would have reached her. She says they didn’t. Paul’s office didn’t provide evidence linking requests for security directly to Clinton. We found only evidence that requests were made of her department. We rate his statementMostly False.

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You stated this (bold mine): 

My contention on Hillary over Benghazi is her negligence. The reason thst there was no evidence of a standown order made was because no help was ever given until several hours after the attack. Then she lied to the family of  victims of that attack as per the family's testimony. 

 Me: see this portion of my link.

Did Hillary Clinton know that more security was needed?

On the issue of security at the outpost in Benghazi, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul put the blame on Hillary Clinton.:

"I think it's pretty important that she accept blame for not providing security," Paul said. "She was asked repeatedly to provide security in Benghazi on several occasions including direct cables, and she says she never read the cables on security. I find that inexcusable and a dereliction of duty."

The State Department was asked repeatedly for additional U.S. security staff in Libya. But we see no evidence that Clinton herself was made aware of those requests. For example, there’s no "direct cable" that automatically appears on the secretary of state’s desk. Instead, all cables would have carried her name, and only those passed up the chain by staff would have reached her. She says they didn’t. Paul’s office didn’t provide evidence linking requests for security directly to Clinton. We found only evidence that requests were made of her department. We rate his statementMostly False.

We could fact check this back and forth forever. The State Department did refuse requests to adequately supply security for the Benghazi compound. They did not send help but cut back on security personnel. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/19/ron-johnson/hillary-clintons-state-department-reduced-security/  " State Department headquarters in Washington did refuse repeated requests from its ambassador in Libya for more security personnel. And it decided not to accept an offer from the Defense Department to extend the stay of one of its security units in Libya, reducing the level of security that was available. "  Clinton was the Secretary of State and in charge of the State Department.  

Claiming she wasn't personally aware just proves her competence as a leader since her State Department asked 600 times for more security.  The security the state department did hire was atrocious and not vetted. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-bluemountain-idUSBRE89G1TI20121018 and new reports and a note from Sean Smith suggest their own security forces attacked the embassy. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/07/benghazi-guards-turned-on-us-diplomats-in-2012-attack-sources-say.html/ "  Sean Smith, a 34-year-old information management officer accompanying the ambassador on the visit, emailed a friend: "Assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures." Hours later, he was dead. " https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge

No help arrived in Benghazi because it wasn't sent according to Trey Gowdey. The state department was more concerned about appearances than rescuing those under fire.  " According to the report, Navy Vice Adm. Kurt Tidd, then-director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that the State Department had dithered about how to send forces into Libya without creating a larger international incident. " http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/28/benghazi-probe-finds-marines-response-slowed-uniform-changes.html Read the whole article. The military changed clothes 4 times which delayed their deployment.

Hillary was in charge of the State Department and she is the one responsible for its competence.  

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by bsjkki

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

We could fact check this back and forth forever. The State Department did refuse requests to adequately supply security for the Benghazi compound. They did not send help but cut back on security personnel. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/19/ron-johnson/hillary-clintons-state-department-reduced-security/  " State Department headquarters in Washington did refuse repeated requests from its ambassador in Libya for more security personnel. And it decided not to accept an offer from the Defense Department to extend the stay of one of its security units in Libya, reducing the level of security that was available. "  Clinton was the Secretary of State and in charge of the State Department.  

Claiming she wasn't personally aware just proves her competence as a leader since her State Department asked 600 times for more security.  The security the state department did hire was atrocious and not vetted. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-bluemountain-idUSBRE89G1TI20121018 and new reports and a note from Sean Smith suggest their own security forces attacked the embassy. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/07/benghazi-guards-turned-on-us-diplomats-in-2012-attack-sources-say.html/ "  Sean Smith, a 34-year-old information management officer accompanying the ambassador on the visit, emailed a friend: "Assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures." Hours later, he was dead. " https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-consulate-benghazi-attack-challenge

No help arrived in Benghazi because it wasn't sent according to Troy Gowdey. The state department was more concerned about appearances than rescuing those under fire.  " According to the report, Navy Vice Adm. Kurt Tidd, then-director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that the State Department had dithered about how to send forces into Libya without creating a larger international incident. " http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/28/benghazi-probe-finds-marines-response-slowed-uniform-changes.html Read the whole article. The military changed clothes 4 times which delayed their deployment.

Hillary was in charge of the State Department and she is the one responsible for its competence.  

 

I'll concede that you and Darren have good points, but if you compare it to other leaders in the past, Hillary isn't horrible. 

[ERayR]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'll concede that you and Darren have good points, but if you compare it to other leaders in the past, Hillary isn't horrible. 

If that were the only thing then that would be true.  However, when you put in the evidence of influence peddling, the corruption of the Clinton foundation, her treatment of the woman that accused her husband of rape and the graft and corruption that has followed her career from the beginning it becomes a pretty damning picture.  

Choose to believe what you will but IMNSHO this is one bad person.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

If that were the only thing then that would be true.  However, when you put in the evidence of influence peddling, the corruption of the Clinton foundation, her treatment of the woman that accused her husband of rape and the graft and corruption that has followed her career from the beginning it becomes a pretty damning picture.  

Choose to believe what you will but IMNSHO this is one bad person.

I guess there is a sucker born every minute, I hope I'm not one of them.

[Darren10]

On 11/7/2016 at 11:20 PM, Calm said:

Not saying it does, but kissing is sexual contact (speaking of the kind we mean and not with friends or family), is it not?  Misdemeanors can carry up to one year of imprisonment.

Stealing $1,500 doesn't come close to stealing a $1,000,000, but it can still get you jail time, especially if you are a multiple offender.

That's a lot of jail time for a lot of men. 

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'll concede that you and Darren have good points, but if you compare it to other leaders in the past, Hillary isn't horrible. 

Still the most horrible Secretary of State *this* country has ever had. 

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, ERayR said:

If that were the only thing then that would be true.  However, when you put in the evidence of influence peddling, the corruption of the Clinton foundation, her treatment of the woman that accused her husband of rape and the graft and corruption that has followed her career from the beginning it becomes a pretty damning picture.  

Choose to believe what you will but IMNSHO this is one bad person.

Now that The Donald will be our next President, we'll see how long until Clinton gets a presidentisl pardon before inauguration. 

[Darren10]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

I think you're kidding yourself. If they supported trump the Desert News would reflect that. None of them are going to support a wanton adulterer and philander for president. 

No, they won't reflect that. The Church places a VERY high emphasis for its top hiearchal leaders to NOT make public their political candidate. Deseret News' political opionion is completely independent than the Church's leadership. 

[BCSpace]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I can understand how someone could decide to vote for Trump. I cannot comprehend how someone could imagine that one is somehow sinning and violating their covenants to God if they find him morally repugnant and refuse to vote for him because, you know, he is morally repugnant.

I try to imagine the prophets in the Book of Mormon exhorting the saints on which gadianton politician they should be supporting because he promises to build a wall to keep out the Lamanites and is going to deport all those filthy Ammonite immigrants.

The reason is because they put the character of one man above the condition of a whole nation.  Your Book of Mormon fantasy is of course, a non sequitur.  With the allegations against Trump being dropped, what are we down to?  Cussing?  And that compares to Gadianton Robbers when Trump promises conservative judges? Give me a break!

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

That's a lot of jail time for a lot of men. 

And a lot of women feeling safer.