Tara Reade who accuses Biden of sexual assault now fears for her life.

[Revoltingest]

OK, a kingdom is a government, is it not? Obviously there are various kingdoms or governments on this earth. The Israelites actually had factions amongst themselves, differing opinions that were powerful. Jesus told his disciples to pray that God's will be done on the earth. What is called the "Lord's prayer" by many says, "Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth." What do you glean from that?

It's a religious belief that I don't share.
IMO it's up to us humans to create
the best government we can.

 

[nPeace]

Until we get robotic systems, we're stuck with humans providing justice.
But who will program those robots?

How much better is a robotic system than man, anyway?
I read this article, only this morning. It makes some valid points. Robots aren't my top choice.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's a religious belief that I don't share.
IMO it's up to us humans to create
the best government we can.

Many people believe that, obviously.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's a religious belief that I don't share.
IMO it's up to us humans to create
the best government we can.

What many are seeing is a decline in 'law and order' in many parts of the world. Also inflation. And much more. To me it makes sense that Jesus told his disciples to pray for God's government and will to be done on the earth. I am thankful it has been recorded for some to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To the rapist, the definition of rape is different.

I don't care. If she says stop, stop. When she says stop, stop.

Or sometimes even if she does not say stop. I once had a beautiful young naked women in my bed who had overdone it a smidge. She passed out just before we began. That put a huge damper on the situation. if I had go on it would have felt like rape to me. I was more concerned with her well being at that time than getting it on. Not to worry. there was an eventual happy ending, just not that night.

There is an excellent analogy out there using offering tea to a person. Basically if a person does actively consent to having tea you don't give that person tea.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where did I solely blame anyone?

You posted....
"That the bipartisan system stifles alternatives to the usual wealthy, generic proponents of the status quo be they Republicans or Democrats."

The system has many players to blame for its current condition, and it tends to propel the same wealthy proponents of a fundamentally flawed status quo to the final rounds of elections.

Obama wasn't wealthy. He was a man of the people,
with wide support, even among Republicans I know.
Yet he was poor at civil liberties, & he was a war monger.
The voters saw this, & re-elected him....the status quo.

It was to make the point that anyone outside the two main parties has no real chance to win a presidential election or effect major change.

All I hope for is to have some influence to steer
the ship of state in a slightly better direction.

Let's put this in practical terms rather than strictly legal ones: Trump was found liable for sexual abuse in the civil case. Does that mean the court has determined that he sexually abused a woman or not?

It was determined with a confidence level of at least 51%.

....if the US could intervene in Russia non-militarily to remove Putin from power and end the war on Ukraine, would that be bad? I think it would be a net positive.

You over-estimate the capability & competence of our leaders.
To remove Putin risks failure with a massive downside. They
couldn't even kill Castro. Failure to kill Putin could unite an
enemy that would otherwise remain withering on the vine.

The problem I have with American interventionism isn't that I categorically oppose interventionism; it's that American interventionism has usually been of the abusive, exploitative kind.

And in the last few decades, without even
the fruits of exploitation. This where China
excels...they conquer & keep, eg, Tibet,
South China Sea, (& some day) Taiwan.

 

[Revoltingest]

oops that's a good question. Perhaps theorists can offer some explanations?

Theorists won't have control though.
Human politicians will design the goals & methods.

 

[Revoltingest]

How much better is a robotic system than man, anyway?
I read this article, only this morning. It makes some valid points. Robots aren't my top choice.

Then we're stuck with humans (men & women).

 

[Revoltingest]

Many people believe that, obviously.

There's no real alternative.

 

[Revoltingest]

What many are seeing is a decline in 'law and order' in many parts of the world. Also inflation. And much more. To me it makes sense that Jesus told his disciples to pray for God's government and will to be done on the earth. I am thankful it has been recorded for some to understand.

Until this Allah fellow shows up to fix things,
we have only humans to run government.

 

[nPeace]

Then we're stuck with humans (men & women).

You are. My God is real.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You posted....
"That the bipartisan system stifles alternatives to the usual wealthy, generic proponents of the status quo be they Republicans or Democrats."

Correct: I placed the greatest blame on the system itself, not "solely" on the wealthy candidates it tends to push forward.

Obama wasn't wealthy. He was a man of the people,
with wide support, even among Republicans I know.
Yet he was poor at civil liberties, & he was a war monger.
The voters saw this, & re-elected him....the status quo.

Consider that Obama was first against McCain and then against Romney. When the alternatives are that bad, I don't find it surprising that people chose someone as terrible as Obama just to avoid the alternative. Right or wrong, they weren't exactly presented with an enticing prospect from the other party.

It was similar in 2016 when the Democratic Party put forward Hillary Clinton for their campaign, a corrupt warmonger with an atrocious record. She proved to be a deadweight too.

It was determined with a confidence level of at least 51%.

Which is the case for any other trial by jury where the defendant loses, hence my seeing him the same way I see any other sex offender. The fact that he lost a civil case rather than a criminal one doesn't erase what he did.

You over-estimate the capability & competence of our leaders.
To remove Putin risks failure with a massive downside. They
couldn't even kill Castro. Failure to kill Putin could unite an
enemy that would otherwise remain withering on the vine.

I'm not talking about the US killing Putin or anyone else; only the idea of overthrowing him non-violently.

Castro was initially popular in his country, so overthrowing him even non-violently, especially to advance American interests, would have been a blatant encroachment on Cuban will at that time. Putin is different in that he has been ruling with an iron fist for years and is now a threat to multiple neighbors aside from the one he has already invaded and subjected to war crimes.

If it's just a question of competence, different methods for interventionism could be discussed, but entirely taking the option of intervening off the table under any circumstances in any country strikes me as both unrealistic and potentially harmful (e.g., imagine if the US had been isolationist in World War II).

And in the last few decades, without even
the fruits of exploitation. This where China
excels...they conquer & keep, eg, Tibet,
South China Sea, (& some day) Taiwan.

I consider most of China's interventionism abusive and exploitative too.

 

[nPeace]

Until this Allah fellow shows up to fix things,
we have only humans to run government.

You do. God's government is real. Right now, it's fixing people's mind and heart. Soon, it will fix all problems.
Won't you agree though, that starting with human's mentality is a promising 'agenda'?

 

[fantome profane]

You opinion against millions is still your opinion.
There is no consensus on zillions of things in this world.

You know there are places in the world, even today, where it is perfectly legal to rape a woman you are married to. Someone who you are suppose to love. But if she is your wife that is all the "consent" you need. She can say no, scream no, she can scream her head off and try to fight of her rapist with everything she has. But the law will still say it wasn't rape.

But that is rape. I don't care what some backward (almost certainly male) lawmakers say. If a woman says no, stop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are. My God is real.

Really? What evidence supports this claim? How do you test your God?

 

[nPeace]

You know there are places in the world, even today, where it is perfectly legal to rape a woman you are married to. Someone who you are suppose to love. But if she is your wife that is all the "consent" you need. She can say no, scream no, she can scream her head off and try to fight of her rapist with everything she has. But the law will still say it wasn't rape.

But that is rape. I don't care what some backward (almost certainly male) lawmakers say. If a woman says no, stop.

They would not care what any backward individual thinks either. ...but isn't that the state of the world.

If a woman is being raped, yes, I agree she should scream her head off. She has nothing to be ashamed of... unless she is guilty of "playing the prostitute"... which is what some do.

Penal Code section 261 provides in relevant part the following definition of rape: "Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances: ... (2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another." [4] To be convicted of rape the defendant must engage in an act of sexual intercourse with the person, the person must not be the spouse of defendant, the act of intercourse must be against the will of the person, and the act must be accomplished by force. (See CALJIC No. 10.00 (rev. 1982).) In essence, then, rape may be defined as nonconsensual sexual intercourse. (People v. Key (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 888, 895 [203 Cal. Rptr. 144].) [172 Cal. App. 3d 243]

Consent at the moment of penetration does not give the male a license to commit any act of force upon the female. It has been held that while withdrawn consent after penetration or during the act of sexual intercourse negates a rape, the male may be guilty of another crime, such as assault or battery. (State v. Way, supra, 254 S.E.2d at p. 762; see Annot. (1963) 91 A.L.R.2d 591, 597-598; see Comment (1954) 6 Stan.L.Rev. 719, 726, fn. 36.)

I don't think you can decide what is rape, based on your personal feeling.
People may begin to think people with your view are almost certainly female, and promoting a feminist movement. - If a woman says yes, go. If a woman says no, stop.
It does sound like a feminist movement.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes. Let's stick to that.
You gave consent to sex. You both did things wrong. Or, your expectations were not satisfied. What do you do? Cry rape, because the guy did not stop when you wanted to?

If the person vocally asked the other to stop and this did not occur, then that person can "cry rape."

Here is a scenario. Girl likes guy. Girl wants to have sex with guy. Guy wants to have sex with girl. Girl probably expects guy to take his time, and be gentle, but guy rushes into things and is rough. Girl tells guy to stop. It hurts. Guy says, well it's supposed to hurt... what did you think would happen, if you aren't a... you know.
Do you say the guy raped you?

Yes. The consent was withdrawn. Imagine the scenerio: guy is rough and the girl is saying "Stop, I don't want this, it's too rough" and the guy continues to have sex with her. That's abusive. She did not consent to that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are. My God is real.

Yes, but mine is more real than yours, because I say so. That will never work in practice. And we have tried that one before in history.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are. My God is real.

That's your reality.
In mine Groundskeeper Willie is real.
And he doesn't smite people with plagues, etc.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes. The consent was withdrawn. Imagine the scenerio: guy is rough and the girl is saying "Stop, I don't want this, it's too rough" and the guy continues to have sex with her. That's abusive. She did not consent to that.

That has nothing to do with the example I provided.
I said that that feminist pointed out that the consent can be withdrawn even the day after the sexual act.