Social E. Jean Carroll Accuses Trump of Sexual Assault, Rape in Dressing Room 23-24 Years Ago

[TheBlondBomber]

You will never get past it. You will never win. You continue to be stupid and wrong.

IF today you walk up to a woman in starbucks and grab her pussy and leave and she says or does nothing, you do not gain de facto consent protection as you keep saying for that act.

If weeks later surveillance video pops up and the police approach her and she tells them what you did, that she did not know you and did not want it but only did not do anything as she felt threatened by confronting you in the moment and just wanted to forget it after and the police come to talk to you about and you say 'she consented via not saying anything about it', they will laugh you out of the room before arresting you.

You are stupid to think you have immunity and consent because she said or did nothing.

Bish, I just provided you a statute that said that that the defendant must know or have reason to know that the alleged victim is not consenting to the touching in order for the touching to constitute sexual battery. That means if she stays silent and allows him to do it, the elements for sexual battery would not be met. You keep bringing up a hypothetical scenario and acting like that's somehow proof. I'm citing a statute and case law that says you're wrong and you're eschewing that. It's like you're purposely being this stupid.

You may think that the law is a certain way, but in my state, and I'm fairly certain in other states, you are dead wrong.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

The law does not say that.

Again any man can't just walk up to any woman and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does or says nothing proclaim her inaction equals defacto consent.

He is wrong to say and think that and so are you.

Actually, the law does say that. I cited the statute and case law. You can go up and read it, if you want. Use your Westlaw account, bro. You're the legal maven here. Or you could just plug your ears and say "lalalalalala" while coming up with dumb analogies without making a salient point.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Bish, I just provided you a statute that said that that the defendant must know or have reason to know that the alleged victim is not consenting to the touching in order for the touching to constitute sexual battery. That means if she stays silent and allows him to do it, the elements for sexual battery would not be met. You keep bringing up a hypothetical scenario and acting like that's somehow proof. I'm citing a statute and case law that says you're wrong and you're eschewing that. It's like you're purposely being this stupid.

You may think that the law is a certain way, but in my state, and I'm fairly certain in other states, you are dead wrong.

'll just repeat.

And i'll add you will back off this soon and pretend this was not what you are arguing when right now you clearly are.

The law does not say that.

Again any man can't just walk up to any woman and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does or says nothing proclaim her inaction equals defacto consent.

He is wrong to say and think that and so are you.

you'll stick to it for a while out of pride and hating to lose an argument but eventually you dick tuck.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

'll just repeat.

And i'll add you will back off this soon and pretend this was not what you are arguing when right now you clearly are.

Okay chief, how do you interpret that statute and how do you interpret the case I cited? Tell me how you should interpret this:

(a) Sexual battery is unlawful sexual contact with a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:
...
(2) The sexual contact is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the contact that the victim did not consent;
...

I mean really, it's right there in black and white.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Okay chief, how do you interpret that statute and how do you interpret the case I cited? Tell me how you should interpret this:

(a) Sexual battery is unlawful sexual contact with a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:
...
(2) The sexual contact is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the contact that the victim did not consent;
...

I mean really, it's right there in black and white.

Ya continue saying

"...any man can just walk up to any woman and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does not do or says something then her inaction equals defacto consent."

You've added she must do something before you act which is a nice addition and also wrong.

@Rematch @ShadowRun @DIDM, take note because for now he is clearly not denying this position and is owning it. That will change soon.

 

[MikeMcMann]

@TheBlondBomber if you want to cut and paste this statement into the bet thread and state this is the position you take and defend, I will take the opposite and prove you wrong

""...any man can just walk up to any woman, known to them or not in any location and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does not do or say something then her inaction equals defacto consent."

You can use whatever defense you want. Just cut and paste and i will accept it.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Ya continue saying

"...any man can just walk up to any woman and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does not do or says something then her inaction equals defacto consent."

You've added she must do something before you act which is a nice addition and also wrong.

@Rematch @ShadowRun @DIDM, take note because for now he is clearly not denying this position and is owning it. That will change soon.

Refute what the statute I cited said. It's not a hard concept. That statute requires the defendant to know or have reason to know that the alleged victim is not consenting. If the women are allowing Trump to do that them, he would have no way of knowing and no reason to think they are not consenting. Thus, this would not meet the elements required in the statute. Tell me specifically how I'm wrong about interpreting the statute that way. Please, I'm begging you to be specific and not use your unequivocal statements that come from nothing but your empty head.

Also, just so we are vaguely on topic, it's dummies like Mike McCann that give loons like Carroll a platform because they are so severely afflicted with TDS that they become irrational to the point that they deny whats infront of them.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

@TheBlondBomber if you want to cut and paste this statement into the bet thread and state this is the position you take and defend, I will take the opposite and prove you wrong

""...any man can just walk up to any woman, known to them or not in any location and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does not do or say something then her inaction equals defacto consent."

You can use whatever defense you want. Just cut and paste and i will accept it.

Quote me where I said that. Stop trying to make me answer for words you say that I said. I don't agree with that and I've never said that. A man can;t just walk up to any woman and do that. She could be underage or mentally handicapped or otherwise incapacitated. I don't agree with that statement you are attributing to me and I never said that, jackwagon.

You've cited nothing. I've cited a statute and case law that would indicate that what Trump was talking about on the bus was not sexual assault. And that has been my main point throughout this discussion.

 

[Rematch]

Ya continue saying

"...any man can just walk up to any woman and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does not do or says something then her inaction equals defacto consent."

You've added she must do something before you act which is a nice addition and also wrong.

@Rematch @ShadowRun @DIDM, take note because for now he is clearly not denying this position and is owning it. That will change soon.

That's not whappened. Like... At all.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Quote me where I said that. Stop trying to make me answer for words you say that I said. I don't agree with that and I've never said that. A man can;t just walk up to any woman and do that. She could be underage or mentally handicapped or otherwise incapacitated. I don't agree with that statement you are attributing to me and I never said that, jackwagon.

You've cited nothing. I've cited a statute and case law that would indicate that what Trump was talking about on the bus was not sexual assault. And that has been my main point throughout this discussion.

omg FLOL the dick tuck is already beginning. After a pages worth of me repeating the exact same thing and him arguing against it and saying the statutes proved him right now he is trying to back away from it. 'Hey, hey i never said anything like that.' FLOLOLOLOL.

Ok so now you agree then no man can just grab a woman by the pussy and say he has de facto consent if she says or does nothing about it. it doesn't matter whether she let him know first it was not ok to do.

we agree... for now. that is until you realize you conceded and lost and then go back to saying it is de facto consent and start citing the statute again.

 

[MikeMcMann]

That's not whappened. Like... At all.

its exactly what happened and you can see him dick tucking now right as per my prediction.

I could write out his next two pages of replies and would nail them as he wobbles between trying to maintain what he said prior so as to not acknowledge he lost this argument and him trying to not be pinned by the idiocy of his words when they are spelled out.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

omg FLOL the dick tuck is already beginning. After a pages worth of me repeating the exact same thing and him arguing against it and saying the statutes proved him right now he is trying to back away from it. 'Hey, hey i never said anything like that.' FLOLOLOLOL.

Ok so now you agree then no man can just grab a woman by the pussy and say he has de facto consent if she says or does nothing about it. it doesn't matter whether she let him know first it was not ok to do.

we agree... for now. that is until you realize you conceded and lost and then go back to saying it is de facto consent and start citing the statute again.

Show me where I said what you are saying I said. Seriously.

I have been consistent throughout in saying that what Trump said on the bus does not constitute sexual battery. I provided a statute that backs up my claim. I've held your hand to try and walk you through it several times, but you are too stupid to follow along. So I ask you again, based on the statute I provided, tell me how what Trump bragged about on the bus was sexual battery.

You're an embarrassment. Anyone who is reading this can see how obtuse you are being.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Ya continue saying

"...any man can just walk up to any woman and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does not do or says something then her inaction equals defacto consent."

Show me exactly where I said that. You're a fucking putz.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Show me exactly where I said that. You're a fucking putz.

lol for countless posts I posted that or other versions of that and you kept telling me i was wrong and you were right. Anyone who cares can read back on our exchange and see how remarkably consistent I was and what you replied to every time.

Dude take your dick tuck and go quietly. You are embarrassing yourself.

if you want to run away from this prior position you fought for "..any man can just walk up to any woman and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does not do or says something then her inaction equals defacto consent.", then by all means do so now. Just also note I called it that you would.

i will also call it that you will go back to defending that position as soon as I drag Trump back into specifically.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Okay chief, how do you interpret that statute and how do you interpret the case I cited? Tell me how you should interpret this:

(a) Sexual battery is unlawful sexual contact with a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:
...
(2) The sexual contact is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the contact that the victim did not consent;
...

I mean really, it's right there in black and white.

lol, why bother with an obvious troll? with 20k posts in 4 years, he obviously doesn't put much thought or reasoning into his posts.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

lol at you claiming to be a lawyer and not understanding that is cumulative list and is list that lays out many ways sexual battery is determined.

Tell me what you mean in this stupid, incoherent statement.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

lol for countless posts I posted that or other versions of that and you kept telling me i was wrong and you were right. Anyone who cares can read back on our exchange and see how remarkably consistent I was and what you replied to every time.

Dude take your dick tuck and go quietly. You are embarrassing yourself.

if you want to run away from this prior position you fought for "..any man can just walk up to any woman and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does not do or says something then her inaction equals defacto consent.", then by all means do so now. Just also note I called it that you would.

i will also call it that you will go back to defending that position as soon as I drag Trump back into specifically.

No. What it comes down to is trump wasn’t bragging about sexual battery because he was indicating the women were consenting. That has been my position through. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

 

[HereticBD]

Oof, @MikeMcMann getting bodied hard in here.

Need a "mercy rule" button for other posters to vote on. This is a massacre.

 

[MikeMcMann]

No. What it comes down to is trump wasn’t bragging about sexual battery because he was indicating the women were consenting. That has been my position through. Sorry if you can’t understand that.

ya but here is how you defined consent and you were wrong...

"..any man can just walk up to any woman and grab them by the pussy and just walk out and if the woman does not do or says something then her inaction equals defacto consent.", and i called you on that stupidity. You tried and tried to stand behind it and defend it right up until I pinned you on a bet on it, then you dick tucked and ran, which i predicted verbatim prior.

 

[Sketch]

Oof, @MikeMcMann getting bodied hard in here.

Need a "mercy rule" button for other posters to vote on. This is a massacre.

It's almost as bad as that Mueller Report thread.