He’s had a couple, google ‘em. He’s a good speaker who appears to be genuinely passionate about what he’s saying, and a good storyteller while speaking. Connects with his audience well, etc. He’s a pretty solid choice if you’re looking for qualities that will balance Trump’s style and delivery.

The SotU rebuttal hasn’t been a real launchpad in a while, has it? I thought Kennedy was a good pick for this - he’s unlikely to fuck it up, he’s able to deliver while appearing to experience common human emotions, etc. And if he flames out, so be it. But I think he’ll just come across as solid and sane.

Why do you think the money’s coming out of the pockets of the “truly underprivileged”? Why wouldn’t the reckoning come at the tier that very obviously doesn’t need it, like at the BBC?

You can’t pick all the battles at once. They all have merit, but you need to pursue a handful at a time.

It’s important to make sure everyone is equally overpaid. LOL

This is horrible advice.

Negative word of mouth spreads five times further than positive. That’s the ratio that should worry you when looking at reviews.

The way you are treating the man and woman in this encounter so wildly differently is amazing. You’re just talking nonsense now. “She can non-verbally consent, but it wasn’t consensual when he performed oral sex and then he asked for her to reciprocate and she did, and he’s somehow supposed to know this”. But “he…

So you’re saying that, at some point during the kissing on the counter, you expected him to either say “Is oral sex okay?” or have her volunteer “I’m cool with you going down on me”. Otherwise you consider it rape that they then had what Grace recounts as consensual relations.

Yes, consent is absolutely reliant on whether or not someone is consenting at any given moment. But it has nothing to do with whether or not someone else is interpreting anything in any given way. I said nothing like that. What the fuck are you talking about?

Yes, consent is absolutely reliant on whether or not someone is consenting at any given moment. But it has nothing to do with whether or not someone else is interpreting anything in any given way. I said nothing like that. What the fuck are you talking about?

Again: you’re creating a definition that hasn’t a hope in hell of being practically applied in the real world. Your definition of consent is wholly reliant on what one individual is thinking of at a particular moment in time, and precariously reliant on the other person correctly interpreting micro-cues to suss out…

Define “consent” then, since you seem to think it can be non-verbal and also appear to think Grace’s situation is an example of rape.

He didn’t obtain consent at all. She never gave consent.

I think obtaining consent to start the ball rolling is practical. I think that after that initial consent has been given, we’re in a realm where the onus is on the person STOPPING the momentum - basically, the responsibility is to say “no”. Once that person has said “no”, then we’re back at square one where consent…

And you’re context-free. Elaborate.

I said that applying the standard you’re setting (of either asking for and obtaining consent for each sex act, or getting pre-approval for sex acts without having to ask) is not practically applicable. All you have to do is take a set of scenarios and run your ideal through them, it’s inoperable. You can’t step…

And if I were you I wouldn’t go around implying that each and every sex act has to be signed off in triplicate before it commences. (See? I can be hyperbolic too!)

Get your head out of theory and into practical application more. No matter how perfectly-designed your theory, if it fails in contact with the actual world, it swiftly becomes an academic relic - nice to reference as an ideal but completely impractical.

Good luck with the practical application of that standard.