We're on the ground in Iowa asking all the candidates if they'll address the #ExtinctionCrisis

[Hassin Bin Sober]

Link to tweet

[bluewater]

1. Imagine if the Climate Activist poked Biden like that!

The Secret Service would have arrested him.

Not a good look for Joe.

Not at all.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. What Secret Service? Candidates don't get SS protection

unless they meet certain thresholds (which Biden probably does), and they request it and Congress and DHS approve it.

[bluewater]

4. I would hope a former VP campaigning for President has Secret Service protection.

Not having that would be, well, stupid.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I would, too, but the rules say a former VP is entitled to it

only for 6 months after leaving office. If Biden is getting a lot of threats and he requests protection, he'd likely get it. Obama got so many threats that he did get SS protection months before he was nominated. Once a candidate gets the nomination that protection kicks in automatically.

[Demsrule86]

16. I hope Biden asks for it...this guy was harmless but he got right up in Bidens face hence the push

back by Biden...Trump has put a target on Biden...he wants him out of the race.

[Demsrule86]

18. I absolutely agree with you on this bluewater...and I think Warren should ask too...I have

seen some truly disturbing things on Twitter.

[Demsrule86]

20. Pretty clear that Biden hasn't requested it.

The guy would never have been allowed to get that close right on top of the VP...and he shouldn't have been.

[Demsrule86]

19. I don't agree with you on this...the guy got right in Biden's space...

[SamKnause]

3. Damn, he is always poking people with his finger.

Did he do this when he was talking to world leaders as vice president ???

His finger poking would anger some people.

[MineralMan]

5. Yeah, Bernie just shakes his finger at people

[BannonsLiver]

7. And tells women like Warren when and where she is permitted to address him.

As was the case after a recent debate. He looked comfortable mansplaining to her. Like he had done it before on more than one occasion with other women.

[MineralMan]

21. Mansplaining. I was thinking about that this morning.

Because the man I work with most of the time has become enamored of "networking" and such things, I've been roped into attending functions at "networking" groups now and then. Here's what I've noticed:

Some men, either successful or not, tend to dominate discussions and tell people how they should do things and are very free with their explanations of whatever the topic is. It doesn't seem to be related to their actual experience or success in those areas at all.

Meanwhile, others ask questions and take in information from others. I know which ones I prefer. The first group are "mansplainers," regardless of their audience and its gender. They assume that they know more than the person they're talking to and tend to ramble on and on about whatever their opinion is. Rarely do those "mansplainers" pay any attention to who they're talking to or what that person's expertise is on a subject.

I watched one "marketing coach and 'noted public speaker'" lecturing another person about what the best way was to sell everything. Now, the guy who was "mansplaining" was wearing an ill-fitting suit that had fraying lapels. The person he was talking to was the owner of one of the most successful retail businesses in the community. The conversation didn't last long, because the "mansplainer's" audience of one quickly excused himself and walked away.

I also have attended networking meetings with memberships primarily of women. I have noticed less of that phenomenon there. More listening and less lecturing was going on, it seemed to me.

I'm really just an observer at such events, going to support the guy I work with, who is generally the person speaking that day at the event. I help him polish his speeches and observe audience reaction to them so we can further fine-tune his presentation. So, I'm not telling anyone anything really. I do listen a lot, though, to learn who my colleague is speaking to at such events.

Some men just seem to fall into that "mansplaining" error over and over again.

[bluewater]

8. Repeatedly poking people has much higher consequences in the real world.

Shaking your finger at a co-worker won't get you fired as fast as repeatedly poking that person with your finger, would it?

No, of course not.

[MineralMan]

10. Well, I do neither. Not my style at all.

[bluewater]

15. Most people do not repeatedly poke other people with their finger.

Such physicality is always inappropriate. Honestly, it seems like a power play bordering on bullying.

[Demsrule86]

13. I don't know if one more man wags his finger at me, I might just grab it and break it...

Shooting him would be a bit over the top...I guess.

[Demsrule86]

14. I would add, the guy got right up in Biden's face announcing he was voting for Steyer...and

I might push someone out of my comfort zone...I will be glad when Biden has secret service protection. With Trump attacking him, I feel his life is endangered...serious about this.

[melman]

17. In the real world poking could get you arrested for assault

[MineralMan]

23. Oh, that would be very rare, indeed.

Normally, when someone encounters a chest poker, that person simply steps back out of range or turns and leaves the conversation. There are fewer chest-pokers around these days. The word is out that it's an ineffective way to make a point. However, you do encounter them here and there, usually older people who have or have held high positions in the past.

My reaction to finger-wavers and chest pokers is to say, "Do you think your gestures are convincing? I wish you'd stop doing that, please." I have no trouble saying that to people, whoever they might be.

It's a bad idea, but nobody gets arrested for doing it. They just get left to talk to the space in front of them.

You exaggerate, I'm afraid.

[melman]

24. Wrong

Assault (Penal Code Sections 240 and 245)
People often confuse the terms assault and battery. Unlike battery, an assault does not require any actual physical contact. Furthermore, an assault only requires that an act could have resulted in an injury and as you will see, an "injury" is not what you think it is.

Assault, according to the California Penal Code is the "unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another." (Penal Code §240.) Although this implies that there must be an injury or that the act could have caused an injury, this is not the case. A "violent injury" is interpreted to mean an "application of force." Assault requires only that someone acts in a way that did result, or could have resulted, in the application of force upon another person.

"Application of force" requires only the slightest touch, either directly or indirectly as long as it is done in a harmful or offensive manner. Thus, for example, poking your finger at someone's chest could be an assault. Assault does not require that the touching cause pain or injury of any kind. In fact, since assault only requires the attempt ("present ability&quot , no actual touching is required to complete the commission of this crime. Let's say you shake a stick at someone in a menacing manner, this could be construed as an assault as long as you had the ability to use the stick to touch the person you are shaking it at, even though you did not touch that person with the stick at all.
https://www.williamweinberg.com/assault.html

---

"oh but that's just one state blah blah blah"

okay, here's another one...

Tennessee law gives three distinct definitions of assault. A person can be charged with assault for:

“Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” causing injury to another person. Punching someone or throwing something that hits someone would be considered assault according to this definition.
“Intentionally or knowingly” causing another person reasonable fear of imminent injury. A raised hand or a thrown object that misses would fall under this definition.
“Intentionally or knowingly” causing physical contact with another person that a reasonable person would consider to be “extremely offensive or provocative.” Poking someone in the chest during an argument, for example, would be considered assault by this definition.
Assault, as defined by the first two definitions, is a Class A misdemeanor, carrying penalties of up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and fines of up to $1,500. The third definition constitutes a Class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine
https://www.williamevanslaw.com/criminal-defense/assault

[MineralMan]

25. Now, link to a news story about someone who was arrested for

poking people in the chest with a finger during a conversation. Can you find one? Just one? I'll wait here...

[melman]

28. Why should I hunt down news stories for you when I've already proven you wrong?

I said it can get you arrested. And it's true.


If something is considered assault then you could get arrested for it. Obviously.

[MineralMan]

29. You don't have to do anything. I can't compel you to back up your

claims. Yes, you could be arrested for assault for poking someone in the chest. However, I know of not a single case where that has occurred. My claim is that it does not lead to people being arrested, even though it might technically be an assault. That just does not happen.

If you can demonstrate that I am incorrect with some evidence, I will withdraw my claim that nobody gets arrested for that. But, whether you bother to do that or not is entirely up to you.

[melman]

31. "Yes, you could be arrested for assault for poking someone in the chest."

Glad we agree.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. Since it's a misdemeanor, an arrest couldn't be made on probable cause

but would have to be witnessed by the arresting officer. And then:

"Officer, this man poked me!"

"Yeah, I saw it."

"Aren't you going to arrest him?"

"No. You two work it out. I'm not going to waste my time and taxpayers money on something like that."

De minimis non curat lex. Look it up.

[LanternWaste]

9. My guess is telling someone to be respectful or get shot "would anger some people" as well.

But the important thing is to point out the motes in everyone else's eye and ignore our own.

[Demsrule86]

11. That is ridiculous. You will not get rid of fossil fuels until we have an economically viable

alternative. And all of you Stein folks, you set that back a decade or so by not voting for Hillary. Trump has been a disaster for any Green plans. Running on this makes us look extreme and will scare voters off in terms of the economy...another reason why Sanders won't win a general.

[melman]

12. Why does he think it's okay to poke people in the chest?

Disturbing behavior.

[redqueen]

22. All the finger pointing from both of the top two candidates

is a real turn off.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Aaaand we're off. Now it's poking vs. pointing.

Jesus H. Christ, people! The house is on fire and you're whining about some candidate poking and another one pointing and OMG isn't that terrible and it could get you arrested and it's impolite, blah blah blah; meanwhile the house is burning down and the firefighters are back at the station bitching about how somebody poked somebody else with their finger.

[MineralMan]

30. +1000

[Kurt V.]

27. K&R