Dear @John_Kass: Sexual assault is not “sex.”

A response to “Forget the sex. What about open borders?” http://www.startribune.com/2016-election-forget-the-sex-what-about-open-borders/397018691/

“Sex was a private matter then. It’s quite a public matter now. But then it was private, and after a brief bout of impeachment interruptus, the American political establishment welcomed Bill and Hillary back into the establishment fold, where wealth and power awaited them.”

You’re right — extramarital oral sex in the Oval Office is what tipped off Republicans’ fury in 1998.

I’m pretty sure we’ve long since “forgotten the sex.” The focus right now is on something very different, whether it’s in reference to a former president or to the current nominee of the Republican Party.

“I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything… grab ’em by the pussy.”

Is this your definition of “sex?” Is Trump’s constant stream of misogyny really a “private matter” that we should “forget?”

This is about sexism, sexual assault, and rape. For you to harken back to the days when we were all just a little more modest about bringing these issues to light is sexist in its own right.

Thankfully, and apparently unlike you, John Kass, many Americans are truly outraged by Donald Trump’s ongoing unapologetic rhetoric and alleged actions.

I think there’s a far less “sexy” reason that the media and the public aren’t as interested in a 2013 speech in which Hillary Clinton used the word “open” next to the word “borders — ” there’s simply nothing to discuss. Hillary Clinton does not support “open borders” in any way that the only people who regularly employ that term love to define it. And the fact that WikiLeaks “leaked” it doesn’t make it a controversy.

The Brazilian business leaders she was speaking to, just like many (most?) U.S. business leaders, would reasonably like to see more “open trade and open borders” for the sake of strong business. That doesn’t mean that anyone is conniving to do away with America’s borders, America’s sovereignty, or the concept of U.S. citizenship. Hillary Clinton didn’t let loose her private plan to weaken U.S. border security. She did not indicate that she dreams of the day when anyone who steps foot on U.S. soil will automatically become a U.S. citizen. You keep referencing “an America without borders,” but that was your idea, not something anyone else brought up. In 2013 Hillary Clinton mistakenly hit a trending keyword that the far-right has self-defined to confirm a particular brand of fear and disgust. She mentioned an incredibly ordinary policy that business-minded Republicans have supported for years. There’s literally nothing to talk about, and that’s why no one’s talking about it.

Should her positions on immigration and trade be scrutinized? Absolutely. But you’re trying too hard, and as a result, your essay does a few important topics an insulting disservice. As Donald loves to say, the people get it. If you want to fume with your like-minded cohorts about those slimy “Clintonistas,” you’re doing great. But if you want the masses to focus their consideration and concern on a different controversy, make sure there’s actually something there.