October 8th, 2016

Trump’s bragging locker-room talk: the October surprise?

I bet it’s not the only surprise they have up their sleeves.

Nor is it a surprise. Why on earth would it be? We already knew there was plenty of dirt floating around on Trump, and some of it was bound to be sexual. We already knew he was a gross narcissist. So dirt that combines coarse terms (“pussy”) and braggadocio about how his celebrity status entitles him to grab it—why would this be a surprise?

Is it a surprise that he said it? A surprise that it was recorded? A surprise that the recording surfaced? Or just a surprise that it hadn’t surfaced earlier?

To me, it’s a surprise that anyone considers it a surprise.

Trump has already established himself quite fully as the person who could easily say those words. His many appearances on the Howard Stern show solidified (if that’s the right word) his image, and to my way of thinking his comments about avoiding venereal disease being his “own personal Vietnam” are arguably worse, in that they combine the political with the raunchy with the narcissistic, and were said with full knowledge that they’d be broadcast, as opposed to the sort of clandestine machismo-to-machismo type bragging he did with Billy Bush. That “personal Vietnam” statement (which occurred in 1997) came out as a story in February of 2016, so people who voted for Trump in the primaries should have had full knowledge of exactly who and what they were voting for, back when there were still many fine alternatives.

In the more recent hot mic matter, Trump’s comeback about Bill Clinton talking worse to him on the golf course makes a good point, a believable but irrelevant one. Bill isn’t running for president, Hillary is.

Will any of this make a difference? I actually don’t think a whole lot, because Trump had already been sinking for a while anyway. And people are voting or not voting for Trump for other reasons. But I could be wrong there; this one touched a nerve. It certainly cannot possibly help him, and he needs all the help he can get.

Those of us who have been saying from the start that Trump is a uniquely vulnerable candidate because in the fall months just prior to the election a whole bunch of dirt would be flung at him (because there was so very much dirt to be had) can now say a heartfelt “I told you so.” But “I told you so” isn’t at all satisfying when the situation is so dire and the stakes so high.

[NOTE: Senator Mike Lee calls for Trump to step down. Wishful thinking, I’m afraid, although I fervently share the wish.

But let’s indulge in a thought experiment: what would happen if Trump did drop out? Is there any protocol for that sort of event?:

In addition to Lee, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) also called on Trump to step aside, and for the party to institute “emergency rules” to replace him roughly a month before the election.

So, would we end up with one of those smoke-filled rooms after all? At this point it would be just fine with me. Pence would do, for example.]

[NOTE II: Trump’s apology.]

[ADDENDUM: It occurs to me that one way this news could influence the election is to motivate more millennials who don’t like Hillary to come out and vote for her anyway.]

[ADDENDUM II: For those who think this was just the usual locker-room banter on Trump’spart, I beg to differ. Actually, it was a very special type of locker-room talk.

I don’t know whether you read the details at the link, but I’ll provide the meat of it (as it were):

Trump tells Bush about a failed attempt to have sex with a woman, whom he claimed was married at the time. The Post said Trump had been married to Melania for “several months” during the time of the conversation.

In the video, Trump tells Bush the story, saying, “I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”…

“You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful… I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet,” Trump says while Bush is heard laughing. “Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” Bush responds.

“Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything,” Trump said. Bush keeps laughing.

He is saying two main things there that are especially disturbing in a presidential nominee, and are not really comparable to ordinary locker-room banter. One is the bragging about the woman being married. That’s the lesser offense of the two, though. The greater offense is the idea that because he’s rich and famous and powerful he can do anything he wants. Without the person’s consent. And he brags about it.

And he’s asking to be given more power now.]

121 Responses to “Trump’s bragging locker-room talk: the October surprise?”

  1. mizpants Says:

    It’s not only Lee and Kirk. It’s a number of others — enough so it’s hard to keep up. According to one article donors are considering withdrawing support. And Pence, apparently, is “beside himself.” And Hugh Hewitt has demanded that Trump withdraw. Ayotte and Ryan have weighed in. There’s more.
    It’s hardly a surprise that Trump would talk this way, but it forces a reaction from prominent Republicans, and that’s showing signs of snowballing.
    Perhaps it wouldn’t be such a threat to Trump if Pence hadn’t put in such a strong performance in the debate that people’s minds can’t avoid making the jump.
    Here’s hoping!

  2. blert Says:

    I ditto your ‘take.’

    Such locker room bragging is pandemic among males.

    It’s notable that Trump is ‘losing’ the support of Utah.

    Well, we knew that from the primary.

    Say, did the MSM scream “squirrel” ?

    This is PURE fluff designed to shift away from the boatload of scandal that is Hillary Rodham Clinton Goldman Sachs.

    ( Married to fame and the money. )

  3. sdferr Says:

    Pence wouldn’t do, for my part, insofar as his decision to climb by means of attaching himself to Trump is demonstrative of his witless inadequacy to the office above. Pence is, in this sense, the very pussy Trump grabbed on that occasion and acquiesced to make himself so. But then, in the broadest political terms, the United States of America appears to be in the shitter in any case: there simply don’t seem to be any adequate candidates for the office on the horizon, and least of all when understood in light of the tremendous political challenges the nation faces on every hand. Mere decline, therefore, the likeliest outcome, if not rather worse.

  4. The Other Chuck Says:

    It’s much too late to force Trump out. With the election less than a month away, ballots printed and voting started, nothing can be done even if he withdrew. Face it, even if someone like Pence were put in place the die hard Trump supporters would walk ensuring defeat. Why bother?

    Jonah Goldberg at National Review summed it in Character Is Destiny:

    “And if you can’t see what a hot mess Donald Trump is yet, I doubt you ever will and I wonder what fresh Hell will allow the realization to penetrate your consciousness. Either way, this video is not an aberration. It is not a special circumstance. It’s him. There’s no pivot in him. There’s no “presidential” switch to flip. He’s Donald Trump all the way down. And he will humiliate and debase his defenders so long as they feel the need to defend this indefensible man.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440859/trumps-piggishness-surprises-beguiled

  5. DNW Says:

    “Is it a surprise that he said it? A surprise that it was recorded? A surprise that the recording surfaced? Or just a surprise that it hadn’t surfaced earlier?

    To me, it’s a surprise that anyone considers it a surprise. “

    That is a rational rather than an emotional response.

    And although we still don’t have a good sense of exactly who it was that supported Trump in the primaries, it is inconceivable that anyone who watched Bill and Hillary in action during the blue dress years, could find this any more shocking or distressing – insofar as the substance of it goes that is, as opposed to the tactical trouble it causes Trump.

    Republicans labor under a double burden in both professing personal virtue, and in having to judge themselves as well as others by it.

    Democrats have transferred moral responsibility from the individual to the group, and redefined the sum total of morals in terms of state directed altruism.

    They should probably be going on the attack: ‘You want your country and your personal freedom, or do you want to be a nice guy and have your life run, and you time and energy wasted, by social solidarity pimping neurotics?

  6. DNW Says:

    “They”, meaning the Trump campaign.

  7. huxley Says:

    I doubt anyone is surprised exactly but the recording functions as salacious gossip which must be discussed and repeated.

    Nate Silver has got Trump chances down to 19% and falling.

    Trump supporters: Will there ever be a good time to press for Trump to step down? Wouldn’t it have been better to have done so a month ago?

    You keep pushing the reluctant among us that must must must vote for Trump because the future of America, the Supreme Court and Western Civilization depends upon it for ever ever ever.

    If you hold to that reasoning, it seems you ought to be panicking as Trump circles the drain yet again. Who knows how many October Surprises are left. It seems you ought to be rethinking Trump by now. Or does your argument only apply to ReluctantTrumpers?

  8. neo-neocon Says:

    The Other Chuck:

    You write:

    It’s much too late to force Trump out. With the election less than a month away, ballots printed and voting started, nothing can be done even if he withdrew. Face it, even if someone like Pence were put in place the die hard Trump supporters would walk ensuring defeat. Why bother?

    I think you are correct that it won’t happen.

    But I think you are wrong that it couldn’t, and wrong about who would win if it did.

    First of all, let’s say that a party nominated a person about whom it was revealed, about a month before the election, that he/she was an ax murderer. Not a metaphorical one, a literal one.

    I bet a way would be found to drop that person from the ticket and put in a replacement, whether the person wanted to be dropped or not. Are parties really tied to their nominees with no recourse, whatever the revelations?

    What if a nominee becomes incapacitated?

    Here is the procedure. It can be done, and it could be done. I’m not sure whether Trump would have to consent (I very very much doubt he ever would consent, although I wonder if his arm could be sufficiently twisted). At any rate, I don’t think the GOP has the cojones for this, so it’s moot. But I actually think it should be done, because this is a disaster in every way.

    As for the Trump voters defecting, so what? I have heard that threat over and over for much of the last six months or so—if you don’t nominate Trump, you’ll lose his voters! But at this point, Hillary is so tainted herself that many people (including Democrats) are hungry for the opportunity to vote for someone sane and decent. Mike Pence could be that person. And I think he would attract a lot of Democrats as well as many of the now-disaffected Republicans who don’t want to vote for Trump. That could mean that the Trump diehards wouldn’t be needed for a victory.

    There’s no way to know, of course. But that’s my gut feeling, right or wrong. Sure, plenty of people on the right were willing to vote for Trump. But how many would refuse, at this point, to vote for another less controversial GOP nominee?

  9. Big Maq Says:

    Perhaps true it is not a surprise to those of us who have seen this in him. Trouble is too many haven’t.

    It DOES make a difference, as it becomes harder and harder, almost to the point of impossibility to ignore and explain away these things for those who still support trump.

    Pence, rightly, avoided trying to defend trump’s antics and words, but it becomes increasingly difficult as it piles up one after another, and voters begin to wonder about credibility of any running Republican. Merely pointing to clinton and all her flaws is not sufficient.

    Those down ticket candidates may not be able to help but disown trump.

    The RNC now has to decide if it is worth throwing good money after bad, and perhaps, smartly so, redirect funds to key down-ticket races.
    .

    “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” “Grab them by the p——. You can do anything,”” – trump

    Sounds way too close to…

    “And when you are President you can do anything and they will let you do it.”
    .

    Remember…

    “”I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?””
    .

    Plenty rotten about clinton, but this is news fodder that will fill up the time, and there is very little left.

  10. Cornhead Says:

    I’m not surprised at all. Mostly sickened by the Quislings who have come out of the woodwork. Nebraska’s Ben Sasse is at the top of the list.

    If you don’t agree with me that Hillary is a criminal we now know for sure she wants open borders and is a tool of Wall Street.

  11. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Thing is, Trump talks nasty, sometimes. Lots of guys do. Ought to hear a high school locker room, or an Army barracks. Good people come from those places.
    But Clinton did–not just talk– and it didn’t bother the folks now freaking out.
    It’s just sex.
    Only if it’s a democrat.

  12. Wooly Bully Says:

    ‘“I told you so” isn’t at all satisfying when the situation is so dire and the stakes so high.’

    True, but at this point it’s about all I’ve got. So…

    I told you so, you effing fools!

  13. Big Maq Says:

    Trying to make a change at this point would create more confusion and animosity than to just let trump lose a well earned loss – for him and for those who pushed him, even if “reluctantly”.

  14. Spiral Says:

    This is what happens when you give the presidential nomination to a Hillary Clinton supporting, Jimmy Carter supporting, Chuck Schumer supporting Democrat from New York.

    This is all so predictable.

    Bill Clinton thought this up in advance. Bill Clinton decided he would encourage his friend Donald Trump to run in the Republican presidential primary in order to at minimum distract the GOP in the primaries, at maximum destroy the GOP’s chances of defeating his wife in the general election.

    And Republican primary voters fell for it.

  15. neo-neocon Says:

    Cornhead:

    A quisling is a traitor collaborating with the enemy.

    Do you really think Ben Sasse—or anyone who refuses to support Trump—is a quisling? I don’t think it’s an appropriate term at all.

    Nor has he “come out of the woodwork.” Sasse has always been anti-Trump.

    I know what you think of Hillary. I think all of us agree. I think Ben Sasse agrees. That doesn’t mean automatic support of Trump as the lesser evil. That’s what people disagree about, and it’s far from being a quisling to believe that Trump is also a very great evil.

    The Republicans who went to Nixon and told him they would impeach and convict him if he didn’t resign—were they quislings?

  16. neo-neocon Says:

    Spiral:

    The majority of Republican primary voters never fell for it.

    Just a plurality, which turned out to be enough.

  17. neo-neocon Says:

    Richard Aubrey:

    Actually, it was a very special type of locker-room talk.

    I don’t know whether you read the details at the link, but I will provide the meat of it (as it were):

    Trump tells Bush about a failed attempt to have sex with a woman, whom he claimed was married at the time. The Post said Trump had been married to Melania for “several months” during the time of the conversation.

    In the video, Trump tells Bush the story, saying, “I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”…

    “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful… I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet,” Trump says while Bush is heard laughing. “Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

    “Whatever you want,” Bush responds.

    “Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything,” Trump said. Bush keeps laughing.

    He is saying two main things there that are especially disturbing in a presidential nominee, and are not really comparable to ordinary locker-room banter. One is the bragging about the woman being married. That’s the lesser offense of the two, though. The greater offense is the idea that because he’s rich and famous and powerful he can do anything he wants. Without the person’s consent. And he brags about it.

    And he’s asking to be given more power now.

  18. sdferr Says:

    It’s a pity Joe Biden hasn’t got more business experience, else he’d make a fine ready-to-hand substitute for that healthy Republican plurality, though too, BlabberingJoe may have to great a self-respect to bow so low as to accept any offer.

  19. Csimon621 Says:

    Been thinking exactly as you: what is surprise about this?

    (plus, full disclosure: I am not a fanof Trump’s and am still trying to fig. out how he became nominee. That said, I am passionatelyagainst Hillary — for enough reasons I know about. And I’m guessing that which I don’t know of could fill a library)

    a) If you are surprised, u are living in some other world.
    He’s a coarse unedited big mouth. Period.

    But also, this kind of talk goes on everywhere, everyday, in all venues: locker rooms, corporate boardrooms, and all manner of workplaces, military, venues, onthe links, in dugouts — I can’t begin to even think of somewhere it doesn’t occur. I’m sure the White House given some of the lechers we know have occupied it.

    This is not an excuse, but it is words, it is egotistical braggadocio at best, and real action at worst.

    We know Bill Clinton acted similarly- not just sleeping around, but assaulting women. In the White House and beyond.
    He flew with billionaire pediphile Jeffrey Epstein at least 18 times that we know of to revel in company of young, YOUNG girls. And that Hillary is still married to him. For the prestige, for the connections, and most of all for the money.
    So what’s the feigned outrage regarding Trump, if not similar disgust with her husband?
    And if this is so telling, I’m willing to bet Hillary measured up equally with diatribes against her husband (many many times over the yrs.) and there was nothing “politically correct” coming out ofher mouth, let alone suitable for a President.

    b) If you think that some producer of Billy Bush’s show suddenly remembered this excerpt, and planned to do story — until, oops, it was leaked to WashPo who published it, your brain can’t connect the closest of dots!
    Fact is, money talks and it is well known that HRC has unlimited amounts to burn and that she pays a whole opposition research group complete with a cadre of private detectives whose sole job is to dig up dirt on Trump.
    Specifically to divert attention frol her own corruption, abuse of the very system she seeks to head and control!

    b) With all there is about Hillary Clinton repeated abuse of accepted norms and her disregard for existing law to attain her political goals and wnrich herself, never mind trading on on high posts where she was charged with serving public interest to instead enrich herself and her husband, (not to mention invoking his Presidential record to prop up her economic acumen on campaign trail) what in heck does that say about her morals– or rather the completelack thereof?

    c) Where is the outrage and horror at all the many scandals in which she has been principal actor and deceitful and pandering speech on display every single day she talks to people, the latest proof of which lies in the first releast of Wikileaks revelations.

    For example, why hasn’t WaPo jumped on that as headline today: her speaking one way to powerful bankers in order to get paid millions while referring to the little people whom she clearly disdains and holds in contempt but for the one thing they can give her which is their votes.

  20. Csimon621 Says:

    (PS IF ONLY Trump would withdraw, But it ain’t gonna happen, no way, no how!)

  21. neo-neocon Says:

    Csimon:

    I agree that its release at this point in time was no accident.

    However, see my ADDENDUM II, recently added at the bottom of the post.

  22. Tom Says:

    This is why I am now, and have always been a NEVER TRUMPER! I’m am unwilling to defend the words and actions of this sleazy, low life piece of crap. He’s nothing more than a slick used car salesman in a prettier suit, and nicer office. The guy makes my skin crawl.

  23. Big Maq Says:

    What is not getting through to the trump (including “reluctant”) supporters is that there is broad recognition already about how awful clinton is.

    We still have historically high “undecideds” at this time in the election cycle precisely because BOTH are awful.

    So, just pointing to clinton to say effectively “she / they are just as bad or worse”, every time something awful about trump comes to light, just doesn’t cut it.

    Yep, something new may appear about clinton and swing the election the other way (even though it shouldn’t be any “surprise” either to those who have paid attention), but time is running out.

    Unless it is something new, just repeating the same old about clinton’s flaws won’t change minds.
    .

    At this point it seems that the question we should be asking ourselves…

    Just what is “plan B”?

    Or, is all lost if trump loses, so we just hunker down?

  24. Tom Says:

    “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” “Grab them by the p——. You can do anything,”” – trump

    Isn’t that also known as sexual assault? I think if I was to act that way, I might find myself behind bars for a lengthy period of time. The guy just admitted to committing a felony!

  25. Ira Says:

    Cornhead and Csimon621 have it right.

    This recording of “locker room” talk was from 11 years ago, AND DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT DESPITE THE TALK Trump acted very respectfully with the actress/TV hostess that met with Trump and Billy Bush right after the talk.

    Yes, Trump is coarse, and this latest revelation adds nothing to what we knew of him since at least as early as the Megyn Kelly debate questions during the primary season.

    Hillary??? An explicit fan of open borders, not to mention the other negative character-indicators noted above in this thread by at least Cornhead and Csimon621.

    However, as DNW noted, many voters will have a negative emotional response. I hope Trump and the RNC can follow DNW’s advice about going on the attack.

    Those Republicans distancing themselves from Trump, as opposed to criticizing his behavior, are examples of what Cornhead referred to as Quislings. Note, criticizing Trump’s behavior such as the conversation fro 2005 is appropriate.

  26. Big Maq Says:

    “[ADDENDUM: It occurs to me that one way this news could influence the election is to motivate more millennials who don’t like Hillary to come out and vote for her anyway.]” – Neo

    Both that and to drive up enthusiasm to GOTV.

    What matters is who actually gets to the voting booths.

    Impact from Martin on FL registration might be greater than this bit on trump.

  27. sdferr Says:

    “[T]hey let you do it,” is the key difference on offer Tom. Sure, the act is grounds for a charge of assault, but someone assaulted must make the charge.

    Evidently then, either the words Trump spews don’t in any way reflect his actual behavior (that is, he’s lying while bragging), or his ability to estimate correctly which women will react by seeking legal charges against him for acts he did commit was fitted to his risks in doing the act described. Groupies, in other terms, may exist aplenty.

  28. Tom Says:

    To say that this kind of talk goes on in Army Barracks, and lockers rooms is no defense. We’re not talking about a private in the Army, or some idiot gym rat. We’re talking about the man who wants to be President of the most powerful nation on earth. Talking about Bill Clinton doesn’t excuse it either. We all vilified Clinton for his behavior, should Trump now get a pass?

  29. OM Says:

    To all those who defend and divert to try and save Trump from Trump, why do you raise the base and low, the abusive to a standard of behavior that is acceptable in public office? Face up to it.

    Locker rooms and barracks for example are populated mostly by young males not older men who have supposedly learned a thing or two about life and the consequences of decisions bad and good. It seems that Trump hasn’t learned yet.

    What is rewarded is repeated.

  30. Jim Miller Says:

    My decision — which I announced two days ago, though I made it weeks ago — to cast a protest vote for Mitt Romney looks better and better,

    (And, yes, I do have a long-term plan partially worked out, though I haven’t posted about it, yet.)

  31. Big Maq Says:

    @Ira – the problem is the GOP made a HUGE deal about character wrt bill clinton.

    Now we have on “our” side someone who admits to and brags about similar behavior, and all we can say is bill c was just as bad, and that hrc is also rotten, is not a comeback that moves the meter.

    trump was a HUGE compromise on what we said we stood for.

    Supporting him has been a huge loss of credibility – it has become almost an impossible argument to make about all that is rotten with clinton and her policies because our side has twisted itself into a pretzel in support of / defending trump to the point that those who may listen will discount it all.

    Any word from GOP / “conservative” supporters, candidates, and media has as much credibility as the MSM does with conservatives.

    People confused a plurality with an unstoppable winning formula, just for the sake of a “WIN!!”.

  32. Cornhead Says:

    Neo

    I really do love think Sasse et alia are quislings because Hillary is a mortal threat to the Republic. The worst aspect of their quisling conduct is that they don’t appreciate the stakes and think that a President Hillary is something we can deal with. Sasse is getting blasted on his Facebook page.

  33. snopercod Says:

    I’m with Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones on this.

    Broaddrick: “Actions speak louder than words. (Donald Trump) said bad things! (Hillary Clinton) threatened me after (Bill Clinton) raped me.”

    Jones: So Donald Trump had to apologize about the woman comments…I don’t recall that Bill or Hillary has apologized to me and Juanita Broaddrick or Kathleen Willey

    For Cornhead, I’m thinking “Summer Soldier” or “Sunshine Patriot” might better describe Ben Sasse, Paul Ryan and the rest. When the going gets tough, that crowd goes wobbly.

  34. Tom Says:

    It’s funny to me to watch people toss their moral values and dignity out the window, and twist themselves into pretzels to defend words and actions that are indefensible.

  35. Sam L. Says:

    Hillary was OK with Bill doing that.

  36. Jim Miller Says:

    One detail that hasn’t gotten much pubilcity: In their divorce proceedings, Trump’s first wife accused him of marital rape. She later retracted it, but we should remember two things about that retraction: The original claim was under oath, and the retraction wasn’t. Second, the retraction might help her children get a bigger share of his estate.

    So, I put that in the same category as Broaddrick’s accusation against Bill Clinton, plausible, but unproven.

    (Incidentally, the NYT and USA Today tried to get the records of the divorce unsealed, but were rejected by a judge.)

  37. OM Says:

    Tom:

    But at least they aren’t “Quislings” or Vichy republicans, or pearl-clutching cowards, they are not like “us” the staunch defenders of ….Trump. /s Sad it is.

    Trump isn’t even up to the “feet of clay” standard.

  38. neo-neocon Says:

    snopercod:

    Your equating of Sasse and Ryan doesn’t make sense to me.

    One could make a case for Ryan going “wobbly” but not for Sasse. Sasse has been consistently against Trump.

    And it depends what principles a person is defending. Is it “My party, right or wrong?” Is it “the lesser of two evils, Trump?” Or is it “Trump and Hillary are both evil?”

    I think the latter has been Sasse’s consistent stand.

  39. T Says:

    “The greater offense is the idea that because he’s rich and famous and powerful he can do anything he wants. Without the person’s consent.” [Neo]

    A sin it is, but how is it any lesser a sin for “I’m above the law” Hillary?

  40. neo-neocon Says:

    T:

    It’s a different sin. Same result: power-hungry. So why would people vote for him who’ve been undecided so far? I think this kills his chances with them.

  41. OM Says:

    T:

    Be careful with that line of thought: he could be as bad a she. Slippery slope and all that. 🙂

  42. Ira Says:

    Tom Says:
    October 8th, 2016 at 2:29 pm
    It’s funny to me to watch people toss their moral values and dignity out the window, and twist themselves into pretzels to defend words and actions that are indefensible.

    I don’t see people here defending Trump’s conversation.

    Is there a point where Trump would be worse than Hillary? Of course. But we’re not there yet (and, hopefully, there is no there there).

    HILLARY DELENDA EST!

  43. neo-neocon Says:

    Cornhead:

    As you probably know, I deeply disagree.

    They would perhaps be quislings if they were voting for or campaigning for Hillary. They are not. They disagree on how low they will stoop, that’s all.

  44. CapnRusty Says:

    Dilbert understands things better than the rest of us.

  45. T Says:

    “. . . he could be as bad a she.” [OM @ 2:52]

    OM, All along my decisions have been made with that in mind. Of course I don’t know if they are correct or not, but I’ve chosen Trum’s possible slippery slope against Hillary’s cliff.

    Also two observation. The first from Gay Patriot (gaypatriot.net):

    Donald Trump, 11 years ago, was caught on a hot mic making crude and vulgar comments about a married woman he wanted to bang.

    It’s too bad he’s not married to Hillary Clinton; because if he were, she would totally be defending him. And so would all the other Democrats.

    The second: 11 years ago when Trump made these comments, wasn’t he a Democrat?

  46. T Says:

    Amid all of the pearl clutching one might want to see this (Peter Ingemi, aka Datechguy):

    http://datechguyblog.com/2016/10/08/i-double-down-and-re-endorse-donald-trump-for-president-of-the-united-states/

    Make no mistake about it, the crudity and vulgarity of Trump’s comments aside, we are being played.

    Again, Ingemi (link above):

    If we concede that Donald Trump’s character is bad, Would it be better for the country to have a President of poor character who will be under intense scrutiny by the press, pols and law enforcement agencies (Trump) or to have a President of poor character who will be given a pass and or defended by the press, the pols and apparently the FBI regardless of what they say or do (Hillary).

    Last week I read a comment which claimed the following: In this year’s election we have the choice between a blowhard, a congenital liar and thief, an idiot and a nut—it sounds like the characters in a Coen brothers film.

    How sadly true.

  47. neo-neocon Says:

    T:

    It’s not “pearl-clutching.”

    The point is not what “we” want—“we” being people on the right. “We” (or Trump) need to attract undecideds and people in the middle to win; votes from the right alone wouldn’t be sufficient to elect him (unless turnout on the right were astronomical, which it won’t be). This news harms him with undecideds, the middle, and many on the right as well.

    He is already behind. He probably will lose. This news makes it even more likely. So articles like DaTechGuy’s make no sense to me. They address the wrong issue.

  48. huxley Says:

    Cornhead: Do we get to start insulting you as a quisling for backing someone who is both horribly unfit for office and who is going to lose to Hillary thereby sending America down the tubes?

    If not, why not?

  49. neo-neocon Says:

    huxley:

    I believe I am correct in saying that Cornhead did not support Trump until Trump was nominated.

  50. T Says:

    Neo,

    Ingemi’s point and yours are not mutually exclusive. There is no doubt that we are being played and we are reacting precisely as the Hillary campaign expected we would react. Does this hurt Trump’s campaign with undecided and independent voters? Absolutely—no argument there.

  51. neo-neocon Says:

    T:

    But I will make my implicit point explicit: If Trump is going to lose, why compromise one’s integrity to support him? Why prostitute yourself further?

    I have long felt the only way I would even consider voting for him is if the race is close. I am convinced it is not going to be close.

    I think people like DaTechGuy cannot accept what is nearly inevitable here: a Clinton victory. I don’t want to accept it, either. But by nominating Trump, it was virtually in the bag. Since his nomination, a Clinton victory has always been likely. Now it seems almost certain.

  52. huxley Says:

    Here’s Jonah Goldberg today:

    Well. What if it becomes clear [Trump] is a loser? Where will all the people shrieking about party loyalty, unity and beating Hillary be?

    Loyalty is a 2-way street. The party, the down-ballot races, the court, surely these are more important than Trump? Surely the emotional investment in Trump is worth writing off for the good of the country? If you sincerely believe that the country is “over” if Hillary wins and it becomes transparently obvious that the only possible way to avoid that is some kind of Torricelli maneuver, what is your reason for saying “No. We must go down to defeat with Mr. Trump!”?

    Start coming up with your answers now, because you may need them very soon.

    My advice: Cut him loose, because you know in your heart of hearts he’d cut you loose for far, far less.

  53. neo-neocon Says:

    huxley:

    Well, I see that Goldberg and I are on the same page.

  54. huxley Says:

    I believe I am correct in saying that Cornhead did not support Trump until Trump was nominated.

    neo: I am aware of that. However, my point is that he is supporting Trump now.

    I am not the only person suggesting it’s time to consider hitting the EJECT button on Trump.

    If the stakes are as high as Trump keep hectoring us, why isn’t he thinking about that instead of insulting those how disagree with him for obvious reasons?

  55. Richard Aubrey Says:

    neo. WRT yrs of 1:45:
    1. Trump talked it. Clinton did it. Dems didn’t mind the second and defended him.
    2. As Kissinger said, power is an aphrodisiac. Anybody who’s been there knows it’s true–even if the power is a second-rate death metal band, there are groupies for the taking–and discussing that “it’s good to be king” is unremarkable, except that it’s too bad it’s so.
    Ex-model trophy wives volunteer, possibly compete, for the job.

  56. neo-neocon Says:

    Richard Aubrey:

    Do you really, really, really think Trump didn’t “do it”?

    If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    What’s more, it’s irrelevant.

    Trump was losing before this. He is losing now, probably a bit worse. That’s my reading on it.

    And it’s not about being a trophy wife, or women lining up for the opportunity to have consensual sex with Donald Trump. It’s about his bragging about how power has allowed him to do anything he wants. And it’s about how that will play with undecided voters, not with those who consider Hillary evil incarnate.

  57. OM Says:

    Richard Aubrey:

    Trump was complaining that he didn’t succeed in cuckolding another man. Not to put to fine a point on it. Spin a deflect some more, it isn’t pretty.

  58. snopercod Says:

    This whole thing is especially ironic because the most beloved President among the democrats – John F. Kennedy – was a serial womanizer. It never much made the press at the time and I was too young to understand, anyway, but from the National Geographic Channel, The Sex Life of JFK:

    As a still-single Massachusetts Congressman in the 1940s and early 1950s, he indulged himself with what his friend, New Jersey Congressman Frank Thompson, Jr., called a “smorgasbord of women.” According to biographers Meagher and Gragg, Kennedy’s lovers were prominent, accomplished women, as well as strippers, airline stewardesses, and secretaries. As a lover, Kennedy reportedly was more interested in quantity than anything else. According to Dallek, one woman described him as “nice—considerate in his own way, witty and fun. But he gave off light instead of heat. Sex was something to have done, not to be doing. He wasn’t in it for the cuddling.”

    But even after Kennedy married the strikingly beautiful, elegant Jacqueline Bouvier in 1953, the same year he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he continued to pursue extramarital relationships—despite the risk of scandal that might have crippled his Presidency.

    While he was married to Jackie, JFK was rumored to have been boinking Marilyn Monroe, Mimi Alford, and Judith Campbell Exner. Well, this last one wasn’t a rumor; She admitted it in testimony before the U.S. Senate.

    Hillary must be laughing her ass off at this at the gullibility of the American people.

  59. T Says:

    “If Trump is going to lose, why compromise one’s integrity to support him?” [Neo]

    And here is where you and I disagree because I see that thought, itself, as a losing strategy. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, but sometimes the better part of valor is valor.

    As I have mentioned in previous threads I will vote against Clinton. IMO, Trump will still draw exponentially more votes than Johnson and Stein combined even with this latest controversy in place (we will see on Nov 9th). He still represents our best chance of keeping Clinton out of the oval office and our best chance to avert a thoroughly leftist SCOTUS.

    Trump’s chances are reduced now because there are those who will not take up that cause (keeping Clinton out). However dissuaded they might be, they fail to realize that they are, indeed, being played by the Clinton campaign just as she played the FBI, et. al.

    While this is still recoverable, the problem is I don’t see any history of the Trump campaign being sophisticated enough to recover. Nor do I see the sophistication in the Johnson or Stein campaigns to be able to use this controversy to catapult either of their candidacies into a potentially winning position. If they remain losers, why vote for either of them? The choice, IMO, remains Trump or Clinton.

    While this is not an easy decision, I hardly see folding and allowing Hillary to be a shoe-in as a compromise of my integrity.

    Keep in mind, and I say this especially with the anti-Trump commenters on this site in mind. If, in some way Trump were to win I would be happy that the Clinton threat was averted, but hardly overjoyed by a Trump win; a Trump win is dodging a bullet, not finally being safe at home.

    As I said in the Pining for Pence thread to “Bill,” my support for a win by a non-Clinton is predicated mostly on the fact that I believe that we are close to, if not at, a leftist critical mass.

  60. Richard Aubrey Says:

    WRT Trump. I didn’t say Trump was a good guy. He would not be welcome in my home, nor would Hillary. But the point is several fold.

    It’s good to be king.

    When dems do it, it’s okay and Ken Starr was a nutcase for pursuing the First Horn Dog. Hell, Gerry Studds kept getting re-elected.

    The other nominee is Hillary.

  61. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Neo, If Clinton had been caught doing the same thing–did he know Willey was a widow when he groped her?–to you think there were as many as one dem who would have said,
    NOW, THAT’S ENOUGH! TOO FAR!
    Careful, I have a bridge.

    It’s not Trump or…Washington or McCain or Reagan or whomever you think was or would be or would have been the best POTUS.

    It’s Trump or Hillary.

  62. Ira Says:

    See the article here:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/trumps_dirty_talk_versus_hillarys_corruption.html

    Please read the whole thing.

    From that article:

    I am absolutely not defending what Trump said eleven years ago, but if bragging about conquests with women were a disqualifier, at least Kennedy and Clinton would never have been president. Hillary should be declared unfit because she lies continuously, committed perjury, has taken kickbacks throughout her public life, tried to destroy women and any other people who got in her way, violated multiple security laws and other laws, and left Americans to die.

  63. Jim Miller Says:

    Richard Aubrey – You may want to read my earlier comment on what Ivana Trump said, under oath (even if she later retracted it).

    snopercod – Although “serial womanizer” is the standard term, I think “parallel womanizer” would be more accurate, in JFK’s case.

    How much chance does Trump have of becoming president” Roght now, the British bettors put it at 19.0 percent. Some may wonder why it is that high. I think it is because of what Harold MacMillan may have said: “Events, my dear boy, events.”

    It is possible to think of any number of events that could help Trump, and it is not hard to imagine some of those events being caused by those who favor Turmp, for example, Putin and ISIS.

  64. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Miller.
    I read the piece. From time to time, a divorce attorney will suggest such accusations as way to get a more favorable settlement. Child abuse is another. Under oath is meaningless since there’s no way the assertion can be impeached.
    I’m surprised that divorce proceedings couldn’t be unsealed.
    Obama managed that routinely. In fact, without that, he would still be, if that, in the IL legislature.

  65. neo-neocon Says:

    Richard Aubrey:

    Two points I’ve made several times. But I’ll make them again.

    If it’s Trump or Hillary, then it’s Hillary.

    It needn’t be Trump or Hillary. There are alternatives, and I would like the party to officially take one of them.

  66. Ira Says:

    Jim Miller: Richard Aubrey statement, “From time to time, a divorce attorney will suggest such accusations as way to get a more favorable settlement. Child abuse is another. Under oath is meaningless since there’s no way the assertion can be impeached,” is an understatement –– and a bit unfair to some attorneys. Often (and perhaps more often) the idea originates with the accusing spouse.

    In fact, perjury in civil and family court proceedings is a much bigger problem than people know.

  67. Susanamantha Says:

    In my opinion, the GOP powers that be need to arrange an emergency session of Congress. A vote should be taken as to whether or not our representatives and senators think Mr. Trump is incapable of presiding over our country. Then a coalition of congressional leaders need to pay a visit on Mr. Trump as happened with Mr. Nixon. They were able to convince a sitting president to resign. They owe it to the future of America to try the same respectable action again. To refuse to try is impossible.

  68. Ira Says:

    Further about the perjury problem plaguing proceedings in family court, California amended its statutes to reduce the opportunity for perjury with respect to at least one aspect of divorce litigation.

    See, In re Marriage of Frankie and Randy Valli (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1396, 1405, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 454, 461, 324 P.3d 274, 280:

    . . . the legislative purposes in enacting those requirements [of a written acknowledgment] . . . was to reduce excessive litigation, introduction of unreliable evidence, and incentives for perjury in marital dissolution proceedings involving disputes regarding the characterization of property . . . .”

  69. Vanderleun Says:

    Oh yeah…, it’s a real SHOCKER! Sure to turn the entire ranks of those “undecideds” against Trump as much as it did back in 1931……

    So much wishing here. So much hopelessness.

    “MY GIRL’S PUSSY

    Harry Roy & His Bat Club Boys (vocal: Harry Roy) – 1931
    Ian Whitcomb – 1976
    John Duigan (feat. in the film “Head In The Clouds”) – 2004

    Also recorded by:
    R. Crumb & His Cheap Suit Serenaders;
    Bob Ringwald; Kitten On The Keys.

    (Me-e-e-e-o-o-o-ow)

    There’s one pet I like to pet
    And every evening we get set
    I stroke it every chance I get
    It’s my girl’s pussy

    Seldom plays and never purrs
    And I love the thoughts it stirs
    But I don’t mind because it’s hers
    My girl’s pussy

    Often it goes out at night
    Returns at break of dawn
    No matter what the weather’s like
    It’s always nice and warm

    It’s never dirty, always clean
    In giving thrills, never mean
    But it’s the best I’ve ever seen
    Is my girl’s pussy

    (Instrumental Break)

    There’s one pet I like to pet
    And every evening we get set
    I stroke it every chance I get
    It’s my girl’s pussy

    Seldom plays, never purrs
    And I love the thoughts it stirs
    But I don’t mind because it’s hers
    It’s my girl’s pussy”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIfcKy-VcXo

  70. Richard Aubrey Says:

    If it’s Trump or Hillary, I’m against Hillary.
    If it’s somebody else or Hillary, I’d be interested in whether the somebody else at this point would be more likely to win than Trump. Or less.
    Ten years ago, NBC sent a crew to a NASCAR event. It was made up of two women and one man supposedly of Middle Eastern appearance, dressed in arabic garb. Followed around, probably surreptitiously, by a camera crew.
    The point was to get footage for Dateline of these inbred country morons going all racist and islamophobic.
    NBC bet the cost of the expedition on that certainty. They were so certain that they didn’t even have a backup plan to fake it in case nothing happened. Not like when they arranged to blow up GM pickup trucks which wouldn’t blow up by themselve. No, they just KNEW.
    Nothing happened.
    Word got out what the panjandrums of the Chattering Classes thought of the lesser orders. Then there were the bitter clingers and the deplorables.
    And it was politically incorrect even to defend oneself.
    The sneering/smearing of the flyover folks has been so vile and gone on so long and the rules of the game rigged–see Jon Stewart for starters–that people have gotten mightily annoyed and resentful.
    As I’ve said elsewhere, Trump can be seen as implicitly, explicitly, or accidentally breaking up that whole game and he’d get enormous support without regard to his policies except, likely, “build a wall”.
    Would his replacement do as well. Without that, it would be republican policies versus Hillary policies.
    I dunno. Kills me to think Trump is the best we can do, but the Chattering Classes nave made it an inevitability.
    Somebody said you’d better hope Trump wins. If he loses, you really won’t like who comes along later.

  71. parker Says:

    I am not commenting on the tape, except to mention that there will be similar Trumpisms coming out, perhaps dailly. The DNC has plenty of ammo to fire. I think he is toast, its just a matter of how burnt he looks on 11/8. But I never thought he was going to be very competitive in the general.

    Trump revels in soaking up attention no matter how negative and and provides perfect opportunities for the msm to ignore or at least gloss over hrc’s many …… (cough, cough, cough) problems as a candidate.

  72. Susanamantha Says:

    Parker –
    For sure there is more. They had this tape in reserve, probably waiting for even later in October. When the recent hacked emails were released on Friday, the time was right to deflect attention from more of Hillary’s problems.

  73. OM Says:

    RNC should dump the Trump while they have a chance. Will the reluctants then go third party with Trump or stay with whomever the GOP puts up against Hillary, since it’s all about stopping Hillary? Or have all the reluctants forgotten Trumps threats to go third party?

    If Trump stays on the GOP ticket and looses, inconceivable as it seems, who is to blame then? It will have to be anyone but the Donald.

    Who knew there were devices and technology to record a person’s voice and image while speaking? Who could craft a better stalking horse to ensure a Democrat victory and to discredit conservatives for a generation.

    I am not surprised that someone who wrote for Penthouse Mag. (Van) would find Trump’s thoughts and musing regarding the relationships between men and women, and Trump’s behavior, acceptable.

  74. OM Says:

    Trump seems to have forgotten that Democrats (D) politicians are not expected to have any moral standards in personal behavior that are disqualifying, whereas Republicans have to abide to minimal standards of rectitude and prudence. I guess he isn’t a wise as we have been told, or maybe he thought his followers would go along with anything he did or said? Oh, wait, he pretty much said that, and they have. However, many others are voting that aren’t his supporters (D), and a few who won’t vote for him or a D.

    Funny how that works out.

  75. AesopFan Says:

    DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT APPROVE OF OR EXCUSE FOUL LANGUAGE AND VULGAR BEHAVIOR but politicians are not generally counted among the Pure in Heart for good reason.
    Most of the comments I would have made and articles I would have linked have already been covered.

    Looks like the GOP primary candidates don’t do very good oppo research; they could have used something like this.

    It hasn’t exactly been in a vault with Obama’s school records.
    * * *
    T Says:
    October 8th, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    The second: 11 years ago when Trump made these comments, wasn’t he a Democrat?
    * * *
    Only Republicans are expected to be virtuous as a matter of course. Not that it did Romney any good — the media firestorm over “binders of women” made my head spin.

    JFK, Teddy, Clinton, Biden — they don’t faze the Left.
    Even FDR had mistresses, and the public was kept in the dark about it.

  76. parker Says:

    Susanmantha,

    Yes, the barrage will soon begin. No surprise, it was obvious once djt was handed the nomination.

    OM,

    The convention was the last chance to dump. The RNC decided to applaud the captain of a ship of fools. The first chance was to tell djt he could not enter the primaries as a republican. Its over, the weakest D candidate in history will be POTUS.

  77. OM Says:

    Parker:

    Probably how it will work out, little consolation. but we all get participation medals? 🙂

  78. T Says:

    From Andrew Ferguson (via Instapundit:

    . . . puritanical is precisely the tone of the Trump haters on the left. (We Trump haters on the right are another story.) But why? Consider Trump himself. Here’s a man who’s famous for his wide-ranging sex life, his disdain for conventional marriage, his eager embrace of divorce, his public use of profanity, his non-judgmental attitude toward unconventional sexual minorities—a man whose way of life seems unrestrained by religious impulses of any kind—a man who, in short, is a walking summation of our present-day cultural principles. Yet on each of these scores, from his many marriages to his cursing in public, he is vilified by journalists, politicos, TV starlets, right thinkers of every kind. After years of egging on potty-mouthed rappers and scolding religious believers, our cultural guardians suddenly sound like the General Conference of Methodist Bishops circa 1922.

    The link to Ferguson:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/sniffing-at-trump/article/2004726

  79. OM Says:

    T:

    And the point is…?

  80. snopercod Says:

    OM got it right.

    The creep of moral relativism in America has been steady for many decades, increasing in speed to the point that the “slouching toward Gomorrah” has become a sprint. The notion that there is objective truth or absolute morality has been universally panned to the point that everything is tolerated except standards of right and wrong. “Everyone decides for himself what is right, especially when it comes to sex” is the mantra of today’s culture.

    For years, Christians in particular have been attacked and silenced as they’ve tried to challenge the immorality that is pervasive in today’s society. When they tell people casual sex is wrong, they get the inevitable, “You have no right to tell me what I can or can’t do.” If they oppose sexual immorality in any form, including adultery, they’re maligned as sanctimonious puritans by lovers of libertinism.

    How ironic, then, that a culture which rejects moral standards has suddenly become so pure and pristine, sitting in judgment of someone they deem too immoral to become president because of something he said in private. As a logical person, I have to ask these paragons of newly found virtue where this standard by which they’ve judged Trump is found.

    Source: https://pjmedia.com/blog/america-you-have-no-right-to-judge-donald-trump/

  81. T Says:

    Om,

    The point? As I have already stated A) much pearl clutching by our self-appointed betters; B) that, in light of statements like Ferguson’s above, we are bring played with a capital “P”.

    Also Neo,

    above (@ 3:45) you asked: “If Trump is going to lose, . . . Why prostitute yourself further?”

    Further? I don’t consider that I have prostituted my integrity at all.

  82. OM Says:

    T:

    Once again Kemosabe, who is this “we” you are speaking of. As in “we” are being played. Many have pointed out Trumps obvious flaws and political aortic aneurisms from the get go. Now they are manifest, and being exploited.

    Trump’s only surprise has been that there is no bottom, he continues to lower expectations and standards every week. Sort of the crazy clown of the 2016 election.

  83. T Says:

    We, the electorate, are being played not because of these revelations about Trump, but because the same people who applauded Jerry Stubbs for leaving U.S. jurisdiction to have sex with minors and who overlooked Bill Clinton’s numerous trips on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” (among other issues) would now have us believe that they are the guardians of our virginal ears as they work to whip up the villagers in a frenzy.

    Vulgarity? Obama has hosted vile-speaking rappers and felons with ankle-bracelets at the White House (crickets). It speaks to Trump’s sense of power putting him above the law? Choose any one of several of Clinton’s felonies (crickets).
    But Trump? Grab your firebrands and pitchforks and follow us! Kill the monster! Kill the beast! (Heh! They learned from Gaston).

    Now for the record, let me repeat, I in no way condone Trump’s crudity or vulgarity. That being said, there is no there there.

  84. T Says:

    And OM, one additional comment. I don’t believe that if Walker or Fiorina or Cruz were the nominee that things would be any different at all.

    The common denominator here is the Clinton campaign (including the MSM) and I am absolutely convinced that they would pull out all of the stops regardless of the target. Different issues? To be sure. Nicer? More civil? Not on your life!

  85. neo-neocon Says:

    T:

    The “you” I was addressing in that sentence was any reluctant Trump voter. “You” plural.

  86. neo-neocon Says:

    T:

    They would pull out all the stops, but what they would come up with would have been far more difficult to successfully attack. Trump is by far the most target rich environment.

  87. J.J. Says:

    As an addition to snopercod’s offering, I submit this:
    “So now we have a tape that show’s Trump is an immoral, nasty guy, speaking as many guys do in their “man-space” (frats, military bases, golf courses, locker rooms). Is it defensible? No. Is it gross? Yes. Is it immoral? Indeed. But for a society that has declared absolute morality dead, what credible response does it have to Trump or anyone else?

    It doesn’t have one. All it has is mock outrage that signifies nothing.

    Can Democrats (and Republicans) who defended Bill Clinton criticize Trump with any moral authority? No. They have no moral authority. They abandoned it for political gain, and that’s all they’re concerned about today—power, not virtue.”
    Also: https://pjmedia.com/blog/america-you-have-no-right-to-judge-donald-trump/

    The author has a point. We have been slouching toward Gomarrah for so long that to raise our voices in indignation about Trump’s statements is hypocrisy of the first order. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Time for us as a nation to recognize how far our moral standards have fallen.

  88. T Says:

    Neo,

    “You” (pl). One of the great limitations of the English language. Point taken.

    “. . . what they would come up with would have been far more difficult to successfully attack.”

    I will not excuse that Trump has made it easier for them. No question about that, but “more difficult”? You don’t know that and neither do I. Just remember Romney gave a woman cancer while keeping women in binders while wanting to make tampons illegal—and Romney lost the election, too.

  89. T Says:

    J.J.,

    “Can Democrats (and Republicans) who defended Bill Clinton criticize Trump with any moral authority? No. They have no moral authority. They abandoned it for political gain . . . .”

    Absolutely. The problem is, however, that they have the microphone and the loudpeakers, and the feckless Republican party has failed to countermand that. Now, I fear it may be too late (I would love to be mistaken).

  90. OM Says:

    T:

    Trump assumes he can skate past this one too. I don’t see it happening because it is another button they will push to get an outraged incoherent response from the Donald. Which will further chip away and deflect from any other topic that is bad for Hillary.

    Those who watch the debate tomorrow (if Trump shows up) will know. I’ll find out on Monday. I don’t like watching political suicide vest events.

  91. T Says:

    OM,

    You may be correct. As I said to Neo above you don’t know that and neither do I, but I would not dismiss your point as an outlier either. As you said, we will find out on Monday (and also in the following days).

  92. T Says:

    Also, let me draw attention to John Hinderaker (again H/T, Instapundit:

    What would the Democrats do? Here there is no need to speculate: we saw what they did in the 1990s. They circled the wagons and defended their man to the hilt, using whatever smears and lies were helpful, even though he was credibly accused of rape and multiple instances of sexual harassment. Indeed, that is what the Democrats are doing now with Hillary Clinton, as revelations much more material to her performance in office than the Trump video have come out over the past year or two. See, generally, Clinton Cash. Republicans are always held to a higher standard than Democrats, but why? Maybe this is as good a time as any to reject the double standard and fight fire with fire.

    As I wrote above, sometimes it’s valor that’s the better part of valor. Whether this is one of those times, who knows? This, however, is how wars are fought and we are in a war on which IMO the future of the Republic hangs in the balance (fifteen years from now, I would appreciate being proven wrong about that).

    The Powerline link:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/time-to-jump-ship.php

  93. parker Says:

    J.J,

    Voices of indignation are hypocrisy of the first order? Have you ever grabbed a woman by her pussy or joked about doing so? I suspect the answer to the second question is no. You are older than me, but I also suspect you, like me and millions of other boys were raised to cherish and protect the fairer sex. So personally, I do not feel a teeny tiny bit hypocritical in finding djt loathsome and deserving a severe beating for treating women as objects of his lust.

    The fact that slick willy and many others share his attitude towards women is beside the point. It is said you are what you eat; I would add that you are also what you excuse or apologize for. I don’t think you should go there.

  94. OM Says:

    Ah Trump, he has the talent for bringing out the best in people. /jk 🙂

  95. Ira Says:

    T: Thanks for the link to John Hinderaker’s article at http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/time-to-jump-ship.php

    I think it’s important to note that Hinderaker, while not sanguine about how this election will turn out for the conservative case, does not think we should be jumping ship:

    First, the most recent revelation–Trump making crude comments on video in 2005–doesn’t materially change my evaluation of the candidates. I was never under any illusions as to Trump’s character, his competence or his conservatism. I think he is a horrible Republican nominee. But he is still better than Hillary Clinton. His character is no worse than Hillary’s, he is more conservative (or less liberal), and he would make a better president. So I have every intention of voting for him as the lesser of two evils. I strongly reject the idea that there is some kind of moral obligation to abandon Trump.

    ***

    If a switch to another candidate, with Trump’s consent, can be carried out quickly and smoothly, fine. But if that is not possible–I assume the party’s leaders, Reince Preibus et al., have scoped this out–then I think Republicans whose election chances are not imminently in jeopardy are better served to stand by their nominee, bad as he may be. It is easy to answer reporters’ questions by explaining why Trump, with all his faults, is superior to the incompetent, corrupt and left-wing Hillary Clinton. In fact, this may be one of the few chances that most Republicans get to attack Hillary on camera. Why not take advantage of the opportunity? Republicans everywhere should be prepared to tell reporters that even an inept, immoral, centrist rookie like Donald Trump is not as bad as Hillary Clinton.

  96. Csimon621 Says:

    @ CapnRusty —
    Thanks for the entertaining and (momentary, anyway) diversion w/ link to “Dilbert understands things…”
    Now back to reading comments.

    By the way, have most of you seen John Podesta’s response to the first of Wikileaks rvelations? The Russians did it! THEY”gave it to Julian Assange. THEY are meddling in US elections! And “Trump loves the Russians” (per Hillary, Kaine, and DNC). Therefore that must mean Trump is behind whole email scandal Plays back into the “Trump didn’t reject Putin’s compliment so he must be on their side” story.
    This also follows the (few) news reports that the Administration officially”confirmed that the hacking” of Podesta’s email as well as the previously released DNC email that got dear Debbie Wasserman -Schultz fired was done by those bad Russians. Oh, and also, our intelligence networks have confirmed same (per White House sources). Most of which has slipped by under radar given radioactivity level of Trump hot mike tape.
    Lest I forget, this is after this week’s news (confirmed from emails between Clinton campaign and very top of Administration which was obtained via FOIA requests) that White House was indeed in cahoots with Clinton campaign to cover up Clinton’s private server and ensuing scandal. I think it’s pretty fair to jump from that to the failure of FBI to recommend prosecution of Hillary, and so on… I thought those were rather significant revelations, but apparently the MSM seem to believe they’re nothing compared to Trump’s boorish talk from 11 yrs. ago and so were not worth mentioning.
    Did I get this right? Is US Presidential election now officially in Twilight Zone and are we, the voters, as stupid as the Dems insist we are (which is why THEY MUST make every decision in our lives for us). For our own good, of course!

    “Art of The Deal.”

  97. Ymarsakar Says:

    October Surprise! I was wondering when they would pull out that one. The Leftist alliance is almost as powerful as they are predictable.

    Is US Presidential election now officially in Twilight Zone and are we, the voters, as stupid as the Dems insist we are

    The American people are worse than stupid, they’re weak.

    The British knew Americans were fools and stupid since at least Churchill. But they also said God has a special protection for America. Remove that special protection, and the end result is predictable.

    Can Democrats (and Republicans) who defended Bill Clinton criticize Trump with any moral authority? No. They have no moral authority.

    The Democrats that made fun of Republicans for trying to impeach Clinton, are now using the moral authority you’ve given them to defend Trum.

    Don’t pretend the sides of this battle are even, because in propaganda, if you aren’t cheating, you aren’t even trying.

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Time for us as a nation to recognize how far our moral standards have fallen.

    It’s past time for the nation to do so.

    As for casting stones to pulverize people, I’ll do that. It’s not a problem for me. Unlike the woman the Jews tried to entrap Jesus with, Trum is actually guilty, not just under human law but also divine ones.

    We all vilified Clinton for his behavior, should Trump now get a pass?

    Wrong question. The Art of Propaganda at work here is Alinsky Freezing and isolation. The Alt Right, by casting hypocrisy on attackers of Trum, is able to do damage control and limit the damage they take, by taking away the enemy’s Moral Authority.

    Unfortunately for Trum supporters, they also catch people like me or anti Clintons in the same kind of propaganda net and damage control. Since not everyone who holds Trum accountable, has the moral integrity of a Clinton or Demoncrat voter.

    One of the stupidities of people who borrow and copycat the Left’s propaganda mind control techniques, is their lack of fine tuned control over it. The Left has had a century and more to refine their procedures, SOP, and mass mind control methods. The Alt Right, not so much.

  98. Ymarsakar Says:

    Spiral Says:
    October 8th, 2016 at 1:36 pm
    This is what happens when you give the presidential nomination to a Hillary Clinton supporting, Jimmy Carter supporting, Chuck Schumer supporting Democrat from New York.

    This is all so predictable.

    Bill Clinton thought this up in advance. Bill Clinton decided he would encourage his friend Donald Trump to run in the Republican presidential primary in order to at minimum distract the GOP in the primaries, at maximum destroy the GOP’s chances of defeating his wife in the general election.

    And Republican primary voters fell for it.

    Heh, it’s the Parker theory, so to speak. Since people like Parker have held it for some time.

    Me, I’m always hedging my bets when it comes to prophecies. Even the act of speaking or writing it, could have unintentional quantum or contaminated “self fulfilling” outcomes. Well, too late to worry about that now.

  99. snopercod Says:

    From commenter fscarn over on Legal Insurrection:

    “Oh, Trump said a naughty word. I guess I’ll now have to reconsider my vote and be happy to install someone in the WH who’s enriched herself by selling what she never owned (i.e., American sovereignty, Independence, and safety), will accelerate globalism which will increase her net worth, will further degrade the work prospects of even more Americans, and will bring even more free-loading Muslims to America. Among lots of other undesirable objectives using her demonstrated lack of judgment and care for others.”…

  100. snopercod Says:

    I’ve been wondering why some women to want to hang around Billionaire Alpha Males like groupies. The reasons I can think of aren’t very flattering. Money? Power? Glamour? Hypergamy? Bragging rights? Masochism? Make their friends jealous? These women who are supposedly “outgraged” over Trump might want to do a little introspection. I seem to recall that during the Monica Lewinski scandal, some females secretly wished they could have been her. Reporter Nina Burleigh wished it openly. Certainly some men have less-than-admiral urges toward women, but that human weakness works the other way around, too.

  101. sdferr Says:

    Or rather, most men have less than admiral urges, with very few greater than admiral urges.

  102. T Says:

    Again, we are being played.

    October Surprise! I was wondering when they would pull out that one. The Leftist alliance is almost as powerful as they are predictable. [Ymarsaker @ 7:48 AM]

    From Instapundit (When does Glenn Reynolds have the time to teach?):

    2008 FLASHBACK: GOP Nominee McCain Is A Sexist, Entitled Predator. “How can purported feminists even contemplate voting for McCain when his creepy, fighter-jock attitude toward women has left a trail throughout his public career? Let’s look at just three dots of gender jokes over time and see if we can connect them.”

    The Dems use the same playbook every time, and the GOP is caught by surprise, every time.

    —Glenn Reynolds @ 8:50 AM

    The link from Instapundit: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/08/johnmccain.gender

    Now here’s a thought. Just what if the left’s playbook doesn’t work this time? I wrote above that I don’t see the sophistication in the Trump campaign. I still think that’s true, but what if sophistication is not what is required here. What if Trump responds with the “brute force” that he is known for and now, with the gloves off, the Clinton campaign finds that this was a fatal mistake?

    I know the anti-Trump commenters will simply pass this off as wishful thinking and fantasy land, but I think it more likely that Trump now responds with salvo after salvo (remember his “bomb the s**t out of them” remark). We shall see.

    One of the best comments on this issue I’ve found was that of Scott Adams (Dilbert who wrote that:

    If nothing new happens between now and election day, Clinton wins. The odds of nothing new happening in that timeframe is exactly zero.

    True that!

  103. snopercod Says:

    LOL! My spelling wasn’t admiral either.

    Jimmy Carter:

    I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.

  104. T Says:

    sorry for the awkward formatting–no working preview button here.

  105. OM Says:

    snopercod:

    Is there a “Godwins Law” for Jimmy Carter? /jk

    I remember Jimmy Carter, you are no Jimmy Carter. That would be a compliment.

    Oh well back to serious stuff.

  106. sdferr Says:

    Heh, snopercod.

    I must admit though, I couldn’t resist the temptation to get in a dig at Trump’s beta-manliness (and to include Mrs. C’s near perfect lack of any sort of manliness):

    “when at anchor here I ride, my bosom swells with pride, and I snap my fingers at a fo’eman’s taunts . . . but when strong breezes blow, I generally go below, and seek the seclusion that a cabin grants”.

    Implying too (for those who recall) the soon to follow lyric:

    Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
    If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
    If your Soul isn’t fettered to an office stool,
    Be careful to be guided by this Golden Rule:
    Stick close to your desks, and never go to sea,
    And you all may be Rulers of the Queen’s Navy

  107. snopercod Says:

    very appropriate, sdferr. I like how you think. (grin)

  108. huxley Says:

    So much wishing here. So much hopelessness.

    –Vanderleun

    So many self-righteous hypocrites. Watch their poll numbers – and elections – go down!

    –Trump

    Interesting how VDL takes on the tone of his dark master.

    I wonder who they think are persuading. Or is their desire to go down fighting and spitting, imagining they possess some moral high ground in defending Trump’s crotch grabs.

  109. Richard Aubrey Says:

    So NBC sat on this while The Donald was doing his show, and paid him big bucks to do it.

  110. OM Says:

    As a liberal New York democrat it (his behavior and history) was acceptable. Trump was not wise enough to realize that as a Republican (however loosely defined) it would not be. No one saw it coming, except the majority of voters in the Republican primary process. Strange that Trumo and his supporters missed that tiny detail.

  111. n.n Says:

    Shoot the messenger. The female chauvinists heading the Pro-Choice Church with its [degenerative] liberal ideology and quasi-religious selective principles is responsible for reducing women to taxable, serviceable, and democratically exploitable commodities, and debasing human life generally with class diversity, emigration reform, and especially abortion rites in a final solution. Democrats need a separation of Church and Party.

  112. neo-neocon Says:

    huxley:

    I think it’s mostly rage that things aren’t going well.

  113. OM Says:

    KING LEAR
    Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!
    You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
    Till you have drench’d our steeples, drown’d the cocks!
    You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
    Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
    Singe my white head! And thou, all-shaking thunder,
    Smite flat the thick rotundity o’ the world!
    Crack nature’s moulds, an germens spill at once,
    That make ingrateful man!

    But who is our loyal Fool?

  114. J.J. Says:

    parker: “Voices of indignation are hypocrisy of the first order?”

    I stand corrected. That should have read, “voices of indignation by those who excused Clinton are hypocrisy of the first order.” Back in our days we did place women on a pedestal as being the source of life and civility. And we did object to Clinton’s womanizing.

    We conservatives have tried to push back, unsuccessfully, against the “Playboy philosophy,” which objectified women and praised promiscuous sex. On the other side we have been unsuccessful in opposing the “Feminist manifesto” of abortion on demand and women demanding to perform any and all jobs formerly considered predominantly masculine. (SEALs, Rangers, firemen, policemen, etc.) Now we are reaping the whirlwind of that. Men have become the whipping boys of the feminists and women have become devalued (Single mothers are the poorest people in the country) and objectivized. (Playboy is gone, but on line porn has taken its place.) Promiscuous sex is accepted by all segments of society.

    Even though I have opposed these developments, I still feel some responsibility for what has happened. We should have done better. 🙁

  115. Big Maq Says:

    “OM, The convention was the last chance to dump. The RNC decided to applaud the captain of a ship of fools. The first chance was to tell djt he could not enter the primaries as a republican. Its over, the weakest D candidate in history will be POTUS. – parker

    Agree. And take it one step further…

    It is necessary that trump lose for the reasons he is losing today. There is a lesson to be learned by those who are at least willing to learn it here.

    So long as there are those many who still cling to trump as the “only” option, we will have a hard time reconciling and opposing clinton and the dems.

    It things don’t turn around for trump, expect him to gaslight the election, and do what he can to claim that the election was rigged and/or that the GOP collaborated in cheating him out of a win. That will be the next shoe to drop.

  116. OM Says:

    Big Maq

    That would fit the Trump past pattern of behavior, but now he will pivot and be a responsible adult. /jk

  117. T Says:

    Big Maq,

    “So long as there are those many who still cling to trump as the “only” option, . . .”

    That’s because Trump is the only option. As it stands, for better or worse as it <always stands, the result of the election will be binary.

    Now let me explain. I have gone on record saying that I am a reluctant Trump voter (actually an anti-Clinton voter). I could easily consider changing my vote to (probably) Johnson/Weld, but I will not waste my vote on a team that has no chance of winning.

    The onus is on Johnson and Stein to become competitive and to convince me that they stand some chance of winning this thing, not on me to donate my vote because they are “not Trump.” Neither of their campaigns have done anything to do that or to convince me to change my vote. They couldn’t even draw enough support to make the debate cut (although IMO they should have been there as a matter of course).

    IMO, and remember I’m speaking fro myself now, to vote for Johnson or Stein is like voting for the 20 to 1 mudrunner on a hard dirt track. They want my vote? Give me a reason to vote for them. Otherwise the only reasonable choice I have to keep Hillary out of the oval office is to vote fro Trump. And yes, I realize that even that might not be successful.

  118. OM Says:

    “Trump is the rape culture” or “Trump is Rape”

    I would assume that these are the go to protest signs or may now be with the feminists. Could be old news in their world.

  119. Ymarsakar Says:

    Something I haven’t seen mentioned yet, perhaps I missed it, is the previous idea that Trum is incorruptible against the Leftist alliance, which is why if we all put him into power, Trum will demolish or hold back the Leftist tide of evil and treason.

    Except DC is the capital of evil and has had decades to learn how to turn good people into whores and lackeys of the Left. What made Trum so special that he would be capable of resisting being corrupted?

    Offer him 5 blonde bimbos that look like his daughter, and Trum will not only do what you tell him to do, but he’ll have to do what you tell him to do because you’ll have evidence to blackmail him with, if you got that underage factor in the way the Clintons went to farm with on that prostitution ring for underage girls.

  120. Ymarsakar Says:

    Trum is the easiest type of human to turn, the one that can’t resist the Honey Pot.

  121. Big Maq Says:

    @Ymarsakar – you are hitting at a foundational assumption the “last chance” voters have.

    trump has shown us that he is willing to turn, faster than any chameleon, and perhaps without a “Honey Pot”, but just a whim.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge