On grabbing someone by the pussy, and consent
Boy, that’s one title I didn’t think I’d be typing in this lifetime.
But politics makes strange—bedfellows. And so I’ll briefly deconstruct the phrase.
First, the actual quote by Trump:
Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful ”” 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. You can do anything.
Many Trump-defenders have said that this implies consent on the part of the women. “They let you do it” is most definitely the operative phrase. Is that consent? Let’s see.
These days, colleges seem to think that sexual exchanges must consist of a series of overt questions and answers, much as in a courtroom. “May I touch you on the shoulder?” “Yes.” [* see NOTE below] “May I put my arm around you?” “Yes.” May I kiss you?” “Yes.” “May I touch your breast?” “Yes.” Up and down and around what used to euphemistically be called “the bases,” I suppose it could also include—somewhere along the way—“May I grab you by the pussy?”
Hey, I don’t have my finger on the pulse of dating mores these days, but I think that’s the way it’s supposed to go in 2016. But among actual living, breathing human beings (which still constitute the majority of the human race, I believe), it doesn’t usually go quite that way. A lot of this back-and-forth is ordinarily unspoken and subtle, which makes the issue of consent a thorny one.
We’re not going to solve the issue here today, either, because the situation is far from crystal clear. But if we want to take the Trump/pussy controversy seriously (and why not?), it brings up very large questions involving sex and power, men and women, and how consent is perceived and granted or should be perceived and granted.
As I understand his words, Trump is talking crudely, but he’s talking about the interface between power and sex, how men (and probably some women) either use their power to exploit people or use their power to get more sex from others through implied consent, and whether their underlings (who may be ambitious and on the way up, and hope to get something from the interaction, too) freely acquiesce or feel coerced, and why.
I would add that there are good reasons why some professions that involve a great deal of power—that of therapist, for example—feature an absolute prohibition on sex with a patient or client, because the power differential and the possibility for exploitation is considered so very great. Of course, real estate developer/TV celebrity is not considered one of those professions.
I don’t pretend to know what actually happened between Trump and all these women, and whether there really was a lot of unwanted pussy-grabbing. As I’ve said before in other posts and comments, the incident tells me nothing I didn’t already know about Trump and nothing I didn’t already know about the intricate dance between men and women. What it does tell me is that most people don’t want that kind of talk from their presidents and that the release of this audio doesn’t help Trump, who was already in deep trouble. But those who defend him because they believe the word “let” implies consent, and those who excoriate him because they believe the word “let” is meaningless here and the operative word is “grab,” are both incorrect. We are actually treading in one of the most unclear areas in the realm of relations between the sexes, and that’s saying something.
[* NOTE: Apologies to James Joyce.]
O Molly!
Neo … there you go again?
There is no more morality play in politics! That’s sad but the truth is it all depends on which party is seen as being immoral.
The medias take is one is bad … other is boys will be boys or more correct just ignore the story.
For me this election is so eye opening to the press as much as anything.
Burn the press down!
jack:
I don’t know what you’re trying to get at.
I’ve been excoriating the press for the 11 years I’ve been blogging. Pres bias is certainly not news to me. It’s a given.
My post is about something quite different. It’s not even about politics.
What i’m saying is YOU are moral and can’t let it go.
Of course it’s about politics. Press would ignore it if it were not about politics.
The press can’t let it go either because they believe it helps them help elect Hillary. That may very well help some but I don’t see a single DJT supporter caring about this. They justify it with all of Bills stuff. Now you may say But Bill isn’t on the ticket but if you don’t believe you are getting a 2 for one with the Hillary vote you are being naive.
jack:
Can’t let what go?
The issue of men and women and consent?
It’s an interesting issue that came up recently, so I’m writing about it. It’s certainly not been the focus of this blog.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t think you understand the post, or the point of the post.
The “let” controversy presumes, planted axiom possibly, that we’re talking about ordinary people.
“let” in the case of the rich and powerful can sometimes be different.
See Elvis who’d have been busy for many years grabbing women who’d “let” him.
Trump is only saying what is true in his world, true about some women.
In fact, we don’t know what “let” means. Goes along with a kiss and then distances herself? Gets really into it? Doesn’t complain as she some think she should if it were someone else?
I have heard it many times, and I believe it is from an old SNL skit. How to avoid–something or other negative in the dating world–“Be attractive. Don’t be unattractive.”
Creepy is an approach by a guy a woman doesn’t like and terrific is an approach by a guy a woman likes. Said many places on dating advice sites.
Point is, in Trump’s world, and that extends as I’ve said before, to a third-rate heavy metal band, “let” means something other than we think it means in the usual situations. IOW, it’s good to be king. Problem is…we’re not supposed to acknowledge it.
Apparently today’s lesson is, “Don’t get famous before you get married.” Or else your privilege will make all interactions with the opposite sex non-consensual.
I interpret Trump’s comment to mean that he’s realized that his wealth and celebrity make him very attractive to a lot of women. That he senses when that’s the case and feels no moral compunctions against acting on what he knows about women attracted to wealth, celebrity and power. That many will trade sexual access for the possibility of greater involvement. They’re betting that if they allow that access, the probability that the powerful man may form a relationship with them increases accordingly. Frankly, it’s a business transaction, to see (using a common sales phrase) “if they’re a good fit”.
My response to this whole thing, is, “How is this news?”
Sure, if you’ve recently arrived from the Victorian Era, the squalid world of celebrities and the people who sleep with them would seem pretty freaky and difficult to understand, but for those of us born in the 20th century, particularly the latter parts of it, this is not news. Trump is clearly not talking about raping people, or doing things without consent. He’s bragging about the women that make themselves available to him, because he’s a rich/famous celebrity. If this quote had surfaced from a popular lefty celebrity – because you know that approximately 100% of celebrities (particularly male, but very probably many female ones also) have said something in this vein at some point in a private conversation – it would have been laughed off or simply would never have seen the light of day.
It’s simple. People want things from celebrities. Money, gifts, adventure, the chance at being the next Mr/Mrs Celebrity, or just the lulz of sleeping with celebrities, or who knows what other tawdry motivations. One of the main forms of currency used to pay for that is and always has been sexual favors. It is, literally, a transaction: here is my body, now give me what I want.
When you present yourself as a piece of meat, one cannot even be remotely surprised that jaded celebrities in private refer to yourself as a piece of meat.
WHEW..!! Donny Boy is the poster child for the pathological archetype called King Baby. Toss in No Impulse Control, Malignant Narcissist & Scumbag…And, GASP, this the Republican Candidate!!!
Are we not Blessed?
Kyndyll
I think you’re right. But the context seems to be women who happen to be in the vicinity without necessarily offering themselves.
Trump, Kennedy(s),Clinton grope. The outrage is muted compared to what it would be if it were someone else. In fact, it might be a horrified giggle.
You don’t know what “let” means in this situation.
@GB – that may be “true” from trump’s “perspective”, but for those on the other side of the equation, it might not be true at all!
No doubt some are willing, but it is not about the women, it is about trump’s expressed expectations.
He has shown that he acknowledges his position of power, is willing to abuse it, and seems to delight in it.
We don’t have to be prudes to acknowledge that this might not go over so well with females in the voting public who may well have had encounters with such louts.
This is one of those situations where there is no good explanation to give that would help trump. He would have best leave it at an apology and move on… not claim it is “only locker room talk” and bill c was worse, even if true.
While all of this is interesting, it’s completely irrelevant to the current election. This election is not about who will be the best or worst president. This election is not about crooks or male chauvinist pigs. This election is the people’s last PEACEFUL attempt to take their country back from the corrupt politicians who have been ruling them for too long.
If Hillary wins at least half the country will consider her illegitimate and will absolutely refuse to be governed by any laws or executive orders she signs.
I suspect a number of cities and/or states will declare themselves “sanctuary” from federal laws and regulations dealing with guns, drilling, pipelines, EPA, OSHA and a host of other alphabet agencies in much the same way that cities have done with immigration laws under Obama….without consequences.
So, while this discussion is interesting it pales into insignificance when the future of the country is considered. It takes up the valuable oxygen we need to be using deciding if this country has any future at all.
We have to stop the media from diverting us from the real issues in this election.
We have to stop rearranging the deck chairs and start discussing how we’re going to stop this sinking ship! If we don’t, nothing will matter and we’ll all be moved back to the bottom of Maslow’s Hierarchy.
“This election is the people’s last PEACEFUL attempt to take their country back from the corrupt politicians who have been ruling them for too long.” Irv Greenberg
An important, perceptive point but incomplete. Half the country supports the corrupt politicians who rule them. Obama’s 54%+ approval rating is an indication of that grim reality.
Salt N Pepa’s “Let’s Talk About Sex” is one extremely boring bit of pop-music for a good reason, evidently, if not for multiple reasons at that.
On the other hand, simply urging “Push It” (whatever “it” is) stood them in better stead.
If Hillary wins at least half the country will consider her illegitimate and will absolutely refuse to be governed by any laws or executive orders she signs.
No way this happens.
What will happen is what has happened in every other election in our history (even during the civil war) – a peaceful transfer of power.
“… eye opening to the press”
Jack,
What took you so long?
Power and abuse of others who are weaker, be it for sex or for money, or for just cruelty and spite. A man (person) has to know his limitations; an adolescent could be said to have not learned that there are such things. We appear to have an adolescent running against “Satan in a pants suit.”
True, but I suspect the 46% will refuse to be ruled by the corrupt politicians and their illegitimate leader after this election. I could be wrong but I suspect the breaking point will have been reached.
The rallying cry will be something like “If the liberals don’t have to follow federal laws, neither do the conservatives!”
Haven’t you heard BHO is not going to allow the vote on Nov. 8! His approval numbers indicate that no one could govern better than he! The last chance to vote is GONE! /jk
Some of notion “let” in the minds of Trump and his ilk derives from idea that, in a bad situation, people will fight or flight. They don’t realise that freeze is another possible reaction.
When someone, say Trump, is twice your weight, more than twice your strength, much taller, and (perceived to be) able to destroy your life with a couple of phone calls, freeze could well kick in.
Anyone who knows someone who has been in that situation, has been there themselves, or has some measure of empathy will know that freeze is not consent.
A person who believes himself to be entitled to the use of other people’s bodies, a psychopath even, will interpret freeze as consent.
That is the critical different between fully developed humans and those with a PUA mentality.
sigh……..put one chair here and two over there………..
“… eye opening to the press”
Jack,
What took you so long?
I grew up believing no matter how bad things were the “press” would do their job. That’s what people do when they have a job … THEY DO THEIR JOB or they get fired. I’ve always thought there would be some bias but I guess it started when Obama was elected and began to notice that no matter what the MSM press would protect him.
I guess I’ve had Walter Cronkite syndrome … not any more though.
Trump folks will defend Trump no matter what he says or does.
As near as I can tell, there is no bottom to what Trump defenders will defend.
It’s a beautiful thing.
I remember a conversation between a Mafioso and his son, in which the older man says, “You think Mick Jagger’s had a lot of blowjobs?”
This was in 1969.
“Yeah, I think Mick’s done all right.”
“Dean Martin’s been getting blowjobs in hotel rooms for 25 years!”
Mayan.
WRT “freeze”. Seen it. But it doesn’t happen if the guy in question looks like Quasimodo. Q doesn’t get close enough.
I’d be interested in what happens after the hypothetical “freeze” and the encounter is over.
Is it “let” if the woman objects later? Freezes the guy and leaves the area?
As neo says, very complicated.
Keeping in mind that it’s good to be king and a disproportionate number of women in groping range might “let” it happen, even if they move away afterwards, smiling.
With all due respect, Mayan and others, random strangers do not just accidentally show up at parties and private events with celebrities and the rich and famous, with the innocence of a lamb and motives pure as the driven snow.
People in the scene already know the players. Newcomers know what to expect. No one who has the wherewithal to get near a Trump-caliber celebrity at an event would “freeze” in panic should that celebrity make a move on them. For the most part, it was the whole purpose of being there.
Some of my misspent youth was on the periphery of a situation that played out like this, in small scale. Less famous, less rich, but more rich than the girls who wanted a piece. (I was one of the regulars on the scene.) Perhaps I’m the jaded one, but I’ve seen this play out.
Again, not defending Trump, as you’ll recall I loathe the guy. I stand with reality, however.
Wasn’t there a big brouhaha when George Bush merely touched Andrea Merkel’s shoulders? Those were more innocent times.
jack:
See this on Walter Cronkite.
It may be another eye-opener for you.
“I grew up believing no matter how bad things were the “press” would do their job. That’s what people do when they have a job … THEY DO THEIR JOB or they get fired.”
Wonder how we explain what has happened in the “conservative” press? Not sure they were doing their job either.
The reality is that ALL media have a bias. Not all of them are explicit about that. Fox News Channel even advertises “Fair and Balanced”, yet, has it been?
We just need to be smart consumers. As with the growth of conservative media, and the internet, the time is coming where the old MSM is not going to have the influence it used to.
OM @ 6:09,
Of such are a narcissist’s dreams made…
Actually, I imagine that the UN Secretary is Obama’s dream job. Think of the advantages; a world wide stage from which to pontificate with no responsibility for events, opportunities for corruption on a far greater scale, plenty of time for golf and best of all, no term limit on the gig…
Irv Greenberg,
You can lead the horse to water but…
huxley,
Yes, that’s where our focus should be. By all means stop the con man, even though it ushers in the saboteur.
All,
Can anyone imagine Katherine Hepburn allowing a boor to get away with fondling her? Golda Meir? Margret Thatcher? Sarah Palin? Jean Kaufman?
“With all due respect, Mayan and others, random strangers do not just accidentally show up at parties and private events with celebrities and the rich and famous, with the innocence of a lamb and motives pure as the driven snow.” – Kyndall
Not all are “victims”, nor are all “consenting” is about as accurate as we can put this.
That some are willing does not excuse trump for the ones who are not.
Take your argument to the logical extent then it might be okay if trump doesn’t stop at grabbing and goes for a “home run”, because, after all, those who are in the periphery of a celeb are not so innocent.
Did trump do any of the things he is bragging about, who knows?
The problem is the message it puts out about trump to voters.
Many women encounter all kinds of loutish behavior. trumps words can only remind them of those fools, and this has a consequence. trump’s latest can only add to the perception about him wrt how he views his power and women…
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-trump/
“As with the growth of conservative media, and the internet, the time is coming where the old MSM is not going to have the influence it used to.” Big Maq
You don’t give much credence to warnings that Obama’s Internet ‘give away’ is a prelude to Internet censorship with “hate speech” rules?
Perhaps trump actually did grope …
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html
I find it hard to worry about hate speech laws when one is defending or minimizing behavior of a lout who would find no problem applying such laws to any dissent. Absolute power for a lout doesn’t protect anyone’s rights to consent or dissent.
@GB – if you haven’t figured it out by now, I am very much in favor of radically reducing the size and scope of government.
Will those rules automatically lead to the consequence you state. Maybe, maybe not.
But, of course, there is a natural tendency to stretch powers the government takes well beyond original intent. This is a danger that exists on both sides of the aisle.
As we speak we have civil forfeiture laws meant to attack the organized crime, yet it is used against regular citizens, who have virtually no recourse but to prove their (really, their asset’s) innocence in a court of law. Police forces are using that as a source of funds. Talk about twisted incentives.
So, yes, we need to be vigilante.
Totally OT, but I must not let all of this keep me from celebrating; according to todays BHO countdown calendar we are now down to double digits. 99 days!
Except for, you know, the Civil War itself.
Mt Hyperbole rises from the sea of despair and despondency, much like Surtsey from the mid-Atlantic ridge. Oh what a wonderful new day and new place to talk about!
Kyndyll:
You write:
Oh, so now every woman who goes to a party where a celebrity such as Donald Trump might be present is asking for it?
Wow. Just wow.
In my life, I’ve actually encountered a few celebrities at parties. And I had no idea that I was therefore up for grabs, as it were.
Would an exception be made for this event, perhaps?
By the way, the woman Trump was specifically talking about making moves on was Nancy O’Dell, who was a broadcaster with Access Hollywood at the time. I don’t think he was meeting her at a party, not that that really matters.
All the way back in 1969, a former NY Times insider, Herman Dinsmore, wrote an expose of the Democrat bias at the Grey Lady, appropriately titled “All the News That Fits”.
If given a choice in the matter, I think most women would opt for Trump’s crude language over being raped or sexually abused by Bill Clinton. They know that our media would cover the first event and ignore the second. History has proven this to be true.
I wonder how long the MSM have been sitting on all the bad behavior of Trump waiting to dump it at the best time.
“I find it hard to worry about hate speech laws when one is defending or minimizing behavior of a lout who would find no problem applying such laws to any dissent. Absolute power for a lout doesn’t protect anyone’s rights to consent or dissent.” OM
I’m surprised that you think that Trump could get Congress to pass hate speech laws. Whereas, with a democrat Congress and a compliant SCOTUS, what’s to stop Hillary? But in either case, I suspect you’ll care rather more when no outlet for expressing your POV remains and where people are being thrown in jail for violations of hate speech. Here’s our future under the democrats; “Man arrested for Facebook posts about Syrian refugees in Scotland”
(our rulers will decide of what offensive and abuse consists and of course it will evolve. Sometimes daily)
“Absolute power for a lout”? Where’s your faith in the American military’s oath of loyalty to the Constitution?
BTW, what’s your plan B… should Mt. Hyperbole erupt?
Big Maq,
Hillary insists upon ever larger government, in order to meet the people’s needs of course. Get used to it. The dems haven’t even begun to enact their redistribution schemes.
“Hillary insists upon ever larger government, in order to meet the people’s needs of course. Get used to it. The dems haven’t even begun to enact their redistribution schemes.” – GB
You say that like I already don’t know it.
That is the tragedy of this wasted election cycle.
I only hope people are not so turned off with trump that they still make their way to the booth and help the GOP retain both House and Senate.
News reports about four separate women out today, all claiming Trump groped them. I wonder how many it will take before people start believing them.
As for the guy claiming that the women around Trump couldn’t be “innocent” because of his reputation and because he was a celeb–I will repeat the “wow.” Among all the other things wrong with this, have you considered how many women were around Trump because it was their job to be there? Actresses, waitresses, maids, golf course workers, etc… Do they lose their innocent status as soon as Trump shows up at their workplace?
This whole affair makes me upset for my daughters, having to grow up in a world where so many people apparently still think this way.
“I wonder how long the MSM have been sitting on all the bad behavior of Trump waiting to dump it at the best time.” – Frank
Does it matter? If it came out before the GOP convention, but after Cruz dropped out, would it change anything that has transpired?
Given how many awful things came to light on trump before Cruz dropped, doubtful even this would change people’s minds.
This video was just the latest in an exhausting string of things from trump.
Wonder if people would complain if the shoe was on the other foot and the “conservative” media published some late game shocker on clinton the might have been in their possession for some time – nah, probably would be fist pumps with “YES!!!”.
I will take anyone, even a groper, in preference to a woman who will sell out the country to the highest bidder. The first is uncomfortable; the second is deadly.
Ok – so it’s not ok for Trump to talk dirty on a hot mic in 2005, but it’s ok for Obama to strut his erection in front of a plane of men and women in 2008? Just query Obama and erection and you’ll get the options to view.
As a woman, I object more to the action of Obama and what Hillary/Bill have done than words of Trump.
And the comments by pro athletes about how they never hear that language in their locker room – I would suggest that there is a difference in 2005 and 2016. They are taught not to say that stuff now….but I would bet that we would still still hear x-rated stuff. Just listen to all those reality tv shows at prime time. lots of bleeps and stuff.
Why do we let the common man be crude but expect the potential leaders to be pure? Based on what has been written by SS people covering the Clinton family, their language has not been that pure. And I find it so more offensive that a First Lady swear at people who are supposed to protect them.
By the way – Crutcher had a very high level of PCP and another drug in his system.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/10/legal-game-changer-terence-crutcher-had-high-levels-of-pcp-when-shot-by-ok-police/
Irv Greenberg:
If you’ve read this blog, and the comments on it, for any length of time, you certainly know that “groper” is the tip of a very large iceberg in terms of objections to Trump.
And one of the less serious ones, unfortunately. There are far, far worse.
liz:
Keep going with imagining that nonsense, if it makes you happy.
I cannot stand what Obama has done as president, but there’s zero evidence of sexual acting out on his part.
Geoffrey:
Point is not to condemn women who show up at a celebrity do. Point is, Mayan’s idea of “freeze” when somebody seen as powerful and non-threatening tries a move is likely correct. How the woman takes it is another issue.
Ever been at, say, a Christmas party and seen Santa Claus go up to a woman and kiss her? No problem, most of the time.
Second time, though….
Anyway, the idea of “let” is different for Santa Claus and, I submit, for guys like Trump.
So when Trump talks about “let”, we should keep the possibility in mind.
As neo says, it’s complicated.
But, as I keep saying, it’s better to be king than Quasimodo.
Be attractive. Don’t be unattractive.
Yikes. This election has crawled on hands and knees directly into a territory formerly owned by the late great, Frank Zappa.
Geoffrey:
“I’m surprised that you think that Trump could get Congress to pass hate speech laws…”
I’m surprised that you don’t recall Trump’s musings on the First Amendment and the press. I guess you think he would object to a democrat congress passing such laws. He has a history of going after those he feels have not been “nice” to him. Memory is a funny thing.
Richard Aubrey:
Don’t “Be attractive.” around Donald Trump. And don’t ask questions of Donald Trump when Corey is around, and don’t ….Simple solution, don’t elect Donald Trump.
Yikes, Neo. While I have disdain for celebrity-chasers, I’m not that crude. My comment about getting near someone at an event was shorthand for engaging and letting one’s intentions be known. I rewrote that a couple of times to tone it down, but obviously left it a mess. I certainly did not mean that merely attending a social event is “asking for” being assaulted. Nor do I see what Trump said to have anything to do with assaulting or raping people.
This quote was something of Rorschach blot – interpreted differently by different people. I don’t think any of us know Trump or know exactly what he meant at the moment he was saying it, but in my case, because I’ve seen girls actively and very willingly trying to get in bed with rich guys because they think they’ll get something (aside from STDs and embarrassment) out of it, that affects how I hear it.
Hence why, when I originally heard the recording on CNN, I did not immediately assume Trump means that he just walks up to random strangers on the street and grabs their crotch. I took that statement in its entirety to mean that because he’s such a big star, women gravitate to him and welcome his advances. The term “let” here is important. This brag is all about women who actively want his advances – altogether different from how a violent predator might brag about, say, his ability to get away with dragging screaming women into the cellar because he’s a star.
I’m convinced if the shoe were on the other foot many Trump supporters would be calling for the head of the Democrat who had said and done half of what Trump has said and done.
This election, my first as a completely disillusioned former Republican, has been illuminating.
Mr. Frank:
I wonder how long the MSM have been sitting on all the bad behavior of Trump waiting to dump it at the best time.
No one should be surprised by this. Conservatives need to quit whining about the media and learn to anticipate, to outwit, to out maneuver.
Big Maq:
You say that like I already don’t know it.
That is the tragedy of this wasted election cycle.
Amen.
liz Says:
By the way Crutcher had a very high level of PCP and another drug in his system.
Liz – being on PCP is not a capital offense.
What’s wrong with you people!?
Finally – I know many strong women. For example, my daughter in law. Missionary kid, grew up in several asian countries, brilliant, speaks Mandarin, Thai, Spanish and English (with some French too). Also trained in martial arts.
Try any of the cr@p on her Trump has, or even engage her in an argument about how women in the vicinity of star males are “not innocent” and “know what to expect”, or how it’s “good to be the king” – well, she’d probably hand you your pasty white a__ in a hubcap.
This stuff is not OK.
“This brag is all about women who actively want his advances”
No it’s not. It’s all about women who he *thinks* actively want his advances.
Big difference.
Just out of curiosity. Those who are outraged by Trump’s words. Which would outrage you more: Hearing Trump’s naughty words that he said 11 years ago. Or being sexually assaulted by Bubba Clinton. And, yes, Bubba IS on the ballot because Mrs. Bubba organized a gang on lawyers, called the Bimbo Patrol, to crush any woman who complained about her treatment by Bubba. (And yes, Bubba WAS Clinton’s nickname back in Arkansas.)
That’s the problem. The Donald changed wives so often that he didn’t have a devoted loyal spouse (joking here) to organize and maintain a “Trumpbo Patrol.” It is one of those unintended consequences I suppose. Poor Donald no one told him being a star was going to be hard.
Jon Jewett:
One of the interesting things about the argument you advance is that it’s a false choice, because not many people here are outraged by Trump’s words.
They are outraged by many many other things about Trump that bear far more directly on what a Trump presidency would be. Some of it has to do with the fact that he, much like Hillary, has given every indication of being drunk with power. He just hasn’t had political power yet, but he certainly wants it.
Then there is your implication that Trump just trafficked in words rather than deeds, and that Bill Clinton assaulted women. There have been some women who have indeed alleged that Bill did assault them sexually. Guess what? There are also some women who have alleged that Trump assaulted them sexually. I have no idea who is telling the truth. Maybe none, maybe all, maybe some. You don’t know, either. We know for sure that both Trump and Bill Clinton had consensual affairs while married, but that’s all we actually know.
And argue all you want about how awful Hillary is—no one here disagrees that she is abominable, too. Lots of abominableness to go around, isn’t there?
However, the fact is indisputable: Bill Clinton is not running for president.
You know what else? If he were, he’d probably win.
OK, I must be from the era of Victoria. Crass comments about females, let alone abuse, in the first case deserves our scorn and in the second case a cause for a severe beat down. I don’t care who does it or what their political afiliation might be. It is to be condemned in the strongest terms. Excuses, excuses, a chicken’s ass.
Those who excuse…. have you no mother, sister, wife, daughter, daughter inlaw, or neice? Shame on you.
Kyndyll:
Well, I was just responding to what you actually wrote. Glad to hear it wasn’t exactly what you meant.
I’m also responding to what Trump actually said, not what I wish he’d said or meant or think he should have meant. He was saying that he doesn’t wait, he just kisses or grabs, and that they “let” him.
Do you really think he formally asks? And of course, he thinks he’s responding to some signal the woman is sending. That’s dangerous fire he’s playing with, if he’s not waiting and just grabbing.
@Jon – Really? That is rather daft, sorry to say so bluntly.
There is a threshold beyond which two stupid behaviors cannot be compared to make the “lesser” one look any “better” by comparison.
Then asking if one is more willing to be a victim of either of them reaches beyond ridiculous.
Other objections to Trump?
Well, yes.
For instance, years ago, I read a little book by Herman Kahn, and it made a permanent impression on me.
And so, when I look for a president, I look for someone who is serious, prudent, and informed on this most difficult of issues.
I didn’t see those qualities in Barack Obama, and I don’t see them in Trump.
Crap. Cannot refresh to see new comments when writing. Looks like some addressed what I had. …
“It is to be condemned in the strongest terms. Excuses, excuses, a chicken’s ass.
Those who excuse…. have you no mother, sister, wife, daughter, daughter inlaw, or neice? Shame on you.” – parker
Well said. That is what is so unbelievable about the “but bill clinton did…” line of argument.
Not sure why the OJ Simpson acquittal comes to mind, but there seems to be a link in the kind of thinking here and the cheers heard in some precincts then.
@Jim – what’s the liklihood that trump knows anything about Kahn?
@ Big Maq :
@ Irv Greenberg, 10-12-16 5:29 PM
Will never happen. While many would like to think they might/would/could, they won’t for one very real reason: the Left who do such things like completely ignore Federal Immigration LAW (on the books!), have no compunction about flouting the law as they put themselves on a higher plane of moral authority and thus are doing what they should (or so they’ve convinced themselves and each other) that it’s right so who gives a fig what the law is. From that we get “sanctuary cities.” From that we get a President who doesn’t like the law and cannot get legislators to change it so not only does he flout it, but he orders federal employees like ICE, Border Patrol, and local law enforcement to follow his directives as opposed to law.
And it rarely, if ever, happens that conservatives put their vision or beliefs above law. It’s one thing to fight for what you believe in and many do. But few will ignore existing law and break it until or if they can bring about change.
It just doesn’t happen because the former consider themselves more enlightened and better people and it is necessary to enlighten others, make things “right” and “fair” by whatsoever means they deem necessary.
Jon Jewett: So… if or when (at this rate, it certainly will happen) it’s determined that Trump actually did assault women, and that he took steps to cover it up, I can only assume that you’ll renounce your support for him. Right?
Irv: “I will take anyone, even a groper, in preference to a woman”
… maybe you could have stopped right there? I know that’s more the part that actually rubs ‘some people’ (but not you, I’m sure!) the wrong way…
… Anyway, what exactly gives you any confidence that Trump is so magnanimous and altruistic and uninterested lining his own and his family’s pockets hand over fist if he were elected into office? This is a man who has only demonstrated two things he cares about: His net worth and his precious Trump brand. You trust him to be more immune to personal profit motivations and selling out than Hillary? That’s just crazy.
Reality: Trump is a paranoid, delusional, thin-skinned, vindictive, emotionally unstable, amoral, narcissistic, racist, misogynistic, faux-alpha bully who chooses to live in a fantasyland cocoon of syncophants. He has no scruple, no real sense of decency, no capacity or attention span for details, is someone I cannot trust to defend the Constitution and execute our laws faithfully, and certainly cannot be trusted to “bring back law and order” (which would simply mean to do his personal bidding, civil liberties be damned).
Now, you can vote for him knowing that because you still see Hillary as too dangerous. You can ignore that she’d have (presumably) a Republican controlled congress to have to get past to wreak any serious mischief.
But I wouldn’t want Trump as a principal at my kid’s elementary school, mayor of my town, or CEO of my company, let alone as President of the US.
Neo – today was the first day I saw that video – did he have an erection – I really don’t know, but the posturing, etc suggests that he was playing it up. It pissed me off.
It’s guy thing – just like many other men who brag, posture, and whatever. Just like I assume that Trump was playing it up with another guy.
Bill – what I have heard about people on PCP, they can explode in very violent manner. I do not want to be facing those people at any time.
But just in case you were being sarcastic – I have been mugged and it affected me for a few years. When I was brave enough to get a gun, I was still nervous about carry.
When an employee was sexually assaulted, the local police told us to carry and aim center, even though it was not “legal” at the time. I carried my gun and I was ready to protect my employee, regardless about what I may be charged with – I cared about my employee. Is that a crime?
There comes a time when you have to realize that I am trying to help people but there are some people really don’t give a shit and want to kill other people.
Is my life worth less than those bastards? If I am carrying – I am going to protect MY LIFE.
Sorry @ Big Maq– In prev. post had meant to include comment re: your post. With large part of rich, powerful, celebrated, it is all about THEIR expectations and little else. Until the GOP nominee was decided, “The Race” was about little more than Hillary’s expectations and sense of entitlement and how she and Bill (a.k.a. “The Clinton Machine”) were going to make that happen no matter what. That is, she was going to ascend to the throne no matter what and she had made whatever deals and paid whatever dues were necessary to insure that.
The WiliLeaks emails thus far published, do nothing if not raise even a partial curtain on the extent of the calculation, planning and conscription of allies within the DNC, the Media,the current Administration, inside the country, outside the country to reach that goal NO MATTER WHAT!
It seems they did not expect Assange to get his hands on that which he has and are now engaged in efforts (rather clumsy ones at that but which may suceed just because of of their high degree of control of messaging) to discount the veracity of the information by insisting “the Russians did it” and the Russians have even planted made-up emails! They’re relying on tried and true technique of get out message and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it again, and then again from as many sources as possible.
(
Mark Martel,
Trump seeks to assure hrc has at a minimum a D majority senate. He came to destroy. IMO that is the only logical conclusion. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…. must be a duck.
Now comes this from a reporter at People magazine:
And there’s more coming. It is so over. Hillary in a landslide.
Big Maq – “[W]hat’s the liklihood that trump knows anything about Kahn?”
If he does know anything about Kahn, or those difficult issues, he has concealed it during this campaign.
In fact, I’ll go further. I don’t know of any serious books he has read in the last 40 years. (I assume he read some at Wharton.)
(If he has, I’d love to know which ones.)
I remember my kids sitting on the couch getting ready for school, watching the morning news shows, international press conferences with repeated questions about semen on a dress and phone sex. I wondered how this would affect their opinion of the presidency.
Every network TV show from cartoons to sitcoms were laden with sexual innuendo, which has only gotten worse. MTV going from music videos to soft-core porn for teenagers, exploring the limits of depravity to the point I finally blocked it (and its spin offs, VH-!, 2, 3, 4, 5…)
Now debate moderator Anderson Cooper, whose New Year’s Eve stints with the despicable co-host who tried to unzip his pants on live TV, with him laughing, as they had to be more outrageous than the previous year, pretending sanctimony at this Presidential debate…
And who can forget Maddow and Cooper and their media co-horts chortling and tittering as they called the sincere Tea Party folks ‘tea-baggers,’ with long discussions about how they ‘should have known’ it was slang for a man dipping his balls in another man’s mouth. The poor innocent normal people were aghast, and trapped by the depravity of the media…
No, I have no sympathy for all this phony outrage.
Trump’s a cad, ok, but Hillary is a conniving grifter who steals from the poorest of the poor in Haiti, who sells our national secrets for money, who left men to die in Benghazi put a man in jail for her cover up story, and then claimed she had lost ‘no Americans’ in Benghazi, who actively worked to destroy women who had the misfortune of letting her husband grab their pussy, and some who didn’t ‘let’ him… til Monica had the infamous dress with the semen on it, and thwarted her plans to destroy her…
NO, that woman cannot be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office, NO MATTER WHAT.
And especially not over some braggadocious comment from years ago.
Mark Martel – I’m amazed that you think you know enough about me to accuse me of sexism. It must be wonderful to be able to read minds like that. For the record, I meant exactly what I said; nothing more and nothing less.
Neo – I really don’t care what comes out about Trump. What I care about is the country. I know that Hillary has a history of actually selling out the country and Trump doesn’t. No one knows what kind of a president Trump would be, least of all him in my opinion. I do believe that he loves this country and would try to make it successful, even if only for his ego. I also know from the way Obama and Bush have been treated that Trump would be on a much shorter leash than Hillary would be and would have much less opportunity for mischief, no matter how bad he might turn out to be.
Csimon621 – All past history agrees with your assessment. However, I believe in this case that conservatives would not feel they were violating legal laws but only illegal ones made by an illegitimate president.
liz:
I think it’s wrong to conclude something that there’s no evidence whatsoever for. Posturing? I don’t find his pose unusual, and I don’t find it to be “posturing.”
Obama has many huge flaws, but sexual stuff is not generally one of them. It’s not his style. (I actually wrote on that subject before, here.)
Irv – This wasn’t directed at you, nor many here – I called that out, did I not? For some Trump supporters, though, the gender difference grossly changes the calculus of their choice, and willingness to excuse or overlook Trump’s fundamental lack of conscience and trustworthiness.
Once more and again if necessary, I have to ask the trump apologists: if you have no mother, sister, wife, daughter, daughter inlaw, or neice? The answer is obviously no or you don’t care.. Your defense of trump is shameful, as was the left’s defense of slick willy. Congratulations, you are beyond the pale.
Mark Martel,
Rereading your 11:40 post, I have to ask if you are a part of the problemn or simply a confused puppy?
Parker – I’m idealistic, certainly. Maybe both? What do you see as the problem?
@ Mark Martel:
I am one who can barely stand Trump but I have conservative values. Also I cannot stand Hillary more.
Trump had enough money and succeeded in building his precious brand some time ago which is why his recognizability was so high before running. Hillary has done little but covet the wealth and power with which she has mingled for years. Unbridled ambition and marriage got her the money part by age of almost 70 even if meant trading on a public position and risking her homeland’s security. But the power part — not yet nailed down. What might she trade on for that? Anything and everything!
Trump has a nice life without Presidency. Plenty of money, plenty of power, dream wife, grown kids, young kid, grandkids… Hillary, though, should she not be elected will have money thanks to her pay for play; also a beloved daughter, grandkids…and failure without that power of her own.
Given all your descriptions of Trump are accurate, how can you even suppose Hillary is not equally paranoid (she coined the phrase “Right-wing conspiracies,” plenty delusional – either she was delusional that her husband was faithful even when he was at least a sexual opportunist of nth degree, at worst a serial offender who didn’t care who knew, who saw, who cared; she’s as vindictive they come, especially toward her husband’s sexual victims; emotionally unstable–her violent temper is legendary as is her foul mouth; amoral is at the least an understatement. Might want to add venal, calculating… conspiratory. Narcissistic? Check! We know her to be as racist and misogynistc as anyone are those in her most-trusted inner circle (maybe you haven’t read any of the WikiLeaks emails yet?). And decency and scruples? I don’t know Donald Trump as well as you seem to but Hillary has publicly demonstrated little else but unfulfilled ambition not to be sacrificed for mere human traits such as those. She does have the concentration for memorized speech details and entertaining zingers but requires coaching for the smallest bit of relateability and likeability behavior like smiling, how not to laugh maniacally, and maybe not to do silly things like bark like a dog on the stump…. They are both seriously and serially truth-challenged though his seems to be more for narcissitic, boastful purposes while hers are calculated full-blown lies conceived to deny the unbelievable means she has resorted to in order to achieve her ends or divert attention from her misdeeds to red herrings.
So your point about Trump vs. Hillary? Character-wise and personally? One difference might be that she has very long record which she cites as qualification for Presidency but actual is one long abysmal void of actual accomplishment for the people she was supposed to be serving. She has used the system and abused the system. For God’s sake, she was even caught stealing everything from furniture to State gifts and silverware when she had to move out of the White House and if that wasn’t enough used that terrific judgment of hers to commit vandalism there to stick it to the Bushes! In between she failed miserably at the task of creating a better healthcare system when her husband gave her a job. As Senator the only legislation she wrote were naming a couple if places.
As for Trump, whatever else he’s done, he’s been exceedingly successful at building a huge real estate and service/hospitality empire, at creating a long-running hit on TV, and he’s undeniably a veritable genius at P.R. (He likely would not be her rival otherwise). He also has had a long list of employees who have happily testify to his fairness and equalitywhen it comes to those whonwork for him. She, not so much.
Given that the two are probably the most depressingly dismal nominees ever in a US Presidential race, why is Hillary a better candidate?
Csimon621 – Leaving aside policy for the moment and considering just character, Hillary is flawed of course but not equivalent. Trump is worse by degree.
I just don’t see Hillary being elected as the apocalypse (knowing that’s popular around here). But I see Trump’s extreme authoritarian character hitched to an alt-right mob tide as scary dangerous in the seat of power.
“an alt-right mob tide” – you mean, people who don’t want terrorists coming in through the border sieve? Who think it’s unfair to people who wait to come here legally and play by the rules to give blanket amnesty? Who think government should not be all powerful? Who think government should not burden people with excessive regulation and excessive taxation? People who BELIEVE in the absolute goodness of our Constitution, of people being free to speak, associate, practice the religion of their choice, or not? THOSE people? The ‘alt-right’? People who find it grotesque that the left excuses those who behead people on camera and broadcast it to the world? Who think stoning your daughters to death for talking to a boy on the phone is wrong? THOSE PEOPLE? DANGEROUS? Ummm. Sorry, no.
Ann Says:
October 13th, 2016 at 12:18 am
Now comes this from a reporter at People magazine:
* * *
I don’t know anything about this writer, and have no way to judge her veracity.
BUT Anita Hill came out of the woodwork so conveniently to slander Clarence Hill, and the NYT tried to push a story about John McCain having an affair (and was shot down in flames on that one), and I’m sure there are a few other examples of press collusion to favor the Dems (/sarc), so: excuse me for not taking her word on this one without some independent confirmation.
Clarence Thomas (duh)
Rose: You misunderstand my position and my concerns.
I’m fine with enforcing border and immigration laws. I’m fine with fighting ISIS. I’m fine with looking for ways to improve the economic conditions of our struggling middle class citizens. I’m fine cutting corporate taxes to retain jobs. I’m fine looking for ways to reduce corruption and reform political finance. I’m fine re-examining trade agreements. I’m fine with reducing government power. I’m fine with not offering amnesty to illegal immigrants.
If you like Trump’s positions on key policy issues, that’s totally fine with me!
The problems I have with Trump aren’t with any of the points you mentioned. It’s the *style of governing* and *character flaws which incline him towards abuse of power* with both Trump and his supporters/proxies that I have serious concerns about.
I’m not OK with promising to jail political opposition or make thinly veiled threats about assassinating them; suppress press critics (which is necessary for a well-functioning government); promoting intolerance and violence against racial or religious minorities; or granting local police departments a blank check to do whatever they want to “restore law and order” and “clean up the immigrant problems.” I’m not OK with a President who is willing to play fast and loose with perceptions of election fairness. In general, Trump just makes up whatever facts fit his story all the time, and refuses to take accountability for what he’s said and done. He shows no conscience, no integrity, and he’s ruthless and vindictive.
That is *extremely dangerous* in a position of high power.
I could go on and on, but basically, the higher the power, the more trust you have to place in someone not to abuse it.
I simply don’t trust Trump to defend the Constitution, responsibly use the powers of the executive branch, and maintain the dignity of the office. He’s not capable of restraining himself, and being encouraged by stadiums full of alt-right supporters who I think have a more racist, paranoid, delusional, and repressive nature than you’re copping to makes me even more concerned.
Rose:
No, “alt-right” doesn’t refer to people who support those things.
Nor does it refer to the majority of Trump’s supporters.
It refers to a small but very activist and well-organized minority of Trump’s supporters who believe that Trump is a way for them to get more power and influence. They are not the least bit interested in the checks and balances of government; they are interested in power, and some of them are white supremicists (that is, neo-Nazis). There are many articles about the alt-right, and if you Google it you can learn more about it.
In listening to many commenters here talk about how their preferred candidate is terrible but still one or two degrees less terrible than the other major party candidate, I find myself asking the question: “why are you voting for terrible?”
You don’t have to. ThE reason our political parties put up such awful candidates is we keep rewarding them with our votes.
Votes are currency – the more you spend currency on a bad product the more of that you’ll get. The reason 2016 presents such a dire choice is the parties KNOW that they will have a bunch of binary-choice vote zombies faithfully casting ballots for them.
I’m voting for McMullin/Finn most likely. First order of business is to let the major parties know they suck by delivering a large protest vote. Second is to vote for deserving down-ballot conservatives, but I won’t be voting for any Trump-heads or anyone aligned with alt-right goons. Then we try to pick up the pieces following the election. (For you apocalytic types, don’t bother telling me America won’t exist after the election. Your part of the problem, not part of the solution)
We’ll go from there…
Csimon621 – Yours is the best and most accurate (in my opinion) analysis of these candidates and the issues in this election. Thank you for your excellent writing. I wish others saw in it what I saw; a careful weighing of the character of each candidate including both the good and bad.
Mark Martel – I’m afraid your summary, instead of real analysis, is full of leftist talking points and half-truths. Things like “promising to jail the opposition” when you very well know that what he was referring to was the rigged investigations into her and the Clinton Foundation, and the fact that he would reopen the investigation with honest investigators and new honorable heads of the FBI and justice department.
I could do the same refutation of almost everything you accuse Trump of. It’s the old saying “I’m firm, he’s stubborn and you’re pigheaded.”
Actually, almost everything you accuse Trump of being and doing applies to Hillary much more than to Trump. That’s the Alinsky way; whatever you’re doing that is wrong, accuse your opponent of it first so as to inoculate yourself from such charges.
It’s talking points full of half-truths and exaggerations that might win her the election but there’s a fair chance that the country wouldn’t survive her 4 years.
I’m really tired of the cynicism and lack of character that spawns such a way of running for office.
Let’s not get things mixed up here.
The point about what Bubba did is not whether he’s better or worse. The point about Bubba is how his defenders have two standards, one for him, one for republicans. It’s not directly about him. I mean, you’d ask the same question about having wives and daughters, unless you were a democrat.
The point about Trump is, God save us, it’s him or Hillary.
That’s not defending Trump.
However, neo began discussing consent and said it’s complicated. Various allegations against Trump fit into various definitions of consent. Some are absolutely egregious–presuming the Anita Hill brigade hasn’t been mobilized–and some fit into my metaphor of Santa Claus at a Christmas party combined with Mayan’s concept of “freeze”.
And the point about “Be attractive. Don’t be unattractive” is that it allows some guys to get away with various things, from groping to asking someone for a date, that are foreclosed to others.
But, as I say, God save us, it’s Trump or Hillary.
And, as a really fun thing, it’s the dems’ elastic and dishonest appeal to morality going on display.
How many decades have we been reproached for having Victorian, repressive, prudish, obsoletely Judeo-Christian views of St. Paul approaches to sex. And about Bubba, it’s just sex.
And now, as somebody said, we’re supposed to pretend we’re the Conference of Methodist Bishops ca. 1922.
Oh, yeah, and we’re not supposed to ask how come creepy Uncle Joe (Hands) Biden, even with pictures, doesn’t get any grief.
There is an example of a powerful man putting his hand under a young woman’s skirt, and we can clearly see the non-verbal communication involved, including the man pushing the issue beyond normal boundaries and the woman trying to figure out what she should do.
The example is President Bill Clinton molesting the stewardess. Just search “clinton gropes stewardess”. It was on YouTube. (They keep taking it down, but people keep posting new copies.)
Did Trump try it? Maybe; maybe not. Clinton did, and he may have done far worse in private.
“that woman cannot be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office, NO MATTER WHAT. “ – Rose
“NO MATTER WHAT.” That says a lot right there.
It “matters what” for some / many of us.
Now that it looks like trump is going to lose, there are many desperately exhorting us to look at clinton as a very terrible choice, but somehow ignore how terrible trump is as well, since “NO MATTER WHAT” covers and justifies all kinds of ugliness.
To all those that say “well bill c did xxxx” as if that makes trump’s comments (and apparent action – we will see how many more women speak up) okay…
Bull cr@p. Ever hear of two wrongs don’t make a right?
That y’all find this excusable just shows how much you are willing to (shall we say) “prostitute” yourselves for whatever cause you happen to support.
Is that any better than the hypocrisy we all saw from the left in support of bill c?
Just more of the “NO MATTER WHAT” crowd.
Irv: No, it’s not parroting talking points, any more than you are just repeating talking points. We clearly disagree about the dark potential of Trump and his alt-right mob. My concerns are different from your concerns, my values are different, my take on history is different, my fear of Hillary vs Trump is different than yours, so we end up at different places. Go ahead and think anyone with a different view must be ignorant or a lestist parrot. That’s your choice. But the truth is messier and more complicated.
Heh. As to unwanted touching, recollect when Trump pondered pressing charges against Michelle Fields? The Hill, March 29, 2016:
Did Fields grab his pussiness? (She touched me first!) So manly this one.
Big maq.
You keep missing the point: It’s not two wrongs make a right, and it’s not excusing Trump.
It’s making the point that, of the two, Trump seems less likely to do damage to the country.
The constant references to Bubba have to do with pointing out the dems’ immoral and elastic “standards”.
Years ago, Sen. John Tower was put forth for SecDef. Among other accusations, a female Air Force person accused him of groping her during a visit to her installation.
Tower proved he was elsewhere (another continent, iirc) so it couldn’t have happened. The result was to accuse him and reporters who reported on it of being mean to a helpless woman.
And Anita Hill….
This commenter is concerned about ugliness.
Others are concerned about the collapse of the rule of law we are now experiencing, about their diminishing freedoms, and the transfer of their life capital though redistributive taxation.
Most readers probably don’t in principle care if he sells off his own freedom so he can morally preen as he is buggered by the administration he has excused and enabled. It is just a problem when he puts it in terms of “we” and presents it as the “moral” choice.
If one’s public conscience is only satisfied by selling your “fellow” citizens’ national inheritance and heritage of liberty and law, there is something seriously wrong with your public conscience
So we have an audio tape of Trump bragging about his ability to grope women.
What if we had a tape of Hillary asking the Sultan of Brunei what she could do for him in exchange for his $5,000,000 donation to her foundation?
Of course no such recording exists, but the Arab countries may have donated $100,000,000 to her foundation. These are countries that bind women by restrictive laws. Countries that will punish the woman if she is raped. Of course we are supposed to believe that no pay for play exists but how do we know that money didn’t influence her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline? How do we know those donations won’t affect our policies in the middle east, or that it hasn’t already affected those policies?
@Richard A – I do get it.
Supporting trump, as bad as he is, as far from conservative as he is, etc. show that we are just as immoral and elastic in our “standards”.
Pointing out bubba c in context of the recent revelations of trump just makes that point even clearer.
It’s like your own son arguing “Well, Johnny next door did it and HIS parents were okay with it”. So what? We are not Johnny’s parents, we expect to live by “our” standards, not someone else’s.
@DNW – there you go again, strawman all the way down.
Need some mind bleach regarding ugliness and the rule of law. Analogies and metaphors taken to the lowest, in service of the “rule of law.” Thankfully the commenter didn’t go further afield in his musing and eloquence.
I quoted you, and I quoted you accurately. Because you cannot rebut you omit to quote yourself.
On the other hand I have repeatedly caught you fabricating material and placing it in quotation marks; whereupon you (incredibly) replied that it was a fair restatement.
My, my. Is it any wonder that engaging you directly is seen as pointless?
Reviving the American economy– making America great again, if you will, means we could drive a dagger through the heart of OPEC and the Arab oligarchies, if we have the will.
That won’t happen if Hillary is president. She tied to leftist organizations and repressive regimes that profit from a weak America, her vision for America is more debt, more regulation, more decline.
“In a story on 60 Minutes, viewers saw how the Sultan of Brunei lives a very extravagant but somewhat moderate Muslim life.
But last year the Sultan introduced Sharia Law – where thieves would have their hands cut off and adulterers and homosexuals would be stoned to death. It applies to everyone living in Brunei except the Sultan and his Royal family….Vanity Fair dubbed them (the sultan and his brother) the “constant companions in hedonism” in 2011 for their lavish lifestyles and penchant for collecting women like children collect toys.”- news.com/au
Why didn’t Hillary reject the Sultan’s $5,000,000 donation to her foundation and repudiate a repressive regime that treats women like toys, trading them for sex like baseball cards?
Doesn’t she have any standards?
Richard Aubrey Says:
October 13th, 2016 at 11:35 am…
The constant references to Bubba have to do with pointing out the dems’ immoral and elastic “standards”.
Years ago, Sen. John Tower was put forth for SecDef. Among other accusations, a female Air Force person accused him of groping her during a visit to her installation.
Tower proved he was elsewhere (another continent, iirc) so it couldn’t have happened. The result was to accuse him and reporters who reported on it of being mean to a helpless woman.
And Anita Hill….
***
I didn’t know about the Tower incident; shame on me, I didn’t really follow the political scene closely until 2007.
However: there is a long history of Dem spin and outright LIES regarding GOP candidates (as in: if they did it, nail them; if it looks like they might have done it, pretend somebody nailed them; if they didn’t do it, have the nails handy for the people who still believe the press is unbiased.
To wit:
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2016/10/quotation-of-day.html
“From Holman Jenkins, Jr. in today’s Wall Street Journal:
Democrats run on character assassination, as Mr. Obama also did against Mitt Romney, rather than frankly own up to a rent-seeking, social-engineering, Big Government agenda that voters reject when it’s presented plainly to them.”
Just so that it is clear to all, the issue is not whether “two wrongs make a right.”
Has any regular commenter asserted as much?
The question in interminable dispute is whether given the certain damage Clinton will do to the republic, a possible alternative, one which might allow for further and additional legal options should that one prove unsatisfactory, is preferable.
This is a matter of judgment concerning projected consequences, measured against personal moral and life-way values. Nothing mysterious.
We know that Clinton will continue on with Obama’s lawlessness.
We know that no Democrat will support reining her in or impeaching her regardless of what she does.
We know that her Marxist vice presidential choice is as bad or worse than she is.
We know that we have already been through eight years of the wreck of constitutional restraint and the subversion of the rule of law.
The only question is whether the alternative is worth the gamble assessed according the personal values and commitments one holds.
What is most important to try to immediately preserve? Liberty and constitutionalism, or community and tolerance?
If one is an essentially communitarian Republican, rather than a classical liberal, then one is less likely to see the transgressions already in effect as problematical as others do who perceive key elements of the republic as already subverted and on the verge of being potentially unrecoverable.
This situation, represented paradigmatically by Obamacare and the immigration law violations, simply does not bother the communitarian to the extent it does the libertarian, since the communitarian sees the predicate of our association in a community, rather than legal light.
The communitarian conservative does not see the deal as broken, as he is somewhat satisfied as long as he has what he primarily wants, which is inclusion.
That is why there is no resolving this issue through discussion. It is when push comes to shove, a matter of tastes for liberty versus inclusion.
It cannot be reconciled when the standards of evaluation are in fundamental conflict.
Pretend I closed that parenthesis above.
And the following is not intended to condone or excuse, just to add some other data points for discussion.
On the subject of men and sex, here is an interesting validation of the “it’s not just Trump” which describes manipulative narcissists — and I know women who have fallen for them — but doesn’t seem to quite fit the Trump situation, in that, so far as the stories go to date, he doesn’t pursue, stalk, or harass women once they say no (even the People writer quoted above does not say he did anything further, only that she was afraid he might IIRC).
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2016/10/true-love-and-sexual-harassment.html
From time to time I turn to New York Magazine’s Ask Polly column to check out where therapy is these days. Most of the time I am disappointed. Polly offers consistently bad advice. But her advice gives us a picture of where therapy is today. While Polly is not a therapist, she learned the language in her own treatment and talks like one.
Here is today’s case:
A law student goes off to do a summer internship. She gets seduced by a man who is supervising her. Upon succumbing to his charms, she learns that he has recently gotten back together with old girlfriend. He has no intention of being exclusive with said law student. Brimming with self-confidence and being liberated from social customs, the law student decided that it did not matter. She was liberated so she did not care. Apparently, she has not read the cautionary tales about being friends with benefits.
Stop for a second: given the choice between following her bliss and looking at the facts, she chooses to follow her bliss. She ignores the fact that he has made her his concubine and decides to go with her feelings. Don’t you know: amor vincit omnia. Big mistake!
Neither the letter writer nor Polly understands the importance of calling things by their names. If this woman wants nothing more out of life than to be a sometime concubine, fine.
But, love, whether true or false, does not confer a role or a position in society. It is an amorphous feeling that may or may not be true. More importantly, it does not matter whether it is true. If the man is attached or married you are his concubine.
…
Polly’s final point is salient. The man is dangerous. He is not in love with the young intern. He is harassing her. He has made it vastly more difficult for her to do her job. Strangely enough, no one points out that this is a case of sexual harassment. And that it veers into stalking.
What is the solution? What is the plan? Easy. I am sure you have thought of it already. We can only be stupefied that the woman, her therapist and Polly cannot think of it. It is: to find another job. It’s October. She will be starting work next summer. Surely, she has time to find another job. If she turns down the job that was offered, she might even tell them why.
Polly sees the danger but chooses to deal with it passively, by doing some wild psychoanalysis on the man:
(there have been long passages about his abusive behavior, too long to quote in full)
…
The letter writer feels broken, because she has been broken. And the man wants to break her in order to make her a permanent concubine, to own her and to abuse her. It does not matter whether he is in love. He wants her to believe that she is worthy of nothing better than concubinage.
She made a mistake and her therapists are inviting her to compound the mistake. Such are the perils of following your bliss and of indulging in the wisdom on offer from the therapy culture. As I said, her best first step is to find another job.
DNW Says:
October 13th, 2016 at 12:18 pm
…
It cannot be reconciled when the standards of evaluation are in fundamental conflict.
* * *
This applies to so much political contention today.
You can never reach agreement about issues where some people regard a particular policy as a feature, and others see it as a bug.
Tangentially, the people who argue that Obama’s foreign policy is a failure are looking at the “bugs” — damage to American interests and world peace in general — whereas Obama apparently sees his actions as a “feature” — increasing the dominance of Iranian hegemony.
WW3 has already started, we just don’t know it yet.
http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/10/13/u-s-attacks-radar-sites-yemen-retaliation-missile-attacks-navy-warships/
…We can hope this response will deter the Houthi rebels, but I’m not counting on it. If they were using commercial coastal surveillance radars to assist in targeting, it won’t be a big stretch for them to use commercial radars mounted on boats for the same purpose. In a typical littoral shipping environment, there’s no way for combat information center crews on the U.S. warships to figure out which of dozens or hundreds of commercial radars, operating where, are being used for rudimentary target tracking.
The attack needn’t set the Houthis back much in a tactical-capability sense. We’ll see if they consider the threat of counterattack to be a deterrent to their purpose, whatever it is.
If we’re lucky, this may settle things down. But the fact that the Houthis, and Iran, were willing to take this to the next level after Sunday’s initial attack could well imply otherwise.
Frankly, a lesson about American will would have been more effective if the U.S. forces on-scene had been free to pursue their attackers, immediately after tactical detection, and take out as much of the attack network as they could find. Waiting for political deliberation, and choosing a “demonstration” target set with the objective of minimizing damage, conveys, inherently, a different message. We no longer live in a world in which that latter message will be enough.
***
I think JE means a message of “don’t push us too far” whereas I see the message as “this is the least we can do to satisfy American outrage while not actually telling Iran to stop”
@DNW – yep, more of the same.
You then make claims that are false.
As mentioned, your writing style often obfuscates, for whatever reason, like how, in a recent comment, you meant no sarcasm at Neo, nor anyone else. Sure reads like you did, but in your mind the issue is with the reader, not the writer. We all just mysteriously keep on getting it wrong.
I confess that after it has happened too many times, even after explaining the writing style issue, I have given up on the “benefit of the doubt”, perhaps erroneously.
Yet, you use words too carefully to not know, IMHO, and eagerly strawman our arguments.
So, is it really just the rest of us?
.
Maybe I missed it. Did you ever answer Bill’s question on plan B? On, details required to deport 11M illegal immigrants?
.
I’d like to get past the recriminations and figure out a path forward, now that it is a near certainty that clinton will take the office.
What do you really want to do? Is all lost and it doesn’t matter anymore?
Seriously, think about that, please.
Big Maq – With 3.5 weeks left, daily October surprises from both camps and a Rasmussen poll saying Trump is back in the lead, do you really think that it’s a near certainty that Clinton will take office?
“Just so that it is clear to all, the issue is not whether “two wrongs make a right.”
Has any regular commenter asserted as much? – DNW
I agree that is not the fundamental issue we face and that this bit on trump vs bill c doesn’t address that (see below).
However, if people are bringing up “bill c did xxxx” in response to the latest revelations on trump, they are making that argument – that the left are hypocrites who are okay with bill c’s actions, as if that has some bearing on the acceptability of trump’s behavior. It doesn’t.
While nobody literally said that two wrongs DO make a right, raising the point is the rhetorical moral equivalence argument – that the two wrongs somehow cancel each other out.
To anyone who is or was a parent, this shouldn’t have to be spelled out.
.
“The question in interminable dispute is whether given the certain damage Clinton will do to the republic, a possible alternative, one which might allow for further and additional legal options should that one prove unsatisfactory, is preferable.”
Well, you frame the question in a favorable way to your world view. But, agree that, for those caught in the binary paradigm, it is trump or clinton in their minds.
But this side steps the question you raised in your first paragraph about two wrongs don’t make a right, as it is a wholly separate discussion.
One poll by Rasmussen and all is well again in the land of Trump, well maybe not all. Maybe the lawsuit will solve it for him, rule of law ans all that.
He is pretty much toast is how it looks. Since “We Know.”
What happens if he looses on Nov. 9? Lock and load, liight em up, burn it down?
“do you really think that it’s a near certainty that Clinton will take office?” – Irv
Probablistically, yes. Not saying there is no chance whatsoever for trump. There is always some possibility.
But, other factors also come to play, beyond current polling.
Funding may be in question, as it may be withdrawn or redirected to the down ticket candidates. This affects the critical end game (advertising, GOTV, etc).
trump’s GOTV has always been a weakness and very little has come to light to indicate that it has drastically improved. I have posted links in prior comments from some who estimate a strong GOTV operation being anywhere from 1% to 4% advantage at the booth, vs a poor one.
Maybe the GOP have some catastrophic news wrt clinton that they are patiently sitting on to pull out a week before ballot day. Hard to see that they’d be so patient given how so many are publicly bailing on trump and that early voting has / is about to start.
Here’s what it comes down to: Everybody except the rabid Trumpists predicted this would happen. He was a terrible candidate, for every obvious reason. The Trumpists seemed to think that he would get a special pass by the media and later on, if the media started with the usual shenanigans, Trump was such a jerk that he would beat them at their own game, or force them into line. The rest of us suspected all along that the media had dirty laundry to spare, and instead of releasing it early and removing this no-hoper from the race in time to select a real candidate, let him run loose up until the convention, and even gave him hours upon hours of free airtime, which he primarily used to slime all of the other Republican candidates.
The fact that the first really big bullet they picked was this one is laughably absurd, if only to me. If they had recorded conversations about burying bodies, that would be one thing. But the idea that braggadocio from a celebrity that included naughty words and generic boasting about all the chicks he could get would sink a candidate – particularly a candidate running on the novelty that he’s an alpha-male celebrity first and a politician, never before – is almost beyond belief. When did we stop understanding that all people sometimes say things in private conversions that would be ruinously embarrassing if broadcast on national television, and that celebrities live in, and take for granted, a world in which people come to them like moths to light at night, many willing and interested in intimate acts? The irony is that he is running against Hillary Clinton, who was cruel to the many women that her husband did more than boast about.
No matter. Democrats are immune to the rule of law and since they think nothing of rewriting history by the moment, are so hypocritical that they contradict themselves in words and action from the beginning to the end of a sentence, if it takes too long to say. That’s what we’ll get, thanks to Trumpists – and probably not just four more years of it.
With this election, I don’t think the usual campaign evaluations are really in play. I firmly believe that this will be a blowout for one side or the other. The indicators say Clinton but all the indicators said that Britain wouldn’t leave the EU.
There is an unknown level of silent dissatisfaction with the status quo that hit the vote in Britain and it’s the same type of dissatisfaction that could suddenly appear at the polls here on November 8th.
Maybe it’s just wishful thinking but it’s the same kind of hope that the supporters of Brexit had. Lightning does occasionally strike in the same place but rarely. Fortunately rarely is not the same as never.
“There is an unknown level of silent dissatisfaction with the status quo that hit the vote in Britain and it’s the same type of dissatisfaction that could suddenly appear at the polls here on November 8th.” – Irv
The thing is, in 2012 we heard a similar argument. It proved untrue and rather disappointingly so.
Lesson learned, you might say.
Innocent until proven guilty, except in Pro-Choice (e.g. abortion rites, class diversity, female chauvinism) societies.
The time and context undermine the credibility of the accusers.
That said, kill the messenger. The progress of liberalism did not begin with abortion rites, but it reached a milestone in the unprincipled ideology with establishment of the Pro-Choice Church, adoption of scientific mysticism (i.e. post-normal science), and debasement of human life (i.e. post-religion/morality) for wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic indulgence… democratic leverage and normalized congruence (e.g. “=”).
Kyndyll:
At 1:19 PM, you write:
I believe you are misunderstanding this entire episode.
There’s nothing “laughably absurd” about it. It’s a tried and true technique. And in Trump’s case, much easier to make believable, because (unlike with other candidates they’ve tried it on) the shoe fits. They have audio—plenty of it, much of it not previously secret—of him bragging about his extramarital sexual encounters and his sexual prowess with lots of women. And the “laughably absurd” talk of his was merely the set-up—the actual accusations by women was the next move. And it was all carefully planned.
All known and planned as soon as the Democrats realized they had been given the incredible gift of Trump.
Or was it a gift? Some people think Trump was a collaborator; I happen not to hold that view. I think his own ego is too big for that.
But anyway, it’s not the “mere words” that were the plan, it was the accusations. And I very much doubt they’re over yet. Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
And it has nothing to do with some sort of lingering puritanism about powerful men. If you (or anyone else) was upset with Bill Clinton, it stands to reason you should be upset with Trump, and not just because of sex, but because of what it says about a person’s attitude towards power. And no, it’s not what everyone in the public eye does, although some certainly do. There are plenty of politicians who are faithful to their wives. How much that matters to a voter varies greatly, but people still expect a certain amount of decorum and respect for other human beings from a president.
“If you (or anyone else) was upset with Bill Clinton, it stands to reason you should be upset with Trump, and not just because of sex, but because of what it says about a person’s attitude towards power.”-Neo
Exactly, Neo. And Trump would be held to account by press and public–no Democrat will (a proven fact). So hopefully we’ll be able to start right there in repairing the breach. Otherwise???
“people still expect a certain amount of decorum and respect for other human beings from a president.”
Unless they’re “deplorable.”
Sharon W:
I’ve been railing against press bias for the entire time I’ve been blogging. Other than paying attention to, and supporting, other news sources (not that Fox has covered itself in glory this election cycle), I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
I’ve also been saying for many years that the right needs its own Gramscian march through the institutions. But I’m sure not seeing one.
The imbalance is very entrenched.
Using my imagination, I can believe that it might even be a good thing if Trump was elected and then needed to be impeached. Having to look at the Constitution and the intentional decisions resulting in the framework of our Republic might go a long way toward orienting the populace to what exactly our government is and isn’t. Now, many might think, “how bad would it need to be to warrant such a thing?” Well, since there is an R after his name (definitive or not), it wouldn’t need to be that bad. Repeating the same patterns of Democrat-led flagrant violation of the rule of law, for me falls under that axiom, “keep doing the same thing and expect different results”. No. It will be the same result–speeding toward the cliff to oblivion.
Sharon W – Well said. That’s what I was trying to say when I said Trump would be on a short leash which certainly never applied to Obama and wouldn’t apply to Clinton.
And I also like your thought that maybe an impeachment (which might happen with Trump but no chance with Clinton) might not be a bad thing if it served to bring us back to the Constitution.
Neo – I would never defend Trump or Clinton or any of their actions; I simply maintain that the country would be better off in the long run with his election rather than her’s.
Neo said “it’s not the “mere words” that were the plan, it was the accusations. And I very much doubt they’re over yet. Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.”
And they’re doing it very, very well. The acccusation by the reporter at People magazine, for example, goes way beyond any question of locker-room trash talk and aims directly at women’s psyches. Like this in the article:
That’s a primal fear, folks — the big, overpowering male. As I’m sure the reporter knew when she wrote it.
Sharon W: “Trump would be held to account by press and public—no Democrat will (a proven fact).”
A free press would exist under a Trump presidency? Really?
Trump said: “One of the things I’m going to do if I win… I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected… You see, with me, they’re not protected.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866#ixzz4MzdUK5xT
Oh, just tough talk? Pandering to his base? He wouldn’t really do that?
Sorry. No, it’s not. It’s who he is and who he’s always been. Read up on his defamation suits and get back to me. The guy has sued a beauty pageant contestant *for claiming it was rigged.* He sued a book author *for claiming his net worth was only $150-$250 million instead of billions.* Look at how he’s treated the press on the campaign trail.
The major media has a liberal bias. Fine. That doesn’t mean one can trust Trump to protect the freedom of the press or freedom of speech.
Mark Martel–I don’t see the machinations of government sitting idly by while Trump acts as Emperor like our current President. Either the framework of our Constitution works or it doesn’t. I’d rather take a chance on finding out than participate in the sure path of its utter irrelevance where Democrats are concerned.
Neo – re your comment on college kids: That is true. But what is also true is that they have “Sex Week,” the hook-up culture, and the drink till you pass out” party game.
My guess, inspired by Tom Wolfe’s “I am Charlotte Simmons,” is that the former (the “consent” drill) is a reaction to the latter (hook-ups, binge drinking, etc.). I’m not a therapist, so I’d like to see your thoughts.
Sharon W and Irv Greenberg:
Please read this.
I have been hearing that “impeachment” argument for months. It is singularly unconvincing, IMHO.
Richard Saunders:
Here’s my point of view.
I remember that post, Neo. I’m not suggesting that as an inducement. I simply put it out there as a possible direction that actually COULD bring potential good–as opposed to the continuation of the downward spiral that make up our political circumstances. As a person that has daily encounters with the Judeo-Christian texts that repeatedly advance the stories of God’s people being “taken to the woodshed” resulting in a deliverance or healing, I am open to this kind of occurrence. I also personally have had a point in my life of having to practice “tough love”. It looked grave, and thankfully, the result was overwhelmingly positive. It could have gone either way, because free-will was involved. Free-will is a factor on the national stage too, so there are no certain outcomes. In the last number of years, we have chosen poorly. Perhaps a public exposition on what the framework of the government actually is and requires, would be rejuvenating.
Its up to the woman to decide..
and THATs why there is so much issue on it
if you do it, and she likes it, no issue
if you do it, and she doesnt, then its up to her to get you prosecuted
if she asks for it, and changes her mind, you go to jail
etc.
same wiht personhood… women decide if a fetus is a person, or a blob of cells to remove.
meanwhile..
on another note..
do note that in the timeframe of one of the accusers, airline seats did not have handles you could lift up.
[same way you catch fake paintings, and other false things… like obama parents being inspired by an event that happened after he was born!]
Sharon W – fair enough! I respect your point or view.
wrt Two wrongs don’t make a right. Nobody has asserted that. Some have pretended others said it, and reproached them for it.
That’s lame.
The reason to mention Bubba is to refer to the dems’ elastic and immoral double standards. Also includes feminists. So if they argue Teump’s a sui generis pig, one may at least shut them up by pointing out their anti-woman hypocrisy. That would be a relief.
More importantly, it describes what would happen NOW and in the future in the case of another Clinton Bad Act.
First Law of Clinton: If the Clintons did it, there’s nothing wrong with it and…delighted giggle…they got away with this one, too.
” It could have gone either way, because free-will was involved.” – Sharon W
I buy the “being taken to the woodshed” part.
Would rather that be a consequence of others’ choice and my free will remains with giving someone much more representative of what I understand is right and good, rather than empowering someone else with my vote, and then hope that other forces are to keep him in line.
.
You might want to hear what Beth Moore has to say. One example:
“G0d is not down to His last two options”
https://twitter.com/bethmoorelpm
“The reason to mention Bubba is to refer to the dems’ elastic and immoral double standards. Also includes feminists. So if they argue Teump’s a sui generis pig, one may at least shut them up by pointing out their anti-woman hypocrisy. That would be a relief.” – Richard A
Very much what I addressed above.
.
Here it is again…
“if people are bringing up “bill c did xxxx” in response to the latest revelations on trump, they are making (the) argument — that the left are hypocrites who are okay with bill c’s actions, as if that has some bearing on the acceptability of trump’s behavior. It doesn’t.
While nobody literally said that two wrongs DO make a right, raising the point is the rhetorical moral equivalence argument — that the two wrongs somehow cancel each other out.
To anyone who is or was a parent, this shouldn’t have to be spelled out.”
.
You add the following..
“More importantly it describes what would happen NOW and in the future in the case of another Clinton Bad Act.
But you/others are bringing it up (originally) in context of the trump tape. How is this relevant to trumps words (and possible behavior – if we believe the women now speaking out)?
Most (all?) here agree that clinton will be awful. Does that excuse trump?
.
“First Law of Clinton: If the Clintons did it, there’s nothing wrong with it and…delighted giggle…they got away with this one, too.”
Sure seems possible that trump has also “got away” with possible wrong doing up to now.
Is an investigation warranted, as it was for bill c?
.
All this argument amounts to is “look at bill, don’t look at trump”.
The fact that bill c was awful and that hillary c was / will be awful, doesn’t give trump a pass to be awful too, as much as we hate the media bias and the left’s hypocrisy.
Jeez, maq. Lose the “excuse” nonsense. We’re not talking pre-school blame game here.
We’re talking about who would be the least worst, including external forces which would be arrayed in one direction, or in another, depending.
I have seen no one here suggest that anything is an excuse for Trump’s or Hillary’s actions. Indeed, no one has even attempted to justify what either of them has done.
Once again, this is not about whether Trump is worse than either of the Clintons or vice versa. This is about how the country would fare with either of them in office.
I believe, because this is the way it worked with Bush, that the democrats and weak-willed republicans would join forces to prevent any malfeasance on his part. And I further believe, because this is the way it worked with Obama, that the democrats and weak-willed republicans would join together to make sure any malfeasance on her part would not be stopped.
I further believe, because this is the way it’s been for 40 years, that the press would be exclusively against Trump and for Hillary.
If my above beliefs are correct, then Trump would be prevented from doing the damage to the country that Hillary would be enabled to do.
None of this depends on an honest press or on the character of either one of them.
One final note; don’t tell me about how they didn’t prevent Bush from starting the Iraq war. They didn’t stop him because they read all the intelligence he read, both ours and every foreign intelligence agency, and they were for the war too. All you have to do is Google what they said when they voted for it.
“We’re talking about who would be the least worst, including external forces which would be arrayed in one direction, or in another, depending.” – Richard A
No, this is a article about trump’s discussion / bragging (we are now finding out it may be actual behavior vs just “locker room” talk) of genitalia groping.
Specifically, from Neo’s article…
“if we want to take the Trump/pussy controversy seriously (and why not?), it brings up very large questions involving sex and power, men and women, and how consent is perceived and granted or should be perceived and granted”
You want to turn it into a discussion about who will be better, by some confusing / diversionary “look at how awful bill c was” and “what hypocrites the left are” argument.
While the points you make there may have merit on the larger issue, they don’t really address what this indicates about trump himself.
Another thing. The only people who may buy the diversion are already bought into trump.
BUT, trump needs to appeal well beyond his current horde – specifically women (trump is losing on near historic levels).
How does all this debate wrt bill c and left hypocrisy help winning women voters?
Big Maq – It’s always best to change the subject when you’re losing a debate. Nice job.
Neo – D’accord.
Irv. If you’re talking to me, you are one of the folks who missed the point.
The point is that Trump is a pig.
That’s settled.
Pretty simple.
The next question is what it means in terms of the election.
Hillary or Trump?
The persistence of some commenters in not understanding my position leaves me baffled. Here is my position as succinctly as I can put it:
I neither know nor care about Trump’s character. I simply believe that this country cannot survive as a constitutional republic for 4 years with Hillary as president. I do believe that it can survive, and possibly even prosper, for 4 years with Trump as president. I have listed my reasons for these beliefs in previous comments.
Since I know of no simpler way of explaining my position, I’ll leave the rest of the discussion to all of you with my best wishes.
Neo – I have read your blog for years and have always found it both enlightening an entertaining. Your treatise on “A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change” is, in my opinion, a classic. I have consolidated it and printed it out for a number of my friends as an example of the best the blogs have to offer.
And while I know nothing about it, I have also enjoyed your commentary on dance. Your love for it is most evident.
My wish is for your continued success and I will continue to support you in your annual calls for such.
This was my first foray into commenting and I have found it stimulating but very time consuming and very hard work. You have my admiration for your persistence and your patience.
The nation has survived ‘pigs’ as president.
No nation has survived Stalin as president.
Not really.
And yet the Stalin died, and the Soviet Union fell. Strange but true. Somehow Russia still exists, as does most of the former USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Strange but true. And your point was what?
“Stalin in a pants suit” is what exactly in your mind?
OM.
Millions of dead during the experiment.
Hillary Clinton is not = Joseph Salin
Why are we talking about this? She is a corrupt person, a really bad politician, and she won’t be able to sway the military and state police to setup gulags. Is that something that you’re actually worried about? Is that somethin you believe she’s actually planning to do?
She will be a bad president. She wont be able to be a dictator. Even people voting for her don’t want that. The vast, vast majority of Americans aren’t brutal leftists. They also havent been brutalized by centuries of inept Tsarist rule. This isnt Russia, 1918, in the middle of WW1.
This line of argument is detached from reality.
Focus on rebuilding to stop her in 2018 and beat her in 2020.
Richard Aubrey:
Now would the millions of dead be during the burn it all down phase or before the burn it all down? After all we have no other possibilities because it is a binary phenomenon after all. Or maybe it’s billions of people? A catastrophe of planet wide proportions?
What is the metaphor for Godwin’s law when Blert invokes Stalin for Hillary? She’s a kinder, gentler “Stalin in a pant suit” or “Satan in a pant suit?” Because “WE KNOW”?
Richard Aubrey:
As long as we are speaking of millions of lives to be lost, here is an opinion that you may find inconceivable:
http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/10/13/trump-cant-be-trusted-with-our-nuclear-codes/
Just sayin 🙂
I now see how addicting it is writing comments. It’s almost impossible to let statements slide when you’re sure just a few more words might help lead some people to enlightenment.
Trump might act irresponsibly, but I doubt it would be serious. He has a history of being irresponsible in his personal life (a la WJC) but in business he’s shown himself to be pretty shrewd. You can use other words such a devious and/or borderline illegal, but he still hasn’t been wildly irresponsible.
Even if our adversaries think Trump is unstable, which I don’t, it would make them think twice before provoking him. It’s called credible deterrence; something we have none of with Obama and HIllary.
So, even if you think Trump is unstable, I don’t believe that he would have the power to do any irreversible misdeeds. I, most republicans, and all conservatives, are big fans of limited government, especially in the executive branch, no matter who is in office. Even someone as popular as Reagan continually had to compromise with congress to do the things he wanted to do. As I said before, Trump would be on a tight leash.
Judging by her past actions, and judging by the executive orders that Obama has been allowed to promulgate, Hillary would definitely sell us out the same way Obama has with the Iranian deal and she has with our uranium production.
I firmly believe Obama has repeatedly sold us out for ideological reasons, but Hillary’s history is repeatedly selling us out for money and power.
I think Trump is running because of his ego. He likes to be a big shot and the presidency would make him the biggest shot in the world.
I think Hillary is running out of a lust for money and power that is all-consuming. Combine that with her belief that the ends justify the means and you have a combination that can’t help but be deadly for the entire country and possibly the planet.
“This line of argument is detached from reality.
Focus on rebuilding to stop her in 2018 and beat her in 2020.” – Bill
Hear! Hear!
.
@OM – you beat me to it. I found a similar article from Washington Times, I believe, and had only just posted it on another of Neo’s recent articles.
Maybe those people whose finger actually has to push the button know something we all need to know.
Bill Says:
October 14th, 2016 at 9:00 am
Hillary Clinton is not = Joseph Salin ”
Within the context of our history, and legal precepts, she is.
Of course once you have already thrown over the absolutely nonnegotiable principles of the republic and the rule of law we once had, for feel-goodism, then the contrast does not seem so drastic, nor the cost of another subverter much higher.
@DNW – well, we definitely disagree on HC = JS, but at this point, with near certainty of clinton winning, should the focus not be on what’s next for us to do?
Hillary is Stalin, ROFLOL.
And she’s Hitler and Mao too! ROFLOL.
Who knew there was so much room in that pants suit?
You have hit 11 on the comedy dial! Hats off to you!
@Irv – I think we are at the point where those arguments have exhausted their ability to convert.
Even if we disagree on trump, I think we can agree that trump has proven to be one of the worst possible choices as a political campaigner.
We got lulled into the false sense of trump’s invincibility in the primaries, largely because he seemed to defy political gravity.
We now have reason to believe that the media purposefully gave trump huge amounts of airtime to the exclusion of the other candidates and kept their powder dry, so to speak, for a later date.
This is similar to a strategy deployed by Sen McCaskell, who couldn’t help herself but to brag about it…
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/todd-akin-missouri-claire-mccaskill-2012-121262
IDK if the media coordinated it all with the dems vs acted out of their own interests in a combination of ratings and political favoritism. (If it was coordinated, that doesn’t explain “conservative” media’s similar behavior, sans holding the powder dry, assuming they didn’t have any).
That said, of course, that strategy wouldn’t work if there wasn’t a receptive audience.
The discussion about how we got to where we are with these 2 candidates is way too complex to sort out in a commentary section. That would require a treatise with whole sections on the republicans, the democrats, the American mainstream media, the foreign press, our adversaries inputs and even the UN. Maybe Neo will tackle a comprehensive examination of that one of these days. I’d love to read it.
I don’t agree or disagree with any of those comments about Trump. I try to not waste my time evaluating things that are of no importance. My only conversation is about who would be the best, or least-bad, president. That is what concerns me. I feel the evidence is clearly in favor of Trump.
I don’t agree that the election is over. There will be so many revelations on both sides in the next 3 weeks that I think it’s too early to tell. Leads of any size can evaporate in a day. Also, there’s the polling error which I think clearly exaggerates in Hillary’s favor. Forget the Alamo, remember Brexit!
@Irv – yes, you are right, there are three weeks and anything can happen, and sometimes does!
But, it will take that something drastically “new” to move the voters, as the arguments on both sides of trump vs clinton are pretty much baked in.
And, most importantly, trump has to get out of the way to let that “new” info sink in.
With many states already open for early voters (e.g. swing states AZ, OH, and NC), and several more coming in ~ 1 week (e.g. swing state MN), the window is closing very rapidly.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/early-voting-states-228435
And, it is hard to see that, if trump (or his supporters) has that something “new” in his/their pocket right now, why he/they wouldn’t deploy it now. It takes time for that something new to sink in.
As in boxing, there are two ways to win: 1) By striking enough blows to “out score” the opponent; 2) By a KO blow.
We are fast approaching the point where trump only has opportunity #2 available.
Where you are was where I was in 2012, where I was in May of this year.
The “fat” lady hasn’t yet sung, but she sure looks like she’s going to get elected.
No, because it demonstrates that there is no “us” in fundamental sociopolitical aims and values.
One needs a different “us” to make that kind of alliance and planning work. Makes no sense to yoke oxen determined to go in different directions, as they used to say.
But the issue discussed here has been both clarifying and explanatory in laying bare the roots of those long-puzzling issues of Republican/Conservative goal related achievement dysfunction.
And of course, I thank both you and Bill for tying up some of those conceptual loose ends, and making what was vague and implicit, explicit and unequivocal.
I still don’t know quite what conservatives are, frankly (despite Burke and Oakeshott and numerous others); but I now know more clearly than ever before, that they are not liberty first classical liberals.
Regards
Cut to the chase …’.no one is as pure or as wise as I’
No regards.
The bitterness of the devalued, on perfect display just above. OM has a world to work his will upon, yet he is resentful because he is not regarded as worthy, or esteemed in some small corner of it.
America once had a better human population than that. Even the more delicate of the women were on average better balanced, or at least more reticent to display their envy and petulance.
Now, even some presumptive “conservatives” whine and troll, when they feel disrespected.
Can the fate of such people possibly matter?
Cut to the chase. Sorry, you can’t. Pomposity has you as a poster child.
“I still don’t know quite what conservatives are, frankly (despite Burke and Oakeshott and numerous others); but I now know more clearly than ever before, that they are not liberty first classical liberals.” – DNW
Funny. But, once we get past your writing style, I could swear it’s been equally enlightening that it is YOU who doesn’t give liberty much value, since you find a guy like trump acceptable with little hesitation.
Contemplating trump as the answer to clinton ought to be something done with great trepidation, if that is something you value, yet, you have not demonstrated much. Heck, you hardly acknowledge any risk or downside to him.
You rationalize he is our last chance savior. I say we can live another day to fight on, as not all is lost as you assume. So, the “small chance” of the good you claim with trump is hardly worth the greater possible downside and “small chance” at catastrophe.
You want us all to join you and to be complicit in your/our own destruction of liberty in order to save it. Rather round about logic, as I see it.
I refuse.
.
Insult and mock all you want. In your own words…
“”The alt-right is recognizable almost immediately by style and tone, which very much resembles the left.” – Neo
You have described the rhetorical methods of the left.
Well and good. The next step is to ask why.
1. The standard answer is that they, or many of them, simply are incapable of arguing effectively, and so adopt mockery and ridicule as an expedient.
2. Another explanation is that it is held to be axiomatic among progressives that reducing the enemy with ridicule that marginalizes his voice, which “de-legitimates” him, is a more efficient use of time than debating; which itself conveys a measure of respect.”
http://neoneocon.com/2016/04/14/who-are-the-alt-right-and-what-do-they-want/#comment-1079310
Just like trump is a wished for shortcut for many, mockery and insult is another.
.
I wanted to think we might share some values and aims. But, based on your prior comments and your own assessment above, maybe not.
http://neoneocon.com/2016/10/12/the-burn-it-down-crowd-seems-to-be-getting-its-wish-2/#comment-1773905
An example of why Donald’s behavior and behavior of his defenders is failing:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/14/im-a-conservative-woman-and-i-agree-with-michelle-obama-about-trump/
Trump’s history and his present behavior has caught up with him. He is truly a gift for Hillary that can’t stop giving.