Trump: doing it in the street and frightening the horses
Since the firestorm erupted around the release of the audio of Trump’s remarks to Billy Bush in 2005, there have been a number of arguments advanced to counter it. One very popular one involves comparisons to Bill Clinton’s misbehavior and the fact that Democrats circled the wagons to defend it, as well as that of JFK and other presidents alleged to have been philanderers. It’s said we should be more like the Democrats and Stand By Our Man. It’s also said that anyone who wasn’t scandalized by Bill Clinton shouldn’t be scandalized by Trump.
I’m going to point out some differences between the two situations.
The first is that when Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992—which is when news of his philandering first came out on a national level—he had been a multiple-term governor (starting at the age of 32, by the way), a founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, and the head of the National Governors Association. In other words, he had a ton of political executive experience and was widely recognized as a leader in the Democratic Party. He was a very successful politician, a loyal Democrat, and popular as well. Also, when he ran for president in 1992, he successfully squelched what were at the time only rumors of infidelity (for example, Broddrick didn’t make her allegations until a couple of weeks after Clinton’s impeachment, after previously filing a 1997 affadavit saying the rumors were untrue). At no point did we have raunchy audiotapes of Clinton bragging about his sexual exploits and how his power enabled him to get women. If we had had them back then, my guess is that it would have sunk him on the national level, although of course I have no way to know for sure.
So some of the differences are timing, type of allegation vs. actual tape in the person’s own words, and previous political experience/affiliation. Clinton was a Democrat through and through, a successful and popular one who had been a reliable standard-bearer for the Democratic platform and the Democratic agenda. Later on, by the time the Lewinsky affair occurred, Clinton was already well into his second term as a popular Democratic president. The Democrats would have had no reason except morality to have abandoned him at that point, and morality wasn’t going to be enough motivation. They had the numbers, too, to fight conviction in the impeachment trial, and so they knew if they could hang tough, Clinton was never going to be convicted.
In contrast, Donald Trump is none of those things. To tell Republicans to Stand By Their Man would probably cause the majority of Republicans to say “But he’s not my man!” It isn’t really clear that Trump is even a Republican, and he is certainly not a tested Republican leader, or any sort of Republican leader at all except at this point a titular one. He has no history of having held political office. He is the most unpopular presidential nominee in history, and that was true even before these tapes surfaced. He was nominated without getting a majority of Republican primary votes. He has never led Hillary Clinton in the polls except very briefly and by figures well within the margin of error. These are not opinions; these are facts.
And we have actual tapes of his voice, saying some things that indicate he is drunk with power and what it can do for him sexually. It is easy for the listener to extrapolate from the tapes and imagine that Trump’s drunk with power, period. Hey, let’s give him more power!
This isn’t just about sex; not by a long shot. The tapes are about power. And although saying this is just locker-room talk, just machismo bragging, may indeed by true, there is no reason to imagine that these tapes will enhance his already very uncertain electability, and many reasons to imagine it will cause him to drop further in a race that he seems to be losing.
So why should Republicans stand by him? The only reason I’ve ever seen stated (and it’s not a bad one) is that it’s Trump or Hillary, and that Hillary is unconscionable. That may be enough to convince a lot of people on the right who see her as almost a demon. But it’s not going to appeal to the vast middle and/or to moderates that Trump needs in order to win.
What’s more—and quite importantly, I think—those tapes aren’t just a one-off. They are completely congruent with the Trump we already know (if we’ve been paying any attention, that is) from other venues. Such statements weren’t limited to things said supposedly off-the-record, with a hot mic (the Billy Bush remarks, that is). Many were said in public broadcasts with widespread dissemination, as part of Trump’s approximately two dozen appearances over the years on the Howard Stern program.
That’s a lot of appearances, and there are a lot of Trump quotes from the show—none of them in the nature of “locker-room talk,” because the Howard Stern show is a public forum and no locker room. In fact, you could say it takes locker-room talk out of the locker room and into the public airways, and anyone who appears on the show has to know that’s what’s going on. I’ve read that Stern has cleaned up his act somewhat in recent years; I wouldn’t know, since I’m not a listener or a fan. But most of the time when Trump was on, it was the Stern of olden days.
If you want to see some of the quotes I’m talking about, take a look, and there’s probably plenty more where those came from (some of this was well known even during the primaries, by the way, because it was already in the public domain). Now, I haven’t spent too much time in men’s locker rooms (full disclosure: none). But my guess is that statements like this particular one from Stern about Trump’s daughter Ivanka, and the response from Trump, aren’t what most men would let slide even under those circumstances, and it really is creepy-crawly, even to those accustomed to locker-room talk:
In another interview, from September 2004, Stern asks Trump if he can call Ivanka “a piece of ass,” to which Trump responds in the affirmative.
“My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka,” says Trump.
“By the way, your daughter,” says Stern.
“She’s beautiful,” responds Trump.
“Can I say this? A piece of ass,” Stern responds.
“Yeah,” says Trump.
Bill Clinton, JFK, LBJ, and whatever other philandering president you want to mention maintained at least a facade of decorum. Clinton was caught; the others kept their secrets during the entire time of their presidencies. This was done with the cooperation of the press, to be sure (note that the three I mentioned are Democrats). But Trump flaunts his, at least he did up till now. It indicates a lack of boundaries that is not about sex, not about political correctness, but about dignity and judgment and public behavior, something some voters still care about.
It isn’t even really about whether you care about those things (particularly in comparison to Hillary’s offenses, which are of a very different and non-sexual nature), or whether I care about them, or whether Trump’s sexual behavior in private has been worse than that of other presidents or just as bad or even a little bit better. It’s about the public nature of the evidence. It’s about how no one but the most devoted Trump admirers really wanted him to be president in the first place, and how most people do not seem to trust or like him. In order to win the election, Trump had to earn their trust. He hasn’t done it. He had to earn their respect; instead he has repelled them. He started from a weak and one-down position, and he’s dug himself a deeper hole, and this incident (the Billy Bush tapes) dug it still deeper.
People don’t want to be repelled by their president. And yes, Hillary also repels, but it’s a different sort of repugnance she engenders, and not enough people so far seem to have found her more repugnant than Trump. A lot of people especially don’t want to be repulsed by Trump before electing him, and they don’t want to be repulsed by a political novice whom they already don’t trust anyway. They don’t want a president to do it in the street and frighten the horses.
And let’s say for the sake of argument that Trump’s “doing it” is mere talk—although we don’t know that, either. (By the way, for those who say that Bill Clinton raped someone and that Trump is guilty of “mere words”: Clinton is alleged to have been a rapist, and Trump is alleged to have been a rapist, and both of them have been unfaithful to their wives.) If Trump’s sex talk is “mere talk,” it’s still talk that repels a lot of the people Trump needed to attract in order to win this election.
” It’s about how no one but the most devoted Trump admirers really wanted him to be president in the first place, and how most people do not seem to trust or like him. In order to win the election, Trump had to earn their trust. He hasn’t done it. “ – Neo
But, but, but …. trump tells the truth and is not bound by political correctness, doncha know!
I spent last weekend with my liberal siblings and others and it’s clear that they don’t love Hillary. But, Trump’s sexual crudeness is not so damaging in itself, but as the cumulating evidence that he is erratic and bullish. Again his ability to fail in sincere recognition that he was wrong and to realize that this is a problem adds one more stone on the scale against him.
I don’t think he realizes how precarious his position is or perhaps he does and it frightens him. This incessant expose of his crudeness and cruelty will destroy his brand. After all how many people will take their wives and girlfriends for an image of luxury when the name TRUMP is emblazoned 20 feet tall on the entry? What little reputation he had in the business world has been trashed by his inability to manage his campaign.
His whole life has been to get himself in the press good or bad and to sell his image. To lose the Presidency badly and to irreparably damage his image must be too much to consider. His children’s businesses will fail (although they will in no way be impoverished) and his ex-wives will have their lawyers on speed dial.
Hillary is cheerless, vindictive person with no vision or goals but not erratic. Trump has no vision, no kindness or charity, no sense of the awesome responsibility of the Presidency and no evidence of stability.
Having just returned from Korea and watched the frenzy about the NORK nuclear bomb I cannot escape the feeling that Trump could get us into a shooting war at any time.
Agreed that Hillary’s repugnance is of a different sort and more people find her less repugnant than Trump. Of the “knee-jerk” Democrats I know (family & friends), I can’t think of anything that would stop them from their Democrat vote. The repugnance I feel for Hillary, far exceeds any I feel about Trump. But that’s me. I judge her on her political actions and words over her long career. Repugnant doesn’t quite describe the contempt I feel toward her. Her use of office and position is the exact opposite of my principles and expectations (Benghazi, etc etc etc). As I have stated from the time of Trump’s nomination, even if the smallest chance exists that he will be different (and I KNOW he will be held to account by the Press et al, whereas I KNOW she won’t), I have no trouble voting for him. For me, it’s the equivalent of fighting a terminal cancer; do something, or nothing. I would do something.
Given the 24/7 recording of every event in our lives with our current fascination with social media, I think we’re going to see more of this sort of gotcha politics.
I just read somewhere that the Clinton Group have agents scouring the internet to take down anything possible personally negative.
When the story broke, the way I heard/read the reporting suggesting he had physically groped/assault a woman. While the fantasy braggadocio is repellant, does it rise to transferring 20% of our uranium resources to Russia for a bribe?
Which has harmed us?
We are awash in pornography in this country– being subjected to images on prime-time TV that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. Pornography objectifies women, destroys relationships, ruins families– yet we tolerate it even though the damage is exponentially worse.
“And let’s say for the sake of argument that Trump’s “doing it” is mere talk–although we don’t know that, either.” -Neoneocon
I have to take him at his word, when pressed during the second debate that he had never actually done what he was fantasizing.
If credible women come forward, more compelling than Anita Hill, I think the damage to his brand will last past his presidential run.
I’ve heard it said that merely running against the Clinton’s may jeopardize his businesses as progressives avoid staying in his properties, vacationing at his resorts, playing on his golf courses.
Neo: “If Trump’s sex talk is “mere talk,” it’s still talk that repels a lot of the people Trump needed to attract in order to win this election.”
True that.
What still rankles though is the fact that, even after Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades are common knowledge, he is now a much-loved elder statesman instead of persona non grata. It is the double standard. His sexual sins are as bad or worse than Trump’s but because he was a successful politician with a following, he is given a pass and the private citizen who’s hard to like is pilloried. How anyone can say Bill is less guilty than Trump is just a miscarriage of a sense of justice that is all too pervasive in our society.
Yes, Evita is going to be our next President. We are now embarked on the path of other such banana republics as Argentina. In the past I have done affair amount of reading about Argentina’s collapse in 1998-2002. Especially valuable is information from those who wrote about how they dealt with the break down of law and economic chaos. For anyone interested here’s one link of interest:
http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-really-happened-during-argentine.html
It’s now time to prepare for what is coming down the pike.
Why did it have to be Trump?
As far as I can recall, the primary reason given to support him early on was to keep one political dynasty from getting into the White House again (though it was blatantly clear to anyone actually paying attention that the representative of said dynasty was getting zero traction). Except that by nominating Trump, we’ve likely elevated an even worse dynasty back into the White House.
I think Trump gained traction for the same reason he’s now bleeding– his rejection of PCness.
People sense the country is slipping into chaos and the Republicans seem impotent to reverse the trend.
Trump is a hail-Mary– probably with little chance of success, but what were the options.
Cruz represented an anti-GOP choice, but I doubt he could have been elected.
J.J.–I don’t need to read about Argentina. I live in the San Fernando Valley (presently bearing the brunt of policies enacted by the Democrats these many years). It will be interesting to see how successful other states are in avoiding the fall-out of these poisonous laws. Reading the comments here, it appears that many believe they will fare OK. I suppose some of it will depend on where the refugees are sent. One of our clients pulled up stakes here in California (an attorney and his wife–left specifically because of the political destruction of our state). Well-they sold their beautiful home and bought in Boise, ID. I read the other day that Boise is a place where a large number of Syrian refugees have been sent.
This “personality cult” voting is going to kill us, if it hasn’t already. Trump is a jerk and a lout. HRC is an arrogant, crude, manipulative, congenital liar. I object to both on a personal level, but that really doesn’t matter to my vote. I want someone in power who understands what they should do (and not do) with that power and has policy decisions that I can agree with. On that score, neither is really acceptable either, but Trump is a fair sight better.
Voters picking a popularity queen inevitably pick incorrectly for what the office really needs. The problem isn’t just the pathetic leaders, it’s more about the voting numbskulls that put them there.
junior: “Why did it have to be Trump?”
Trump was seized upon by about 35% of the electorate as being his own man. He could self fund. He was not beholden to the interests of the Chamber of Commerce (the main force behind keeping the border open). He was going to build a wall and close the border. That was sweet music to the ears of the economically dispossessed. That 35% (plus or minus a few)stayed loyal to him all through the primaries. The other 16 candidates split the remaining 65% of the vote in such a way that none of them were competitive except, as the race went into the latter stages, Ted Cruz emerged as one with a chance. But Kasich stayed in and cannibalized enough Cruz votes to allow Trump to sew it up in Indiana. Trump was not the majority pick of those who voted in the primaries, he was a plurality pick. He was bound to be a weak candidate as a result. The GOPe tried to mount a move to deny him the win at the convention but it came to nothing.
It was the inability of the GOP majority in Congress to do anything substantive about Obama’s awful economic and foreign policies that resulted in those blue collar workers anger and demand for someone who would get something done.
At least that’s my take on how we ended up with Trump.
@JJ – I long ago mentioned that trump would be like having the kirschners (esp Cristina) in power. clinton would be less chaotic and populist, but no doubt would be damaging in a continuation of the G-march.
Also read ferfal several years ago – he has a much more reasonable perspective than most modern day American preppers have re: what economic and political chaos is really like – Far less hyperbole and fantasy. (e.g. it is much safer to live in an urban setting vs rural).
Seems as though Jonathan Swift invented his Yahoos to embody just these vulgar antics, while his Houyhnhnm’s — far from being frightened — would have looked on in a more or less detached or even clinical disgust.
Oh NEO! You’re right, we don’t have audiotapes of Bill Clinton talking about putting his cigar up Monica Lewinsky’s hoo-ha. Bill Clinton, Experienced Politician, had any such tapes and witnesses deep-sixed, paid off, hushed up. Dust-busted as the language of Primary Colors would have it. We do know he’s still out and about on the vulgarity circuit, hobnobbing with wealthy child molesters. Don’t hear much about that in the press though. Hmmm, wonder why? Because the press will always have it in for the Republican, no matter what. There will always be an excuse to make the Republican a Non-Person in the press. Even squeaky clean Romney. Don’t buy into it! It’s not news that Trump is vulgar. It’s news that this vulgarity, which the media promoted for years as entertainment (including during the primary campaign) is suddenly shocking and devastating and the basis for rejecting his candidacy in favor of further empowering a person whose corruption, incompetence, deception, fraudulence, and cronyism is epic and indisputable. And she’s also clearly a physically unwell person. I do not agree to do the bidding of the media. I will not buy in to their faux outrage and ignore their double standards in order to elect their candidate. They made this mess, they can spend the next four to eight years supervising and cleaning it up.
Everything Trump supporters hoped for, including the intermittent wish to “burn the GOP down” will be lost because they nominated a repulsive clown.
We told you this would happen.
P.S. The idea that nobody else could’ve won against Hillary (the 2nd worst candidate in America) is a lie.
Furthermore, the fact that Trump won the primary only proves that the voters have no authority to appeal to. They were wrong.
J.J.,
The GOPe were the ones who squashed the stillborn effort to free the delegates at the convention to “vote their conscience”. They could not allow for a slight chance that Cruz might pull off a miracle. They thought they might be able to tame the donald and he would dampen down his trademark crude buffoonery. Fools.
And I’ll also add: the only thing sadder than the missed opportunity for reform is the corrosion of the morals of people who support Trump.
Look at all the lies you have to tell, and tell yourself, to support this clown.
AMartel–You bring up a good point. What conservative would survive antics in a public office (the actual space) with an INTERN?? The Left constantly infantilizes 18-year olds and up (think of the children in the military) when they have an agenda. And yes, Katy Couric et al, friends with Jeffrey Epstein. The double standard of these people disgusts me.
“Look at all the lies you have to tell, and tell yourself, to support this clown.”
What tripe.
I am disgusted by Trump’s talk. But what disgusts me even more are the people who have profited from the moral destruction of our society but are joining in response with crocodile tears.
On FB I’ve seen the images of female pop stars who are feeling themselves up in the crotch area but are also whining about Trump. These are part of the group of people who are pushing the boundaries of public display – good grief – so many of their acts are nothing but soft porn. Miley Cyrus degrades and objectifies women by the way she acts!
These are the very people who have turned our public square into a cesspool and they have the GALL to criticize Trump for his words? Seriously?
I could go on and on, but will restrain myself.
An excuse has been offered that it’s locker room talk, although countered by athletes who vigorously deny that charge. IMO, this talk is probably common enough in the elevated positions in Hollywood and probably politics too. Read any books that purport to give an inside look to those two disgusting industries and you will find Trump-alikes galore, the real predatory types.
All I can think of in response to this is Whoopi Goldberg’s reference to ‘rape rape’ and shake my head.
While my disgust at them shouldn’t cause me to overlook my disgust at him, it does. They made his world, he’s only living in it.
FWIW, my state will go solidly to Hillary. I will be voting for Trump because that’s the best way to signify my disdain for the elites. It’s more of a statement than voting 3rd Party.
We are awash in pornography in this country— being subjected to images on prime-time TV that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.
Trump is far too old for that to be an issue, or excuse, for him.
If you really believe the old times were so much better, then why are your two candidates from those times so bad? (Hint: those days weren’t actually much better in terms of morals.)
In fact the youth of today are becoming the new temperance crusaders. Growing numbers are teetotal, vegetarian, etc. Smoking is now seen as a moral failing. I personally find their temperance quite disconcerting, especially when they try to impose it on me.
Sharon W Says:
“Look at all the lies you have to tell, and tell yourself, to support this clown.”
What tripe.
Trump boasts about grabbing married women’s pussies, and it’s “locker room talk.” He may have done this, he may not have, but it’s not a stretch to imagine it’s real.
If someone ever grabbed your (assuming you’re a woman) pussy or your daughter’s, how many people here would write it off as “high spirits?”
If someone did that in my presence, I’d kill him (or at least put him in the hospital).
QED
Matt_SE,
Courtesy is a two way street. Accusing those who’ve concluded that regardless of his manifest flaws, the certainty of Clinton’s agenda makes the possibility that Trump might surprise, the only viable alternative… of lying both to themselves and to others is a base, unwarranted accusation.
I happen to agree with almost everything neo posits as true of Trump (and where we disagree its a matter of degree) but simply see no other alternative that prevents Hillary from gaining the WH. I believe that her election will not only be disastrous but a literal death knell for liberty. And, if America loses its liberties, so too does the world.
I may be wrong in that assessment, I even pray that I’m wrong but I’m not lying to myself or to you about sincerely holding that POV.
Very well.
Matt SE–The outcome is binary. Hillary or Trump will be elected. To whom am I comparing Trump that I’m suppose to be scandalized by his talk/behavior? I was a Cruz supporter from the inception. It didn’t go my way. I’m used to that. For years I defended Bush against the vitriol of the Left during his 8 years. I supported his war effort (and I hoped his SC appointment would be favorable–but alas!), but every time I pointed out that I didn’t understand why Bush wasn’t loved by the Left as he championed and promoted so many things they believe in, it was met in silence. All they ever had was whatever the media was spewing at that point in time. His being a liberal on so many policies, his wholesome ways didn’t merit him anything with the Left. And apparently Cruz didn’t have sufficient merit with the establishment Republicans and here we are. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t join you in the chorus of my political opponents.
Chester Draws,
I’m 67. When I was a pre-teen, I, my brother and friends both together and by ourselves rode our bikes many miles from our homes. We were often gone for hours (sometimes all day) and my parents never had cause to worry about us, other than reminding us to watch out for cars.
“In 1940, teachers were asked what they regarded as the three major problems in American schools. They identified the three major problems as: Littering, noise, and chewing gum.
Teachers last year were asked what the three major problems in American schools were, and they defined them as: Rape, assault, and suicide.” William Bennett
“Trump is far too old for that to be an issue, or excuse, for him.
If you really believe the old times were so much better, then why are your two candidates from those times so bad? (Hint: those days weren’t actually much better in terms of morals.)”-Chester Draws
That’s not an excuse. Trump reflects the culture we are in. When it suits the media elites, the coarsening of culture is fine. It’s nothing but hypocrisy when they suddenly find their moral outrage.
I have a problem with anyone defending pornography as protected speech and then be outraged at Trump’s crude behavior.
I’m not voting for either a saint or pastor– though if I found out Trump had physically assaulted a woman, I wouldn’t vote for him, since that’s a criminal offense. I wouldn’t vote for a known criminal.
Everybody has to have a standard. I wonder what Hillary would have to do to lose the left’s vote? Use the wrong gender pronoun?
Brian E,
You said Trump reflects the culture we are in. That is exactly te problem I have with him–he is superficial and narcissistic. I want someone who will dig into issues, someone who doesn’t get is info from National Enquirer and morning TV news. I can overlook a personal failing. We all have them.
Now tat he is freed (thanks to Paul Ryan) from te shackles of the Republican party, will he turn to dealing with Nancy Pelosi? Will he ignore every voter who put a Republican in office? I don’t care what he has said about women. I care what he thinks of me as a reasonably well-informed citizen.
expat,
I think it’s safe to assume that Trump sees all of us, “reasonably well-informed” or otherwise, as potential marks in the grand con game he’s been playing all his life.
I am confused with how many sincerely intelligent people make the statement that this election is a “binary choice.”
No. It is not. There are more than two candidates on the ballot and there is even a line where you can write in the name of someone who is not on the ballot.
I have no qualm with anyone who selects Hillary or The Donald for whatever reason, even the “lesser of two evils” reason, but to claim one HAS to choose one or the other is simply not true. Let’s start with reductio ad absurdum. Imagine the GOP puts up Stalin and the Dems put up Hitler. I guess the binary choice folk would vote for Hitler because he killed fewer people than Stalin? Of course not. They would not vote for either! We can all agree there are candidates we simply could not vote for, even if not voting for either means the other will be elected. So, no. It is not a binary choice.
Now, let’s look at the argument that we are somehow at fault if the eviler of two evils wins when we don’t personally vote for the lesser of those two evils. An argument many, including folks like Sean Hannity are making.
First, it’s simply wrong by definition. The people at fault for the winning candidate being the winning candidate are the people who vote for that candidate. That is, by definition, how one wins an election. So, the people “at fault” are those who vote for the winner, regardless of who anyone else votes for.
Second, if I vote for someone who truly would be a good Commander in Chief and President (rather than the lesser of two evils) and less than a majority of my fellow Americans do not, I am not at fault for them casting a vote for a tragically flawed candidate. Like me, they are responsible for the votes they cast. They are free to write someone in. That is why that option is there. Yes, the odds are less than 0.000001% that a write in cadidate WILL win, but that is only because the majority of Americans will not vote for a candidate they want to be President, but will, rather, settle for a choice they do not want.
Third, the major parties are at fault for the candidates they put at the head of their tickets. Either party could have invoked any number of procedures to change the process and select whomever they preferred. They are to blame (or praise) for their candidates. It is not my fault these are their candidates and I am not beholden to them if they make awful choices.
Brian E:
What would make a woman “credible” to you who has accused Trump of sexual assault? Because there are plenty of women who have. See also this.
Why assume this was “fantasy braggadocio” on Trump’s part?
The Trump audio confirms what we already suspected. And the release of the audio NOW (rather than during the primaries) after sitting with NBC for 11 years, confirms the grand steering operation shamelessly at work in the dominant media. This audio would have been highly relevant to the Trump/Fox/Megyn Kelly dispute. Instead it was salted away until after ballots were set and early voting was already commenced.
.
I’m still going to vote for the rogue. Why? The press and the judicial system will not conspire to cover up his missteps. The other candidate will carry on with dismantling the rule of law CONFIDENT that none of her nefarious dealings will result in adverse consequences to her power or her tenure.
expat,
Trump identified the stock market bubble we are in during the first debate, caused largely by the Fed. To the extent this has diverted attention from the poor economic performance since the housing/finance bubble, it has allowed a large transfer of potential wealth to Wall St. Should we expect a sell-off if he is elected?
Trump has made it clear (at least he’s identified some of the cronyism between Wall St and DC) and is I think suited to actually do something. DC politicians have fed at that trough so long, I’m not sure he can wean them, but at least it’s a start.
Obviously the problems are larger than that, but the haircut he alluded to may be our only solution if we choose to not go full Zimbabwe.
I don’t see Trump projecting as an elitist. That might be all mirrors, might be his acerbic personality, might be his choice. Some of this might be the distinction between making his money in real estate vs. the stock market.
I have no choice but to accept that he will follow through on some of his campaign promises. He has certainly done a better job identifying some of the problems economically we face.
Brian–I used the term “binary outcome”. The choice is not binary, as you point out. Barring any unforeseen, extraordinary circumstance, either Hillary or Trump will be elected. And it will most likely be Hillary.
Brian E:
You wrote:
Are you kidding me?
Defending pornography as protected speech is defending freedom of speech. For example, in this country people defend the right of Nazis to publish their material and have protest marches.
If Trump (or Hillary, for that matter) were a Nazi, would you write, “I have a problem with anyone defending Nazism as protected speech and then be outraged at Trump’s Nazism.”
I tend to doubt it.
Defending someone’s right to say something has nothing to do with being outraged at what that person says. It is no hypocrisy whatsoever to defend the first and be outraged at the second. In fact, it’s the opposite of hypocrisy, if one believes in the US Constitution.
What’s more, one can defend a person’s right to say or even do something offensive and not want that person to be president of the United States.
Rufus…not Brian.
I’m not sure what lies we have to tell ourselves to support Trump.
That the dems thought Ken Starr was the villain? That N.O.W. said, wrt Kathleen Willey, that he stopped when she objected. The one-free-grope rule is not going to get anybody else out of trouble.
That the dems, Kennedys, LBJ, Chris Dodd, Gerry Studds, were considered okay guys? Nope. That’s the truth.
That we were told we weren’t to judge others? That’s the truth. Or get all het up about sex?
Get a grip, The entire thing about Trump’s talk is because he’s a republican.
Neo. The timing of Clinton’s peccadilloes wrt various elections is not the point. The point is who defended him, and how.
As somebody said, after decades of destruction of sexual morality, we’re expected to regard this as if we’re the Conference of Methodist Bishops ca. 1922.
Trump may be a vulgarian. But he’s not Hillary. In addition, he’s making the point that it’s good to be king and that’s not the sort of thing that’s supposed to be said. It demeans women–those who find power an aphrodisiac.
Matt S.E. wrote –
P.S. The idea that nobody else could’ve won against Hillary (the 2nd worst candidate in America) is a lie.
——————–
And according to the latest releases by WikiLeaks, Hillary’s campaign was very much aware of this. In fact, her campaign apparently had polls suggesting that the *only* candidate that she could beat was Trump.
Richard Aubrey–Even much worse, look what all these Leftist detractors are willing to overlook in the interest of being in the company of the wealthy–Jeffrey Epstein, and so on.
1. Let’s not forget what Trump did right before the debate. He had a press conference with four women who were wronged by the Clintons (three victims of Bill the sex predator, and the last a rape victim where Hillary was the defense counsel). Trump got them out in front of the media, and he got them invited to the debate. The photos of Bill Clinton and those women in the same place are very telling.
2. I thought I liked that man before, but after that last debate, I like Trump more than ever! I can’t wait to vote for him, with joy and enthusiasm.
3. That was an act of pure genius. And why did Trump do that? To show up the utter hypocrisy of those faint-hearted turkeys who suddenly declared that he was unfit to be President, and that they had no choice but to drop their support.
4. So Arnold Schwarzenegger un-endorsed Trump, and that from the same guy who knocked up his maid? Just look at the responses to Arnold’s self-righteous statement on Twitter, and all the people now making fun of him. It’s hilarious.
5. And with Senator John McCain, who the hell is he to throw stones? The accounts of the break-up of McCain’s first marriage, and his affairs, are all out there, and it’s a very sad story. And so what if Trump insulted McCain during the primary? He’s been a Senator for over 30 years, he’s a major Republican leader, and it’s his job to just suck it up and deal with it. That’s what he is paid for, and why he is elected to the dignity of that office, and he can just deal with it for the good of the country, especially when the alternative is the open corruption of the Clintons. Still waiting for McCain to say something about that.
6. And all those politicians and celebrities who are so quick to criticize Trump, and yet they have nothing but good things to say about Bill Clinton, and nothing but praise for others like the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (who killed a woman in a drunken car accident. Her name was Mary Jo Kopechne.)
7. Back to Neo’s original post, which has its valid points. I would, however, once more suggest that we look at the big picture. Trump is not the problem. The real issue is the ongoing failure of the current political and cultural elites. Trump is representative of the people who know something is wrong, and who want to change it, and his policies (nationalism, populism, and anti-immigration) are a blueprint for success and positive change.
“What makes a woman “credible” to you if she’s accused Trump of sexual assault? Because there are plenty of women who have. See also this.”
The story on Fusion.net, which is owned by Univision, seems a little too sensational. I’ve read a little about the 13 year old and the fact that her case was dismissed because she didn’t have the money to file it seems odd. I would suspect there would be many lawyers ready to take it on contingency against someone with deep pockets.
Ivana’s charges, she clarified were “not rape in the criminal sense”. They were going through a divorce and things get said for many reasons.
The charge of sexual contact while with Epstein is certainly troubling, since it seems to be common knowledge about his “lolita express” excursions– though more associated with Bill Clinton than Trump, but the idea of a grown man seeking sex with a child is deviant to the core.
The incident with Harth is troubling, and in my mind, the most likely to be true, though some of it seems strange– the part where he pursued her to get her to leave her boyfriend and marry him. Was it criminal behavior? Possibly. According to her the only reason she revived the charge was because Trump’s daughter said he wasn’t a ‘groper’ and she had been groped.
I certainly wouldn’t hang out with Trump. There is a sense of entitlement that rich and famous people seem to gravitate toward.
Brian E:
I have no idea whether any of the charges is true.
But I find Harth, at the very least, credible. And so I definitely do not assume that Trump is simply fantasizing.
He has also bragged for the record about many sexual exploits, including with married women. And we certainly know for sure that he was unfaithful to Ivana. What’s more, he has made many off-color remarks about his own daughter.
Powerful men often tend to be sexually exploitative. It is quite common among them. Do you really think that Trump, with the history I’ve just described, and lots of power and money, has only bragged and not acted? I tend to think it’s logical to believe he has acted, as well.
Whether or not that disqualifies him for the presidency is a separate question, as is whether he is guilty of a sexual assault in the legal sense.
As far as I’m concerned, he’s a terrible terrible candidate even if none of those things is true. The sexual stuff is not my main complaint about him, not by a longshot. But it damages his already damaged chances of winning.
Richard Aubrey:
You appear to misunderstand my point.
You write:
The timing of Clinton’s peccadilloes is actually very much the point, and it impacts on who defended him, and how, and what the result of that defense was.
It’s part of the reason that the defense of Clinton was successful with the electorate. The timing was much better than with Trump in terms of the worst allegations about Clinton during his first campaign, the evidence wasn’t out in the open, and—and this is very very important—he was already a popular political star with a lot of political accomplishments under his belt. He most definitely was a star, and an experienced president, and popular, by the time of the later trouble (Lewinsky).
He was a Democrat and the Democrats trusted him. He was experienced. He sounded smart. His favorables were high. He was seen as electable, and a probable winner.
Trump has none of those advantages. He is none of those things to the Republicans. He has no political capital to draw on.
My arguments here are very very practical. They are describing what happened. They are not about morality; that’s a separate issue. They are also not about your reaction, my reaction and whether we are offended—they are about the reaction of many people who still needed persuading to vote for Trump. People he needed in order to win.
This is not going to persuade those people to vote for him. Trump is a very different creature, both politically and personally, than Bill Clinton. He isn’t able to charm many people, and he can’t grab the electorate by its (metaphorical) pussy.
If we distinguish between the depiction of acts and the expression of ideas, we wouldn’t have to torture ourselves into accepting that pornography is protected.
“I think it’s safe to assume that Trump sees all of us, “reasonably well-informed” or otherwise, as potential marks in the grand con game he’s been playing all his life.”
Which is exactly how the DNC-media-bureaucratic complex sees us as well. Of course, they’re all far more experienced and smooth at lying to us, ripping us off and profiting from it.
Defending djt or hrc requires mental gymnastics beyond my ability. I understand those who hold a microscopic shred of optimism that djt is not as deplorable as hrc. I also understand those who can not vote for djt as a matter of conscience. In fact we should all try to live our lives in accordance with our conscience.
Respect is indeed a two way street.
Brian E:
I take what you just wrote to mean that you don’t believe pornography (that is, photographic or film pornography, which uses live actors) should be considered protected speech? Not sure what you think about print pornography—“mere words” pornography.
At any rate, it’s irrelevant to my argument, because most of those people you call hypocrites—people who might be defending pornography as free speech and yet be outraged at Trump—don’t agree with you. Instead, they believe that pornography is protected speech. So they are defending not pornography, but free speech, and there is no hypocrisy for them.
On the other hand, if YOU were to condemn print pornography and say it’s not protected speech and that it’s outrageous, you would be a hypocrite if you failed to be outraged at Trump’s speech.
In addition, there is a difference between consenting adults making pornography and consuming pornography (whether or not it’s protected free speech) and someone using his/her power to coerce someone into having sex, or someone actually forcing himself on an unwilling person. I’m not sure what Trump has done or not done on that score, but I hope we all agree that that might be legally actionable, and certainly is to be condemned.
It may have been a poor analogy, but the damage pornography is afflicting on a healthy understanding of human relationships is magnitudes of more concern to me than Trump’s bragging.
As far as the tapes reveal, that is all it is.
If Trump has committed criminal acts against women or even abused his relationship with women, that is indeed a problem though a different one.
I think, and I haven’t spent much time even thinking about it, the the SC essentially punted on the issue. It is my understanding that obscenity, is still not protected, it’s just that no one is willing to define what it is. Most people are agreed that child pornography is not protected.
And even if we can’t come to a consensus on what obscenity is, and it is a reflection on society that we seem to have no standards regarding it– I was recently subjected to reading some of JayZ’s lyrics in regards to this issue. Apparently President Obama is a fan of JayZ and Beyonce.
I would certainly define it as obscenity.
Brian E:
It was indeed a poor analogy. The point is whether the person is allowed to be “outraged” at something and yet defend it as free speech, and the answer is unequivocal: yes.
That is a separate question from the lack of clarity in the US about exactly what is pornography and what is not, and what should and should not be protected. The laws make it clear that pornography involving children is not protected. But that is a special case. The rest is difficult to determine and probably will continue to be, because community standards (the basis for it) keep shifting from time to time and place to place.
Used to be that material about birth control was considered porn.
neo.
Point about timing and elections is not my point. My point is who defended Clinton, who does now, and how it is done.
IOW, it’s a complete double standard. Cinton, and other dems, no problem.
Republicans talk it….RAAAAPE!
Again, the dirty little secret that it’s good to be king.
Richard Aubrey:
To a certain extent it’s a double standard on both sides.
The rule is: those who support that person defend him/her. They relax the rules for their side, and make them Draconian for those on the other side.
Both sides do that. Not in Congress—there, the Republicans turn more on their own if accused of sexual offenses. I’m talking about the public, bloggers, blog readers, that sort of thing.
The difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton had more supporters in his own party prior to the scandal. As well as many many more supporters in the press. Clinton was more popular in general, too.
You won’t find many people who condemned Bill Clinton for his sexual peccadilloes, and previously supported Trump, turning on Trump for this. At best, those who have turned on Trump were previously very very lukewarm supporters—more like “tolerators.” For example, Paul Ryan.
How many enthusiastic Trump supporters have turned on him for this? If they have, I’m not aware of it, and I bet there are very very few.
How many enthusiastic Bill Clinton supporters turned on him after the Lewinsky episode? Very few, but I seem to recall a few. Probably about the same proportion as Trump supporters turning on Trump for the Billy Bush tape.
I seem to recall Joe Lieberman turning on Clinton (Lieberman was still a Democrat back then). And Gore sort of soured on him—distanced himself somewhat. Here are some others.
Trump needed to get those crossover Dems and independents his early supporters said he could get, in order to replace the conservatives he lost.
He didn’t.
There are a good number of voters who aren’t amused by his antics, and find Hillary less-threatening than Trump (I think they’re wrong, but there’s no way for me to reach them).
Trump will lose.
If he tanks the GOP on the way out, we’ll get 4 years of Hillary with a Democratic Senate and possibly, House.
The GOP can block the most extreme SCOTUS nominees if they retain the Senate.
In two years, it will be a great opportunity to pick up more Senate seats, especially since we’ll have two years of Hillary to tell us what the consequences are.
All of this could’ve been prevented if the voters were more willing to compromise, but they weren’t. Maybe four years of Hillary will cure them of that too.
Bill Clinton, JFK, LBJ, and whatever other philandering president you want to mention maintained at least a facade of decorum.
I agree with neo that this is a key distinction.
Complaining about double standards misses the point. I imagine Bill or JFK would have been treated better, but if a recording of either surfaced with such blunt bragging talk of grabbing a women’s crotch because you had the power to do so, it would have been problematic for Bill or JFK.
Like it or not, partly we choose a president to project a respectable image. Obama does this pretty well if you don’t listen carefully to what he says.
With Trump we don’t know how low he can go. Who can be sure Pres. Trump won’t publicly cop a feel from a diplomat’s pretty wife and laugh about it?
I voted for Trump today. Good sized crowd in Omaha. First day for voting. I couldn’t wait.
I was astonished that after attacking the Muslim Gold Star couple and paying a big price in opinion polls for it, Trump wasted a couple of campaign days mocking an ex-beauty queen.
Leaving aside how repugnant his behavior was, any voter — including Trump suppporters IMO — has to wonder whether Trump has any self-control or sense of priorities.
If another 2008 financial crisis hits, will Trump be up late at night tweeting insults at his latest female humiliation object? Or doing his job?
Of course there is a double standard. Big pussy grabbing surprise. If you waste time and energy lamenting the double standard you are waisting time and energy like a cat chasing its tail. Cats can afford to waist time and energy. We can not.
Oops wrong waste. I must have been channeling hrc and djt’s waist lines.
“All of this could’ve been prevented if the voters were more willing to compromise,” – Matt SE
Depends on what you are saying they are compromising about.
trump seems the ultimate compromise if one is beholding to conservative principles.
But you are correct, it is nearly over for trump, short of a shocking surprise – highly unlikely, if we hadn’t seen it yet.
Discussing trump at this point is a waste of energy.
We need to be talking about what is the plan B?
Looks as if quite a few evangelicals are changing their minds about Trump. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll done after Sunday night’s debate shows him now having only a 1-point lead over Clinton among those who identify as evangelicals — he had a 12-point lead among them in July.
Too bad there wasn’t better oppo research during the primaries.
I don’t know how many people are thinking of this as I am.
Trump…..or Hillary.
Trump so far has shown personality issues not affecting much. IOW, we can only speculate about what he might do.
With Hillary, we know. Pack the Supreme Court, the FEC, further politicize the IRS and other agencies, push an Alinskyite lefty change to the country past the point of return, and steal us blind.
The rule of law is out the window and no enemy need fear us unless he threatens the Clintons’ stash.
parker:
In fifth grade I had a teacher who was giving us the definition of “camel dung.” She said it was “the waste of the camel.”
But as she said that, she happened to touch her own waist. I went for several years thinking that “camel dung” meant “the waist of the camel.”
True story.
Huxley: “Like it or not, partly we choose a president to project a respectable image.”
Yep. Kinda like this:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/selfie-catches-clinton-with-an-eyeful/
Those who dislike Trump can’t seem to see what a double standard there is in the MSM and how it’s warping your opinions.
A new e-mail dump shows outright evidence of media bias for the Dems. Won’t matter to anyone opposed to Trump. He must be defeated no matter what. Start getting ready for life in a country with open borders, more drug running, more terror attacks, more anti-police movements. less law enforcement, continuing skyrocketing debts, a declining workforce, higher taxes, more humiliations from Russia and China, an education system that continues to decline, less freedom of speech, skyrocketing energy prices, and more, much more. The run down to Argentina status will be slow – I won’t live to see it, but most of you will. Time to start making your plans.
Richard Aubrey:
Trump has shown much more than “personality issues not affecting much.”
He’s shown a bunch of things I’ve described for over a year on this blog, including a disrespect for much of the Constitution (disdain for free speech except his own; a tremendous interest in big government), the idea that the military will do whatever he tells them to, the ability to lie through his teeth about political opponents (and a lot more), a love for eminent domain, an admiration for socialized medicine, the propensity to sue people frivolously because he has the deep pockets and they don’t, the habit of stiffing his contractors, etc. etc..
The only reason he hasn’t abused his power in a government role is that he hasn’t yet had a government role.
You can still think he’s better than Hillary. But stop whitewashing things. Trump is pernicious, and has the potential to be much more pernicious if given the power.
Yankee @ 6:29: Yes.
Ann Says:
Too bad there wasn’t better oppo research during the primaries.
That’s what “New York values” meant, but Trump supporters pretended to not know what it meant and be offended by it.
In fact, it strikes me that this hypocrisy about pussy grabbing is the same sort of thing Trump benefitted from against Cruz.
Matt SE, and others.
No, Trump did not brag about grabbing women’s pussies. Check the transcript.
A little context here. Trump made his remarks as he was riding with Billy Bush on the way to or from Trump’s cameo appearance in a soap opera. I expect that he did not realize he was being taped. Naive of him.
Billy Bush was the host of a celebrity TV show “Access Hollywood,” and the nature of his work can be gleaned by googling. Needless to say, the show’s success depends upon young women cashing in on their looks.
Mr Bush and Mr Trump saw some beautiful young starlets and commented about how “hot” they were. Mr Trump then stated that he was “automatically attracted to beautiful women,” putting himself squarely in the middle of the 90% of American men (and the 3% of American journalists) who are not pajama boys.
Trump bragged to Billy that he “just started kissing them.” He said “Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”
Note: “And when you’re a star they let you do it.” Also known as “consent,” in the law and in ordinary parlance. Does anyone dispute what Trump said there?
The subject of the conversation was clearly the “loose morals” of women who would let you kiss them — or as Trump noted, “do anything” — if you were a star. Trump and Bush have a verifiable point. For example, Wilt Chamberlin, a big star, claimed to have “slept with” 20,000 women. But he’s black, so he gets a pass.
Billy Bush agreed that if you are a “star,” some young starlets let you do . . . anything, and he added “Whatever you want.”
Mr Trump agreed with Billy Bush’s “anything” comment, and extrapolated upon it, saying “Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything.”
Mr Trump did not say that he had done such things. Quite the contrary. In his statements about his pursuit of a married woman, he essentially said he gave up. Perhaps if he had been the governor of Arkansas, he could have ordered minions to bring the women to him.
Trump admits that he’s not perfect, and he has apologized. This whole thing is just another example of political correctness gone wild in the hands of hypocrites. Trump will fight. He will fight Hillary. He will fight political correctness. He will fight a corrupt media. That is exactly why he became the nominee.
Let’s all grow up a little. There’s a nation to save, and Hillary will destroy it.
But what disgusts me even more are the people who have profited from the moral destruction of our society but are joining in response with crocodile tears.
In case people hadn’t noticed, those people aren’t here in this thread attacking Trum. Unless they are and they are hiding it.
If people hate and want to get rid of the Left… maybe you should have done something about them before 2016?
And if HRC is the end of liberty in the uS, if it is so important, why not just nuke DC?
Trump admits that he’s not perfect, and he has apologized. This whole thing is just another example of political correctness gone wild in the hands of hypocrites. Trump will fight. He will fight Hillary. He will fight political correctness. He will fight a corrupt media. That is exactly why he became the nominee.
The Clintons set Trum as a stalking horse to sabotage the Republican primaries. They did so knowing how much dirt and blackmail they could use against Trum, if he ever became a problem. The Clintons are many things, but bad at manipulating power, they aren’t.
If Trum had continued holding off against attacking Clintons for their past, they wouldn’t need to pull up the rest of the blackmail they have against Trum, such as Trum trolling Epstein for teenage sex pots. If anyone was going to fall for that honey pot, it would be people like Ted Kennedy, Trum, or Clinton.
The reason Trum didn’t attack Clinton on Epstein or being a rapist before, is because of their cease fire or protection deal. Well, the cease fire is off now and they can go at each other.
He will fight Hillary. He will fight political correctness. He will fight a corrupt media. That is exactly why he became the nominee.
DC is the capital of evil. Do you know how many prostitution rings there are, run by Senators and Congress peeps? All they need is 5 good looking blonde girls, and Trum will do whatever they tell him to do, like a good puppet. If he “fights”, there’ll be blackmail video of him banging an underage girl somewhere online.
For people who are moral and righteous, such as Bush II, Romney, or Palin, all DC can do to you is to freeze you and cut you off from support, so that you never get anything done and nobody believes in you.
But for people like Trum and Ted Kennedy, blackmailing them is much much easier. It’s one of the ways Nancy P and Reid keeps such good control of the Democrats.
With Trump we don’t know how low he can go. Who can be sure Pres. Trump won’t publicly cop a feel from a diplomat’s pretty wife and laugh about it?
Here’s what VoxDay wrote about the 2008 elections, which he didn’t vote in and was probably soon out of the country permanently to Italy.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/09/tweedledum-and-tweedledummer.html
Which, of course, is precisely why I’m hoping the American electorate is dumb enough to choose the magical negritude of Tweedledummer. Since Americans collectively have negligible interest in anything that might help them avoid their societal plunge off the cliff, I’m primarily looking to see them maximize my entertainment experience.-VoxDay
I highly suspect that many of the AltRight’s leadership, the non Tea Party and non Republicans, are secretly setting the rest of you up to fail, for their own entertainment or interests.
And Americans, as usual, fell for it. I wish I could say I was surprised. But maybe everyone in the Alternative Right is sincere, even the Demoncrat voters. Maybe Trum was merely Clinton’s stalking horse.
Which candidate do you think the Left and the ALt Right will have more fun with as President?
Cap’n Rusty Says:
October 12th, 2016 at 12:35 am
For example, Wilt Chamberlin, a big star, claimed to have “slept with” 20,000 women. But he’s black, so he gets a pass.
Wilt Chamberlin never ran for President. Thus, voters never had to make a decision about Chamberlin’s moral fitness for high office.
As Neo mentioned, by the time the public learned of the Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton was already serving in his 2nd term as president and was term limited. The voters never had an opportunity to cast a vote for or against Bill Clinton with that kind of knowledge of Bill Clinton.
Also, most of the later Bill Clinton years were boom years for the economy. This made it easy for many voters to give Clinton a pass. When Nixon was embroiled in the Watergate scandal, the economy was performing badly.
We have learned of Trump’s behavior five weeks before the election. Trump has never held public office before. Not even state legislature or Mayor.
Trump says that NATO is obsolete. Hillary Clinton does not say that.
On that basis alone, one might decide to vote for Hillary Clinton as a the safer, saner choice.
Given a choice between two Leftists, choose the sane Leftist. I will vote for neither of them.
Robert Gates, who served as Secretary of Defense under both President George W. Bush and President Obama, has said that Trump is “beyond repair.”
I tend to agree with Mr. Gates.
Ben Shapiro summed up the problem:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440972/donald-trump-republican-bashing-endangers-gop-congress
This whole trashy language, sex stuff is a distraction that is working out very well for the Hillary team. The rabid Trumpsters don’t know they have been conned.
Matt_SE:
“The GOP can block the most extreme SCOTUS nominees if they retain the Senate.”
Given that they’re defending 22 seats to 10 for the Marxists, and that Trump appears to have zero, perhaps even negative, coattails, retaining the Senate has to be considered a long shot.
But let’s say they did, then what? Did supposedly having a conservative majority on SCOTUS stop Obama? Hillary would still have many choices:
1) nominate nothing but extreme leftists, then bash the GOP relentlessly for standing in the way of the Constitution and justice and fairness
2) nominate some (seemingly) moderate (appearing) leftists too, difficult for the GOP to oppose, but who would still be a reliable liberal voice on SCOTUS
3) and/or do her damage with Executive Orders/memos, knowing it takes years for legal opposition to wend its way through our byzantine justice system
If they lose the Senate, the first thing Marxist Leader Schumer will do is use the nuclear option to prevent the GOP from stopping any judicial nominee, opposing any political appointments, or stopping any treaty Hillary makes.
Great post Neo. I’ve read the comments with interest.
It’s fascinating that as time has gone on many of the earliest arguments for Trump have gone by the wayside.
For example, SCOTUS. Trump has responded to the rescinding of support from various Republicans by, it would seem, making the focus of his remaining campaign the defeat of Republicans . If he really cared about SCOTUS he’d be doing everything he could to try to keep the Senate. He doesn’t really care about SCOTUS. None of his promises mean anything. That is assured if you just look at the man’s life. Character actually matters.
The whining about double standards in the press here is hard to take. I’m not a Republican anymore but I am still a conservative and I can remember when the conservative movement had more of a spine. The victimhood on display is depressing.
I would hope we could start facing some facts:
– Trump at least talks like a sexual predator. I wouldn’t bet a dime against him being an actual sexual predator. He is unfit for office for that and 1,000 other reasons
– If you nominate a candidate out of emotion and rage because you want to burn it all down, don’t be surprised when it ALL gets burned down. The Republican party may be destroyed after this. Who will stand against leftists when the conservative movement is splintered amonth 2 or 3 fringe parties. You have assured your own destruction
The Democrats have to be absolutely giddy – what’s happening now is beyond their wildest dreams.
Also, it’s almost like people don’t realize that Bill Clinton, our disgraced and impeached former President, is not running for office this year.
Interesting essay, Neo-neocon. Back during the Clinton terms and scandals, it was during my transitioning from liberal to conservative thought. At the time though, my thinking was that his personal behavior, while exploitative and nasty, was of no bearing on his governing. I believe I vaguely thought that law enforcement rather than Congress should be handling the various claims.
Though he behaved despicably, I remember being completely repulsed by his wife’s perverse reactions. And every future action by that woman has deepened that feeling of disrespect and dislike of her. I wonder whether her husband’s public naughtiness has damaged her mental health in some pretty horrible ways?
Probably that may be why, though not for Trump in the primary, I give him a gigantic leeway in the hopes that he will defeat her.
I don’t see everyday Americans as repulsive to Trump, as they are to HRC. I think he likes them. They won’t and never would, some one in politics should have told him, get him elected. HRC is the tip on a huge and powerful iceberg, political machinery, big donors, Wall Street, big banks, big media. Trump never stood a chance.
Two things.
One, as shown is wiki leaks, the Dems were hoping for and the media were influencing Trump’s win in the primary. Sheesh, every four years the media sticks its heavy foot on the scales and essentially chooses the Republican nominee. Once the general election begins, big media swings its powerful turret around and aims its fire directly at the Republican whom they recently lauded. It is so predictable. Why didn’t the Republican candidates, knowing this, do the Solomen thing and give the baby to a candidate who could win against Trump and defeat HRC, instead of butchering the poor thing sixteen ways?
And two, man oh man, I have such empathy for the dispossessed working guys and women. They went for Trump so big time. They have felt betrayed by the Republican Congress and the Democrat president. But they are heading for a world of bad with HRC who despises them already. In a primary debate she gloated that her favorite enemy is the Republicans, half the country! Then went on to demean them more as irredeemable. Repulsive thought of that woman gaining the Oval Office and strutting her way into history as the first female president. Our system is so wrecked; she and Trump are just the flat tires spinning out as from a car crash.
neo, bill.
Point is not who got elected when according to the latest scandal.
It is unlikely there are/were as many as one Clinton supporter who would have voted differently if the timing had been right.
I’m pointing out the double standard. The hypocrisy.
You can see it, for example, on Facebook.
You can see it on the treatment of Gold Star mothers–Cindy Sheehan had absolute moral authority while she was bashing Bush but when Obama took over and she didn’t quit, she was memory-holed. No longer counted. The dems and Hillary diss Pat Smith, mother of a Benghazi dead man.
Joy Behar calls Clinton’s victims “tramps”.
For all Trump’s faults, he is not as awful a person as Hillary, nor are his followers so rancid.
And, as has been said, should he be elected, he won’t have the MSM to cover for him, nor the federal agencies willing to screw us for his benefit.
So his ability to do lasting damage is limited, compared to Hillary.
Richard, a few comments
For all Trump’s faults, he is not as awful a person as Hillary, nor are his followers so rancid.
Your first point is debatable. He’s a pretty bad person. And not just because what he said in 2005.
Second point – I say this carefully, because I have respect for almost all the Trump supporters on this thread. But there are a lot of Trump supporters out there who are some of the worst people in the world. Anti-semites, white nationalists, vicious, brutal – they are crawling all over social media right now, lifting high their frog-god.
And, as has been said, should he be elected, he won’t have the MSM to cover for him, nor the federal agencies willing to screw us for his benefit.
So his ability to do lasting damage is limited, compared to Hillary.
This is conjecture and hope. I think Trump can do a lot of lasting damage. The most likely thing I think he could start is a global depression based upon his protectionist economic plans, his expansion of government spending, his 3am tweets, etc. I think the de-stabilization of NATO and the middle east that could happen under his watch is pretty scary. Capitulation to Russia and guys like Assad is almost guaranteed. And he hasn’t displayed even once that he has control of his emotions (case in point – his current unhinged-ness) or that he has the temperament to be President. Of course, we’ve argued about this in this space ad-nauseum. I don’t expect to sway anyone at this point.
Really unfortunate we couldn’t see this coming. Except a lot of us did, over a year ago. I’ll admit that Trump has actually been worse than I thought he would be.
A completely winnable election thrown away. Oh well, “Burn it down” and all that . . .
Kill the messenger. Slut Walks. Abortion chambers. Planned Parenthood. Vive la sexual revolucion! Pro-Choice forever.
Clinton leads the progressives, liberals, “moderates”, Republican establishment, the “good” Americans, who tolerate and even support the “final solution” a.k.a. Pro-Choice, selective exclusion (“=”), serviceable and taxable females (e.g. female chauvinism, interns with “benefits”, reproductive prostitutes), class diversity (i.e. racism, sexism), progressive wars (i.e. cold war with Russia, China, etc.), emigration reform (e.g. refugee crises, mass exodus), and destabilization of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, etc. The nexus between far left, far right, and the center with its special and peculiar interests is revealing.
Spiral:
My point about Wilt Chamberlin’s rapacious sexual appetite was intended to confirm what Trump and Billy were saying; i.e., if you’re a “star” there are some women who will let you do “anything.” Why do you think Bill Clinton was able to have his way with so many women?
Pay special attention to the “let you” part. Trump and Billy were both talking about women who would let you do anything if you were a “star.” When Trump said grab her pussy, he was giving an example of the type of behavior some women would consent to if the man was a “star.” Neither said that they had attempted to do that.
To let means to consent. The Left has been destroying our established cultural and sexual norms for decades by saying that any type of sexual activity is acceptable between consenting adults. Unless you’re a straight white conservative male.
One might say that both Trump and Clinton mean to fuck you, the citizen, once either gains office, although each in their own particular twisted sense of that bald phrase. Best of all for each of them, they’ll do this with your acceded power, sometimes called taxation. The question for each of us, as voting citizens (at one time considered sovereigns in this nation — but no longer) is: Will we let them? That is, consent? Well?
“But there are a lot of Trump supporters out there who are some of the worst people in the world. Anti-semites, white nationalists, vicious, brutal — they are crawling all over social media right now, lifting high their frog-god.” – Bill
This presents a challenge in identifying those who truly are this way vs those who vociferously argue in favor of trump, ignoring this aspect of his how trump courted these folks (among many other awful aspects of his campaign, behavior, attitude, etc.).
Part of plan B has to include how we disassociate (in the minds of the electorate) ourselves from those people.
.
“Really unfortunate we couldn’t see this coming.”
The part most unfortunate, and shocking is how quickly and easily much of the GOP leadership, and the “conservative” media dropped all that they claimed they stood for and went all in on trump.
Along with the association with all that is wrong with trump and his campaign, there may now be a near complete loss of credibility in the case they (and we) were making for conservatism.
The recovery will be a monumental task.
.
christie, giulianni, bennett, limbaugh, hannity, ingrahm, etc should all be finished, revealing themselves for who they really were vs what they were preaching to us all these years.
G0d help us if any of those who were more than tepid in their support of trump retain any leadership role beyond this election.
Just a couple of things:
As you point out, the timing of the Lewinsky scandal matters a lot. Had it occurred during Clinton’s first term, it might have prevented a second one. Since it occurred in his second term, people just thought : “He’s going to be out in two years anyway, why bother ?”
I think it was Jonah Goldberg (I may be wrong about that) who has pointed out that Trump wasn’t bragging about his sexual behavior; he was bragging about getting away with it because he’s such a big star. What mattered to him wasn’t the sex, it was the status, which I think is pretty typical of his behavior across the board. It’s all about ego. If elected, he’ll probably rename the White House to “Trump Palace”.
To let means to consent.
This is among the worst arguments I’ve heard for Trump’s behavior.
Where do I start?
To “let” means she didn’t scream or call the police. It doesn’t mean she wanted him to do [insert gross image of Trump doing any number of disgusting things to females. Then take a shower] to her.
Even in that video – he demonstrated it by walking over to the women they had been verbally undressing during the hot mic moment and kissing her on the cheek. Of course she “let” him do it. It’s not a major violation, in theory. But if I did that at work to random females a) my wife wouldn’t like it, b) no matter how much of a catch I might thing I am, most likely they wouldn’t like it and c) I would be breaking the reasonable rules we have at my office.
But he didn’t say “kiss on the cheek”. He said “Grab them by the pussy”. Neo has already posted some links to women who have been abused by Trump. Do any of you really want to bet he was just “all talk”?
I’ve heard this argument for decades: It was OK for Clinton/LBJ/JFK to be horndogs because “men in power are sex fiends. Goes with the territory”.
Interesting that the reaction/follow up to the hot mess of Clinton was George W Bush and Obama – two men that, whatever you may think of them, are stellar examples of faithful husbands and fathers.
They both were (especially Obama) “stars”.
We don’t have to put up with this cr@p from guys like Trump. No one does.
“Part of plan B has to include how we disassociate (in the minds of the electorate) ourselves from those people.”
Flatly impossible, and has been for decades. Remember, even John McCain was called a neo-Nazi by Tom Brokaw, on the grounds of David Duke:s association with the Republican Party.
That’s the real problem with these expectations. It doesn’t matter if you don’t do it in the streets and scare the horses, the streets will now be forced into your bedroom, your bathroom, even dig up your backyard looking for dirt to throw in front of the horses to scare them.
Those who dislike Trump can’t seem to see what a double standard there is in the MSM and how it’s warping your opinions.
J.J. Those who like Trump can’t seem to see what poor mindreaders they are and how it is their opinions which might be warped.
From what I can tell the dislike-Trump crowd understand the pro-Trump arguments very well — they just disagree. They usually give cogent counter-arguments which the pro-Trump people don’t seem to hear. The pro-Trump folks simply go back to explaining how there are only two major candidates and how bad Hillary is.
Across the board the pro-Trump solution seems to be just shouting louder.
“Those who like Trump can’t seem to see what poor mindreaders they are and how it is their opinions which might be warped.”
I resent that implication. I’m pro-Trump and can’t read minds AT ALL.
And, if your perceptions of reality weren’t so warped, you’d realize that you can’t, either.
Kathleen Parker as a op piece at WaPo stating that Bill and Trump grew up in the Elvis/Hugh Hefner era. I did too, and most of the guys I knew were not horny beasts. I have always had lots of male friends wo were decent people.
She doesn’t carry her thoughts forward to Obama’s WH, where trashy rappers are the role models for today’s young men. I guess times change.
Could this be what we are in for? …
“Trump and Bannon are attempting to carve out an audience post-election loss, and they’re deliberately sinking the Republican Party and any ability to resist Hillary in order to do it. That’s best case scenario for them: the GOP goes down in flames, Hillary dominates, Trump and Bannon blame all of the backstabbers on the home front for losing the election, then pose as the secret rebellion. And you can be part of the secret rebellion too, all for the low, low price of $9.99 per month!” – Ben Shapiro
http://www.dailywire.com/news/9877/welcome-steve-bannons-trumpocalypse-ben-shapiro
Got to say that the way some in the conservative media have behaved this cycle, abandoning all that they claimed in the past to back trump, and how trump seems to think, one has to wonder if there isn’t some validity in this.
You Know, I feel pretty darn free. We still have the vote and we can trust the system. People who should know what they are talking about see no reason to be alarmed. What’s not to like?
It’s not as if once Hillary is in and unleashed, things will be unrecoverable sans a near catastrophe of some kind.
“. . . sans a near catastrophe of some kind.”
Heh, the USS Mason still floats, y’see . . . but then, so does the entire IRGC Navy, not a single hull holed today. So many pussies to be grabbed, so little time.
@Tatterdemalian — don’t agree that it is impossible, but do see it as monumental.
True, conservatives have always been called names. However, there is a difference when the left merely called conservatives names, even extreme ones, but they couldn’t necessarily make it stick.
Whether our side effectively dealt with that is another question.
BTW, we mustn’t naively assume “our” side doesn’t do it too (e.g. alex at powerlessline said clinton was possessed by demons). Both sides throw sticks and stones.
But now, much of what used to be evidently and provably untrue, becomes MUCH harder to undo because a large segment of “conservative” leaders’ and media’s strong endorsement of trump, who has catered to people who ARE those types, they have become closely associated with those names/types.
Since they identify themselves as “conservative”, we all (and the very different ideas we hold from them) get that brand (for now).
This is far bigger than the New Coke debacle, since nobody called what is running “New”, though there is some recognition that it is a form of populism / nationalism.
.
The other challenge is to meaningfully address the concerns that have given rise to trump. This is ground that can be won from the dems, as Sanders tapped into some of the same concerns.
Sharon W,
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree with you that it is, almost definitely, a “binary outcome.” As I explained, despite that truth I will not vote as if it is a binary election. I will write in the name of someone I respect. Someone intelligent, competent, humble, etc. When the Libertarians picked Johnson I was happy. I thought that’s who I would vote for, but he’s been sorely disappointing. He doesn’t seem to be taking his own campaign seriously. Like the GOP, it seems like the Libertarians flipped their ticket the wrong way.
Wait, there has been wall to wall press coverage on Trump since day one of the primaries, they had this tape, but waited until now to release it. What?
The only way I can see it not being either Trump or Hillary is if two, very popular people submitted their names for a write-in campaign. Maybe Gore and Rubio or Biden and Ryan. Or Sanders and Cruz.
Folks on the left who hate Hillary could vote Sanders and folks on the right who hate Trump could vote Rubio. Then, perhaps, no one would win a majority of electoral votes. That, is almost impossible to happen, but that’s the only way I can envision it not being one of these 2, awful, awful people. And, barring some amazing event, it’s basically a unary outcome now. All bow to Her Royal Majesty, Hillary Rodham Clinton.