Actually, I'm not an idiot, but far too many conservatives/GOPers (GOPcons) are. In fact, if I had to go to war, I would rather fight with liberals, hands down and here's why:
Democrats want to win above all else.
GOPcons like losing. They wrongly see it as noble.
Democrats will use any dirty trick, any weapon, any tactic to destroy their enemies.
GOPcons won't touch anything that wasn't considered gentlemanly in the Victorian era.
Democrats are forward looking and always try to make use of new inventions.
GOPcons are blind to anything "new."
Democrats know their friends from their enemies.
GOPcons can't separate the two.
Democrats always try to destroy their enemies.
GOPcons desperately need the respect of theirs.
Democrats use their moron fringe as a weapon, but don't let them make strategy.
GOPcons let their moron fringe set the agenda.
Democrats support each other to the death no matter what they do.
GOPcons look for reasons to betray their friends. In fact, they prefer to destroy each other rather than fight the enemy.
Democrats use propaganda as a weapon.
GOPcons believe every bit of propaganda that comes their way and see each as a reason to surrender.
Honestly, I'm sick of this. This has been the story of the GOPcons for my whole life. My first real memory of politics was the GOPcons turning against Ford for pardoning Nixon for a stupid robbery. Then they smeared Reagan when he ran against Carter. Everything Reagan did, some weak-kneed GOPcon declared the end of his presidency and all but demanded his resignation. Every election since, the left or right flank swears they will sit out or openly endorses the Democrat. Guys like John Warner in Virginia have never endorsed a Republican. What's more, they like losing... it makes them feel noble. They disdain the very institutions they need: Hollywood, the media, academia and law. They have no grasp of human nature or the public. And so on. And that's been the pattern ever since I can remember. Conservatism is dead until modern conservatives lose their taste for false martyrdom, cowardice and betrayal.
What bothers me even more is this. If Trump gets blown up, nothing will change. The GOPcons will go back to their bunkers, their churches and their ivory towers and the will feel smug about their purity. Meanwhile, average middle class America will keep suffering under a government that has destroyed their jobs, destroyed their healthcare and buried them under a mountain of taxes and debts to pay for vanity projects. It is a government that gets American soldiers killed with no plan to win "the war," which attacks the police as a proxy for fixing the ghettos, sells itself like a whore to big business, and prefers the company of foreigners to its own people. It is a government that stifles innovation. It is blind to right and wrong yet seeks to impose its own amoral code of conformity under the threat of force. That is Democratic rule. And no one can stop it because the GOPcons are busy jerking themselves off about their purity.
This needs to end. We need a party that casts off the fringers, the cowards and the political lifers. It's time we had a party that cared about the American public and its needs. How do we do that? I wish I knew.
55 comments:
In other, slightly less depressing news...
Monsterpiece Theater takes a look at the great Christopher Lee as Count Dracula at the film site. LINK
First, bragging about how one's social status allows one to commit sexual assault is very different than merely making crude comments about women.
Second, the notion that Republicans have been unwilling to play rough is simply not true. Spreading rumors about a black out of wedlock kid, birtherism, claiming Purple Hearts weren't truly earned, what have you, all have happened.
Third, I agree that a stupid obsession with purity has damaged the Republicans, but I am thinking of a different type of purity than you. The purity I am thinking of is a purity that opposes reality (and the disappointments and compromises that come from working in the real world).
Its why Ted Cruz (a cynic who rose to prominence by selling himself as an outsider) and Donald Trump (a blue blooded, very liberal Democratic activist who endeared himself to the fringe with birtherism) were the two last men standing in the primary.
That purity also showed up in 2012, when Romney (a former governor whose record while conservative was to the left of many of his rivals in some important areas) won the primary through a willingness to be the craziest talker on the podium.
So now the Republican nominee is a liberal buffoon who routinely talks about women as things to be used and abused (he even encouraged Howard Stern to think of his daughter as a piece of ass) which means he has a problem with female voters (roughly half the population).
Clinton is the least charismatic frontrunner in decades, is utterly unprincipled and is extremely corrupt. On the heels of an unpopular administration with no record of accomplishment to point to, she should have been an easy opponent (voters already handed Republicans Congress and a majority of the states). However, Trump is the nominee and on that basis alone, Hillary has hope.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/10/wikileaks-bombshell-clinton-relied-on-trump-primary-win-gop-obliged/
WikiLeaks released thousands of emails involving Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, on Friday. In one of the leaked emails from March 2016, an adviser warned against Hillary's overall campaign strategy, afraid that her campaign was "almost entirely dependent" on Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination.
...bragging about how one's social status allows one to commit sexual assault..
...when you’re a star, they let you do it. (emphasis added)
Anthony, thank you for providing an example of the neo-Victorian, women-hate-sex attitude that Andrew is talking about.
Let me also add that, while most of the GOP primary field would have been preferable to Trump in terms of ideology, I've come to the conclusion that none of them would've been able to stand up the Hillary the way Trump has. For any (much less all) of the reasons Andrew provided, any of the other GOP contenders would've folded like cards the moment Team Hillary produced a hint of a suggestion that they weren't as pure as the wind-driven snow.
Cruz would've been the most vulnerable, with his choir-boy bona fides. Jeb would've issued mealy apologies for days. Rubio would've probably fritzed out. And Kasich would've probably stepped down.
Tryanmax,
Nice try, but a woman not wanting a specific guy to touch her in a private place doesn't imply that she or women in general hate sex.
Along those lines in sexual matters the difference between grotesque crime and 'best night of my life' is consent.
Bragging that he was reasonably safe from repercussions because of who he was (implied by 'let you do it' rather than 'wanting you to do it') shows that for Trump consent was immaterial. On a related note, many of the woman who have complained about Trump over the years were or were once in a position where Trump could deny them things they wanted (jobs, contracts, beauty pageant titles, what have you).
Thanks for another article, Rustbelt. It's a great series!
Anthony, The "purity" appears in several ways and they are all destructive. But I am absolutely talking about the type you are talking about: "my candidate needs to be 100% like me or I can't support them." F-you, moron. Even worse is the race by candidates to prove their "conservatism" is more pure than everyone else. All that does is drive out the straights and make the ideology an increasingly small private club for intolerant, out-of-touch assholes. That is about as stupid as you can get... yet, it's SOP for conservatives.
In terms of playing it rough, the fringe might, but the candidates don't. They are weak-kneed and afraid to be seen as mean. They apologize at the drop of a hat and abandon each other with vigor.
In terms of Trump, he's just a minor point in my article. This has been going on my whole life. The same Ronald Reagan everyone claims to love now was repeatedly savaged from the conservative left and right, often in very nasty ways. His "failure" to shut down the Dept. of Ed, his immigration amnesty, Iran-Contra, his budgets, his hot-mic joke about bombing Russia, etc. The conservative left/right took every one of these moments as a chance to savage him. They even ran a third party candidate against him. And that crap has never stopped. Disloyalty is in the party DNA.
On the Trump point specifically, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Ok, so the guy is a braggart who said something asinine. So what? Who in politics isn't dirty? And all he did is talk. Do what the Democrats do. Acknowledge that it's bad and attack the Democrats for their crimes. Don't fall down into a weepy heap and try to hand the nomination to the woman who covered up her husband's rapes and got people killed.
tryanmax, I actually concluded that a long time ago. Even with Clinton being as pathetic as she is, the others didn't have a chance because of their failure to offer anything that doesn't anger the public. "Ban abortion, fight gays, and support Big Business" is not a platform that is acceptable to Americans.
tryanmax, the neo-Victorian, women-hate-sex attitude
On this point, I think this is a great example. Is what Trump said acceptable? No. But it's not a disqualifying issue nor is it something you try to use to destroy him. You do what the Democrats do, you make him apologize and then you talk about moving on and you smear the Democrats with their own issues they've never apologized for. Instead, the GOPcon response is to drop to your knees as if some unforgivable sin has occurred and you pledge to bring down your own side as punishment for your sins. That's bullshit.
You know, I always think of John Tower at moments like this. Tower was a Senator nominated for Secretary of Defense. He was also an known alcoholic. The Democrats smeared him with this and the weak-kneed Republicans cowardly switched sides and opposed him. The next Democrat to come along who was an alcoholic, the Republicans raised the issue and the Democrats said, "It's not right to attack someone who needs treatment." And the Republicans got weak-kneeded again and supported the candidate.
The Republicans turned on Douglas Ginsburg for smoking pot in college, but the Democrats never did with their nominees. A huge chunk turned on Clarence Thomas for what was obviously a smear.
Democrats just move on, Republicans sacrifice their own.
Anthony, I cannot have a discussion with you if you insist on equivocating the simplest words.
Andrew, thought you might appreciate this tweet from the Donald:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Disloyal R's are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all sides. They don’t know how to win - I will teach them!
9:48 AM - 11 Oct 2016
Andrew,
I don't think the second Bush (who demonstrated a willingness to play rough during his eight years in office) can reasonably be considered part of the fringe :) .
If you are taking issue with the way Republicans dealt with Democrats in the 80's and early 90's that is a bit before my time but seems reasonable (as a kid, teenager and even a young adult politics were very, very low on my list of interests).
People in a party reacting negatively to a president's scandals and/or mistakes is par for the course. The notion that the Democrats support their nominee to the hilt doesn't seem to be supported by recent history. Obama and Clinton enjoyed legislative majorities upon entering and quickly lost them (faster than Bush did though he followed the same overall trajectory).
Look at modern Congress. They have given Obama nothing in terms of law and little in terms of judges/appointments (I'm pretty sure its without precedent for there to be such a large gap between a opening on the Supreme Court and a nomination).
In politics there is little loyalty and a steep political price is usually paid for stupidity.
Clinton survived his sex scandals, but much of his party didn't (nor did Al Gore's presidential hopes) and for the next 16 years the people who won were guys the public was sure wouldn't inflict sex scandals upon them. Furthermore, eight years ago his wife lost a nomination fight she had spent years preparing for to a little known Congressman.
Its also worth noting that in 2016 Republicans hold Congress and most states, even very liberal leaning states like my home state of Maryland.
So I strongly disagree that to be successful Republicans need to be more like Democrats.
I agree there are tactics to be stolen from the Democrats (more of the right need to get into investigative reporting as opposed to bloviating about whatever investigative reporters choose to reveal) that the Republicans don't seem to be stealing.
Anthony,
When did the second Bush ever demonstrate a willingness to play rough? He reached across the aisle for No Child Left Behind, he talked about "compassionate conservatism" and he kept smiling while the dems,popular culture and the media used him for a punching bag. I don't remember him hitting back on Bush lied, kids died or Bushitler or any of that crap. From what I remember about political commentary during his tenure the knock on him from conservatives was that he never fought back.
What are you referring to?
GypsyTyger
Actually, GypsyT, that is one of the things about GWB that I really admired. He worked with Congress and never commented on the hateful things people said about him. He tried to maintain some kind of dignity in the Office of the President Of The United States.
Gypsytyger,
Reaching across the aisle and playing hardball (if you want an example of a specific instance, Swiftboating springs to mind) at the same time is somewhat counterintuitive, but both Bush II and Bill Clinton managed it (often through surrogates).
As for Bush not responding to the fact a lot of the media/pop culture was biased against him, that is true, but getting sucked into small, silly stuff can easily make a candidate look like a small, petty person.
Of course, Bush did become a frequent guest of the friendly Fox News and other conservative outlets (thus encouraging their growth).
A politician personally hitting back often seems to serve little purpose. For example, I doubt the former Miss USA complaining about Trump damaged him nearly as much as him getting into it with her for days, ultimately tweeting about a sex tape he thought she had.
Anthony,
I don't remember GW engaging in swiftboating. What I remember about that is that Kerry had participated in the Winter Soldier farce and then tried to portray himself as a war hero "reporting for duty" at the Democratic Convention. As I recall it was some guys in his old unit who called bullshit on his tales of heroism and it was picked up by Rush, Fox, Hannity,etc. I don't remember Bush calling Kerry on that. As far as being a guest on Fox news, how is that playing hardball? Should he have ignored a friendly media outlet and stuck to MSNBC?
GysyTyger
Sorry, I've been away.
I agree completely with GypsyTyger. W Bush is the perfect example of a candidate who won't throw punches (of course, so is McCain, so was Dole, so was Bush Sr.). He let the left tar him time and again and never once defended himself, letting the meme stick and conservatism go down in flames reputation-wise. Even as places like CBS were inventing "dereliction of duty" and "dodged the draft" and cocaine and DUI and affair stories about him, he kept treating them as if they were impartial and respectable. And now that he's retired, he's buddy buddy with the Clintons and Obamas and his family are prominent in endorsing the Clintons.
Liberals never do that. They keep the friendships behind closed doors and punch like crazy.
I still remember W's idiot father in the Darman Budget deal. Bush betrayed his "read my lips" pledge and told America he had worked out a deal he thought was good with the Democrats. The Democrats stood on the stage WITH HIM and smeared him to his face, saying they had been forced into this by his unreasonable behavior and that they would undo it the first chance they got, etc. They actually accused him both of wanting to raise spending and wanting to raise taxes. And he smiled like an idiot and shook their hands like a fool. It was shocking.
As for Swiftboating, that was done by some third party and the Bush team repudiated them on television repeatedly.
And Anthony, while you are right about politicians punching back often causing them more problems, you have to separate out the attacks by the insects from the media backed smears. Ignore the fleas no one notices, but when the recognized MSM is running reports that you are a ____, you fight back.
What's more, there are ways to fight back and minimize things. If Trump has said about the beauty queen: "I don't pay any attention to it. She's looking for fame and the Clinton team are desperate to latch onto that," then the issue dies an undignified death and goes away. What you don't do is crawl into the mud as Trump did, or ignore it as the GOP usually does. Pretend you don't care... neuter the attackers... link it to your biased opponent... talk about moving on. Issue dies.
tryanmax, Good tweet... sad tweet.
Unfortunately, the only times Clinton scores points on Trump has been when the GOP is trying to destroy him.
Anthony, On your comment above, I'm not saying to become these nasty trolls like the Democrats. But this isn't a bipolar choice. It's not a choice between trolls or delicate flowers. There's plenty of middle ground.
The GOPcons need to stop being delicate flowers. They need to learn to fight. They need to stop demanding that their candidates be fairy-tale pure. They need to lose the instincts to surrender at the drop of a hat and to betray each other.
Andrew,
Keep in mind when I was talking Bush I was talking Bush II. I remember when many were convinced Rove was an invincible evil genius.
And there isn't just 2 choices of candidates between an egotistical narcissistic asshole and a lying, unethical, dangerously stupid shrill. One can alway give his or her vote to Gary Johnson. He's more ethical and less crazy than either of them.
Andrew, the Miss USA thing is the one thing I think Trump handled all wrong. I'm not saying he couldn't have handled other things better, but that's armchair quarterbacking – – should've turned left instead of right, whatever. But his response to Miss USA was throwing it into the dirt.
At this juncture, I think Trump's best move is to double down on the idea that he's not taking any orders from the GOP establishment, and to reframe on Hillary's scandals.
Now, what intrigues me is that there's a theory being floated that this was all a ploy to launch TrumpTV. That's patently absurd. Trump has had the brand recognition and media experience to launch a network for decades before now, not to mention the money to flat out buy one. He has no need for such a high-level and, frankly, overpriced stunt. The fact that anyone is openly wishing him out of the race indicates that they still think he can win.
Upon 5 min. consideration, however, I think Trump's handling of Miss USA softened the Access Hollywood tapes blow. I don't think Trump saw it coming, exactly, much less was he behind it, but I'm sure he figured something like that was coming.
Trump's biggest opponent was never Hillary or any GOP hopeful. It's always been himself. He's telling a redemption story, and in order to do that, he has to be flawed. His opponents, the media, even his party are all just obstacles to his redemption, lures (bait) to tempt him away from purity. "But Trump. was already extremely flawed," you say. True, but Trump can't just tell any ol' redemption story. He has to tell a great one.
I have decided that I will not vote for anyone even locally. I renounce my citizenship. I can no longer be a part of this idiocracy called "United States of America". It was fun while it lasted, but we are doomed. Call me when WWIII is over, and the good news is that at least NYC will be the first nuclear strike. But I am done. God bless you all and may God keep you safe, but I am done. Boom...mic drop...BevNYC has left the building.
Forget it, Bev. There is no escape. They are all over your television. They have people who come to your door. They even end up being mentioned in films and sitcoms. It's a sad state of affairs.
Anthony, That always struck me as wishful thinking, if not a straight up con by Rove. He basically gave generic campaign advice, it worked, and suddenly people started treating him like a genius.
In terms of Bush 1 v. 2, they both had the same approach.
Koshcat, The problem with that choice is that it's a false choice. He can't win.
tryanmax, I think he mishandled the Miss USA thing and the Muslim guy. Ultimately, I don't think the Muslim thing mattered, but he kept tripping himself up there. We have yet to see how much the Miss USA thing mattered.
Sorry for the depressing tone of the article, by the way. This stuff just kills me that the GOP keeps infighting every single election cycle. We are at a point where a football team or a corporation entirely clean house, only we can't do that.
It's completely understandable, Andrew, especially on the cleaning house part. I also came to the same conclusion you did about the other candidates some time ago as well - they would have been hit just as hard from both directions with a distinct possibility of being further behind than Trump is right now. I can't really add much else except to say that I'm close to where Bev is mentally. It looks like the left is pretty much unopposed now and we'll likely be seeing the consequences of that soon.
- Daniel
No vote is wasted. I've waited for trump to give me a reason to vote for him and he keeps stepping on his little dick (I mean just look how small his hands are!). Not voting is a vote as well but I encourage those contemplating not voting to look for other candidates. They may not win but our country loses with either of the major candidates winning.
I wish Trump would bring out Sean Smith's mother and Tyrone Woods father....mainly just to shove it in their faces as far as the Khazir Khan crap. He should state that Hillary lied to their faces when their son's bodies were shipped home and they were grieving. Let her try and "explain" away again how they were wrong and she never said that a video was the reason for the attack.
That's how you refute these liars and hacks.
Bob
I wish Trump would bring out Sean Smith's mother and Tyrone Woods father....mainly just to shove it in their faces as far as the Khazir Khan crap. He should state that Hillary lied to their faces when their son's bodies were shipped home and they were grieving. Let her try and "explain" away again how they were wrong and she never said that a video was the reason for the attack.
That's how you refute these liars and hacks.
Bob
Rush has offered the worst defenses of Trump I have seen and there have been a lot of crappy defenses offered.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rush-limbaugh-hints-left-strict-consensual-sex-article-1.2828825
As Donald Trump was in boiling hot water Wednesday evening after numerous media reports alleged he has sexually abused several women, the boisterous right-wing talk show host appeared mostly upset about the fact that rape is illegal.
"The left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent," Limbaugh said during his namesake radio show Wednesday. "If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police."
Anthony, that's a pretty crappy defense, but it's buried in rambling language. It's very difficult to believe that even someone as blustering as Limbaugh is pro-rape, thus only the people prone to believing it (that is, already do) will believe it. His listeners know what he means and anyone who reads Limbaugh rather than listen to his over-the-air broadcast prefers to borrow opinions rather than make their own. The needle doesn't move.
Let me throw this out there. Lebron James had the nerve to "school" Trump yesterday by saying that they "don't disrespect women" in their locker room.
First of all, that's BS and we know it. But more to the point, this is a man whose "profession" is packed with rapists and wife beaters whose crimes are overlooked because they have talent. Perhaps he should shut the f*ck up?
Tryanmax,
I don't think Rush comes across as pro-rape, he just comes across as really, really pro-Trump. I have no idea whether the comments will move the needle. I was surprised Trump's comments moved the needle.
Yeah, that's pretty dumb. I'm sure it gets smacked down quick. That's not where the action is, though.
The Dems are persuading with numbers. I've lost track of how many women they've gotten to claim to have been touched by Trump. They're pushing the scary octopus imagery, which is memorable if nothing else. I doubt the remarks against Catholics have anywhere near the same sway. Unless Trump has a political nuke up his sleeve, I think he may be finished.
This election stopped being predictable back in 2015.
Anthony, you're surprised because you're not afraid of being groped. Liberals (especially on college campuses) have worked diligently in the last several years to make being groped seem like one of the scariest scenarios imaginable to young women. To those women, a Trump presidency may usher in a groping free-for-all.
The irony being that a Hillary presidency is more likely to open the doors to mass immigration of medieval gender attitudes from the third world which would lead to a groping free-for-all.
Also, no one is shocked that Limbaugh is pro-Trump.
tryanmax, As odd as it may sound, I think this may save Trump.
Here's the thing. One or two incidents is believable and creates a problem for him. But this reeks of a casting call: "Anyone who wants to try to bring him down, come tell a lie and we'll put it in the papers!" Which becomes the woman who cried wolf whistle. I suspect that the public will now start to dismiss this as a political smear rather than something genuine, and if they do, then they will ignore all the allegations. Not sure, but it strikes me that's where this is headed.
What's interesting to me is that the best Clinton is doing in "the polls" is 46%. Despite Trump now supposedly being a rapist, a serial sexual assaulter, a lookist who made ugly women cry, a man who fat shames beauty queens, a man who LOOKED at women, a racist, a Mexican hater, a racist, a Muslim hater, a Christian extremist, a Christian hater, a tax cheat, a racist, a lunatic, a Russian spy, a Ukrainian spy, a cocaine addict, a divorcer, an attempted rapist of married women, a child thrower-outer, vulgar, a liar, etc..... Hillary sits at 46%.
That means something. Not sure what yet, but it means something.
Andrew, it definitely means something that Hillary has never been above half against the most flawed candidate the GOP has ever run probably in the history of the party. Even if she wins, it is a severely tainted victory. That said, if she wins, she gets the senate, too. I don't see any way around that. On the other hand, Trump doesn't vanish after the election if he loses. No way.
There is the risk of overkill with the Trump accusers, but I'm zeroing in on the language. Octopus is a good one. I'm also not afraid of being groped, so I don't know how persuasive that is to women. I do know what it's like to be afraid of my spurned advances being publicized and mischaracterized. Usually, issues that gain women drag along some men of a certain ilk, but this is a bit different. This is flat-out gender war.
Which brings me to the biggest X-factor as I see it. Men have turned out in lower numbers than women since 1980, and the gap has been growing. This is almost certainly due to men feeling unrepresented by either party. Trump is unabashedly male and can thus be seen as "for men." I expect to see the gender gap in turnout to close significantly. And while much has been made of Trump's problem with women, Hillary does consistently worse with men than Trump does with women.
tryanmax,
As an aside, I have come to suspect that the gender gap is increasingly a race issue with so many more black women than black men voting -- that accounts both for the "missing" men and the leftward lean of the gap. Among whites, I think the numbers are much closer male to female.
Anyways...
The Octopus idea is a good one, but I personally think they've reached the point of overkill. I think they've reached the point where it starts to seem fake. So all these women had this on Trump but never thought to mention it until a couple weeks before the election? Yeah, right. What's more, a lot of it sounds like crap: "He would just walk into the dressing rooms!" Oh my!! You mean like everyone else involved in the pageants? We've seen photos of those dressing rooms, they are crawling with staff, family and journalists. The idea that he was somehow invading their privacy sounds made up. Or how about this: a billionaire molests me in an elevator where there is a security camera and I never sued him! Bull.
Interestingly, my wife's friends don't seem to buy any of it or care about it, and they are target Clinton supporters -- single mothers in their 30s with no usable skills who read books about how to be a "strong woman" and whine that their bosses don't respect them and who always cheer for female contestants on shows. What's more, they have strong herd mindsets and get their politics from Pinterest. Yet, they despise Clinton and they are willing to accept Trump regardless. It's a small sample, but an interesting sample.
The more I think about it, the more I think I'm looking at it wrong. So many angles to choose from.
tryanmax, I don't think any of this is clear enough to know for certain. I think what you're seeing is a massive political attack by the Democrats, using women who are most likely lying or exaggerating, to try to drive up the female vote for Clinton.
These women whine and the media has closed ranks, leaving only the insiders to speak, and they are promoting the talking point. Essentially, what you are seeing is an army of leftist journalists all interviewing each other and skewing stories to sell the public on the idea that everyone thinks this is horrible... ignore Bill Clinton ignore Bill Clinton. Sometimes they interview feminist activists or approved-victims, but never normal people. Other times they shrilly smear anyone who finds a way to reach the public with a disagreement.* Then they run herd-based headlines: "NO ONE DENIES THE WRONGITY OF THIS!"
The problem is that there are no real people in any of this. It's only media and activists pretending to be real America. And the polls aren't showing what they expect**, so they are getting nastier and nastier inside their bubble, which makes the polls go in the wrong direction or move even less.
So effectively, right now we are blind.
* Yesterday it was Tom Brady for refusing to answer a question. All the little leftist sports hacks whined that he needed to condemn Trump or he was condoning it -- even thought they commended him for avoiding politics when he refused to give an endorsement in July. Today a Denver Bronco said Trump would fit right in in their lockerroom and there are already several "unbiased" articles smearing him and digging into his past.
** The polls initially showed about a 4-7% drop for Trump. (This got the "Yippy! Hillary has a double digit lead!" headlines). But that was only GOP types registering a protest in the polls -- they're the same people who did the same thing last summer. Clinton's numbers didn't budge, which infuriated the left. And Trump's numbers are now drifting back into place.
As an aside, I think the octopus thing is going to blow up first. Trump's spokeswoman has already pointed out that the story can't be true because the arms in first class were fixed and couldn't be raised. But even if you think about it, it would be impossible for him to do what she said. His arms would need to be about three feet longer and made of rubber to reach her sitting behind him in an airplane.
Any reputable journalist should have figure that one out right away.
And now they're mixing beauty queens and race and they're adding women to speculate that he seems like the type who would sexually assault someone. This is getting beyond overkill at this point. Unless Trump admits it or says something stupid, I think the left blew it this time.
Tryanmax,
I was surprised it blew up because Trump (and some women) has been making similar claims about his conduct for years.
Anthony, in that case, you're surprised because you've been gas-lighted. The fact is, prior to 2015, the only major accusation of sexual assault leveled against Trump was from 1993, subsequently settled in 1997. At the time, it was reported as "he said, she said" with plenty to suggest it was a ploy to back out of a business deal.
The second most high profile incident was when Gloria Allred, representing a transgender beauty queen who sued to be allowed in the Miss Universe pageant, suggested that she'd like to see Trump's genitals and he said she'd be impressed if she did.
Past that, Trump has only received criticism for the way he talks about women (mainly on TV). For a man who probably has hundreds of disgruntled employees in his wake, he has a surprising lack of gender-discrimination charges, and that's quite far from sexual assault.
But since Trump took on the look of a real presidential contender, the timeline has been revised here and there with this latest explosion of accusations being the most aggressive by far. If you don't believe me, do what I did. Set the Google machine to search only prior to 2015 for anything on the topic regarding Donald Trump. The pickings are very slim and consist mainly of timestamp errors on the search engine's part (i.e. post-2015 stuff).
Oh, and as for Trump making comments about himself for years, prior to his presidential run people took his meaning as it was intended. But once he became the GOP nominee, those remarks were revisited and plumbed for sinister subtexts. Again, gas-lighting.
BTW, Rasmussen has Trump taking the lead 43-41. Hillary has lost a 7% lead since Monday in his poll. That makes me think the overkill theory might be correct.
Tryanmax,
I take it 'the meaning as intended' is whatever Trump tells you he really meant? Such faith is admirable though I'm not sure how widely shared it is.
*Shrugs* I think the election will be close because both candidates are horrible, though I share the belief I've held since he won the nomination that Hillary would probably beat Trump. Both are equally bad, but he runs towards cameras to show off how bad he is while she tries to avoid them.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/fox-news-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-7-points.html
Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump has increased to seven points, as more than half of voters say he is not qualified to be president.
That’s according to a just-released national Fox News Poll of likely voters.
Clinton receives 45 percent to Trump’s 38 percent. Libertarian Gary Johnson is at 7 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein gets 3 percent. Last week, Clinton was up by two points in the four-way contest (44-42 percent).
Darn, too late. I was just logging in to say that I think the overkill theory may be right. There's now a video circulating of a Howard Stern jokingly calling Trump a sex predator and him and his kids laughing along. Supposedly that proves something.
Anthony,
I take it 'the meaning as intended' is whatever Trump tells you he really meant?
You take me wrong.
LOL! I just heard about Trump's "look at her" comment in response to a sexual assault charge. That's great reframing. I can't think how you act indignant about that without undermining the accusation. I know, I know, this is high school stuff, but isn't it great!?
Post a Comment