These numbers would make me think Trump has a decent chance to ride out what I thought was his death knell (because he was confessing to and gloating about sexual assault).
There's also a question: "Have you heard the recent news about allegations that Donald Trump made unwanted advances on different women over the years...?" And then: "Do you think these allegations are definitely true, probably true, probably not true, or definitely not true?" A full 22% say "Definitely true," and 40% more say "Probably true." Only 26% say "Probably not true" or "Definitely not true." But what I'm seeing there is the weakness of the wording of the question: "unwanted advances." What counts as an "unwanted advance"? That sounds like it would include even the slightest touch or spoken invitation, even before the woman indicated that she wasn't interested. I don't know what to make of these numbers.
Trump's own recorded remarks have had a much more powerful effect on me than the statements of the women who have come forward in these last weeks of the campaign to make allegations. It seems unfair to drop this material into the campaign now. And I don't know the details of what they said Trump did. If I had been surveyed, however, I would have said I'd heard the news, and I wouldn't have known how to answer the follow-up about whether I thought it was true. I might have said "Probably true" simply because of the weakness of the expression "unwanted advances."
Trump's own remarks have been especially important in my thinking about him because they fit a template that I have observed: I think he does not see law. He has a blindness toward the structures of law. I discussed this with respect to what he said about libel law last March:
He brought up law, but he's not prepared or even interested in talking about law....And again in April:
It's so inappropriately emotional. Free speech law is serious and important, and here's a man whose only way to talk about it is to plead with us to care about his feelings.... You need to get some objectivity and some respect for the law and for what government is.
I'm recalling what Trump said when he talked to The Washington Post about how he wanted to "open up" the libel law. I wrote a very detailed examination of the text of the absurdly digressive conversation... because I wanted to see how he relates to the law and what he thinks could or should be done to the freedom of the press. At one point the interviewer said "how would you change the law?" and Trump answered "I would just loosen them up." Somebody said what I would have said: "What does that mean?" And Trump's answer displays exactly the problem I'm talking about this morning:ADDED: I don't see how you can be President without having an internal sense of the reality of the rule of law.
"I’d have to get my lawyers in to tell you, but I would loosen them up. I would loosen them up."
He assumes he has people, good people who know what's needed and how to get it and they will attend to the details. He'll float above it — setting goals, doing face time, being interestingly expressive — and the real work will get done, don't worry about it, he has people for that.
Now, the Clintons have a different law problem: They know what it is and they use their lawyerly understanding to avoid it and weasel around it.
पोस्ट्स
१८५ टिप्पण्या:
Trump doesn't see the law? Sounds right.
But Hillary sees the law and doesn't think it should apply to her - she just works around it.
Both are devastating for our country. Its so strange that neither party was able to put forward a decent candidate.
@ LilyBart
I know. This is something Meade and I have been talking about a lot.
I hate push polling like this. But, oh well.
I think you're right though. I think trump is willfully constitutionally ignorant. He sees things in a much more generalized, rather than specific way and hasn't thought deeply about the nuances of the law.
On the other hand, Hillary has.
In which case, we have Trump who will ignorantly undermine the law and the Constitution, if allowed to. Or we will have Hillary who will actively and purposefully undermine the law and the Constitution.
Also, the media won't let Trump get away with it. Nor will Democrats and many Republicans.
They will encourage and cover for clinton.
If Trump were running against a different candidate, this might matter to me. Against Hillary it doesn't. She not only flaunts the law, there are no consequences for her when she does it. We just get told "move along-nothing to see here".
The problem isn't so much men, but the gigantic chasm between what women claim they want in a sexual partner and who they typically end up with. Just think back to your old high school days. Cocky, confident alpha male jocks typically got lots of attention from girls while sensitive, introverted beta males are largely ignored by girls or used for homework assistance.
While it may have been a confession to an orientation, he was speaking truth to power about a liberal culture that cannot tolerate exposure. In any case, allegations, hearsay, and innuendo -- some that has been refuted, and most that has been contested -- in the 11th hour undermine the credibility of the people attacking him. Pro-Choice politics is a boorish, even criminal, often inhumane, but, unfortunately, effective strategy.
If this is true for both, as it certainly seems to be, then the question is who would have more accountability in sticking to the law.
If neither of them "see the law" and you feel that you must vote for one over the other, it's possibly an argument to vote for Trump.
Hillary is far less fettered, while Donald has seen resistance from every quarter.
It's difficult not to see Hillary's "conflict engagement" apparatus as not exhibiting "blindness toward the structures of law".
Trump would like to kiss pretty girls without hindrance. Hillary's people actually do other things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
Neither Trump nor Hillary see law like you and I see it. Trump simply doesn't care or seeks to use it to his advantage (like tax law). Hillary gives the pretense of seeing law because she's a lawyer by training. But look at all the emails and note that none of them ask any questions about what the law says - ever.
the conservativetreehouse has written several analyses on the way monmouth rigs its polls and thus presents unreliable data.
for sure though, trump has big gaps in his knowledge of how things are supposed to work according to our government structure and standard practice. he is a man of people and relies on a common sense understanding of how things should work.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/17/the-real-battle-is-the-battle-for-your-mind-watch-monmouth-university-poll-release-today/
Which is worse? Not 'seeing' the law or seeing but ignoring? IMHO, we have far too many lawyers in positions of authority as it is. And they are very good at skirting the law or using it to reject common sense.
If this is true for both, as it certainly seems to be, then the question is who would have more accountability in sticking to the law.
One may imagine that a President Donald Trump would be more likely to be held accountable by the media than a President Hillary Clinton might be. Most people seem to be at least dimly aware that both these two candidates are scoundrels and reprobates (one worse than the other, but both bad), and that we have to assume either one will be destructive as President and need to be held accountable for the havoc they'd wreak. We're in a sad spot.
"because he was confessing to and gloating about sexual assault"
For someone that likes to parse words you seem willfully ignorant of what he actually said. IIRC, Trump said, "If you're a star, they let you..."
If someone "lets you" do something, how can that be assault?
Trump's likely AG: Chris Christie or maybe Giuliani who appreciate our Constitution and will advise Trump accordingly.
Hillary's likely AG: Loretta Lynch or some other Eric Holder clone who is determined to undermine our Constitution and stack the Supreme Court with like-minded sycophants. They won't advise Hillary, they will follow her orders.
If it's the law you are worried about, the choice is pretty obvious to me.
Trump's own recorded remarks have had a much more powerful effect on me...
Guess I assumed as a law professor Hillary's existence above the law would bother you most. Maybe after being exposed to law for so many years it is just an illusion. Absent its blind enforcement and equal application, WTF good is any law?
Her Presidency will be paralyzed in scandal even before she takes the oath of office.
She had her State Department try and bribe the FBI....
These numbers would make me think Trump has a decent chance to ride out what I thought was his death knell (because he was confessing to and gloating about sexual assault).
Professor, it is no more "gloating about sexual assault" then a kid bragging about how many people he killed in a videogame is gloating about mass murder.
And don't assume men are unaware that women can be quite vulgar with one another. Women, from my experience, discuss sex WAY more in depth than men.
The problem isn't so much men, but the gigantic chasm between what women claim they want in a sexual partner and who they typically end up with.
Also true. If any man behaved, sexually, as feminists claim that women want, no woman would ever have sex with that man. Literally none.
She had her State Department try and bribe the FBI....
I would think "try" doesn't describe it. She wasn't charged.
Clearly it DID work.
Why, precisely, would the FBI need international offices? They don't have authority to investigate crimes about the US.
Contra Althouse, the reason James O'Keefe's latest Project Veritas revelations about HRC campaign operatives paying the mentally ill to incite violence at Trump rallies (YouTube link above) gets no attention from the left or the press is precisely because it is so boringly about the law.
The left/media isn't interested in the dry rattle of law, they are moved by feeling - "Oooooh, Hillary, next leader of the free world, how did a big man standing behind you make you feel, as a woman?
"...what I thought was his death knell (because he was confessing to and gloating about sexual assault)."
"They let you do it." Sexual assault?
I have yet to see intimate contact between a man and a woman in a movie or tv show that does not meet the DOJ, Democrat, and apparently, Althouse, definition of sexual assault (I.e., explicit consent).
Gere: Do you explicitly consent to my grabbing your pussy? Pretty Woman: Yes, but no mouth kissing. (Pause) Pretty Woman: You kissed my mouth. Police!
What a crock!
If you had a financial advisor that was making you a fortune, would you drop him if you found out he said these things in private so that you could hire one who was blowing his clients' money. We already have established what we are, we're just negotiating the price now.
Look at all the popular fiction where the leading man assaults women, and those are the ones that make women swoon. In another genre, Hip Hop, it's a main part of the most popular artists' image and it's very successful among women as well as men. I understand men liking it, but I don't get why women like it in either art form, but I'm not a woman...yet. I do play a forceful pirate in private when expected to - just like a trained dog - and to great acclaim.
The lady who needs our protection from being raped is Miss Constitution of the United States - a thin, delicate waif being lifted up in fake admiration by a mob of disrespectful assholes who just do it to look up her skirt. Where are her heroes?
He has a blindness toward the structures of law.
Maybe, but doesn't it make sense if you frame it differently? He acts as though law doesn't effect the rich and powerful in the same way it effects average Americans. Is he wrong?
Framed this way aren't he and Clinton in the same position - even if they react to this reality slightly differently?
If a woman allows her gynecologist to examine her vagina, is that sexual assault? Ann? Perhaps you should, once and for all, define the term so we can all, men and women, be educated.
In my mind, I could believe Trump making some sort of unconstitutional power grab which results in:
(a) the discovery that it was a bluff, as Trump's negotiating strategy tends to be, followed by a perfectly reasonable if somewhat embarrassing conclusion.
(b) quick backpedaling as his legal experts in the law rein him in and both parties protest.
(c) his impeachment and removal by bipartisan effort.
(d) a coup.
For Hillary, I see no such solace. She has already broken the law repeatedly with the support of the President, the Justice Department, the FBI, the Democratic Party, parts of the Republican Party, and the media. Historically, this is normally the point where a country stops having elections and starts shooting each other.
Common sense [I know lawyers hate that term] would dictate that, if you LET someone, it's not assault.
...what I thought was his death knell (because he was confessing to and gloating about sexual assault).
One can only say this by rewriting Trump's actual words, on tape for everyone else to read. No one in actual law or law enforcement - fields distinctly different from academic law professing - could do anything legal at all with what Trump actually said on the tape.
There's simply no legal or illegal anything there on that tape. To get to illegality, one must simply make things up, as Althouse and others do.
Notice that those accusing Trump of sexual assault never specify what words indict him, nor under what criminal statutes he might be prosecuted for them.
Only the isolated assertion that criminal sexual assault occurred is made, which anyone else can equally do to anyone else about anything.
Criminal sexual assault? Make the specific case - with specific evidence.
Its so strange that neither party was able to put forward a decent candidate.
Last time around God sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter.
@ Jake
He said: "I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
In that context, he's saying he goes ahead and kisses and grabs by the pussy and he gets away with it. They "let you do it." How do they let him? He just starts and they let him. This is why I think he is blind to law. He's not even seeing the problem. He's not saying he forms a connection first and gets at least some nonverbal cues that the woman is receptive to a physical move. He assumes and in his experience, he's getting away with it.
I don't think that shows the right awareness of the structures of law in this country. It's a blindness.
Agreeing on what the rules are doesn't mean knowing about what sexual assault is today.
It means remembering what an American is before they started kicking the rules that make us Americans away.
Start with respect for the American rules and then apply it to American law.
Being a woman means demanding rules, breaking them at will, purposefully sending mixed signals, and having absolute prosecutorial discretion. Great gig, but not worth having to have sex with men in my opinion.
It seems that the search for a "reason" to vote for Hillary is rapidly approaching its conclusion.
Jake beat me to this. He said they LET you. It isn't actually assault if his behavior did not go beyond that limit. It may be an unwanted ADVANCE. If unwanted advances are disqualifying we would likely all be disqualified at one point or another since an unwanted advance is often simply a mistaken interpretation of signals, unless you're on one of those campuses where buying someone flowers is assault. I've had people of both genders make unwanted advances; if they continued aggressively after I turned them down it might be a problem - still not assault. And all of this is through the lens of the crazy interpretations of the world today - and they have changed quite a bit in 11 years. So I can't agree with Ann's characterization of his behavior as he describes it on the tape. There would have to be way, way, way more evidence of behavior that is far worse to characterize him as anything more than boorish in this regard.
Hillary Clinton's understanding of the US Constitution's Second Amendment is that people should be able to sue a gun manufacturer if it manufactures a gun that is used in a crime.
Common sense [I know lawyers hate that term] would dictate that, if you LET someone, it's not assault.
As we type, across America, millions of male and female hands are gently cupping millions of female breasts without complaint or resistance, overwhelming our courts with millions of instances of criminal sexual assault.
Why does grab by the pussy keep coming up? No guy does it.
She not only flaunts the law, ...
... she also flouts it!
Per bagoh20: The lady who needs our protection from being raped is Miss Constitution of the United States - a thin, delicate waif being lifted up in fake admiration by a mob of disrespectful assholes who just do it to look up her skirt. Where are her heroes?
The First Amendment is already dead. Can it be resuscitated?
I don't think that shows the right awareness of the structures of law in this country. It's a blindness.
Doesn't that depend on what the definition of "is" is?
They know what it is [the law] and they use their lawyer understanding to avoid it and weasel around it.
Come on! Just say it. You mean break it, and get away with it.
Its so strange that neither party was able to put forward a decent candidate.
I guess I continue to be surprised at how few seem to understand why we are here. I keep suggesting people read Codevilla's The Ruling Class, but you can lead a horse to water....
When I say that no other candidate brought up Trump's issues of illegal and Muslim immigration, over at Ricochet a supposed conservative site, I get arguments about how they did bring it up. People seem to think philosophical arguments in think tanks are the equal of legislation. In 2006, Republicans passed a bill to build a fence. I have seen no evidence of any effort since they got back the majority in 2010.
I am also seeing, at a supposed conservative site, blowback about racial prejudice if you bring up border security or affirmative action.
I think the Republicans, at least some f them, have internalized the left's rhetoric about race and gender and Muslim religion.
So far in this campaign Trump has been accused of having incestuous designs on his daughter, wearing a wig, having a small penis and being a racist, proto Nazi semi-rapist. That's an incomplete list. I can see where he might want to loosen up the libel laws.
I don't understand the special reverence for law either, or its US flavor.
I see the EFFECTS of law, and its process, and its right to judge it by that.
The legal process is not merely about the logic of decisions, but the work, the implementation of the process, which is burdensome, expensive, suppresses economic activity, creates massive business risks, and rarely provides useful justice or recourse. It is far too easily abused. Many other countries have much less "law" and do just as well in that respect.
Its also properly realistic to see the legal system and the laws in general in the way they operate in a practical sense. Can I do this, what are the risks and how much will it cost me - is a perfectly valid question to ask your lawyer.
Think of it as a black box. Trump and I see its outside, what you put in, and what comes out. We judge it by that, simply, input and output.
I am used to being judged by those standards. You will not impress a business by declaiming on the intricacies of a manufacturing process if it is not delivering. The people judging my systems are perfectly correct to treat it like a black box.
Althouse is inside the black box and is dazzled by the intricate machinery from which she gains satisfaction through understanding. I have my own box, and I like it in there too. But that is a form of myopia.
"Do you think these allegations are definitely true, probably true, probably not true, or definitely not true?" A full 22% say "Definitely true, ..."
Somehow this seems more of a problem, that a fifth of likely voters are willing to declare an allegation "definately true" in the absence of definitive proof.
Of course, public opinion is not a courtroom, and the public is not obliged to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, even if one considers the allegations plausible, there remains a vast gulf between "plausible" and "definately true."
Is it that 22% of likely voters "think" with their emotions, or just that they don't think?
I don't think that shows the right awareness of the structures of law in this country. It's a blindness.
These are Althouse's feelings about the words on the tape. One can now simply feel another person into becoming an agent of criminal sexual assault just as easily as a co-debater on a stage can be re-created as a "stalker".
This isn't law. This is legalisticism rendered as emotional literature.
If his words are proof of sexual assault in your eyes, then I assume you would call the cops the minute you heard him say it, either as the victim, or even just an eavesdropper. If you don't call the cops, then either you don't care about sexual assault or it's victims, or you really don't believe it's assault that should be prosecuted. If I overheard proof of a bank robbery, I'd call the cops, and robbery is nowhere near sexual assault in my book, but that's just me.
@rhhardin:
Why does grab by the pussy keep coming up? No guy does it.
Because Trump, I believe, was describing something a lot more nuanced than just approaching a strange woman and kissing her and grabbing her against her consent. Women have a way of communicating sexual desire and receptivity in a way that is totally nonverbal. Men that are sensitive these signals can typically pick up on them and initiate an aggressive sexual move, which the woman is totally open to. Meanwhile, socially awkward men who have difficulty picking up on body language and social cues are usually adrift in these types of romantic encounters. Camille Paglia discussed this same sanitized view of sexuality during the date rape brouhaha in the 1990s.
I think his "bus" comments, if taken in isolation, wouldn't have been too damaging. It's some guy bragging about being famous and being able to do what he wants with women, which if anything sounds a little sad, because we assume anyone who brags like that probably doesn't do so well with women. But once a cascade of accusers start coming out of the woodwork--in the wake of him using a bunch of accusers against Bill Clinton and telling us we should believe THOSE accusers--it starts to meld into a picture of a real creep. And maybe we should separate the person from the office--Bill Clinton's supporters sure did--the fact is it undercuts a lot of Trump's argument (that Bill was and maybe still is a predator, and Hillary protects him) and the Christian Right's argument (that character matters, and we cannot separate it from the office). And on top of all that, it distracts the campaign in the crucial final weeks when it needs a strong cycle.
My question is why he and his advisers pushed on with the Clinton accusers stuff knowing this Trump accusers stuff could drop any minute. Surely they were aware the Clintons play rough?
The only men not guilty of making unwanted sexual advances are those that had contact with a woman or those with the looks and bank account of Brad Pitt.
The only men not guilty of making unwanted sexual advances are those that had contact with a woman...
Why are Lesbians being consistently left out of this issue? Does anyone really think no woman ever kisses another woman without her prior consent?
I've had women who I was not attracted to grab my junk. I did not want that. Yet even as a direct victim of sexual assault, I'd not disqualify that person from any job.
The Milwaukee Public Museum currently has a pro-Trump exhibit.
It is a habitat diorama illustrating Wisconsin's great fur trading history.
And I am not joking when I tell you it is called The Quest for Beaver. Some shit you can't make up.
"I've had women who I was not attracted to grab my junk. I did not want that"
Used to happen to me all the time, when I had hair.
My question is why he and his advisers pushed on with the Clinton accusers stuff knowing this Trump accusers stuff could drop any minute.
You seriously think the dems were ever not going to go this route?
Said buwaya: Used to happen to me all the time, when I had hair.
A lot of women find bald heads sexier than hairy ones. Just sayin'.
In the Access Hollywood tape situation, "law" is being hijacked to give emotional criticism of Trump gravitas and throw-weight in exactly the same way that "science" is used as a derivative, all-purpose ideological burnisher on the left: because the left is interested in climate change and because science is interested in climate change, everything the left says is now implicitly scientific, no longer merely ideological, while anything said against the left is now explicitly anti-scientific.
It seems that the one party actually getting grabbed by the genitals in the Trump case is the genuine law itself.
What Trump described is well understood by men who have an easy time with women due to wealth, looks, fame, or power. The woman makes it clear you can get away with it, and I'm sure those are the times he did it, if he did it, because that's the only time it's rewarding. It's pretty much how any sexual encounter goes with strangers who are willing and doing the dance, although it's usually more subtle. I suspect women and men who are horrified by this are imagining it happening with a woman who is absolutely not interested, but Trump was specifically describing those who are. It's pretty much the whole point he was making.
...Hillary sees the law and doesn't think it should apply to her - she just works around it.
All political figures I have any knowledge of have been guilty of this in one degree or another, even Washington himself, who refused a crown. It is the human proclivity to compromise principles when such compromises are seen as immediately advantageous that is the fly in ointment of republics. This was the motivation behind the First Amendment and why freedom of the press is paramount. Without a watchdog press to keep them honest no set of politicians could administer a free and honest government.
This is why I favor Trump over Clinton. If the recent past is any guide President Trump will face blistering scorn with any misstep, whereas Miz Hillary will receive a nauseating torrent of praise and plaudits no matter what disaster she foists upon us. Calling the likes of the NYT, the Post, CNN, NBC, ABC, etc a lapdog press is an insult to the intestinal fortitude of lapdogs. The usual suspects are already ginning up war fever against Russia, undoubtedly as a ploy to further distract the moronic class from the continuing erosion of the liberty and sovereignty of People. (Erosion? More like a mudslide...)
Perhaps Trump is blind to the law. (I've read no persuasive argument to that effect, including those of her own comments Althouse has linked to. Case inadequately argued is my verdict.) However, Hillary Clinton is unarguably contemptuous of the law, which is why the mail server was installed in the first place. The law requires the Secretary of State's communications be handled by the appropriate agencies appointed to those tasks by the Congress — by the LAW! Hillary decided the LAW does not apply to her, and so...
The choice is pretty stark — blindness or contempt. Blindness can be compensated for. Contempt is resolved only by disaster.
This isn't law. This is legalisticism rendered as emotional literature.
It's women's mode of analysis, not peculiar to Althouse.
Brando said: My question is why he and his advisers pushed on with the Clinton accusers stuff knowing this Trump accusers stuff could drop any minute. Surely they were aware the Clintons play rough?
This, among a lot of other ways that his campaign has been a bit of a CF (not opening offices in battleground states, not preparing for the debate) is the sort of thing that suggests to me that he would be a pretty bad president. It's just bad judgment. There's a part of me that's attracted to that idea - bad president = weak president = weaker executive branch. But, between what's going to look like general disarray and incompetence and the fact that there's certain to be a constant run of troubling comments that Republicans will have to either disavow or defend, suggests to me that, in the long run, a President Trump would deeply hurt the cause of conservationism. Much as it pains me to say it, I think that, long-term, Clinton would be better for conservatives.
The problem, in certain tasks, isn't that women are emotional but that they're not anything else.
When asked if there should be any punishment (legal liability) for a woman who had an illegal abortion, Trump thought for a second and said , yes, there would have to be some punishment attached (as accessory to a crime).
AA seems to think "they let you" is an inconsequential defense for crude social behavior that offends her sensibilities even though no actual injury result, and absolutely should be most severely prosecuted by law.
So, whose concept of "law" is most deficient here?
A far better question that will never be asked is: Which do you think is worse? Trump's comment about grabbing "pussy" or Hillary laughing about getting a child rapist off by attacking the victim?
"He assumes he has people, good people who know what's needed and how to get it and they will attend to the details. He'll float above it — setting goals, doing face time, being interestingly expressive — and the real work will get done, don't worry about it, he has people for that."
Why do you present that as a problem? Isn't that the exact job of President? Set goals/policy, hire the right people, oversee Congress critters when necessary, all while schmoozing the voters and Heads of State from around the world.
My impression is that Trump views lawyers the same way he views architects or plumbers. He tells them the result he would like and then gets feedback. What is wrong with that?
As a Law Professor you may hold the law in special regard. I suspect to most Americans "law" and "politics" are synonymous. From Obamacare to the killing of Trayvon Martin. The courtroom is just another political arena.
What Trump described is well understood by men who have an easy time with women due to wealth, looks, fame, or power. The woman makes it clear you can get away with it, and I'm sure those are the times he did it, if he did it, because that's the only time it's rewarding. It's pretty much how any sexual encounter goes with strangers who are willing and doing the dance, although it's usually more subtle. I suspect women and men who are horrified by this are imagining it happening with a woman who is absolutely not interested, but Trump was specifically describing those who are. It's pretty much the whole point he was making.
This is how sexually experienced adult human beings understand the tape. However, I can fully see how a visitor from, say, Gliese 581 b might not be fully up to speed on everyday mutually agreed upon human sexual dynamics. They might also, for example, mistake the fifth male appendage as a concealed stabbing weapon compared to their own cauliflower-shaped organs.
"Used to happen to me all the time, when I had hair."
A friend of mine was a Marine fighter pilot when "Top Gun" came out. He said that movie changed the officers' club radically. Friday nights it was overrun with young women who were looking for sex with a fighter pilot. He told his sister to never go to the O club on Friday again.
One night he was having a beer before going home to his wife when a girl sidled up to him at the bar and grabbed his crotch. First time that had ever happened to him and he is pretty square.
@bagoh20:
"I suspect women and men who are horrified by this are imagining it happening with a woman who is absolutely not interested, but Trump was specifically describing those who are. It's pretty much the whole point he was making."
Exactly! Trump specifically said that he was interested in having sex with the woman, but she was married and not interested, so there was nothing he could do. The woman was not interested in a sexual encounter, and he backed down.
Let me reassure you that doctors say much worse in the doctor's lounge. In fact, in surgery with women present, the conversations are far more seedy. If the men don't bring up a topic with controversy, the nurses definitely will. As to touching women, that is not done in a hospital as the nurses are often touching the men.
Now the big decision is between Trump, who is obviously vulgar in private, versus Hillary who is a liar, corrupt, crooked and incompetent. By the way, I know of some things that happen in the private Hillary world and she makes Trump look like an amateur and definitely does not have the "temperament" for the job.
I was thinking of telling a couple of stories about doctors and nurses in the days when I was young but I had better not.
Let's just say, I understand Trump.
I do not see that Hillary! "works around the law." What I see is that she drives her truck right through it with a combination of threats and bribery.
"I was thinking of telling a couple of stories about doctors and nurses in the days when I was young but I had better not."
Trump wasn't young in 2005. He was 59 years-old.
"You seriously think the dems were ever not going to go this route?"
That's just it--of course they were! So you either spin your own release early, or figure out how you're going to use your "Bill accusers" in a way that won't be undercut when the Clintons counterattack. As it was, they looked like they didn't expect this at all, or worse, didn't even know about the Trump accusers.
"This, among a lot of other ways that his campaign has been a bit of a CF (not opening offices in battleground states, not preparing for the debate) is the sort of thing that suggests to me that he would be a pretty bad president. It's just bad judgment. There's a part of me that's attracted to that idea - bad president = weak president = weaker executive branch. But, between what's going to look like general disarray and incompetence and the fact that there's certain to be a constant run of troubling comments that Republicans will have to either disavow or defend, suggests to me that, in the long run, a President Trump would deeply hurt the cause of conservationism. Much as it pains me to say it, I think that, long-term, Clinton would be better for conservatives."
One silver lining of a Hillary presidency is it would likely be so bad it would unite the country against her, accomplish nothing, and sit on the next economic collapse. We currently have a generation of voters who think Republicans start recessions and Democrats pull us out of them.
All primary season I kept hearing Trumpists saying Trump would hit Hillary much harder than any other Republican could, and while skeptical I sort of hoped they were right and was looking forward to a real slug fest. But he sort of comes across as an impotent whiner, and spends more time hitting just about everyone but Hillary. It's like a blind boxer.
"Trump wasn't young in 2005. He was 59 years-old."
Yes, but in people years, he was nine.
It's quite possible the DNC/Media Amalgam is overplaying their hand here. They're pretty good at it since they exist in an echo chamber.
Seems the larger issue regarding law is the newly revealed coercion of a sitting justice. She may see the law..but as what?
As a law prof, that might seem kinda "big league"
Exactly right, Professor Althouse. I think you've articulated the "rule of law" problem with Trump very well. You were also right, in writing about him back in March.
We can agree that Mrs. Clinton likewise has problems with the rule of law. If I were to guess on who -- Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton -- is more likely to be indicted in the next eight years, I am going with Mrs. Clinton.
What I don't get, is your winking acceptance of Trump and your bland promotion of Scott Adams through so much of this campaign.
How old was Althouse when she voted for Obama in 2008?
"Trump wasn't young in 2005. He was 59 years-old."
As you pile on the millions, the years drop away.
Its like magic really.
Thats why I identify as a billionaire. Well, besides the fact that it is simply my inborn, innate nature that I have only recently properly understood to be the case, and which you all are obligated to help me fulfill.
"What I don't get, is your winking acceptance of Trump and your bland promotion of Scott Adams through so much of this campaign."
My guess is on a rational level, Althouse knows Trump is bad news, and can see the train coming through the tunnel. But on a gut level, there's something that draws her to Trump--which is probably the case for a lot of Trump's fans. She promotes Scott Adams because his "master persuader" theory, which admittedly sounded silly when I first heard it, explains this "gut" thing better than any other rationalization I've heard from a Trump fan or Trump foe.
" I think you've articulated the "rule of law" problem with Trump "
There is no such thing as "rule of law".
There is a fantasy under such a name, but it really is that.
When the stakes aren't high, it is a comforting fiction most people like to indulge, a sort of performance art.
When the stakes are high it is the law of the jungle, as usual, and invocations of "rule of law" are mere propaganda.
Hil can destroy evidence (yoga pics!) and by way of Kerry's state dept. bribe FBI to tamper with evidence. But you know..that Trump...hmm.
buwaya puti:
Thank you for saying the things you do. I say almost precisely the same things to all who would listen.
If ever we met, I would buy you the beverage of your choice.
Brando said...
"What I don't get, is your winking acceptance of Trump and your bland promotion of Scott Adams through so much of this campaign."
My guess is on a rational level, Althouse knows Trump is bad news, and can see the train coming through the tunnel. But on a gut level, there's something that draws her to Trump--which is probably the case for a lot of Trump's fans. She promotes Scott Adams because his "master persuader" theory, which admittedly sounded silly when I first heard it, explains this "gut" thing better than any other rationalization I've heard from a Trump fan or Trump foe.
But now, the "Master Persuader" story looks like a joke. Trump, the master of television and communications, is now seen as basically incompetent, in the field of political messaging. Scott Adams has flipped about four different times, from his original bold position of a Trump landslide. Trump may have been a curiosity; like crystal meth, or sex tourism in Southeast Asia, or blood diamonds. But nevertheless a subject that almost all adults, and certainly an electoral majority, would wisely keep at a distance.
...said Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.
BTW, the only way to restore the "rule of law", that bit of semi-unconscious mutual fantasy, is to REDUCE THE STAKES.
Requiring the "rule of law" under modern conditions is like pining for lawn-croquet rules during the gunfight at OK Corral.
Larry Miller said, "Ladies, if you knew what we were really thinking, you'd never stop slapping us."
Regarding the presumption that a Trump presidency would do a lot of damage to the Conservative/Republican brand and therefore it may be better for us all if he loses... I'm not certain I can fully get behind that supposition.
Lets think about it. What would be the likely outcome of a Hillary Clinton Presidency and what would be the likely outcome of a Trump Presidency?
The thing that concerns me regarding a Hillary Clinton presidency is the long term destruction that my be wrought. I tend to agree that she may be hamstrung somewhat and most likely won't be able to do much in the way of big sweeping programs since she'll be somewhat hemmed in by the Senate and Congress as well as her general unpopularity. She will however, nominate Justices. She'll also continue expanding the corruption of the Federal institutions. The FBI, the IRS, the EPA, the Justice Dept. have already been partially politicized and weaponized by the Obama administration, and it'll only get much worse under Hillary Clinton. That combined with an incurious media will ensure that Hillary Clinton and her clan will basically be able to get away with anything without fear of reprisal. She'll never be indicted or impeached no matter how blatant her misdeeds will be.
All this will continue to erode the trust of the common citizen in Government in general (a good thing) and also continue to cause anger and frustration (perhaps a dangerous thing) among different groups. People already feel like they're be taken advantage of. It's why we got Bernie. It's why we got Trump. But 4 (or god forbid 8) years of Clinton filth and chaos may cause some disgruntlement to turn into outright violence.
Who knows, perhaps I'm being too pessimistic here, but I really believe things could get very bad.
"What counts as an "unwanted advance"?"
-- An unwanted advance is hitting on a woman wearing ear phones. What he's accused of is... not something that minor, though still annoying, I'm sure.
"Trump wasn't young in 2005. He was 59 years-old."
Meade, I think you should calm down. Guys your age should not get so excited.
I don't see how you can be President without having an internal sense of the reality of the rule of law.
Now, the Clintons have a different law problem: They know what it is and they use their lawyerly understanding to avoid it and weasel around it.
The first assertion is plausible, though a president will of necessity be surrounded by advisors who can set him straight. However your assertion that the Clintons know what the law is and merely "weasel their way around it" is simply a lie.
The Clintons do not "weasel their way around" the law; however fuzzy one wishes to draw the line of legal versus illegal conduct, they skip right over that line and skip back -- not when they are caught at it, but only if there is some heat applied. It is to the shame of the press, her party, and the entire legal structure in this country that Bill and Hillary are allowed to get away with it again and again. Remember when Nixon said "Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal?" Yeah, me too. Well if Hillary Clinton is elected, as seems likely right now, get set for four years of proving that Nixon wasn't wrong, merely premature (and of the wrong gender and party).
Birkel, And I you, and many others, but for the moment we must remain anonymous.
"ADDED: I don't see how you can be President without having an internal sense of the reality of the rule of law."
Look at it this way: Trump will quickly be impeached when in his ignorance he breaks the law, and we will have a boring President Pence. Whereas Queen Hillary will openly flout the law and will be unimpeachable.
But seriously, Hillary believes she is above the law, and the FBI "investigation" of her server setup showed us that she's right. That's not a concern? It's said that absolute power corrupts absolutely. She's already both powerful and corrupt. How can anyone believe that giving her the most powerful executive position on this planet is not a dangerous thing to do? How much corruption can our system withstand before it is destroyed? We may find out under Queen Hillary.
You may argue that because people in Hillary's own party can't stand her, that weakens her. Wishful thinking, IMO. People may hate her, but more powerful than hate is fear; the elite in the ruling class fear her. Fear has to be a big reason these morons agreed to contrive her nomination over anyone else. No one had the nerve to tell Hillary, "Sorry. You're best chance was in 2008. It's too late now. Plus polling shows not very many people like you."
In short: The question to be asking regarding the law is, which candidate will held to the law and which is above the law?
I can sympathize with Trump. Due to an uncanny and unfortunate resemblance to Justin Bieber, I can rarely walk two blocks in any direction without being accosted by hordes of nubile young women. Some of their movements might even be defined as sexual assault in some jurisdictions. I don't blame the girls so much as their parents. They weren't raised right. It's a bother, but I've learned to live with it. What can you do?
Based on my own and pretty much every male friend and colleague I have had in my life, 80% of our romantic advances were "unwanted" by the women to which they were directed.
It was a very weak question. The question should have explicitly asked if you think Trump sexually assaulted these women. There are problems with that question, too, but I think it a bit clearer to more people about what that means.
Birkel said...
...said Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.
I don't support Hillary Clinton. I will not vote for her. I hope no one votes for her. I am voting what is allowed in Michigan as a "straight Republican ticket." I don't have to vote for Trump individually, but my vote will count as a vote for Trump (along with all down-ballot Republicans).
Still; my choices, and my hopes are likely to be steamrolled, by a huge majority of the electoral college.
After this election, I will proudly and happily say, "I told you so," to the pre-nomination supporters of Trump. And I will say, "I never understand 'Trumpism' and don't wish to defend Trump," to all of the people on the left with whom I am accustomed to fighting.
Trump's accusers have come from the high rent part of a the sandbox. Clinton's were much more downmarket. A clerk or secretary is easier for a VIP to pressure or browbeat into sex than a network correspondent. Clinton bragged to Gennifer Flowers that he had been with thousands of women. We have seen with Paula Jones how smooth his seduction technique was. What we will not see is dozens of women coming forward to recount their experiences. They have seen how it went with the other "bimbos". Clinton is like Bill Cosby was five years ago. He's got a protective shield. There is no down side, on the other hand, for a woman to come forward with allegations against Trump. Quite the contrary.......I dont think that his election should be about who's the biggest horndog, but I have the impression that Clinton is.
Ann,
In that context, he's saying he goes ahead and kisses and grabs by the pussy and he gets away with it. They "let you do it." How do they let him? He just starts and they let him. This is why I think he is blind to law. He's not even seeing the problem. He's not saying he forms a connection first and gets at least some nonverbal cues that the woman is receptive to a physical move. He assumes and in his experience, he's getting away with it.
I don't think that shows the right awareness of the structures of law in this country. It's a blindness.
10/17/16, 2:16 PM
You don't show the right awareness that he wasn't speaking for attribution, and wasn't expanding chapter and verse of the detail. He was having gossip. He was telling a story, and if you knew anything about literature, you'd know that it is as important to know what to leave out, as what to put in.
If he used the kind of verbiage you claim to seek, when talking out of school with a regular guy, he wouldn't be very interesting.
@Lyssa "Clinton would be better for conservatives."
What does "conservative" mean to you? Social? Fiscal? Less regulation?
If Trump wins Republicans might succeed in opening up the health market place across state lines and other micro improvements. The chance of reversing the most costly aspects of Obamacare seems remote. If HRC wins medicare for all is a done deal. If Trump wins the massive influx of illegal immigrants should be brought to a trickle. HRC has promised amnesty for anyone who can get across the border, that will result in an increase of uneducated, unskilled peoples flowing in. Under HRC government debt will continue growing.
I really don't see how conservatives will be better off post HRC? All that is aside from the problem of winning back Trump supporters who feel betrayed by the GOPe.
"Hillary is far less fettered, while Donald has seen resistance from every quarter."
He pushes back on that resistance pretty good, doesn't he?
Hil means a continuation and likely increase in pace of executive orders..aside from all that will be completely under the table.
How about voter's opinions on shoplifting?
BBC today:
'Explaining that security and protocol procedures were regularly breached, the [FBI] report states that early in Mrs Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, "she and her staff were observed removing lamps and furniture from the State Department", which were brought to her residence in Washington DC. The unnamed source does not know if the government property was ever returned.'
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37683119
That's "SHE and her staff" (emphasis added).
Was this a single, innocent incident?
Nope. Hilary seems to be a compulsive, serial shoplifter:
"...After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.
Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return.
McDaniel discussed the matter Wednesday with Betty Monkman, the White House curator, and Gary Walters, the chief usher, or executive manager of the White House.
They were reviewing the gifts the Clintons chose to keep after $28,000 worth of items were found on a list of donations the Park Service received for the 1993 White House redecoration project. The Washington Post this week quoted three people who said that they assumed the furnishings they donated for the project would stay in the White House."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1
WTF, sounds like they backed a semi up to the WH.
Unless those W's taken out of the keyboards were diamond set.
Come on, Michael K, tell us some of the stories from when you were young doctors and nurses. You can trust us to keep your secrets. You didn't commit any crimes, right? And even if you did — who cares? It's not like you're running for president.
Lett's stipulate they are both awful.
The difference is Hillary will be given free rein by the media, Democrats, and a good portion of the GOP, to do whatever she wants to whomever she wants... think on hpor schlub with the video that they blamed Benghazi on and sent to jail. Or the IRS harrassing Tea Party groups, or, well, a million other things.
Trump, OTOH, will be opposed by the media, the Dems, and a good part of teh GOP if he gets even the slightest bit out of line.
Hillary will end our democracy, I am not kidding--look at the Project Veritas tape released today.
The potential for damage is way less with Trump.
"All that is aside from the problem of winning back Trump supporters who feel betrayed by the GOPe."
If she wins, I will be busy arranging my personal affairs to cope.
I doubt anyone is realistic enough, except for some of us survivalists, to prepare.
Years ago, when we went through this with Carter, I had my sailboat which was capable of crossing oceans and I had done so.
I'm too old to do that now but I have read Neville Shute's novel, What Happened to the Corbetts. which is about World War II.
Now, it will have to be land based. I think there will be a lot of people doing the same. I expect a huge spike in gun and ammunition sales after the election if she wins. It will make the Obama bull market in guns look puny.
I know of people making plans and actually instituting subsistence agriculture.
It will certainly be interesting. I know many of you will dismiss this.
"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss, I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything — grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
If you "just start kissing them" your assaulting them. The idea that everyone he does this with "let you do it" is his fantasy and his rationalization. As we've seen over the last several days, what "they let you do it" means is that those who don't want him to don't really have the power to do anything about it.
I get that you think Hillary is worse for the country, or worse for you, than DJT. But you're bullshitting yourself saying he's not into sexual assault and they let him do it. Most women know better.
"It's not like you're running for president."
You never know who will be required to clean up the mess.
I have a book of memoirs but most of those stories are omitted because too many people are still alive.
No, no crimes. Let's just say I understand Trump. However, bragging is not a good idea and I think he knows that now.
"I doubt anyone is realistic enough, except for some of us survivalists, to prepare."
A word to the wise, foreign passports for the kids.
Yes, I know, it sounds unpatriotic and etc.
But I come from a long line of expats who worked in many countries.
It is far more certain a fix to leave for somewhere more comfortable.
For most of us, we are old, and we are no great loss everything considered. We can deal.
Trump was 59 and engaging in a bullshitting session with a group of younger and poorer guys, bragging about his prowess with women, tongue-in-cheek. The other guys were laughing and so was Trump. I didn't for a second think that anything being said was true. Neither did the other guys there. If he talked about taking a leak over a bridge and saying the water was cold--and deep, too, it would have fit right in.
"Its so strange that neither party was able to put forward a decent candidate."
To which Michael K wrote in response:
"When I say that no other candidate brought up Trump's issues of illegal and Muslim immigration, over at Ricochet a supposed conservative site, I get arguments about how they did bring it up. People seem to think philosophical arguments in think tanks are the equal of legislation. In 2006, Republicans passed a bill to build a fence. I have seen no evidence of any effort since they got back the majority in 2010."
Exactly. Trump got traction because the GOP House and Senate did almost nothing with the majorities given to them in the off-year elections of 2010 and 2014. Indeed, after Ryan took over the speakership, he negotiated away the only really accomplishment of the House Republicans, the budgetary caps from 2011. When confronted with executive orders on immigration, or outright malfeasance by the IRS, all the House and Senate could do is hold toothless investigations that carried no penalties nor any method of halting such actions. They were unwilling to impeach even the IRS officials who stonewalled them at every turn. The voters for Trump that were within the Republican Party were beginning to realize that voting for a Republican politician was an exercise in futility, and rightly so. I wish some other figure than Trump had been able to pick up this torch, but I have no clue as to who that might have been.
You have at least ten women saying he groped and kissed them, in some cases worse. You have his words about what he likes to do. He doesn't ask them, he "just starts kissing them." The ones that don't like, well tough, he just walks away. What are they gonna do?
The ones who do, they become the "They like it" group. The rest are forgotten.
"Its so strange that neither party was able to put forward a decent candidate." What? Hill is the perfect candidate for the Dems. She's a woman and can play the war-on-women game, essential to Dem victory in the absence of a Magic Negro; she heads a posse that controls much of the Dem apparatus and assures its continuation; she is an entirely unprincipled seeker of power, and therefore a perfect fit for the core of the party and its constituents (with the exception of a few true-believer lefties and interlopers like non-Dem Bernie); she doesn't care about law, neither do her supporters, and her election will ensure that no one involved in illegal shenanigans will be held accountable; and she will start in office somewhat damaged, giving O a leg up on her and leverage over her, which he will exploit--the weakest winner is best for him.
10?
I've only heard of 4. Who are the other 6?
If you "just start kissing them" your assaulting them. The idea that everyone he does this with "let you do it" is his fantasy and his rationalization.
Please describe what Trump actually did. To even get anywhere close to the neighborhood that criminal sexual assault lives in you will need real acts that meet the legal definition.
Or, like many, you can simply attribute criminal sexual assault to the wind and hope it somehow sticks to something. Sort of like accusing someone of bestiality because they mentioned touching their dog.
"Just start kissing them" describes just about every initial social greeting among upper crust people I've ever witnessed.
What you're claiming is that Trump aggressively kissed a woman in an unmistakably sexual manner against her will.
Prove it, or just admit to being casually libelous.
Incidentally, the one person not claiming any sort of sexual assault, criminal or otherwise, is Nancy O'Dell herself, the ostensible victim.
Trump isn't the problem here. The voluntary unmooring from reason and reality by people who should know better is the problem.
Once nihilism is unleashed, it's very difficult to put back in the bottle, and we're already at that point where nothing is true any longer and everything is permitted.
Just consider us 'deplorables' to be the new iconoclasts.
If Hillary put out a call, she could get a million women to testify against Trump. Even if they've never met him. They think they are saving the Nation and are heroes. The Media isn't doing their job checking out the women and their stories. That's why one of the first two women was a secretary at the Clinton Foundation, and a friend of Hillary--with multiple pictures to prove it.
Trump was 59 and engaging in a bullshitting session with a group of younger and poorer guys, bragging about his prowess with women, tongue-in-cheek. The other guys were laughing and so was Trump. I didn't for a second think that anything being said was true. Neither did the other guys there. If he talked about taking a leak over a bridge and saying the water was cold--and deep, too, it would have fit right in.
Someone referred to the rather precious hyperliteralism you're describing as a case of voluntary Asperger's Syndrome, as if we're suddenly become a nation of partisan Rain Men.
"'Just start kissing them' describes just about every initial social greeting among upper crust people I've ever witnessed."
Uh huh. Especially when it's followed by "Grab them by the pussy."
This is what I mean by people rationalizing because they think it's that important to keep Hillary from being elected.
Fine if you decided it's that important. But you can do that without lying to yourself. If he makes you hold your nose while you vote for him, that's understandable. But if he makes you sell yourself out to the point where you can't be honest about what's what, that's another thing.
Althouse 2:16: "In that context, he's saying he goes ahead and kisses and grabs by the pussy and he gets away with it. They "let you do it." How do they let him? He just starts and they let him. This is why I think he is blind to law. He's not even seeing the problem. He's not saying he forms a connection first...."
They "let you do it" does not necessarily equate with "he gets away with it." Put "let you do it" in the context of a criminal trial where the law specifies "without consent," which is the norm, as opposed to "without explicit consent," and where the defense is consent.
Here's Hillary the defense lawyer's first question to the victim: "What, exactly, did you do or say to indicate to my husband, Bill, that you were unwilling to have him (insert act of the defendant here)?"
Additionally, his "not saying he formed a connection first" doesn't mean that he didn't.
Pretty sloppy for a law professor.
If Hillary put out a call, she could get a million women to testify against Trump.
If I had the cash, I could probably produce a complainant to sexual assault against anyone here - male or female - for something around $100,000 a pop. Hillary has considerably deeper pockets.
Pussy has always been for sale, always will be. It makes the world go 'round.
Matthew 7:3. How is it that a Law Professor is unaware that a lawyer's job and a judge's job is to get around the law? To not see it? This post smacks of a total lack of introspection. Tell us Professor, what is the law? Is it something immutable so that regular people should see the boundaries. Or is it an amorphous mass of contradictions that have little meaning? Or is it a game played on regular folks by the Mandarins?
Most men have participated in such sessions or witnessed them. Of course there are weirdos that haven't or claim they haven't. Or that other guys refused to associate with. You may be one of those.
Uh huh. Especially when it's followed by "Grab them by the pussy."
I'll put you down as an Asperger's Rain Man.
"Unwanted" advances seems a little bit of a kafkatrap. How is one to discover whether this lissome lass is amenable without making an advance?
Oh. Breathing while male. So very very sorry.
We're talking about New Yorkers. That's where whopper like "grab them by the pussy" come in. And I don't suspect that Hillary paid for the women to come forward. They do it for free for the cause.
The old false equivalency. Its about all you folks have left.
"'Unwanted' advances seems a little bit of a kafkatrap. How is one to discover whether this lissome lass is amenable without making an advance?"
"Just start kissing them." Of course they ALL like it.
Remorse wrote: "This is what I mean by people rationalizing because they think it's that important to keep Hillary from being elected."
But by all means let's engage in hyperbole and speculation to accuse Trump of criminal sexual assault in order to draw attention away from Hillary's real crimes and incompetence and to reinstall her husband, the actual rapist, in the WH as First Lady.
Hypocrites!
This is what I mean by people rationalizing because they think it's that important to keep Hillary from being elected.
Fine if you decided it's that important.
I would be impressed by a video of Trump doing anything like the things we have video of Biden doing. Is that a low enough bar?
Come on. We have an assault on the truth like the one directed at Herman Cain when it appeared that the GOP might have a black candidate to oppose you-know-who.
Did anyone in the media talk about the attacks on Cain being what black men have put up with for a centiury ?
Of course not.
Words are just words, no matter what worlds they build. If actions were involved, the women would have come forward a long time ago. Trump was never a protected icon.
"If actions were involved, the women would have come forward a long time ago."
Cosby's accusers must all be making it up, too.
'"Just start kissing them." Of course they ALL like it.' 10/17/16, 5:04 PM
Some don't and outside the lunatic asylum of Democrat politics, where all women are snowflakes, it is normal for than to say so.
""Just start kissing them." Of course they ALL like it."
You do have to get into the guy portion of the problem set to understand the situation.
Lets assume a normal guy and a normal gal, and lets assume 30-odd years ago to allow for drift of mores - for all I know everything runs backwards these days.
So - woman gives every sign of affection, flirting is getting more than flirting, and you are inside each others personal space - and here is the most critical judgement call, experience counts, hard won or not, (mistakes must be made, so start early guys) - that is stage 1 - the ball has passed to you for stage 2 - do you play it, or not? And if so, how?
The point of decision.
Just focus on pussy for the next three weeks, and block out the corruption and exposed collusion between a 'free' press and the Democrats. You'll be able to drag yourself to the polls to vote for Hillary, and pretend you did it standing on some molehill of moral high ground.
And when more corruption is exposed, and her Presidency weakened, and she punches the middle east tar baby once again, you can tell yourself that as a 'strategic voter' you had no choice.
Either way, by implementing this strategy you can cast your vote for Hillary, and manage to hold on to the sanctimony you like to share with friends.
Words are just words, no matter what worlds they build.
This is true in the real world of law and law enforcement, not true in the alternative universe of academic law professing, and may also not be true if our nation is somehow able to develop "sexual terrorism" as an actual crime based on the precedent of not shouting fire in a crowded theater within the SJW precedent of "microaggressing".
In the latter case, someone proven to have said "I'd like to tap that" would be guilty of sexual battery.
"Cosby's accusers must all be making it up, too."
Unrelated. Moreover, $billions in graft are not at stake in Cosby's case. This is the Clinton Crime Family involved here.
It will be interesting. There are a ton of mainstream reporters showing up as colluding with, or giving editorial privileges to the Clinton campaign. It's just fucking appalling, but not shocking. Like grabbing pussy.
If they can hand the election to Hillary, I figure they are just shallow enough to immediately turn on her in an effort to save whatever sense of credibility they think the still have (which is really none). She will be a disaster and they will not want to own it.
This would however require self-awareness so I could be completely wrong.
"Some don't and outside the lunatic asylum of Democrat politics, where all women are snowflakes, it is normal for than to say so."
You kiss someone on the mouth in a sexual way without their permission, and then you're the one who gets on the fainting couch when someone calls it sexual assault?
In your mind you must be thinking of your high school crush who you took to the movies and wondered if it was okay to kiss her good night. Because that's the kind of situation where it might be normal for a girl or woman to say no and everyone lets it go.
That's not what Trump was talking about though ("I moved on her like a bitch"). It's not what the many accusers are saying either. Even if you discount some of them, you're a real jerk if you discount all of them IMO. Not a standup guy for the women.
If you're gonna think right, you gotta be real with yourself and others.
"Cosby's accusers must all be making it up, too."
"Unrelated."
Completely related to his argument. He said "If actions were involved, the women would have come forward a long time ago."
On the one hand, all this pussy slinging talk of criminal sexual assault is a proven winner for driving blog hits and blog comments.
But I don't think many women have thought this through very far.
Now, more than ever, every woman without exception is a potential legal liability to any organization, simply because any woman can accuse any person, man or woman, of "criminal sexual assault" at any time.
Naturally, equal opportunity employment requires organizations to hire them. It doesn't, however, require that such organizations treat all females with antiseptic chivalry, as if they were potentially dangerous pathogens, down to describing in employment handbooks exactly what words and phrases can be spoken to them, down to mandating they be video-surveiled at all times on organization property save while in the rest room - for their own protection, of course.
Will women like becoming the newest universal dangerousness? Will it be empowering?
You kiss someone on the mouth in a sexual way without their permission...
Prove it.
require that such organizations NOT treat all females with antiseptic chivalry
"You kiss someone on the mouth in a sexual way without their permission..."
"Prove it."
I don't have to. He said it. Nine or so women affirmed it was so.
Cosby was the most famous Black man in America. Most of the women mentioned that as a reason why they didn't come forward. If they were in the business, their careers would be over. Even if they weren't, they'd become the most hated women in America--the ones that took down America's most beloved Black man. Taking down Trump would not elicit that reaction. In fact, it would have made them celebrities in their own right.
he stood in the way of the hip hop defining deviancy down, as for ailes, that was another decapitation strike.
I don't have to. He said it. Nine or so women affirmed it was so.
Show us where Trump said he "kiss[es] someone on the mouth in a sexual way without their permission"
Face it, Remorse, you're just a fucking liar. You make up out of thin air whatever you need whenever you need it.
Some of you guys are scraping the bottom of the rationalizations barrel. I guess I've said what I have to say for now. If someone has a decent argument that doesn't make them sound like a total sell out, hit me up.
You can always start using another sockpuppet name, too. Give yourself a "thread winner" comment while you're at it.
Trump: I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss, I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything — grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.
Commenter: Show us where Trump said he "kiss[es] someone on the mouth in a sexual way without their permission"
= Massive intellectual dishonesty.
Words=/=Actions
Especially in a bullshitting session.
Now, the Clintons have a different law problem: They know what it is and they use their lawyerly understanding to avoid it and weasel around it."
Breaking the law knowing that you can fix any effort to punish you for breaking it is hardly lateraly or weaselly, it's just unpunished criminality. Althouse you know better than that. So why the willful effort to blind yourself?
Remorse, do you have any remorse for voting for Bill Clinton? Any remorse for being against his impeachment? Any remorse for supporting his enabler? For supporting a criminal who has suborn others to commit crimes? Does your conscious bother you? Do tell.
Trump was around thousands of beautiful women over the years. That must mean he kissed thousands of them. And grabbed them ny the pussy. That's your claim? Or was it just talk?
I never knew the song "I Kissed a Girl (And I Liked It)" was about sexual assault.
Now with a felony for every email not on the government servers and another felony for every classified email. And another felony for every classified email destroyed or mishandled. How many felonies did Hillary rack up?
Guy: "I'd like to kiss you, but I'll need prior approval in writing and have it notarized. Hope that doesn't spoil the mood."
Girl: "Fuck off."
Oh, I think every actual, flesh and blood woman who has accused Trump of improper behavior should have her full day in court, as should Trump as the defendant. Let the actual law, not the blog-professed law, come to a finding.
Here's what seems to me to be a reasonable question: should false criminal sexual accusations carry identical penalties for the accusers that genuine proven ones carry for the accused?
For example, if a man duly convicted of rape gets (arbitrary number) 10 years in prison, should a duly convicted falsely rape accuser get the same 10 years in prison in turn?
Most, if not all, of the cases will fall apart after details are given and there is time to investigate Trump's whereabouts and the presence of witnesses.
Sorry about the syntax: should a woman duly convicted of falsely accusing a man of rape get the same 10 years in prison in turn?
Why not? Why would her crime be less heinous?
I guess that 'stealing a kiss' is both sexual assault and petty theft.
Didn't some idiots have a bounty on smears about Trump, extending back to the primaries? Why didn't the women come forward then? Did they wait so that they would be vetted? Hmmm?
wouldn't be vetted
"You kiss someone on the mouth in a sexual way without their permission"
Hmm, searching the database...
Nope, never had a woman say "kiss me now!" before kissing her. Or sending a signed, notarized release and NDA for the purpose, etc.
Does not seem like the usual course of events actually, though you fellows can probably add your database results.
Permission in these cases is unspoken and implicit, unless you are in error evaluating the unspoken and implicit part. Which is what makes the business a bit of a risk. That is life and the human mating ritual. Deer stab each other with their antlers, humans misunderstand signals and get upset, a bit.
Fabi,
Dirty minds think alike.
Where is Laslo when you need him?
We're sort of at the point with this viral "criminal sexual assault" meme where the division between law and the cyber equivalent of mass Marian apparition is becoming diaphanous.
When Bill told Gennifer Flowers that Hillary had more pussy than he did, what were the terms there? I know people don't usually say things against Hillary because they are afraid of a pane of glass sliding off a truck or a lightning rod fall down in a storm, impaling them. But still.
One might ask, what good is the rule of law when it can be circumvented by a claim of no recollection or no intent?
If Trump doesn't "see" the law, plenty of other people will be more than happy to "see" it for him. Who will contradict Hillary's utter contempt for any law that doesn't suit her or gets in her way? Loretta Lynch??
Very true, buwaya!
Remorse wrote: "If someone has a decent argument that doesn't make them sound like a total sell out, hit me up."
Oh, don't be an ass. We all know you're a paid troll. You don't answer questions. You don't counter arguments. You don't notice when your arguments are shredded. You just repeat the same silly shit over and over. "He said. They said."
Quit trying to spoil the fun by pretending you're disengaging because you're logical or moral. Nothing you've written here suggests you are either.
Nobody who wants the Clinton Crime Family in the WH can claim the moral or intellectual high ground - ever. See, we don't really want Trump there. We are just appalled at the thought of having them there.
The poll is a joke. Those that see a political advantage in framing Trump's words as abnormal will claim to believe that they are.
The tape is really a test in critical thinking. As in 2008, you were played effortlessly, Althouse.
As in 2008, you were played effortlessly, Althouse.
Nah, nor does her past indicate she's a True Believer. What has changed is that her blog income has recently become marginally more important to the support of two. That's Blogging 101: 1) say something outrageous; 2) taunt your readers and those they bring in as well into trying to refute you; 3) taunt your readers' opponents and those they bring in as well into engaging them; 4) cash the resulting ad revenue checks.
Her continued press on this absurd "criminal sexual assault" meme strikingly contravenes a long history of high order rationality across the board. No one could get or keep a position at a reputable law school trafficking in this sort of sophistry; ergo, it's not being offered as reason but as something else - bait - and only after her law professor days are safely in the bag.
Trump has generally been law abiding in a business where many are not. I think his willingness to let his lawyers tell him what the parameters of action are is far better than the way the Clintons handle things. Again, I'm not likeing the man, I just think he's a better choice.
You're trying to indict by storied half-truth. It's fraudulent.
As fraudulent as indicting Samuel Clemens on charges of racism for using the N-word.
Just give it a break.
he stood in the way of the hip hop defining deviancy down, as for ailes, that was another decapitation strike.
Yup, that was part of it. Plus he was a celebrity and, if you have read, "You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again," you know what it was like.
These guys ruled Hollywood. In his memoir (which is excellent) RJ Wagner recounts opening the door to Errol Flynn's dressing room one day to see a girl giving Flynn a blowjob. Wagner said he just quietly close the door.
We are dealing with 2016 sensibilities with 1980s events. I think he was not wise to talk like that but Hillary and Bill are a crime family. They have been grifters and liars since Arkansas.
Back when Bill was president, there was a video tapes about people who were killed for interfering in their operations.
I now wonder if I was right to dismiss it so quickly.
He's not saying he forms a connection first and gets at least some nonverbal cues that the woman is receptive to a physical move. He assumes and in his experience, he's getting away with it.
I don't think that shows the right awareness of the structures of law in this country. It's a blindness.
Define "connection." Isn't a "connection" psychological?
What you're saying is valid, but unfortunately what passes for the law is out of sync with human nature. I got no problem with the law as is, but you can see the logical conclusion of this when it comes to college campuses that actually believe consent must be verbal. That's both infantilizing and unfortunate, but perhaps necessary given the amount of social and sexual ignorance and backwardness America prides raising its kids with. The end result is a demand to make a separate "college sexual assault" category that is separate from the legal version, resulting in hearings and investigations and decisions and feelings-based kangaroo courts that replace the cops and crimes with collegiate nannying and time-outs.
The other part he references cannot be overlooked. Without justifying something legally, it is unreasonable to refuse to accept that many women in glamorous settings find the ambience and "powerful" nature of the men therein to be too intoxicating to forego a degree of licentiousness that is difficult for you 99%-ers to comprehend. In that state, male sexual assertiveness is taken not only for granted, but to a level that technically would constitute illegality, if the atmosphere were any different. I realize that as a somewhat asexual narcissist, with a borderline lesbian orientation, (who lives in the MIDWEST!) - these descriptions have nothing to do with any reality you're familiar with. It doesn't mean that further action including rape would be acceptable, but society has transitioned away from the stage where consent was negotiated with suggestive speech or touching that, if it weren't agreed to, would be rebuffed by a slap, if anything. This used to be what was understood as a "no," and would have been respected. Perhaps not the most graceful, but no more graceless than the awkward presumption you have of assuming verbalization is the ideal of consent - despite how much you must admit to knowing how unnatural that would be.
More than once I've been kissed on the mouth by women with whom I was speaking, but in a very assertive way. Not in a way where there was any progressive, intimate approaching or looks that would have indicated a "space" for negotiating the communication of consent. But the Althouse (and I suppose, legal) standard, I was assaulted. Do I feel that's what happened? No, it was just assertiveness by women not constrained by a fear of awkward rejection. Was it wanted? No. In none of these cases was I interested in that. In one of the cases I gave a quizzical look back. In another, I sort of turned away. I was never worried that these return communication signals would go unheeded. I was not offended; I was not "injured". I was not emotionally scarred. I appreciated the assertiveness and would have told them so, even if I regretted not being interested in reciprocating.
In college I sat on a couch with two female friends I was socializing with. We had been watching tv. At one point, they were on either side of me, and both started rubbing each of my thighs. Through my jeans. I won't tell you what happened next. I was most definitively not assaulted. I would hate to live in a society in which assault would have been defined that way, as well.
I can go on, but I don't want Althouse's eyeballs to pop out of her head or her brain to explode in rage and disbelief. So out of sensitivity to her, I will end these not so scarring stories of my history of being "assaulted" for the moment.
Adults negotiate things. Children get upset regardless of whether an invisible line would be respected, just if they feel it was. Whether someone meant to or not.
Adults don't get traumatized by mixed signals.
Adults don't presume that everyone who's interested in them has traumatized them by being up front about their feelings.
In high school a trollish girl with a crush on me (I guess) reached up to grab and jump on to me from behind. I was uncomfortable.
But I was just in high school. And so was she.
But let's say we weren't. Not being smooth shouldn't be a crime.
These all amount to pecuniary attempts to criminalize awkwardness. Women have an ideal of a "smooth" man, and Trump is now seen as having violated that.
That's all this is (assuming it's true). Nothing more, nothing less. The crime here (as far as psychological reaction, not as far as what actually happened, which is anyone's guess), was one of sleaziness.
Michael K said... We are dealing with 2016 sensibilities with 1980s events.
--
Are they concerned trump will be a 60's style president..doing secretaries on desks like LBJ?
"Are they concerned trump will be a 60's style president..doing secretaries on desks like LBJ?"
Who is they ? The neo_Victorians of the "feminist movement?"
This is ridiculous. I am going to suggest my grandson join the military, although with Hillary that may not be a refuge.
I do appreciate the present generation making me grateful that I am as old as I am.
I must say, it is regional but they think everyone agrees with them.
Michael K, I have two grandsons who are interested in the military, too, but don't want to serve under Hillary.
@Micheal K
"I guess I continue to be surprised at how few seem to understand why we are here. I keep suggesting people read Codevilla's The Ruling Class, but you can lead a horse to water...."
Thanks for that link. He does a thorough job at summarizing our current political situation.
All I'm seeing is that female voters, on average, are morons.
One silver lining of a Hillary presidency is it would likely be so bad it would unite the country against her, accomplish nothing, and sit on the next economic collapse. We currently have a generation of voters who think Republicans start recessions and Democrats pull us out of them.
Brando, you cannot possibly believe that. We've had Obama for 8 years and REPUBLICANS are still blamed for all of the problems. This "accountability" that even Althouse hoped for in 2008 never did happen and never will happen. They will blame the GOP if they oppose any of her asinine and likely illegal policies and will then find an activist to make a case for them.
We have EVIDENCE that DEMOCRATS initiated conflicts at Trump events. The press will still blame Trump supporters for it.
Your assumption isn't going to ever be the case.
There is no such thing as "rule of law".
It's downright hilarious seeing anybody still claim that a "rule of law" exists after this year. There is no rule of law. The only republic we are at this point is purely of the banana variety.
Remorse said...
You have at least ten women saying he groped and kissed them, in some cases worse. You have his words about what he likes to do. He doesn't ask them, he "just starts kissing them." The ones that don't like, well tough, he just walks away. What are they gonna do?
The ones who do, they become the "They like it" group. The rest are forgotten.
10/17/16, 4:38 PM
Sorry, are you talking about Donald or Bill?
Trump works in a hard industry with hard people. He knows how to speak the common lingo. What do you want to bet there is a whole bunch more of the recording where Billy Bush is leading this line of talk? I kind of understand the situation. Back in the day I was a technical professional working in a chemical plant. The people working in the plant were street smart and competent but they were by no means refined. You depended on these people to get their jobs done competently, you didn't spend a lot of time trying to refine their social graces. Mostly, you learned to converse in their lingo. So when the assistant shift foreman is showing off polaroid pictures of his wife giving him a blow job, you don't get all huffy and righteous, you just laugh it off and walk away thinking "what a jerk." You had to be very careful to not let the interplay with the factory workers slip into your regular life. Tough when you spent 50-60 hours a week with them.
"Brando, you cannot possibly believe that. We've had Obama for 8 years and REPUBLICANS are still blamed for all of the problems. This "accountability" that even Althouse hoped for in 2008 never did happen and never will happen. They will blame the GOP if they oppose any of her asinine and likely illegal policies and will then find an activist to make a case for them."
Of course partisans will blame the other side--it's the mushy middle that matters. And the mushy middle generally sees our recent recessions (2007-10; 2001-03; 1990-92) as beginning in GOP administrations. I'm sure Clinton would try and blame a recession beginning anywhere in 2017-20 on Republicans, but that's not going to sell so easy.
"We have EVIDENCE that DEMOCRATS initiated conflicts at Trump events. The press will still blame Trump supporters for it."
We'd have an easier time making the case if Trump didn't give us quotes asking people to beat up protesters. We're blaming a biased media while all along giving them extra tools to use.
But considering this, I see your point--the way the Right has been blundering around it would be naïve to think they won't get played yet again under a Hillary presidency. The Republicans have long been the ideal opponents for the Clintons--always playing the goat. So crazy as it is, maybe they would do something dumb enough to ensure that Hillary can blame them for the next recession (2017--John McCain pledges to scuttle the economy to ensure Hillary becomes a one-term president).
Thanks--I'm more depressed now!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा