"Does he really do the things that he's saying or is that his act? And in Donald's case, I equated it that way. When he said what he said, I'd like to think if I had thought for a minute that there was a grown man detailing his sexual assault strategy to me, I'd have called the FBI."
Billy Bush speaks.
I think a lot of people don't get Trump's statements because they don't understand the humor. But why should they? They don't want to let him off the hook more than they don't want to look like they have no sense of humor.
There's the famous feminist punchline: That's not funny.
I think it's important to perceive the humor, so you can understand why he says some of the weird things he does. You don't have to think it's funny or have a taste for that kind of humor, but you should understand that it is humor, unless you have some reason to want to stand on your obtuseness. It could serve some political purpose that you like, perhaps for yourself, perhaps for others. But if you can understand how a statement is humor and you engage in speech that treats it as if it is intended to be taken seriously because you find it useful for other people not to see the humor, you are a propagandist.
May 22, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
336 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 336 of 336In fact, if Trump was running around physically assaulting women, why aren't those women on CNN and MSNBC 24/7? Didn't Gloria Allred have some clients before the election making accusations? Where are those women now?
"If he was telling the truth when he said what?"
"I just grab 'em by the pussy. They like it."
Trump's pussy grabbing comment, er, I mean joke, bothers me a lot less than many of the other things he's said. He was crass, uncouth, bragging and maybe telling the truth, but his incompetence as POTUS is far more dangerous to the US and to the world. His comments should not be dismissed as mere humor. This is a huge error in judgment.
Inga noted: "Trump was very funny when he mocked a disabled reporter, man that was a knee slapper!"
Hillary was hysterical when she mocked people having seizures.
That's a great strategy! It will work wonders for you!
Its worked out well for them so far.
"It's not an unworthy endeavor to point out the error of assigning the serious and destructive comments that Trump makes"
But we are, or should be, discussing matters of state, not banter and table talk. Do you imagine that such grave matters turned on that sort of thing?
We obsessively elevate the trivial and refuse the serious. That is ridiculous.
Let's also not forget how the 10-year old, Access Hollywood "Trump video" was magically released 1 month before the 2016 election by the Washington Post.
They tried to nail Trump, they timed it for maximum impact as the "October Surprise," -- but
Trump responded well, and still won the election.
Sorry, guys. Tag: "Still-butt-hurt-over-election"
p.s. a majority of white women voted for Trump over Hillary, 53-43. That must hurt too!
Blogger Brookzene said...
"If he was telling the truth when he said what?"
"I just grab 'em by the pussy. They like it."
Why did you put quotes marks around something Trump never said?
"Hillary was hysterical when she mocked people having seizures."
Source?
Buwaya, blame Althouse, she brought up the topic of pussy grabbing, not I.
Brookzene, like I said, you Dems don't get to lower and raise the bar whenever it benefits you. Before Clinton's affairs and scandals, the Access Hollywood vid would have destroyed a politician.
After Mr. "You'd better put some ice on that" left office, nobody cared about The Donald talking dirty.
Here, let me provide you with the transcript.
And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.
For instance, a discussion of changes in the prosecution of pending cases in the EPA, wherein many are being dropped.
You can defend the value, a value judgement, against such changes, another can support the change as an economic benefit.
Bring numbers, studies, and probabilities.
That is what political discussion SHOULD be.
That is a start at an actual productive, proper argument.
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.
Bush: Yeah those legs, all I can see is the legs.
Trump: Oh, it looks good.
I want to know if Paul Hogan has been asked for comment.
Once written, twice... said...Of course Ann and her Althouse Hillbillies give a pass to Trump for his "humor" while they went on for years trashing President Obama for (maybe) hearing things his minister said. Of course race doesn't explain that difference in responses.
Oh. Rev. Wright was joking, was he? Is that the line, now?
I thought the argument was that he was 100% sincere but his statements had to be interpreted as part of "black liberation theology" and that made those statements OK. I mean, candidate Obama could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could his own grandmother...until Rev. Wright made it clear he wasn't joking and candidate Obama did have to distance himself from Rev. Wright.
Or was Obama only joking when he did that? We all suspect he was just joking when he said he believed marriage properly understood (from a Biblical perspective) must be between a man and a woman; j/k, j/k, LOL. That kind of stuff was just to hogtie the hillbillies' opposition, so the smart people never took him seriously.
It's so fun to listen to calls for understanding of nuance, and context, and a larger view--that's definitely not something that's done unequally, in a partisan-favoring fashion. No sir.
Blogger chickelit said...
Inga noted: "Trump was very funny when he mocked a disabled reporter, man that was a knee slapper!"
Hillary was hysterical when she mocked people having seizures.
5/22/17, 1:35 PM
Hillary was even funnier when she laughed and joked about getting a brutal rapist off the hook. A rapist who had injured a teenage girl so badly the girl would never be able to bear children.
But that girl was a hillbilly and a deplorable so who cares? Not liberal feminists.
"Buwaya, blame Althouse, she brought up the topic of pussy grabbing, not I."
So she did. In the context of the sort of issue obsessing a would-be serious journal, Politico, and its absurdly serious treatment of it.
The problem I see in you is that you are taking it quite as seriously as the miscreant Politico.
Hagar, I read it the same way - celebrity groupies so desperate that they would let you grab them by the pussy if you wanted to.
"Brookzene, like I said, you Dems don't get to lower and raise the bar whenever it benefits you. Before Clinton's affairs and scandals, the Access Hollywood vid would have destroyed a politician."
What's allowed definitely changes over time. Everyone knows that. Clinton would never survive today's environment. He barely did as it was. Whether he should have gotten worse, that's an argument but not really relevant to today's transgressions involving Trump.
It's just the way it is. Over time what's allowed changes. That's no defense of Trump except in your mind.
Brook, you just contradicted yourself.
So, to answer my question, what did Trump say that might be determined as a truth or a lie? Because your initial answer was,ets be generous, incorrect.
Buway sez:
But we are, or should be, discussing matters of state, not banter and table talk. Do you imagine that such grave matters turned on that sort of thing?
We should. You are totally correct.
But, one side uses such "banter and table talk" as a bludgeon to win votes. Fighting back (what Trump did, what Romney failed to do) is sometimes necessary.
But, again, you are correct. We should be discussing matters of substance.
But let's take a closer look at those breasts....
buwaya: "The Pelopponesian War", which is Thucydides..."
Gracious of you to save them the embarrassment of having to ask.
"celebrity groupies so desperate that they would let you grab them by the pussy if you wanted to."
And what if you grabbed one of them by the pussy and they didn't want it? Well, never mind. We know. It's assault.
Let's get this straight: Hillary got an actual rapist off the hook and later laughed about it.
But in brookzene's mind, what Trump said was worse.
All righty then.....
Gee, why do conservatives consider liberals to be base hypocrites with non-existent moral codes....'tis a mystery.
What's allowed definitely changes over time. Everyone knows that.
This is true. Except it doesn't change over time. Time isn't the factor. It changes depending on who is in office and in trouble.
" Except it doesn't change over time. Time isn't the factor. It changes depending on who is in office "
It changes depending on whether a pol has a D after his name or not.
Anybody who doesn't get my Crocodile Dundee II reference should be ashamed.
Except buwaya. Not sure how that movie played overseas.
"So, to answer my question, what did Trump say that might be determined as a truth or a lie?"
"You can do anything." "Grab them by the pussy."
If you are trying to argue that Trump wasn't talking about himself or other people, or somehow technically didn't say grabbing them by the pussy wasn't his strategy (joking or not) then you're just sophomoric and we don't need to continue arguing this with each other.
"What's allowed definitely changes over time. Everyone knows that."
No, everyone doesn't know that.
What changes is what the media machine considers expedient at any given time.
What JFK did would have ruined his career in that time quite as well as it would have today, had the media of the day decided to use what they knew in the way they would have had it been Richard Nixon.
And the same goes for every sort of scandal over the last sixty years. They don't bother, for instance, bringing up nasty stories about Kamala Harris being mixed up with the vast scale of Willie Brown's bribery and abuse of office.
"This is true. Except it doesn't change over time. Time isn't the factor. It changes depending on who is in office and in trouble."
No. Society's mores and laws actually evolve.
"Except buwaya. Not sure how that movie played overseas."
I was in the US then. Didn't see it.
exiled: "But in brookzene's mind, what Trump said was worse."
Be careful to check the actual quotes. We already have Brookzene attempting to foist fake quotes onto Trump on this very thread.
Because "truth", or something.
Brookzene: "No. Society's mores and laws actually evolve."
Actually, "society's mores and laws" evolve just about every time there is a change in party in the White House.
So, in this instance, Brookzene equates made up Trump quotes with actual Clinton behavior.
Except he/she gives Clinton a pass.
Unexpectedly.
This is sorbet for the next course:
Seth Rich.
Democrats are very nervous, very afrsid. As they should be. 4CHAN is now investigating. The truth will out.
I wonder how libs here will react when it's proven that Seth Rich leaked to wikileaks, there was no Russian hacking, and the Left had a Bernie Bro murdered to cover it all up.
Google "crocodile Dundee crotch grab"
The bygone days of the 1980s.
"What changes is what the media machine considers expedient at any given time."
I won't disagree that the media can be kinder or more generous to one than the other, but that doesn't mean that mores don't evolve and what is okay from one time to another doesn't change.
The media might be kinder to one pol or another but that doesn't mean that Barack Obama could make a crude comment about grabbing them by the pussy and he would get away with it - he wouldn't.
Nor would he make such a comment.
@ Fen
The idea that the political Left would use murder as a tool to further their agenda seems odd.
Can you point to that EVER happening before?
/sarc
Democrat politician steps up to the microphone and taps it a couple of times.
TAP, TAP!
You people are all a bunch of stupid morons! You don't know what is in your best interest and that is why we, your moral and intellectual superiors, by virtue of attending a university that teaches that gender is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT have the right to rule over you.
Thanks for your vote.
Barack Obama could make a crude comment about grabbing them by the pussy and he would get away with it - he wouldn't.
5/22/17, 1:56 PM
Are you kidding me? Obama could have thrown a bucket of piss on the WH press corps and they would have thanked him for the shower.
"Actually, "society's mores and laws" evolve just about every time there is a change in party in the White House."
They have changed very quickly in recent years. I don't think it has to do with what party is in office. But for instance because of what Trump said NO politician is likely to ever survive something similar in the future - even though he did.
"Are you kidding me? Obama could have thrown a bucket of piss on the WH press corps and they would have thanked him for the shower."
As I said the media is kinder to some but your comment is meaningless to the argument.
"No. Society's mores and laws actually evolve."
No, they change. That's not the same thing.
And in these cases they certainly haven't evolved that much.
If you had released Trumps recording in 1960 it would have been even more effective.
The difference is only that it would not have been recorded in 1960.
The other difference, today, is that we don't know what other mass of recordings there are that would be inconvenient to persons that the press supports. For instance in the case of John Edwards, where the press sat on what they knew until it was published by the Enquirer.
At any future date, should a Republican be vulnerable to a John Edwards type scandal, it is quite clear they would use it, and it would be effective.
Brooke "And what if you grabbed one of them by the pussy and they didn't like it? Assault"
Nope. What part of "they let you do it" do you not understand? Are you retarded?
"As I said the media is kinder to some "
Its not "kinder". It is a centrally directed machine attached to a single set of interests, and this determines its behavior.
"The idea that the political Left would use murder as a tool to further their agenda seems odd.
Can you point to that EVER happening before?"
You know what the Seth Rich's family said. There's a special place in hell for those who are trying to politicize his murder.
I think they find you disgusting and they don't think you really care about Seth's death at all.
Huh. Go figure.
Brookzene: "There's a special place in hell for those who are trying to politicize his murder.
I think they find you disgusting and they don't think you really care about Seth's death at all. Huh. Go figure"
Yes. A lefty wrote that. In 2017. Without irony.
@ Brookzene
What if Republican voters noticed the double standard and quit caring when the press hurls one-sided moralistic bull shit? Would that change your feeling about how crude comments affect things in the future?
Or do you think future Ted Kennedys and Chris Dodds get to make waitress sandwiches (against her will) and Democrats all ignore their standards?
Brooke: "society's notes change"
Weak excuse but it STILL
The tape was from 12 years ago, so by your own logic Trump should not be condemned for it by today's standards.
You didn't really think this through did you? You've let your hatred of Trump cloud your reason.
"I think they find you disgusting and they don't think you really care about Seth's death at all."
No, few do, that is the tragedy of existence. People die all the time, in the thousands and millions, and to spend time obsessively mourning strangers would be absurd.
The problem with Rich is not individual tragedy but politics, and it is rightly so, just as the murder of Franz Ferdinand was not likewise simply an individual tragedy. All that WWI business was deeply disrespectful to the mourning children of the murdered couple. Yes, that's the ticket.
"Yes. A lefty wrote that. In 2017. Without irony."
No, Seth's family wrote that. That "special place in hell" for people politicizing his death is family's quote. That's what Seth's family literally thinks of you guys who are exploiting his death.
@ Brookzene
If I were the Rich family, I would be scared to death. And scared of death. Because of the murder. And the fact the Left used murder as a tactic, worldwide. Always.
But only always.
"The tape was from 12 years ago, so by your own logic Trump should not be condemned for it by today's standards."
That's why they didn't fully hold him to account like they would to anyone saying that crap today.
When someone tells you who he is, believe him.
"Nope. What part of "they let you do it" do you not understand? Are you retarded?"
No. Are you a racist?
STILL FAILS
1) BILL is excused because that was in the past and societal mores change
2) But let's crucify Trump over something he said 12 years ago.
I still think Bernie could have beaten Trump. He and Trump had the same stance on illegal immigration and free trade. Chances are pretty good that if he was the Democrat nominee those Obama voters that switched to Trump would have stayed loyal to the Democrat party. Therefore, those battle ground blue states that Trump won would have gone to Bernie. But, he wasn't on board with the globalist agenda, so he had to go.
Must hurt.
No way he would have chosen Hillary as his vice president though. Secret Service protection isn't that good.
"If I were the Rich family, I would be scared to death."
You aren't his family. They can speak for themselves.
Blogger Brookzene said...
"So, to answer my question, what did Trump say that might be determined as a truth or a lie?"
"You can do anything." "Grab them by the pussy."
If you are trying to argue that Trump wasn't talking about himself or other people, or somehow technically didn't say grabbing them by the pussy wasn't his strategy (joking or not) then you're just sophomoric and we don't need to continue arguing this with each other.
So, you're saying his opinion can be either the truth or a lie?
I mean, I happen to agree with Trump. When you're a star, you can get away with just about anything.
You disagree? You think you and Brad Pitt are on equal footing?
"1) BILL is excused because that was in the past and societal mores change
2) But let's crucify Trump over something he said 12 years ago."
1) Bill didn't get what he deserved.
2) Trump deserved everything he got.
Brookzene takes time out from faking Trump quotes to now assigning guilt for actions to others, based on his latest set of whims one supposes.
And goodness knows that no one on the left would ever (evah!) consider, even for a moment, the exploiting of a death for partisan advantage.
BTW, has an indictment been formally submitted for Sarah Palin for the shooting of Gabby Giffords yet?
BTW, the left tells us there is no such thing as a "hell", so we'll chalk it up to a figure of speech.
stance on illegal immigration and free trade
You know, the stance the AFL-CIO used to have. Or Cesar Chavez for that matter.
No Brooke, the reason they didn't hold him accountable for anything said on the tape is because nothing he said was actionable. There is no evidence of any crime.
Stop being dense.
The first rule of social liberalism, is that you don't talk about female chauvinism, [class] diversity, constructed congruences ("="), and elective abortion.
"And goodness knows that no one on the left would ever (evah!) consider, even for a moment, the exploiting of a death for partisan advantage."
= If someone does something bad then so can I. In rhetoric, it's called the Seven-year Old's Defense.
"Not sure that there is a strong demand to have Andrew Dice Clay as our president."
"So I had my tongue up Merkel's ass..."
Hmm, yeah, I kind of see your point.
Fen: "Stop being dense."
You would have more success telling him to cut his arm off.
It's been Fen's Law on Super Steroids ever since Clinton.
"No Brooke, the reason they didn't hold him accountable for anything said on the tape is because nothing he said was actionable."
I meant the didn't hold him fully accountable at the polls. Of course there was nothing actionable.
Brookzene: "= If someone does something bad then so can I. In rhetoric, it's called the Seven-year Old's Defense"
Oh, so now, out of the blue, I'm also responsible for politicizing some guys death whom I've never spoken of.
No doubt you have a fake quote all cooked up for me as you do for Trump.
"Oh, so now, out of the blue, I'm also responsible for politicizing some guys death whom I've never spoken of."
Go complain to Seth Rich's family.
Brooke: "You aren't the family, they can speak for themselves "
Then why is a DNC Operative acting as the "family spokesman"?
And why is he having a meltdown in Twitter as we speak? The the steady confident composure we expect from PR Agents in a crisis.
Hmmmm smells like Dems are getting very nervous. Two-for-one sale on air fresheners while tney last.
And it was obvious that there was no enthusiasm for Hillary among the Democrat base. The game plan was to get someone nominated on the Republican side (Trump or Cruz) who would be considered so obnoxious by the electorate at large that there was no way that Hillary could lose.
Part of the anger among the pundits and politicos is that they outsmarted themselves.
If you had written this up as a comedy and pitched it to a film exec they would have thrown you out of their office.
Brookzene is so busy faking quotes he sometimes forgets who he has assigned different quotes and/or actions to.
I have to imagine that level of intellectual dishonesty is difficult to keep coherent and consistent.
All right I'm out for now. Good arguments. Peace.
And if JEB! had won? Well, that's OK. He knows what's what.
Brookzene: "Go complain to Seth Rich's family."
About what?
Apparently Bush's pussy felt grabbed:
"the 2005 tape derailed his career and led to months of reflection that included a week-long stay at a self-help retreat in California."
Seems like we are hearing more from the Bushes lately..
Brook: "if someone does something bad then so can I defense"
No. If you damn Trump while excusing Bill Clinton for worse then you have no integrity or credibility and can easily be disregarded. You are a partisan shill who is only cares about the issue as a means to attack Trump.
But let's take a closer look at those breasts.
Had tip Drago. I really enjoyed reading you and Achilles when I was lurking last few months.
"HOW DARE YOU politicize Seth Rich's murd- uhm death" screamed the Left as they hastily edited Seth's postings on reddit...
Dumb move assholes. It's already been archived. All you've done is spotlighted the bits you don't want 4chan to look into. STOO PID.
The quality of usual suspects is declining.
I'm blaming Trump.
He was crass, uncouth, bragging and maybe telling the truth, but his incompetence as POTUS is far more dangerous to the US and to the world.
"Incompetence" being the new magic talking point, since "nervousness" is so yesterday.
He did just fine with Saudi Arabia and seems to be doing fine with Israel. He hasn't thus far insulted the Brits, which puts him a major step ahead of Obama. He's already done more positive things in 5 months than Hillary Clinton accomplished in four years as Secretary of State.
The NYT wrote a letter to subscribers which did not apologize - much. This what Inga is talking about. But before that letter there were stories in the NYT about the failure of the media and the polls including the NYT:
The most important story was by Jim Rutenberg. In this story he mentioned that the NYT was losing subscribers and he quoted Dean Baquet's "mea culpa":
News Outlets Wonder Where the Predictions Went Wrong
Mediator Jim Rutenberg MEDIATOR NOV. 9, 2016
The country’s major news organizations, as surprised as anybody by Donald J. Trump’s ascension to the presidency, faced a question from their audiences on Wednesday that was laced with a sense of betrayal and anger: How did you get it so wrong? ..The question came in letters. (“To editors and writers of The NYT,” one reader wrote, “you were so wrong for so long. You misled your readers and were blinded by your own journalistic bigotry.”) It came in Facebook posts. (“You were in a bubble and weren’t paying attention to your fellow Americans,” the filmmaker Michael Moore wrote in a post shared more than 100,000 times.) Most ominously, it came in THE FORM OF CANCELED SUBSCRIPTIONS, something that will surely be monitored. ...
“Whenever the news media gets surprised by a big story, there follows a round of questioning,” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, wrote in a note to his staff. “What could we have done better? How did we and other news organizations underestimate the support for such an unusual, even divisive candidate?” ... in an interview in his office, he said, “If I have a mea culpa for journalists and journalism, it’s that we’ve got to do a much better job of being on the road, out in the country, talking to different kinds of people than the people we talk to — especially if you happen to be a New York-based news organization — and remind ourselves that New York is not the real world.”
Other stories
How Did the Media — How Did We — Get This Wrong?
Michael Barbaro
THE RUN-UP NOV. 9, 2016
“What we now know is that a huge part of the country is far more upset about the ills that he was pointing to and promising to fix than any of the flaws that we were pointing out about him as a candidate,” Mr. Rutenberg says on the show.
“I would say this is a failure of expertise on the order of the fall of the Soviet Union or the Vietnam War,” Mr. Confessore says."
///////////////////////////
How Data Failed Us in Calling an Election
By STEVE LOHR and NATASHA SINGERNOV. 10, 2016
"Virtually all the major vote forecasters, including Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight site, The New York Times Upshot and the Princeton Election Consortium, put Mrs. Clinton’s chances of winning in the 70 to 99 percent range."
But here's the point. Look at what Inga is doing. She disregards the story Trump discussed. She substitutes another story that says something different. And then says Trump is wrong. This is a pattern with Inga and all lefties. And what it does is shift discussion from real issues to boring arguments about footnotes and references. Which article, what day, blah, blah. The left never acknowledges it is wrong; it shifts discussion away from issues where it would have to admit anything.
My strategy is to return to the issues. And on issues like the Access Hollywood tape I take the balanced approach. I take a huge newsturd like the Access Hollywood tape into my isolation room where I keep the stream of filth that passes for news in closed buckets. I balance it there against Hillary newsturds like Bill in the Oval Office, Bill raping, Bill grabbing Kathleen Willey and Hillary covering up his rapes and sexual grabbing. Which is turd is the heavier turd? Hillary, of course. Trump talked. Bill raped; Hillary ruined women who objected to being raped.
And it's the same with Russia or any of these other issues. It isn't just what the news is covering today with Trump. It's what the news covered up for Bill, Hillary and Obama on the same subject. On Russia - Hillary left Department of State top secrets documents exposed to Russian hacking. They hardly had to hack. Obama did nothing about it. Compare that with: Michael Flynn, like many others, spoke to the Russian ambassador. Weigh the two offences.
I'll never say that Trump should be impeached for some lightweight error by a campaign person (even supposing Mueller finds some error) while Hillary and Obama's dereliction of duty over four years is ignored. I balance the two - Hillary and Bill v. Trump - even though the papers do not. It will never happen that Trump can be shown to have done something worse than those two have done and had covered up by the media and by Obama. I'm not the only one who weighed the two and who is weighing them. The ultimate weighing: Hillary is still campaigning against Trump's media image; she and the Democrats never mention jobs; in fact the Dems worked against jobs in the inner cities which Trump's infrastructure plan would have achieved. Trump has reduced immigration and increased jobs and will try again for the infrastructure plan. He will forge ahead whether the media reports it or not.
In 2018 the Dems will have nothing to show the voters; they'll just be begging them to hate white men again. So Trump will never be impeached and the Dems will lose the next election cycle also. Someday they will stop hating America and Americans (a hatred they think is invisible but which is perfectly apparent); then the Dems might start to win. But not anytime soon.
Brookzene said...
"Are you kidding me? Obama could have thrown a bucket of piss on the WH press corps and they would have thanked him for the shower."
As I said the media is kinder to some but your comment is meaningless to the argument.
What if Obama started illegally tapping reporters phones and charging them with espionage?
What if Obama was illegaly monitoring members of congress?
“Whenever the news media gets surprised by a big story, there follows a round of questioning,”
"How did we miss that Stalin guy?"
"Partial-birth abortion kills a baby? Who knew?"
Suggestion to the New York Times
Do a story on people who used to be pro-choice, but changed their mind, and people who used to be pro-life, but changed their mind.
That's interesting. It's interesting because people who change their minds have gone through a process of thinking on the issue. Whereas people who are brought up in the "faith" are often just regurgitating the thoughts that were spoon fed to them. But if you want to hear strong arguments, talk to pro-lifers who once were blind, but now they see. (And vice versa).
And you should have more Republicans on your staff, if you want to be a national newspaper.
Fen said...
Had tip Drago. I really enjoyed reading you and Achilles when I was lurking last few months.
I have started lurking more lately. The left is depraved and it depresses me. The media is hell bent on starting a civil war. But people are missing the point in my opinion.
They know they can't take Trump out. But as long as there is an enemy and resistance they can hide the real problem they have: It was a disgruntled Bernie supporter who leaked the DNC because the DNC screwed Bernie. Podesta clicking on a phish mail is embarrassingly incompetent but not nefarious. Screwing Bernie was. Killing Rich afterwards was also not cool. Who has his laptop?
There was only one election rigged this cycle and it was the DNC primary. The media are just trying to keep the rubes in line.
"if you can understand how a statement is humor and you engage in speech that treats it as if it is intended to be taken seriously because you find it useful for other people not to see the humor, you are a propagandist." True. Unfortunately, the implied prog-shaming will have no effect: the propagandists don't give a damn.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I think Trump was speaking humorously but was also serious: I suspect he did make that pass at a married woman, and he was right that gold-digging women infatuated with rich celebrities will consent to having their bodies touched. That what he said was true made the propagandists' faux outrage all the more necessary: the leader of the “conservative” party isn’t conservative and shares progressive attitudes about sex and marriage, and women do in fact exert their agency by assessing men’s status and wealth when deciding whether to put out.
Good posts, wildswan.
But I don't believe journalists accidentally got the election wrong, I think they were actively campaig for the other side. So I don't want to see them reformed, I want them destroyed.
And I would caution the NYTs about sending its people out into America. Just as they called the election so very wrong, they have grossly underestimated the level of hatred and contempt we have for them. The only reason they aren't hanging from lamp posts is because that's illegal.
I remember an article during the election. The paragraph on Trump was full of harsh consonants, hard Gs, almost guttural like German. I felt I was reading about Trump while someone ran their nails down a blackboard.
The next paragraph on Hillary was all soft and musical. You could almost hear classical music in the background.
At first I thought I was reading too much into this, so I went back over it all line by line. My degree happens to be in English Lit, so I'm very aware what can be done poetically.
Further more detailed scrutiny made it obvious. The words were chosen deliberately. Very impressive piece of art actually.
"I remember an article during the election. The paragraph on Trump was full of harsh consonants, hard Gs, almost guttural like German. I felt I was reading about Trump while someone ran their nails down a blackboard.
The next paragraph on Hillary was all soft and musical. You could almost hear classical music in the background."
Yeah, that's it, an article during the election! It was the New Yor...The Washington Post! That's the ticket! There was music in the background...yeah. I'm tellin' ya, it was just awful."
he wasn't describing sexual assault. he was describing consensual behavior. There are women out there who will let you grab them by the pussy. And there are women who want to date and/or be with powerful men. THOSE specific women were the women he was talking about. If you hook up with someone and DONT grab them by the pussy at some point, you are not hooking up properly.
But, the onl assertion that he WASN"T describing consensual behavior was by the peopel who assumed they knew that the people who he said let him grab their pussies, didnt in fact do so. How would they know? UNLESS THEY KNOW WHO HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
ANd if you want to disprove that then give me five women's names of women who Trump said "let him grab their pussy" and then have them disprove his statement by disagreeing?
it seems that for the majority of the scandals htat plague trump or people around trump are all based on words, and not actions. And the words become problematic when the democrats assign a value to them that can only mean what they say. They refuse to allow for any other interpretation than the sinister one they assign to it. When if we actually look at the statement, it often has a context to it that makes you realize their insinuation is not based on fact.
This is a perfect example. He says "THEY LET ME DO IT" if you wanted to prove the veracity of the statement you'd need to know who THEY is. If they is just a vague grouping of a bunch of unnamed women you can't disprove his claim that they let him do it. Because THEY may have. It's absurd to say he's lying when you have no indea who he's even talking about.
If instead he said Hillary, Wanda and Sue let me grab them by the pussy we can go to Hillary Wanda and sue and say "Hey, Donald says you let him grab your pussies. Do you agree with his assertion" and they can say "Yes, or NO, or Maybe" But absent those names you have a generic statemetn that can't be proven false.
And the women who came forward who said Trump touched them innapropriately do not count. Since Trump never admitted to grabbing their pussies.
"And I would caution the NYTs about sending its people out into America. Just as they called the election so very wrong, they have grossly underestimated the level of hatred and contempt we have for them. The only reason they aren't hanging from lamp posts is because that's illegal."
The New York Times reporters are out there everyday, in the worst shitholes in America and all over the world.
Well, they haven't gotten to your Mom's basement yet, but when they do, you make sure to yell at 'em and hang 'em from a lamp post! Yeah, that's the ticket! You're a tough guy!
"I remember an article during the election. The paragraph on Trump was full of harsh consonants, hard Gs, almost guttural like German."
I felt like they were pushing us around and taking away our rights! I felt like they were taking away our guns! So I went to my safe space, where I didn't have to hear those awful gutteral noises and harsh consonants. And suddenly...suddenly...I was a snowflake, and I was falling gently down...
Achilles: "they can hide the real problem"
At first, I thought the whole Russia narrative was because the media got everything so wrong and perceived a circular firing squad forming. So they screamed "Look! Squirrel!"
But you may be right. With all their sources in Deep State, it follows that they would have been warned about a DNC whistle blower being murdered and the need to flood the zone with fake news about Russian hacking.
Inga wrote: "Trump was very funny when he mocked a disabled reporter, man that was a knee slapper!"
This one AGAIN? how many times does have to be debunked. he did not mock the reporter BECAUSE of his disablity. He mocked the reporter because he dissembled his words. and when Trump does an impression of someone doing that he always does an impresion of somoene who flails their arms, signifying they are discombobulated by their back pedaling. The fact that The reporter had a disability was incidental and had nothing to do with what Trump was mocking.
And at any rate, the reporter in question is not spastic. That is not his disability. So what sense would it make for Trump to mock someone for their disability by using the wrong disablity?
and further, its on tape that he used this same impression on a bunch of people including Ted Cruz. who as far as I know does not have any disability with his arm. But who Trump also accused of Dissembling or back tracking on words and then getting discombobulated.
Brooke, I thought you left in disgrace after you faked quotes? And try some reading comprehension - I didn't retreat from the article, I studied it more closely and even admired it.
You really need to up your game.
wildswan wrote:
ut here's the point. Look at what Inga is doing. She disregards the story Trump discussed. She substitutes another story that says something different. And then says Trump is wrong.
This tactic is commonplace. They even did it with Jeff Sessions. When they said he LIED about speaking to Russians.
AL Franken asked him about a specific dossier that alleged some potential wrong doing. and he wanted to know if Sessions knew anything about it. WHen he responsed he was referring to the specific question being asked. and so his response, where he said he didnt speak to any Russians about this was perfectly true.
But then democrats said "BUt wait, you spoke to a russian back in august! therefore you are lying when you said you didn't speak to any Russians! Liar liar pants on fire. Impeachment.
Any one who can follow the conversation knows that Sessions WASNT" ASKED IF HE EVER SPOKE TO ANY RUSSIANS EVER. he was asked about a specific instance. and so their characterization of it as a lie is based on their repeated refusal to simply look at the proper context of a statement.
They seem to be incapable of doing so. ANd it shows they are liars.
abortion... people who change their minds have gone through a process of thinking on the issue
I was for Choice until I learned that a human life evolves from conception, and the belief that a stork delivers babies at our convenience seemed incoherent. However, the consensus really fell apart at the twilight's fringe where Planned Parenthood and clinical cannibalism meet in a depraved, colorful entanglement of head, shoulders, arms, legs, and cellular clusters. I was for Choice before I realized the alternative is life.
I have a new special friend! I shall name him Butthurt.
Hey dumbass, since you are of low character and languishing wit, I'll extend some mercy - hardly anyone bothers to read the 2nd page here at Althouse. So try to save your best insults for another thread, since you're already struggling to land one.
he wasn't describing sexual assault. he was describing consensual behavior
Exactly. Conflating consensual and involuntary behaviors diminishes the significance and victims of the latter. While I disagree with social liberalism, I would not presume to characterize it as rape or rape-rape. I would, however, oppose its normalization. It's something that should be practiced in privacy.
That said, it wasn't Trump who violated the rules of social liberalism, it was Billy, JournoLists, and social liberals, for what was clearly dreams of political progress.
Freder wrote:
Yeah, a 60 year old man bragging about grabbing women by the pussy and getting away with it because he is famous, or trying to fuck a married woman (when he is also married), is just hilarious."
So why did you had "and getting away with it" when Trump describes it as consensual behavior. it sounds like you have some intimate knowledge of the women Trump grabbed the pussies of and say they let him. But who in fact disagree that they gave him permission.
The "and getting away with it" is YOUR addition to his statement.
Its your strawman, not reality.
Fen wrote:
But I don't believe journalists accidentally got the election wrong, I think they were actively campaig for the other side. So I don't want to see them reformed, I want them destroyed.
They may have gotten the election wrong, and also actively campaigned for one side, and one candidate from that side. if they got the election wrong they simpy thought more people bought their bullshit.
I do genuinely believe they thought they had the election in the bag.But they certainly did their best to achieve that specific result.
Fen: "But I don't believe journalists accidentally got the election wrong, I think they were actively campaig for the other side."
Actually, the MSM journalists did get the election wrong WHILE actively campaigning for Hillary against both Bernie and Trump.
Freder: "Yeah, a 60 year old man bragging about grabbing women by the pussy and getting away with it because he is famous,..."
Freder, leave the fake memes and fake quotes to Brookzene. He is clearly more practiced in that technique.
"Freder, leave the fake memes and fake quotes to Brookzene."
The Russian moby accusing me of his bullshit.
"But here's the point. Look at what Inga is doing. She disregards the story Trump discussed."
The blogpost concerned itself with people not having a sense of humor or being obtuse and not understanding Trump's bizarre comments as humor, or people who thought he was kidding but still wanted to use it against him because they wanted to push propoaganda. My comments were made in the hopes that it would be evident to most normal people that he was not kidding and that his comments should not be dismissed as joking. And doing so is a huge error in judgment. The pussy grabbing story was just one of many many many comments he made seriously that some actually believe were jokes.
But perhaps you are too obtuse to see what I was doing, so I just spelled it out for you here.
"Ann Althouse said...Yes, Tim Kaine is right. Trump's statement — which is itself only words — is a confession to behavior. Criminal behavior. Sexual assault."
That's a very short remark that doesn't purport to address whether the confession is true, but it certainly is a confession of criminal behavior. It's implicit in the way he said it that he doesn't mean to be taken as a criminal and in that he shows a very offensive attitude toward woman. Like he doesn't think acting like that is reprehensible. That he meant it to be amusing is an indication of an attitude that pretty much everyone found unacceptable, including him. He apologized.
Brookzene: "The Russian moby accusing me of his bullshit."
Lol
Russians Russians everywhere! Yes, of course I'm Russian! Who isn't? Everyone has to be, don't they? Otherwise the left might have to confront the real reasons for their political failures!
Your purposeful misquote of Trump is in this very thread!
But hey, screaming Russians should be enough to deflect!
"Call me Moby Drago."
Brookzene: "Call me Moby Drago."
Uh, okay. You're "Moby Drago".
Now what?
It was either an observation or an admission of something. Many people have observed and remarked on the progressive slope forced by social liberalism.
How quickly the Brookzene facade of a rational, "just the facts" and "logic" based thinking devolves into Inga-level lunatic assertions.
Lol
Not that we expected anything different of course.
A friend said he only voted for Hillary to get the blowjob Madonna promised.
Now I don't know if Madonna was telling a joke, or if she's an "Indian giver".
@Brookzene: Here you go: Hillary mocks person with seizure
Do you have another explanation?
Larry Nelson: "Now I don't know if Madonna was telling a joke, or if she's an "Indian giver"."
Why drag Elizabeth Warren into this?
I thought Trump's "pussygrabbing" handily addressed how certain women --especially younger women -- will avail themselves to celebrities. Now why is that? I can see why that especially upsets older women.
How many assault charges were filed by women against Bill Wyman in the day? Not many I'd wager. I'd also wager that he "grabbed a lot of pussy." More that Jagger.
@Inga, if you want to talk about a sense of humor, then nothing tops Bill Clinton asking what the meaning of "is" is. Getting caught meeting with the woman who had ultimate responsibility for prosecuting his wife and asserting that all they did was talk about their grandchildren, hey! Talk about a thigh slapper!
But the mores didn't change with this election.
You can't have the former rapist-in-chief going back into the White House being ok since he was still having fun, and Donald berating for something he said over a decade ago and didn't do it.
Because we knew what he was and age wasn't stopping him.
Hillary didn't divorce him, and he was on the campaign trail.
Elder statesman.
It all about the initial after the name.
If you voted 3rd party, that's different.
Brookzene said...
"And I would caution the NYTs about sending its people out into America. Just as they called the election so very wrong, they have grossly underestimated the level of hatred and contempt we have for them. The only reason they aren't hanging from lamp posts is because that's illegal."
The New York Times reporters are out there everyday, in the worst shitholes in America and all over the world.
Well, they haven't gotten to your Mom's basement yet, but when they do, you make sure to yell at 'em and hang 'em from a lamp post! Yeah, that's the ticket! You're a tough guy!"
Are there any adults at your house that you could put online?
Well put Althouse.
I don't know if he did or not. I don't know if Trump was lying or not. If he was telling the truth then he probably did assault some women.
But Bill Clinton was absolutely 100% innocent...right?
Speaking of people grabbing pussy. Here's bill clinton grabbing pussy without Getting express consent.
I'm sure the libs bashing trump for saying he grabs pussy of people who let him are OUTRAGED thst someone like bill could ever be president. And yer he served two terms, and the libs wanted us to vote for his wife.
https://youtu.be/w43LClieaMM
Grab em by the pussy!
Also, just as a reminder trump was talking in general about women who he jphooked up with, but then he discusses the woman they are looking st and he says he tried to get with her but she rebuffed him. And.....nothing happened. He didn't in fact grab her by the pussy. Instead he took her out furniture shopping. He may have made a move at some point, but admitted she said no. And he didn't then go on to assault her sexually. So, the instance here he describes an actual encounter as opposed to generalized encounters he didn't act the way the libs suggest he does.
There is an expression 'Grab them by them balls and their heart and minds will follow" that is used frequently. No need to define the meaning. I always thought that Trump's comments were a play on that expression.
Remember the other (i.e., not with Bruce Willis) asteroid movie, Deep Impact? There's a teenage boy in it who discovers the asteroid that's set to hit the earth. When the world finds out and he becomes famous, he's addressing a crowd of fellow students and the following lines occur:
Jason: You know you're gonna have a lot more sex than anyone else in our year.
[the whole crowd start shouting and applauding]
Leo Biederman: Really?
....
Mike Perry: Thank you for your sexual insight, Mr. Thurman. You can sit down now.
Jason: Famous people always get sex, Mr. Perry. That's the main reason it's good to be famous.
That movie was in 1998. Please spare me the vaporish complaints about Trump's two-man conversation in which he talked about women accepting his sexual advances ("they let you") when he was 1) rich, and 2) famous. Everyone knows that there are gold diggers and willing partners on casting couches.
I don't have to approve of immoral behavior (stay faithful to spouses--it's not that hard, is it?), nor do I have to buy this charade that Trump was going on about nonconsensual sexual activity.
[!] Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed: BLOCKQUOTE
<blockquote>None of us have ever heard a man say they grab women by the pussy.
--eric</blockquote>
I have. It's not a new expression. Perhaps you don't get around enough.
<blockquote>He claims he was joking when he was not, he claims he wasn't when he was.
I don't see why his critics should forbid themselves the use of the same tactic.
--Roost on the MoonM</blockquote>
I don't see why you forgot that the Left holds the original patents on the "But I was only joking!" method of backpedaling after being busted for saying something ugly and/or despicable.
These people who buy into the "seriousness" of this comment by Trump and can't countenance the idea that it may have been a joke are acting as though they've never heard the expression "Grab them by the balls" in a non-literal context. In fact, it's likely a fair bet that said expression has seldom, if ever, been used in a literal context. "Grab 'em by the pussy" is a ham-handed way of applying contemporary laws of diversity-speak to a crude expression, and it's difficult for anyone remotely sane to hear it as much more than that.
You may find it offensive, or may find that it's a lousy joke told poorly but to deny in the absolute that there was an intended joke in the telling is beyond virtue signalling; it's an act of stupidity and outs the righteously indignant as morons.
Post a Comment