Pussygate

by Brad Nelson10/8/16

In case you haven’t heard, let the “I told you so’s” begin. Rich Lowry says it best:

Someday they will wonder how a man representing the worst excesses of the entertainment world and our elite culture became not just the Republican nominee, but the candidate of the religious right.

There are some winners here, including Mike Lee who has called for Trump to exit the race. One of the winners is not Ted Cruz. Tim Alberta writes on The Corner:

Ted Cruz withheld his endorsement of Trump in Cleveland and was booed off stage for it, but he and most of his advisers believed the decision would be validated both by Trump’s predictable onslaught of provocations and by his eventual loss to Clinton. Had Cruz stuck by his original decision, he would look like the smartest man in the Republican party right now — someone principled (and prescient) enough to go against the grain in refusing to support Trump. Instead, Cruz gave into pressure and announced his support for his former rival in late September, just in time for the nominee’s campaign to implode.

Oops. Cruz is (was) known, if anything, for being a principled conservative. He’s flamed out in that regard now. Humpty Dumpty might be tough to put back together.

Read Jay Nordlinger’s bit on The Corner as well. Mr. Kung may be simply a pseudonym for Jay here at StubbornThings.

One befuddled commenter at American Thinker (there’s very little reference there to this event at that site which has also been corrupted by Trump) blames the media for this. No. This is on Trump. The denial train is about to collapse the bridge and plunge into the valley.

Granted, yours truly believes it is long past time to confront the Vagina Lobby and ask women, “Who died and made you emperor?” Men have been thoroughly marginalized in this culture. Maggie Gallagher makes some good points in her article, The Crisis of Masculinity.

But there’s confronting the nonsense of feminism and then there’s just being a crude and vulgar person, which Trump is. Jonah is right that character is destiny.

On The Corner, Andrew McCarthy is of the opinion that it’s time for Trump to go. He is unelectable. By the way, I must be a pseudonym for Andy because he sounds exactly like me when he writes:

This election is more of a commentary on the electorate than it is on the final two candidates, who were both fully known quantities throughout the process. So it is a tragic reflection of what we’ve become that Hillary Clinton is electable…


Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author  Author Archive  Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (2217 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Pussygate

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Dan McLaughlin has a thoughtful piece on The Corner: Trump is Not One of Us

    Think of how Trump treats prior opponents who endorse him: not with the open arms and joy of the father greeting the Prodigal Son, but like a foreign conqueror seeking to humiliate the locals in order to demonstrate his dominance and show that there’s a new sheriff in town. This is how you act when you conquer Them, not when you finally get the support of all of Us . . .

    American politics should be about more than rooting for laundry, cheering Team Red over Team Blue. But if it comes to that and nothing more, nobody on Team Red should be bullied into supporting a candidate who is not one of Us, and never has been.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    There are some interesting aspects to this incident. Trump is right, of course, that the Clinton record is just as bad, but that only matters to those who think of this as a purely binary choice. Those who complain that his remarks were lewd and vulgar are right, but one wonders who they thought Trump was. Is anyone really all that surprised by them? As for Trump stepping down, he isn’t the sort to do that, and it’s probably already too late. Some states have already started early voting, others have started mailing out ballots (such as absentee ballots), and many others will have finalized their ballots. This is why there are deadlines for candidates stepping down.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Someone over on The Corner noted how much more devastating actual video or audio is compared to just rhetoric (even if the rhetoric is true). Hillary is corrupt. But how much more enticing (perhaps necessary) it would be to get all hot and bothered over Benghazi, for example, if they had a video of her stating, “Fuck the marines. We’re not going to harm one hair on the head of a Muslim.”

      That’s kind of what we have with Trump. I, for one, think the Republican Party has Trump in large part because none of the emasculated clowns would take on the assumptions of the Left, including the liberal fascism of the Vagina Squad.

      Now (as expected), Trump has made it all the more difficult for a Republican (or anyone) to confront “women’s issues.”

      There needs to be a lot of push-back against the various entrenched victim groups. Unfortunately, Trump is not the man to do it….even if he actually desired to push back, which he does not because he’s an East Coast liberal.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        It’s symbolism over substance again. Trump gives the appearance of push-back against political correctness, which is at least better than most of his primary opponents could manage. But we need the reality, not the appearance. “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Oh, you are one of the few who understands that there is very little politically incorrect about Trump. Whenever confronted, he caves to PC notions. Imagine yours truly, an independent billionaire with eff-you money, letting Bruce Jenner use the lady’s room. Not gonna happen. Nor would I have any problem condemning Planned Parenthood, global warming, or name-your-Leftist-icon.

          Nor would I have a problem putting Megyn Kelly in her place. But it can be done with a bit a humor…and should be. Trump is nothing but a vulgar bully.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Oops. Cruz is (was) known, if anything, for being a principled conservative. He’s flamed out in that regard now. Humpty Dumpty might be tough to put back together

    One can never tell. Far stranger things have happened. For example, the idiots in the Republican primaries chose Trump. Who would have ever believed that possible?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Kung, all I can say is: back to that quote by Andy McCarthy:

      This election is more of a commentary on the electorate than it is on the final two candidates, who were both fully known quantities throughout the process. So it is a tragic reflection of what we’ve become that Hillary Clinton is electable…

      I ask humble forgiveness for being the kind of stupid yute (in my 20’s or whenever that was) who bought the whole Kennedy “Camelot” thing and believed Ted Kennedy would be good president. (Compared to Trump or Hillary…maybe?)

      I ask humble forgiveness for my political sins of not always standing on principle and sometimes giving into expediency. I am, after all, only human. (I think. I could be one of those futuristic robots with a life-like exterior.)

      I beg humble forgiveness for loving my country, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Betsy Ross, Abigail Adams, Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, and liking some of the truly awful one-hit-wonder songs from the 70’s and 80’s.

      Wait . . . I do not apologize for that last one (except perhaps for the Pina Colada song). I aim in life to be that rare Reaganesque mix of the common man but one with higher aspirations. This is America. This is what we are about. We aim for higher while never forgetting that we put our pants on one leg at a time — unless you are some transgendered mental case who puts his pantyhose on one leg at a time. But I digress.

      Trump has exposed (and to some degree contributed to) the corrupt nature of the electorate. God forgive those dimwits who besmirched those who held to good principle as “purists.” When the day comes when being able to differentiate between a sheep and goat is a bad thing, count me out. And certainly do not expect me to cheerlead for this nonsense (as corrupted sites such as American Thinker have done).

      And no baloney about a “binary” choice. Enough with the evasions and weak justifications. We are faced with two horrible choices of the major parties. It is not at all clear now that Hillary would be worse. She would just be bad in a different way. But neither are friends to the idea of America, as founded.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I ask humble forgiveness for being the kind of stupid yute (in my 20’s or whenever that was) who bought the whole Kennedy “Camelot” thing and believed Ted Kennedy would be good president. (Compared to Trump or Hillary…maybe?)

        Thankfully, I never suffered under such delusions. Even as a child I was conservative. The closest I ever came to voting for a liberal was my vote for George Herbert Walker Bush.

        Any study of history will clearly show the Left (Democrats) cannot be trusted with power. The 1968 Democrat convention gave a strong taste of what was coming and the 1972 campaign with McGovern as their candidate was a clear declaration of war against the American tradition.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          You and Pat Tarzwell. Born conservative (despite Pat’s decidedly destructive anti-establishment streak of playing target practice with Edison Diamond Discs).

          I, on the other hand, took the traditional route: Young and stupid finally gave way to older and less stupid.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This election is more of a commentary on the electorate than it is on the final two candidates, who were both fully known quantities throughout the process. So it is a tragic reflection of what we’ve become that Hillary Clinton is electable…

    We realists at ST have been saying this for months now. The electorate is, to a very large degree, corrupt. A big reason I have doubts that this country can pull back from the abyss. Still, we must try.

    As I have said before, the best possible outcome would be for Trump to triumph and then fall down stone cold dead from a heart attack just after he and Pence are sworn in. But I don’t think we will have to worry about that happening as he is a walking-talking self-destruct machine who is losing on his own. And this to the worst possible Democrat candidate that a fire hydrant calling itself a Republican could beat.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      A brief scan of opinions seems to give credence to your line-of-succession as the best way to deal with Trump. It may be impossible to get another name on the ballot. But surely, God forbid, if he dropped dead of a heart attack, there would have to be some procedure. Maybe then Pence (cringe)/Fiorina (double cringe). I’m not beyond holding my nose and voting for someone lesser than Abraham Lincoln. But don’t ask me to shove a Mac truck up my nose as I’d have to do with Trump.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        If he croaked before the election, I believe Pence would become the candidate. How they would pick the VP candidate, I do not know.

        Clearly, Senator Mike Lee is gaining gravitas and ground for the future.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          If he died before the electors voted, they probably would vote for Pence. Afterward, Trump would be the elected president, and Pence would replace him. An interesting possibility would involve some GOP electors voting for another candidate; if this were enough to deprive an otherwise victorious Trump of a majority, the election would go to the House. But how likely would that Trump majority be? And if it happened, would they really want to play a trick like that?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Oh, goodness gracious. Despite Pence having outed himself as just another greasy-pole climber (there has to be something wrong with someone who can not only get on the Trump bandwagon, but ride shotgun), I could get at least mildly enthusiastic about a Pence/Lee ticket.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Now, if I could just get Eric Trump from stop spamming my inbox with his junk. I’ll try unsubscribing again.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Witness the corruption of even Dennis Prager who relegates opposition to Trump because of his 2005 remarks to mere “hysteria.”

    The tsunami of condemnation of his remarks is quintessential left-wing hysteria. That more than a few Republicans and conservatives have joined the hysteria is a testament to the power of mass media and hysteria to influence normally sensible people.

    Is it hysteria to believe that your presidential candidate caught on tape speaking of grabbing women’s crotches is not only inappropriate for a presidential candidate but harmful to his candidacy? Yes, the same goes for Hillary in regards to her efforts to cover up the bimbo eruptions and alleged sexual assaults by her husband. But Republicans are supposed to have a higher standard. Is it “hysteria” to point out when that standard has been breached?

    Basically Prager’s argument is, “Unless you overlook the bad stuff of Trump, worse bad stuff is in store.” But where is there any credible evidence that Trump will oppose the fraud of global warming, will actually do something about the open borders, or political correctness itself? The man lets Bruce Jenner use the lady’s room, can’t say a bad word about Planned Parenthood, and tells us how he is going to take care of all of us, denying the problem of socialism and entitlements, and has no plan to reform the entitlements.

    It seems to me, if there is hysteria it is the hysteria of Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and now Dennis Prager who counsel us to look the other way while we pretend Donald Trump isn’t the liberal jerk that he is,.

    And Prager is being particularly disingenuous when he says those words were “in private” (which, I agree, is a different standard). He was with a member of the media on a promotional bus wearing a microphone.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Rich Lowry likely describes the future:

    There will be every incentive for Trump to exacerbate rather than try to smooth over, or at least look past, the divide. Hitting back at his party critics energizes his fans, and, if he is headed for a loss in November, it sets up a stabbed-in-the-back narrative after the election. So his party detractors are insiders, quislings and, to believe his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, sexual harassers.

    The period before the first presidential debate, when Trump pulled close to a tie with Hillary Clinton, feels like an eon ago. He had come back with a month of relative discipline beginning in mid-August that now looks like a parenthesis in an otherwise recklessly selfish campaign.

    That Trump would become a poisonous wedge issue within the GOP was always a plausible worst-case scenario. Now, it is upon us. Trump supporters in the primaries wanted to “burn it down.” They may well be able to point to the wreckage of the post-November GOP as an indicator of their smashing success.

    .

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Mike Huckabee joins the list of the corrupted:

    “Let me tell you something,” Huckabee said. “Here’s a little secret Megyn, a lot of these bed-wetting, hand wringing Republicans, they’re not afraid Donald Trump is going to lose. They’re scared to death he’s going to win. And if he wins he is going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go.”

    How hard is it to say, “I am voting for Donald Trump because I think Hillary Clinton is worse.” But if you point out the egregious flaws of this vulgar and thoughtless man, you are a “bed wetter.”

    Yikes.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      How hard is it to say, “I am voting for Donald Trump because I think Hillary Clinton is worse.”

      These people have learned nothing from history. Remember the effectiveness of the “Big Lie” premise? If a big lie is repeated often enough the people will begin to believe it.

      How much more effective would the “Big Truth” premise be? If Reps would simply keep repeating the truth about Hillary instead of apologizing for Trump’s boorishness, maybe the truth would sink in.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The latest poll has Clinton up by 11, although it’s reported by Rush and American Thinker that the poll is just an opinion-making bit of propaganda by Clinton supports. Still, it’s hard to imagine Hillary’s poll numbers not going up a point or two after Pussygate.

        Sometimes the obvious has to be stated over and over again to break through the partisan mind. I think Hillary’s actions are far worse than Trump’s words. (Again…is this so hard to say without calling people “bed wetters” for understanding the deeply troubling nature of Trump’s words?)

        If Reagan had been caught on tape saying what Trump had said, I could in good conscience put it down to private “locker room talk” (if I squinted really hard). There was still every indication that Reagan was a real conservative with a deep understanding of the various conservative policies, not to mention America’s history and founding. I could turn a blind eye to his comments (or at least reduce them in importance) because of the relative surety of his political positions.

        None of this is true of Trump. If anything, we can be fairly sure his positions will always trend toward the liberal. So, really, what do we get for turning a blind eye to this Progressive vulgarian? “He’s not Hillary” is the best anyone can do. But it’s becoming more and more relevant that “He is Trump.”

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Still, it’s hard to imagine Hillary’s poll numbers not going up a point or two after Pussygate.

          I just saw an article at the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph which stated that Hillary had gotten no bump from the debates. I didn’t read the piece, just the headline, so can’t give any details.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          There are a few basic problems with Trump. One is that he’s a gross, vulgar sexist. Of course, this has been known all along, which explains why some of his defenders are bemused by all the yammering over the tape — no one complaining about him should be at all surprised (and the liberals among them don’t really care about it anyway, judging by what they accept in very public rap lyrics as well as the Clintons’ behavior).

          The other problem is that, while not himself a man of the Left (unlike Slick Hilly), he comes from that milieu (those “New York values” Cruz unwisely mocked him for — he’d have better said “Manhattan elite values”).

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Good point. Manhattan elite values.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              “New York values” cost Cruz heavily in that state. My formulation would have given him all the benefits while greatly reducing the cost. Who knows, maybe he would have done enough better in outstate New York (and even some of the other boroughs) to be an acceptable alternative a week later in the rest of the northeast — and then in Indiana, which proved to be his key defeat.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                I didn’t see your resume in my inbox for a position at Kung & Nelson Political Consultants. I think “Manhattan elite values” would have worked because even in New York they hate the rich (aka “the other guy”).

                Every day I wake up now and take four or five measurements just to be sure that objective reality still exists. I make sure the sun came up. I measure that an inch is still an inch, an hour is still an hour, and that sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t. It’s hard to have faith in anyone when a politician such as Cruz presents himself as a guy willing to fall on his sword for his principles, and then badly (and amateurishly) vacillates.

                The sun is still shinning. It will set tonight and come out again tomorrow. Maybe.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Michael Tanner makes a few small points in his latest article and ends it by showing the bankruptcy of the Establishment GOP (and why so many were so pissed off, they swallowed the poison pill of Trump):

    We need an America open to the world and frugal at home. Republicans need to articulate policies that welcome and appeal to the new electorate, not cling to the old. They need to remain a free-market party, but to become one that accepts social justice, too.

    Note that “open” in Establishment Republicanease means “accept the liberal agenda.” That’s not hyperbole. It’s not about combatting notions held by various victim groups. It’s about accepting their premises, smiling nicely to them, and saying, “See…we Republicans are not the ogres you think we are. Please vote for us.”

    One commenter, Benjamin Lowe, gets to the heart of the matter:

    Ok, so what does that actually mean? How, specifically, should the Republican Party adjust to “accept social justice”? What particular planks of the platform need to be added, adjusted, and/or removed?

    If you can’t answer that fundamental question, there’s no actionable advice here.

    There was a wonder little article noting the falling ratings of the NFL. The NFL denies it has anything to do with the “social justice” advocates sitting for the national anthem.

    Any Republican or conservative who says the words “social justice” in a good way is a fool. Tanner didn’t even bother to define it. But “social justice” means a never-ending prosecution of the United States, the Constitution, and white people for the supposed causes and crimes responsible for the 40% “minorities” not having everything they want.

    One thing the Trump debacle will do is soften up the GOP Establishment even more until they might as well be wearing a black studded dog collar while the Democrats whip them into “Thank you sir, may I have another” complete compliance.

    Trump has seriously undermined the ability of conservatives to oppose the excesses of Big Government, illegal immigration, Muslim immigration, and what not. Instead of principled and eloquent (and strident) opposition to the ills plaguing America, we got a poison-pill clown whose vulgar and ill-informed temperament has sullied those legitimate issues.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I love it when a writer gets to the essence of things, and does it with a little humor. Dan McLaughlin writes over at The Corner:

    First, before accusing Trump of sexually assaulting women, it’s useful to remember that the only evidence we have of this is Trump’s own words. Unlike Bill Clinton, who has been accused by more than one actual, named, flesh-and-blood woman of everything from unwanted exposure (Paula Jones) to unwanted groping (Kathleen Willey) to rape (Juanita Broaddrick), we’ve yet to hear from a woman (other than a dubious lawsuit aimed at Trump and Clinton crony Jeffrey Epstein) or a witness of any kind to say that Trump actually ever did any of the things he claimed. Now, it would not surprise me if he had, given the attitude he displays in the video, given what we know of his sexual and marital history, and given Trump’s broader outrageous sense of entitlement. But if we have learned nothing else this entire campaign, we should have learned by now that just because Donald Trump says something doesn’t make it so. That’s doubly true when Trump is in full Trump mode, trying to impress another man with tales of what an alpha-dog Master of the Universe he is.

    Besides that great “Master of the Universe” reference, he makes another exceptional point:

    That said, there’s no question that a major driver of the “locker room talk” culture (including its most famous grown-up public practitioner, Howard Stern, who not coincidentally had Trump as a frequent guest on his show) is the casual sex culture. The way young men talk about sex inevitably reflects the expectations of the world they grow up in – and most adult men can testify that you hear a lot less talk of this nature from married men, for good and obvious reasons. But feminists and other social liberals often want it both ways: they want a culture of pervasive pre/extramarital and/or casual sex, yet they are shocked, shocked to find that a culture that encourages men to act as if women are disposable sex objects ends up teaching them to think and talk that way too.

    None of this matters, of course. He’s right. But integrity and truth (as Dennis Prager notes) are not leftwing values.

    But it’s more than that. (And, it’s sad to say, this applies to the whole Trump phenomenon as well). Double standards are nothing new. People want “justice” for other people but not themselves. The oldest human delusion has to be the belief that our actions are pure but the other guy is in need of correction. We don’t acknowledge our own faults. We play by a separate set of rules not only because it is inside human nature not to think of oneself at blameless but it’s also very convenient. It’s a personal “Indulgance” that we give ourselves. In fact, it’s long been noted that this is how the Left works. Support the “cause” and your personal sins are irrelevant (and forgiven…as Teddy Kennedy’s were time after time…same with Hillary).

    That’s all understandable and somewhat above-board in terms of predictability. It’s the darker aspect that is more troublesome. The other motivation for the double standard (some would say the prime one) is the deep, dark hatred (born from self-hatred and imposed guilt, for sure) that the Left (and those evangelized by the Left) have for “the other.” “The other” is beneath contempt (aka “the deplorables”). This sense of hatred of the other, combined with a sense of grievance, holds the necessary seeds for trampling the rights (and lives) of others.

    This is why principle matters. We can argue about this policy or that policy. But when large segments of people devolve to putrid tribalism tinged by hatred-of-the-other zealotry, we’re all in trouble. We’re no longer then a republic. We are truly becoming a banana republic in stages.

    The stage is set for some really nasty stuff, no matter who wins this election.

    Here’s another great point by McLaughlin:

    Third, even if Trump never did the things he claimed, the tape is plenty bad enough. Trump’s grab-what-you-want ethos is well beyond the scope of what most men would regard as normal “locker room talk” even in the degraded culture of the 21st Century. What comes out of Trump’s mouth is not “boys will be boys” but an overweening sense that being a famous, wealthy celebrity gives him license to do whatever he wants to a woman. That’s not just a poisonous value system and one that has ruined the lives of countless women mistreated by people in Hollywood, sports and other fields of fame and fortune – it’s also exactly the “there’s a different set of rules for us” attitude of the Clintons that Trump is supposedly campaigning against.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I have a couple of observations here. One, it’s possible (I’d have to see the exact wording) that the worst parts of the tape (Trump’s suggestion that sexual assault if acceptable) was somewhat speculative — much like his comment that he could kill someone in broad daylight and his most devoted followers would continue to support him.

      The other is that liberals don’t even necessarily forgive you as long as you support the Cause. Just ask Anthony Weiner. The key is that their response to such events is ALWAYS based on political expediency. If you’re an opponent, it’s probably always expedient to attack you all out (but they were slow to do so with Bob Packwood over 20 years ago, no doubt because of his moderation on social issues such as abortion). If you’re an important enough supporter (such as the Clintons), it’s expedient to cover for you no matter what. But if you’re a lesser supporter and become enough of an embarrassment, you can find yourself kicked under the bus just as easily as a conservative.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The Wiener thing was interesting. I would have expected more support. He must be an unlikable fellow. If Barack Obama was texting his wiener around and was caught, the narrative would be different. “Oh, Michelle must not be putting out” or “It’s no big deal. It’s not even sex.”

        There must be a subplot their with Wiener that we’re not privy to. Maybe his status as a man (and Huma Abedin as a person-of-color Muslim victim) trumped all other considerations. He’s also Jewish, right? The Left (the power brokers) don’t tend to like Jews (although they’ll take their votes readily enough).

        • Rosalys says:

          Huma Abedin, not only a Muslim, but one whose family has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, marries a Jew; not just any Jew, but a Jew who is arguably one of the most disgusting (and stupid!) people on earth. You’ve got to wonder, “Why?” Could it be for cover? A muslim woman married to a Jewish man couldn’t be a jihadi! Or perhaps it’s for cover of another kind. She and Hillary are very close. Of course, she is young, and pretty, and quite the fashion plate, so she can do no wrong. Poor, disgusting, stupid Anthony is dispensable, and now he has given his “wife” a perfectly reasonable excuse to get him out of the way. The Weiner thing isn’t interesting (unless you are going for understatement.) It is bizarre!

      • Rosalys says:

        I believe his exact words were, “…and when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” Earlier he spoke of “moving on her very heavily.” He even took her (gasp!) furniture shopping! And yet she still managed to rebuff his advances. Hardly, bragging about his success. Somehow this has morphed into, “Trump thinks he is entitled – just because he is TRUMP! – to deflower every innocent maiden in the realm, using violent assault if necessary!”

        There was also some stupid talk about how he just starts kissing pretty women when he sees them; he just can’t help himself. He then proceeds to leave the bus where, coming face to face with the long legged beauty in purple, he behaves like a perfect gentleman.

        So he likes pretty women. And he likes to engage in stupid locker room trash talk. Seems pretty normal to me.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          It’s a real shame you see that as normal. Again, I have no quibble with those who hold their noses and vote against Hillary. But working hard to normalize this guy is the antithesis of conservatism. Maybe my Madge analogy is more apt than I had supposed. We’ve all been soaking in this gutter culture for so long, we are no longer easily repulsed by repulsive things.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Well, being attracted to good-looking women is normal for a man. The language might be another matter; in some circles it evidently is normal, but not in all of them. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything like that, especially in my adulthood.

          • Rosalys says:

            Normal was the wrong word (except for the liking pretty girls – that’s normal.) The better choice of words would have been “natural,” and (unfortunately today, all too…) “common.” From what I have been told, when guys get together without the gals, the conversation often turns in a direction it wouldn’t go if the gals were present. I am happy to remain ignorant of the content of such conversation, but sometimes it just gets out there and you can’t avoid it. Crude and vulgar? Yeah. But something that happens only in the deepest, darkest hidden crevices of the earth? Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Which isn’t to say that ALL men, everywhere engage in the more vulgar kind of talk (and I’m very glad that Tim has never done so, and I believe him – his mother taught him well) which is why my use of the word “normal” was bad.

            As for his statement, “…and when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” even if said with a note of triumph, it was a statement of absolute truth! Men with money, power, and/or celebrity will have women (of a certain sort) flinging themselves at them – and allowing, and liking – yes, liking – certain behaviors from them. Sometimes, all it takes is for a man to have a good job. This is very, very common.

            Can all the ladies (of both sexes) just rise off their fainting couches, get over their attack of the vapors, and stop pretending to be shocked? Immediately after the Billy Bush tape was released, all kind of women were tweeting about how they, as 12, 13, and 14 year olds, were molested, raped, groped, etc. by older men, usually in authority over them (ie. teachers,) and no one did anything about it. They are saying that Trump was condoning this behavior. No he wasn’t. There is absolutely no similarity between Trump’s adolescent remarks and the criminal behavior of all those male teachers, coaches, uncles, youth pastor’s, etc.

            By the way, Billy Bush, and it seems a few other men who were on that bus, were all a part of this conversation, but no one is calling them to task. No one is screaming, “The Bush Dynasty is calling on all men to go out and commit rape!” No one on that bus said, “Hey Donald, let’s cut the vulgar talk!”

            What really takes the cake is John McCain – he who called his own wife a c_ _t, when she teased him about his balding pate – dumping on Donald.

            The real reason everybody in the establishment is supposedly outraged is because they don’t own Trump. They don’t own him and they can’t blackmail him, because it seems none of Trump’s skeletons – and he does have a few – are in a closet. It’s all out there. And if something does come to first light, such as the Billy Bush tape, he owns up and moves on. In other words, he chooses not to care.

            Can we stop whining about the one that got away? “Oh woe is us! We could have had Cruz!” Cruz appears to be a good man, but who knows what dirt would have been dug up about him had he been the nominee? I’m not convinced he would have what it takes to withstand the tidal wave of accusation, and vitriol to come his way from the Clinton machine.

            I am not naive. Trump isn’t perfect by a long shot. There is no perfect. However, I believe he will stem the tide of immigration from hostile populations (I would like to see a stoppage of ALL immigration for a while, so we can catch our breath as a nation, but sometimes you have to take what you get.) I believe he will excel at getting better trade deals. There is also what he won’t do. I believe he won’t further erode the first and second amendments. I don’t know whether Trump is a Christian (of the “born again” variety) or not, though there has been some talk that he has recently become so. I will wait to see some evidence. But he doesn’t appear to be hostile to Christianity. Hillary, on the other hand, who has said she is a Christian, has also stated that Christians are just going to have to change some of their positions to be more in line with the gubmint take on things. This is very important to me. Am I going to get everything I want? Probably not. But sometimes you have to settle for what you can get.

            I am going to vote for Mr. Trump and I am not going to hold my nose while I do it. It is possible, he is a total facade, that he will do a total 180 five minutes after taking the oath of office. I don’t think so, but it’s possible. I disagree that he is only slightly better than Hillary. I think that not only Hillary, but the entire Democratic and much of the Republican oligarchy, which is sold out to globalism and the New World Order, is far, far, exponentially worse than Trump.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              This is how the Left handles accusations of rape against Bill.

              http://www.theamericanmirror.com/clinton-campaign-losing-patience-bill-rape-protesters/

              Further examples of how the Left sticks by their man/woman/transsexual/whatever.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              It looks like NBC is going to punish Billy Bush, though it’s unclear exactly why. They surely knew about this; in fact, reports are that they were planning the exact best moment to release the tape with Bush’s comments carefully excised.

              Now that Trump has denied ever actually making such assaultive advances, a few women are coming out and conveniently claiming otherwise. I’m skeptical of their claims given how long they’ve had to make them.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Amongst conservatives and Christians we are certainly free to set a new standard. But I think the preponderance of Trump’s behavior and words (and more info on his actions will doubtlessly follow) are far beyond nit-picking or holding someone to a too-perfect standard. Anyone who can still see Trump as the biblical equivalent to Daniel has a screw loose.

              Both candidates deserve a very public comeuppance. Neither deserves the honor of the highest office in our land. One should be run out on a rail, the other should right now be facing prosecution.

              As for what is normal locker-room male banter, in the coming days that may be less important because it’s likely the man has groped his way through life. But few men with a live mike riding on a bus with a member of the media think they are in a locker room. There’s something very wrong with a man who would say what he did under those circumstances.

              • Rosalys says:

                Quite possible that he didn’t know the mike was on. Or maybe he did and just assumed that it would never come to light. If so, that was a stupid assumption to make.

                Did I say or even imply that I believe Donald is a modern day Daniel? If there is any confusion about this, let me get it on record that I do not!

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Did I say or even imply that I believe Donald is a modern day Daniel?

                Not you specifically, Rosalys. But it mystifies me how easily Christians have found it to apologize for this man who is (supposedly) the antithesis of everything they believe. I still don’t quite understand that. The only thing that makes sense to me is that they see Hillary as sort of an agent of Beelzebub and therefore the faults of Trump can be minimized because he is some kind of agent of God.

                A lot of prominent Christians have not just held their nose and said that they will vote for this guy but have actually promoted this guy. Ben Carson remains one of the strangest apologists as outlined by Heather Wilhelm in Trump’s Embarrassing Surrogate Circus.

                Another possibility is something I read recently. There apparently has always been The Theology of Glory vs. The Theology of the Cross. For Christians measuring by worldly standards, Trump might be seen as a useful tool for improvement (I guess). For those for whom their faith is not meant to be a ticket to emotional satisfaction, Trump would be as easy to discard as an old pair of shoes.

                Again, when presented with Hillary vs. Trump, one can be excused for holding one’s nose and voting against Hillary (thinking that this is the least harmful thing to do). But so much of this has crossed over to pro-Trump that is boggles the mind. Unless people are willing to come to grips with their error for nominating him in the first place, there is no chance for reform in this country.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                But it mystifies me how easily Christians have found it to apologize for this man who is (supposedly) the antithesis of everything they believe. I still don’t quite understand that. The only thing that makes sense to me is that they see Hillary as sort of an agent of Beelzebub and therefore the faults of Trump can be minimized because he is some kind of agent of God.

                I believe the best thing believing Christians can do for Trump is pray for him and the country. And pray some more.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Actually, I can think of one way in which Trump could (perhaps) resemble Daniel. Imagine the GOP Beltway Bandits at a party event and seeing “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin” being written on the wall . . . Might Trump be the one who tells them what it means? (Probably not the first, but it’s a message they refuse to hear.)

                I can well imagine there are many who consider Slick Hilly an agent of Satan; I more or less do, and the same for many other Demagogues. There’s a reason why I refer to Obama as the Black God (i.e., Chernobog in Russian folklore) as well as Screwtape.

              • Rosalys says:

                “But so much of this has crossed over to pro-Trump that is boggles the mind.”

                What boggles my mind is that a, from all appearances, decent man such as Bush, Sr. cannot seem to hold his nose, but chooses instead to vote for Hellery! Whatever his faults, I’ve always had respect for the man. I have a little less respect for him, now.

                “I believe the best thing believing Christians can do for Trump is pray for him and the country. And pray some more.”

                Oh we are doing just that. And though I admit to it being difficult for me (kind of like Jonah having to preach to the Ninevites) I pray for Hillary and a lot of other evil types out there to repent, because Hell is so-o-o-o much worse than anyone can imagine, that it’s wicked to desire it for anyone.

                The best thing for non-believing but “good” men to do is to receive Christ as Savior.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                The best thing for non-believing but “good” men to do is to receive Christ as Savior.

                If they can honestly feel the call.

              • Rosalys says:

                He’s calling. You have only to listen.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Seems pretty normal to me.

          Trump’s B.S. might be something one heard in junior high school, but I can only recall one person who came anything near to this as an adult and he also fooled around on his wife.

          Of course, one hears sexual jokes occasionally, but even most of these are less vulgar.

          I find the man’s crudity unbearable. One simply doesn’t go around discussing sexual relations this way, if one has any class. Perhaps I am simply too prudish.

          Again, anyone who votes for Trump as the lesser of two evils, I can understand. But to try and excuse him by say most others are as vulgar as he is seems to be a sign of our lack of standards. I don’t want a presidential candidate to be like everyone else, I want someone with better taste and moral standards. If I can’t have better moral standards I will take better taste. A little hypocrisy would be preferable for mass consumption than the garbage we are seeing now. Perhaps I am naive’.

          • Rosalys says:

            It appears that we have a better caliber of men here at ST, than occurs in the general public. I mean it; I am not being sarcastic. I am well pleased by this!

            I did revise “normal” to “natural” and “common.” Normal implies that just about everybody does something. Natural implies it to be well within the capability of men. Common is a statement of a regrettable fact.

            Vulgar trash talk, while never acceptable, is perhaps a little more expected to occur among the younger jock types. One would hope that by the age of fifty-nine, one would have outgrown it.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              One would hope that by the age of fifty-nine, one would have outgrown it.

              Oh, hell no. Men think about sex frequently. It is a major part of who we are. Given the female-centric nature of our culture where men are marginalized, it’s no surprise that many women haven’t a clue about what makes men tick.

              Granted…there are plenty of married gentlemen out there who would never think of embarrassing their ladies. But when men get together, T&A of some variety generally wends its way into the conversation. Granted, because of feminism, much of this has gone underground. You’ll not find it much among men in a business setting, even if no women are around.

              As many have noted, especially among young men, sexual exploits would tend to be the topic of conversation (along, of course, with a lot of fish stories). But bragging about sexual assault — unless I’m out of it (and gladly so to some extent) is not on the menu.

              The guys I know are all varieties of window shoppers. Look but don’t touch. Men are visually-oriented and T&A is a frequent topic of conversation, usually involving movie stars and models. And when ribald rears its ugly head, it’s about how today’s 14 and 16-year-olds resemble little hookers…but you better not express any interest, at least not in front of anyone not trusted. But believe me, the way 16-year-olds are dressing is being noticed.

              There are various levels of locker-room talk. What I will say to my brother is not what I would say to even close friends, let along to some liberal schmuck from Access Hollywood while wearing a live mic.

              It’s a strange thing. I admit I really don’t know the full extent of what is going on out there. But you have this weird dynamic. On the one hand, men have been pussified. On the other, men (absent father figures) have been allowed to remain vulgar, uncivilized creatures. Trump is a product of this vulgar culture, even a champion of it

              All men are vulgar to some extent and it is historically part of the job of women and marriage to civilize them (that is, to compartmentalize the sexual component that is so central to men). It’s not a revelation that any man has engaged in rough talk. It is a problem though when a presidential candidate is caught on tape in public doing it. And that was not just normal male banter. Trump was expressing (as I believe David French noted) the very elitist, “normal rules don’t apply to me” attitude that we are supposed to be against.

              Good people on either side do not apologize for either the crudeness or criminality of these candidates. But partisan politics tends to eat away at ethics, as it has in this case.

              • Rosalys says:

                What I meant is that I would hope one would outgrow the adolescent vulgarness. Like the six year old boy who just love to make farting noises and think it’s hilarious, one would hope that by the age of twenty-one (I was going to say eighteen, but realized that may be a bit too optimistic) he would have outgrown it.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                it’s about how today’s 14 and 16-year-olds resemble little hookers…

                This brings to mind a conversation I had with a female teacher some four or five years back.

                I was surprised at the way some of the young girls, in my class, dressed. I pointed this out to another teacher and said something like, “I don’t think they understand the message they are sending.” To which the female teacher replied, “They understand very well the message they are sending.”

              • Rosalys says:

                “But bragging about sexual assault… is not on the menu.”

                He was not bragging about assault. He was “bragging” about a failed attempt at a sexual score. Does one brag about failures? Seems a little pathetic to me!

                I think Trump was expressing views about a certain kind of female out there. You know who I mean, and there are a lot of them.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                Does one brag about failures? Seems a little pathetic to me!

                I have always suspected those who brag about their sexual exploits are not nearly as successful as they claim.

                One does not kiss and tell.

              • Rosalys says:

                “Good people on either side do not apologize for either the crudeness or criminality of these candidates.”

                I hope you don’t interpret my comments as an apology for crude behavior (criminal behavior is not in the picture thus far.) Just trying to bring a little perspective.

                And let’s set the record straight. I’m not good. I am a sinner saved by the grace of God, made possible by the sacrifice of God the Son on the Cross of Calvary. I am better than I used to be – at least I think I am – I hope I am – I ought to be. Let’s change the subject. This is getting awfully uncomfortable…

                “It’s not a revelation that any man has engaged in rough talk. It is a problem though when a presidential candidate is caught on tape in public doing it.”

                It was not in public. It was a bunch of guys on a bus. If the behavior is bad, it is bad, and not badder just because it was caught on tape. And it was bad – but forgivable.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Glenn Beck, in his superb An Inconvenient Book, has a pie chart showing that 83% of men like porn, 16.99% like porn but claim not to, and the remaining .01% are comatose.

  11. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    As predicted, more is coming out about Trump’s treatment of women.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/four-women-claim-trump-touched-them-inappropriately-in-three-new-reports.html

    I am curious how women will react to this.

    Personally, I think the latest claims will be heavily discounted. One “assault” happened over thirty years ago. The other in 2005. Both seem somewhat far-fetched to me. It appears that the Clinton people are trying to trot out the same number of women to claim Trump assaulted them as those who were assaulted by Bill. The aim, to create some sort of false equivalence. To my knowledge, Trump has never been accused of rape.

    I believe the Clinton gang are going a long way to mitigating the damage they have done Trump with such ham-fisted claims. If others of the same tenor come out, it will likely do him even more good.

    • Rosalys says:

      There again, that the – of all people – Clinton campaign spokeswoman, is saddened that this fits everything they “know” to be true, is a joke. We have no way of knowing if this garbage is true. Sadly it fits with everything we know about the Clinton machine, and “liberal’s” in general, that they make up “facts” at will.

      I have some advice for all women, everywhere. If you are assaulted, report it. Report it even if you think nobody will do anything about it. Get it on record. If you come out of the shadows, years later, at an all too convenient time, you simply won’t have much credibility.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Here’s Goldberg’s take on it from “Gropers in Glass Houses” from The Corner:

      From the outside it’s going to be very difficult to figure out how much of the fire aimed at Trump is opposition research and how much of it is an organic response to his denials. Some of these women coming forward are no doubt acting on their own volition. Others are probably being encouraged to by the Democrats. It really doesn’t matter. Trump fell for a trap in the second debate when he denied actually groping women. It’s worth remembering that Trump took a long time to deny he had actually done the things he described in that Access Hollywood video. He didn’t deny it in his apology video, and it took several tries to get him to deny it in the second debate. This is almost surely because he knew he was guilty and, as he hinted, he knew that more such accusations would come to light.

  12. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    What I meant is that I would hope one would outgrow the adolescent vulgarness.

    Rosalys, I’m not so sure that men don’t just refine and compartmentalize these things rather than banish them (the fart jokes have more panache and wit). In my view, because of the hogwash social and sexual theories of Cultural Marxism, I think most people have actually lost site of the differences in the sexes.

    Men are always going to be crude to some extent. We just learn to dress it up a bit and exclude it (rightly so) from certain realms.

    Again, I haven’t been to college lately. The other side of this coin is the rank hypocrisy from all the “social justice” nitwits. Women have been taught to be as ribald and vulgar as men, if only to keep up with them sexually and thus to gain “equality.” What signal then does that send to men? Instead of women acting as a civilizing influence, they are often a competitor for being crude and vulgar.

    Sorry to say this, but women tend to be horribly blind to a lot of things, particularly to the man’s world. Masculinity is being driven underground. There is a war on it. And I don’t think many men have been taught how to handle, no thanks to fatherless families. And what we have now are uncivilized men at all levels of society who are not just “boys being boys” but, to steal a thought from Mr. Kung, “Little Monsters being Little Monsters.”

    Trump is a little monster. It’s one thing to say “Did you see the Winnebagos on that broad?” and quite another to grab someone’s crotch which I think is a fair bet that he did.

    Still, how to parse all this in a sexual Puritanical Leftist culture that, on the one hand, says that any sort of touching is forbidden unless a women gives her assent at every stage when mixed with the culture it has produced whereby any and all sexual conduct is “celebrated” and freaks such as Bruce Jenner are deemed heroes?

    This is a big mess. I don’t think the problem is that anyone is trying to hold Trump to a perfect standard (or even a higher standard). What I think this latest episode reveals is that the man is a dirtbag.

    So choose the dirtbag or the Alinskyite criminal. Talk about a Hobson’s choice.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Actually, Hobson’s choice is “take it or leave it”. It comes from a stable hand who was frustrated when riders would ask for a specific horse. So he would rent them out in sequence, and you could accept whichever one was next when your spot in line came up — or say no, and either leave or go back to the end of the line. What you face is a dilemma.

  13. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    It’s important to note that Trump is a product of and exemplar of liberal culture. We don’t have to own him.

  14. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    And let’s set the record straight. I’m not good. I am a sinner saved by the grace of God, made possible by the sacrifice of God the Son on the Cross of Calvary.

    Rosalys, I think your words above probably describe why so many Christians have either been soft on Trump or have apologized for him. Like it or not, the Leftist shtick of “non-judgmentalism” has thoroughly infected the creed.

    Yeah — duh! — we all fall short of perfection. And the idea of “judge not lest you be judged” is important, particularly in walking us back from being ass-cheeks-puckered-too-tightly fundamentalist prigs.

    But the lack of moral confidence from Christians I find simply astounding. Instead of denouncing the man (in terms of being a presidential candidate) you’re more apt to get “Who am I to judge him?” Well, you are a voter, for one thing. And your judgment needn’t be eternal but merely electoral.

    It was not in public. It was a bunch of guys on a bus. If the behavior is bad, it is bad, and not badder just because it was caught on tape. And it was bad – but forgivable.

    On the one hand you say you’re not apologizing for him. On the other, you’re trying to drive this camel of an idea that he was not in public through the proverbial eye of the needle. He was with a member of the media wearing a hot mic in the midst of what can only be called a Trump publicity stunt (appearing on a soap opera).

    • Rosalys says:

      No, I am not making excuses for him. And I am not apologizing for him. I really think this has been blown way out of proportion. “Yeah — duh! — we all fall short of perfection.” You said it! You yourself admit that men can be quite crude when they are by themselves, so why the hypocrisy in declaring Trump to be a much worser individual than any other? I suspect he may be worse than some, but not so bad as others.

      And it was a bunch of guys on a bus. The fact that they were en route to a cameo appearance on a soap opera is immaterial. The fact that there was a member of the media wearing a hot mic – which may or may not have been known – is immaterial. It all boils down to a bunch of guys on a bus.

      I’m sorry that you view the Christian view of forgiveness, or the possibility of redemption for any man in such distain. It is kinda what we’re about. Yeah, we can be a little naive at times. I don’t see that I’m giving him a pass.

      If someone could come forth with credible evidence that he really assaulted someone, then I may start holding my nose. Or if it is serious enough, or if it could be credibly shown that he raped anyone, then I will go beyond holding my nose and I just won’t bother going to the polls. I will not vote for anyone, and probably never again, because I myself have almost crossed the point of no return!

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        Let me jump in and give you a little support here, Rosalys, since you seem to be outnumbered. I agree with you that this whole “pussygate” scandal (only Brad of all editors I know of had the guts to give it the obvious name that would identify it immediately to anyone reading it) has been blown completely out of proportion, and to call Trump’s adolescent groping “sexual assault” is, frankly, absurd given that in his own words “they let you get away with it”. Nor is this unlikely – women tend to respond favorably to wealthy, powerful, and reasonably good-looking (Trump in middle age) men.

        On hearing the chorus of Republicans who were shocked – shocked! – to find out that men like Trump make advances to women and discuss their escapades in crude terms, I have this to say (and said it on Qwiket in response to the incessant anti-Trump tirades on NRO): “What are you people – Vestal Virgins who have no knowledge of sex? Do the names of Democrats Bill Clinton (who did things far worse than what Donald Trump said), Gerry Studds (ditto – even his name says ‘porn star’), Anthony Weiner, or even John F. Kennedy mean anything to you?”

        The Democrats never let a mere sex scandal (or far worse) stand in their way. Now Brad makes the perfectly reasonable point somewhere above (this is a long thread) that our side should be better than this, which is perfectly true. It also became perfectly irrelevant the moment Trump won the nomination. (And a lot more should be said on this point, as the reason for the continuing anti-Trump diatribes once he was the nominee is rather revealing).

        Trump’s personal failings along with his decided lack of a Conservative political philosophy should have been considered, and I believe were considered, during the primary season. And he still won. (Again, the reasons for this are worth more examination, but this post is already too long to go into them here).

        Once Trump was the nominee, you could refuse to vote for him on the grounds that he was unfit and you didn’t want anyone to think from your vote that you approved of the man (a principled course although I believe a misguided one) or you could vote for him as an imperative necessity given the sheer evil of Hillary Clinton (which I believe to be the correct course of action). But what is absolutely unforgivable is for any Conservative or even any Republican to attempt to cause Trump to lose the general election. The only reason to do so is to attempt to re-litigate the primaries for the purpose of rebuilding a post-Trump GOP still firmly under Establishment control, which is why we see the usual suspects at NRO (the weakling Jonah Goldberg, the unhinged David French, the revolting Dan McLaughlin whose never-failing Establishmentarianism I cannot stand) doing just that. All the legitimate grievances of the Trump supporters (and incidentally Cruz supporters like many of us here) are to be invalidated, which is evidently more important than keeping the Clintons out of the White House.

        Talk about shocking.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Quite so. Note that I’ve never denied that I prefer Trump to Slick Hilly, though (due to his unpleasant qualities, and the fact that Kentucky is certain to go for him anyway) I may vote conceivably third-party. I’ve also noted that the tape revealed nothing about Trump that we didn’t already know.

          • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

            Thanks, Tim. I’ve been absent from ST for a while due to pressing business so I may have missed some things like you pointing out that the tape really didn’t tell us anything new about Trump.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Nik, I don’t need so many words to say that neither of these major-party candidates is fit to hold the office of the presidency. Any normalizing of this horrible situation is not for me. Holding one’s nose and voting against Hillary is still, I believe, a rational and reasonable act. But with every passing day, the sands run out of the hourglass even on that idea.

        • Rosalys says:

          Thank you, Nik!

  15. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I must say that nothing would make me happier than to see Trump elected and him to live up to the expectations so many seem to have of him. For him to actually nominate originalist Supreme Court Justices, to build a wall, stop illegal immigration and cut back overall immigration. For him to negotiate favorable trade deals with foreign countries, to push for laws which do away with the favoritism shown Wall Street, finance and the extremely rich. For laws which are written for everyone. To reign in lawless bureaucrats, to cut governmental regulations, simplify the tax code, to cut the size of government. To appoint a special prosecutor to look into Clinton and others in government who have clearly broken the law. To stand up for freedom of religion.

    Hell, I would be happy if he would do only one or two of the above. But I am not holding my breath.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I agree, and in fact I think he probably will at least really try to do some of it. But how much? How hard? And meanwhile, he keeps hitting some Republicans as hard as he does Slick Hilly and her Gang, which would make it harder for him to accomplish most of these goals if he wins.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        One of the best predictors of what Trump would do in office can be glimpsed in the zeal he has for bashing conservatives and Republicans. This is not a man on a mission to do the things that Mr. Kung outlined. If he was, he would have his sights set further than on just parrying every perceived insult and slight.

        The man is a monkey at best with the attention span of a 3-year-old. It would take discipline, motivation, persistence, and most of all a guiding philosophy in order to enact any of the things Mr. Kung outlined. Better men than he have tried and failed. A man (while his poll numbers were rising) who doesn’t have the discipline not to engage with a Twitter war with a former Miss Universe does not likely have the discipline to build a wall or enact any other reforms against what will be strident opposition.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          A man (while his poll numbers were rising) who doesn’t have the discipline not to engage with a Twitter war with a former Miss Universe does not likely have the discipline to build a wall or enact any other reforms against what will be strident opposition.

          Trump’s super-sensitivity to personal slights is worrying. If he is not able to control himself when attacked by some bimbo from Venezuela, can you imagine how clever world leaders will play him? This could be dangerous.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Well…yeah. And I’m not trying to fault-find. We all wanted someone to defeat Hillary and present at least a mild reform platform. But, goodness gracious, we should be at the point now where we can see the preponderance of the evidence. How can this guy “Make America Great Again” when he shows not even a cursory understanding of America, let alone the temperament to stick to a core set of ideas and sell them.

            You can’t really blame him for continuing the techniques that sold him to the “let it all go up in flames” petulant Trumpkins. But as much as a conservative ideologue that I am, I understand you still have to try to explain these ideas to people in a clear and hopefully persuasive way.

            All the guy knows how to do is inflate his massive ego and go into combat mode against anyone who opposes him. But bashing Megyn Kelly is not the same thing as promoting a policy to a wider audience.

            That assumes, of course, that anyone cares these days about the presidential contest as anything but another glorified reality show.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Tim,

        To put a positive spin on things, we can say Trump is our “Wat Tyler” and Hillary is “Richard II”.

        Let’s hope the end result is different.

    • Rosalys says:

      Yes, please don’t hold your breath. But let’s see what happens. I admit I may have it all wrong, so I’m not holding my breath either. I don’t really trust any of them, but I think I see a glimmer of a chance with Trump. There is absolutely none with Hillary, so I’m making my choice and I’m not holding my nose. I honestly believe that the county may have traveled beyond the point of no return, but maybe, just maybe not.

  16. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin”

    I had to look that one up: “God has numbered the days of your kingdom.”

    I consider both of these candidates agents of Beelzebub. They’re both liars. They’re both of very questionable character. And neither has any appreciation for what makes America America.

    The Left, in short, is but a constant critique of America. Trump in no way refutes that. He’s more on the useful idiot level of being the little fishy swimming in the Progressive sea. He doesn’t see the water and knows nothing different. But he’s swept along in the current all the same.

    But perhaps he’s the perfect candidate in this thoughtless culture where ideas are not measured and it’s fame-uber-alles. We don’t want to build anything. We want instant success. We don’t want to be presented with the pain of discipline. We want instant answers that some other “rich” guy will pay for.

    As I understand it, Trump no longer builds anything (after so many bankruptcies and failures). He merely slaps his name on objects. He is a branding maven. And he has, in the short term, put his brand on the Republican Party. And he has scorched quite a few things in doing so.

    • Rosalys says:

      The Republican party has become a dry pile of tinder, just waiting to go up in flames.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        This is then where we need a careful and rational discussion about where we want the Republican Party to go — which policies to promote and which to oppose.

        Wanting things to go up in flames is not specific enough and suggests that the people who support Trump are just engaging in a little emotional exhibitionism with no regard for what they are destroying — a trait we thought confined to the Left.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          The problem with wanting to burn down the GOP is simple: Who will block the Hillarycrats from accelerating the pace of converting America into Orwell’s Oceania?

        • Rosalys says:

          I do not want anything to go up in flames! I’m just thinking it’s probably going to happen.

          What is that I want? I think I want to be five years old again, living in a rural town in the Berkshires, and it is the 1950’s.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            If I erred in ascribing that sentiment to you, Rosalys, it is because it is common to Trump enthusiasts or apologists.

            I want a whole lot of things to go up in flames and to be replaced by specific better things.

        • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

          “Wanting things to go up in flames is not specific enough and suggests that the people who support Trump are just engaging in a little emotional exhibitionism with no regard for what they are destroying”

          Here, Brad, I’m afraid I must disagree. Recall please the dismal field of candidates (other than Ted Cruz) we were presented with. Even now, I would take Trump over any of them. I cannot blame primary voters for choosing Trump over Kasich, Graham, Christie, Rubio, or ¡Jeb! – E-men all – or over those who never had any chance or were unworthy of support or were too unknown to take a chance on.

          We come back to Cruz (our first choice). He did some things right but made critical errors, and pointing this out is not holding him to some unreasonably high standard. He did not seem to understand the importance of the immigration issue (as I pointed out in my exhaustive summary of the then-likely candidates in early 2015) and was on video saying he wanted increases in legal immigration and H1-B visas (later claiming this was his way of trying to scuttle Rubio’s amnesty bill). His wife Heidi had co-authored a position paper calling for open borders. It was not then unreasonable to prefer Trump as being more solid on these vital issues, since he was the only one who seemed to be on the right side of them.

          So Cruz came up a little short. In a normal year, we Conservatives would be happy that 70% or more of the Republican primary electorate resoundingly rejected the GOPe by voting for either Trump or Cruz, but Trump is so divisive a figure we’ve forgotten this very good news.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Here, Brad, I’m afraid I must disagree. Recall please the dismal field of candidates (other than Ted Cruz) we were presented with. Even now, I would take Trump over any of them.

            I have the reverse opinion, Nik. Trump has made a lot of those other candidates look good…including Jeb!

            Honestly, I don’t see what anyone sees in this clown.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Wanting things to go up in flames is not specific enough and suggests that the people who support Trump are just engaging in a little emotional exhibitionism with no regard for what they are destroying

          This is one reason I made my Wat Tyler comment. Throughout history, the peasants, when pushed too far, have risen and revolted. During such uprisings they generally burn down a lot of their surroundings, without having much of any plan as to how to run things if they take power. As a result, they generally did not take power and if they did, it was only temporarily as they were not thinking very much, just acting out.

  17. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    What boggles my mind is that a, from all appearances, decent man such as Bush, Sr. cannot seem to hold his nose, but chooses instead to vote for Hellery!

    Rosalys, I hadn’t heart about Bush Sr. but this article suggests that Laura Bush is for Hillary.

    Say what you will, but it comes to mind that the only way to tame Islam is feminism. And that is what is on display here from Laura Bush. I’m not saying she’s wrong to have a completely woman-centric view of foreign policy. Hey, no one knows how to change Islam into something other than a beast other than nuking them back to the Stone Age. Siccing the equivalent of Gloria Steinem on them might work.

    • Rosalys says:

      Oh dear. My respect for Laura has dropped a notched. Hillary won’t purposefully do anything positive for women in Afghanistan. She’ll say she wants to and it’s remotely possible it may happen by accident. But Hillary doesn’t care about women in Afghanistan. Hillary doesn’t care squat about women.

      It was revealed just a few weeks ago, that Bush, Sr. said off the record, that he was voting for Hillary. I believe it was at a cookout, and leaked by another guest in attendance.

      The only thing that will tame Islam is overwhelming defeat on the battlefield. Feminism cannot tame Islam, but Islam will tame feminism!

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Attitudes toward the Middle East are a clusterf**k. And to some extent, it is problematic to come out and say the truth, which is that Islam is a force for evil and retrogression in this world.

        Thus I can understand tackling this from a perspective of protecting women. If you actually can get equality of rights under the law in Islamic countries, you’ve just taken a wrecking ball to Sharia and thus to Islam itself. It then might become “The religion of estrogen,” but it would at least no longer be the false “religious of peace.”

        It’s ironic (or telling) that the most strident outspoken Muslim (or former Muslim) opponents of Islam and Sharia tend to be women, almost exclusively.

        Given the battles won by feminism in the West against Christianity and the rest of the culture, I wouldn’t want to bet against feminism long term. The difference is, men in the West to a large extent volunteered to “play fair” and let the ladies in. And they did so without violence.

        With Islam, that won’t be the case. Burning a bra will have no effect with the animals who burn people in cages. But there is some small hope that the politically correct clowns on the Left could maybe someday engage Islam and make it safe for them to do so by picking up the “equal rights for women” mantle. I’m not holding my breath but it could happen.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          But there is some small hope that the politically correct clowns on the Left could maybe someday engage Islam and make it safe for them to do so by picking up the “equal rights for women” mantle.

          A religion which allows a man four wives at any one time, a religion which allows a man to rape his females slaves, a religion which allows a man to divorce a wive by simply saying, “I divorce you”, three times. This is not a religion which is going to engage in the discussion of “equal rights for women.”

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I think any discussion will be a little one-sided.

            But can you blame them for using the same tactics? The Left has more or less conquered the West by means of indoctrination. I don’t believe for a minute that the Left will pick up the mantle of “women’s rights” in Islamic culture, for various reasons, most of which will cause you to go a bit insane if you contemplate them.

            This is what they believe to some extent about the Islamic invasion they have facilitated in Europe. They truly believe that by being multi-culti “nice” that they can bring Islam under the umbrella of I’m-okay/You’re-okay multiculturalism where the worst forms of violence eventually have to be invented and called baloney such as “micro-aggression.”

            But let’s give the Left their due. They’ve made eunuchs out of many men in the West. I’m not saying the task will be easy with Muslims. And, frankly, I don’t expect them (or Laura Bush) to pick up the task in any meaningful way outside of a hashtag. But it will be an interesting confrontation of ideologies to come, and it will have to come.

        • Rosalys says:

          Well, you can all thank your lucky stars that I will not be elected president any time soon. My first act as Commander in Chief? Nuke Mecca! Of course I’m being facetious. Maybe.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I wouldn’t do Mecca, at least to start. What I would do is reprisal obliteration of cities in response to terrorist attacks. I’d work up a list of jihadist atrocities, cite all of them in a speech, and then have a jihadist city (Gaza or the capital of ISIS, say) obliterated. “They should burn it down, and sow the ashes with salt.”

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The leaker was Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Letting something like that slip to her shows that Bush 41 is either senile or grossly lacking in judgment.

        And Islam — or, to be precise, multiculturalism in service to Islam — already has tamed the feminist movement.

  18. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One of the disturbing things to me in this election is how easily Christians became apologists for Donald Trump. The disturbing thing is not regarding making a “binary choice” in this election. I get that all our choices are bad. The ghastliness is in the overt cheerleading and apologizing for this man’s obvious disqualifications for high office, thereby exacerbating the delusions and bad thinking that gave us these choices in the first place.

    Paul Crookston has an article about the fecklessness of Trump’s “evangelical executive advisory council” which is a who’s-who of fallen collaborators. It’s worth a read.

    I keep scratching my head and asking, “Where are the adults?” Well, as reported by Ian Buttle at The Corner, a group of students at Jerry Falwell Jr’s Liberty University have released a quite adult-like letter. You can read it here: Liberty United Against Trump.

    It’s a brief letter. It’s clear but not bellicose. Here’s an excerpt:

    Associating any politician with Christianity is damaging to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But Donald Trump is not just any politician. He has made his name by maligning others and bragging about his sins. Not only is Donald Trump a bad candidate for president, he is actively promoting the very things that we as Christians ought to oppose.

    I’ve yet to read anything like this at StubbornThings from our resident Christians.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I saw that. It’s a rare case of the students being wiser than the administrator. I suppose he can be proud of how well they’ve been taught.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Yeah. No kidding. As much as we (or I) kid the “yutes” in this culture for generally being frivolous, I’ve got to hand to to those young adults responsible for that letter. It was a breath of fresh air in an atmosphere of smoggy prevarication.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Sounds like those students have actually read and thought about what the Bible means.

      What does it say, “Put not your trust in Kings”? Or something like that.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Mr. Kung, I linked to a recent article about Mother Teresa on another thread. And it’s pretty much silence from Protestants here at StubbornThings in regards to her, but I’ve always found her intriguing. I read that interview of Susan Conroy and I was nodding my head, “Yep..yep” but mostly “Nope, nope” in that very little of this represents my spiritual practices. They should. But I’m honest enough to say that they don’t.

        Still, I’m intrigued, possibly more than a large percentage of Catholics. There’s something about the purity and thoroughness of her belief that stands in such stark contrast to our world. And it’s not the kind of “purity of belief” that has libertarians sounding like retards or Leftists sounding like something out of the novel, 1984.

        By the way, I do not use that word spuriously. We are all “retarded” in our spiritual growth compared to a Mother Teresa. And given how many glommed onto Trump without a thought, there are quite a few frauds or posers as well (or at the very least, unprincipled opportunists).

        Mother Teresa puts me to shame. But still I remain fascinated. It would be very very difficult for me to adopt her approach of “be kind and merciful. Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier.” Maybe it’s just a selfish, self-deluding excuse for being a bore, but there is that other side of the argument wherein there are a great many people who need to be shamed, to have civilization figuratively beaten into them. Even Jesus used both the carrot and the stick. I recognize both aspects.

        Some people need to be slapped down and own and pay for their dishonesty. And I think that includes both Trump and Hillary. Without some standard, what right has any conservative or Christian to say that there are external truths, that moral relativism is a mistake? And yet the easy embrace of Trumpism shows just how empty some of that rhetoric actually is.

        Those students at Liberty University must have received a good education from someone, very possibly the professors at the university. Maybe Falwell should attend a few classes, spend more time proverbially (or actually) scrubbing floors and less time hobnobbing with the rich and famous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *