Trump's Denial of Groping

[Ten oz]

This election is making the US a joke.

Who gives a damn about e-mails, Russian hackers, stupid insensitive locker room talk, goofy hair and finger size ?

When are the issues going to be discussed ?

 

I've said numerous times that I would cast my vote for H. Clinton, and D. Trump is a buffoon, and I'll add that I think Bill Clinton was a good president.

But I find it somewhat hypocritical, that those people who defended Bill's oval office antics as having nothing to do with the Presidency, are now outraged by Donald's private ( he thought ) remarks.

 

The difference, and a significant one in my opinion, is that Bill has already been called to the carpet for his actions. He has already had to answer questions, been investigated, and apologized. There has already been a special prosecutor investigation, a Congressional impeachment, a trial in the Senate, and etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.

 

Simply saying both have been accused or are guilty of similar behavior is a larger over simplification. I don't see the hypocrisy you mention. Trump being exposed to the same public scrutiny and legal review Bill Clinton was is perfectly fair and if Trump comes out the other side scarred but exonerated as Bill has than that is fair too. But to just say the two are equals and we are hypercritical for being upset with one over the other ignores many factors, too many factors.

[Airbrush]

There is another thing about the Access Hollywood recording of Trump. He tells Billy Bush in essence "You can do anything when you are a star." Listen to it, emphasis is on the word "anything". In the context of Trump's other crude remarks, this is equivalent to the old, wise, Hollywood star, Trump, advising the young inexperienced star, that when you are a star, you can do anything to a woman, including sexual assault, but that is not the limit to "anything". There is also rape, and forcing someone to perform unusual sex acts, physical or mental abuse of any sort, anything! Remember in the recording emphasis was on the word anything.

 

Trump is the master of evocative hyperbole, he can talk circles around Hillary who sounds boring in comparison. The problem for Trump using his gift for evocative hyperbole, he clearly maps out, for the world to see using plain, simple language, his deviancy, sense of extreme entitlement, and thus his personality disorder.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

There is another thing about the Access Hollywood recording of Trump. He tells Billy Bush in essence "You can do anything when you are a star." Listen to it, emphasis is on the word "anything". In the context of Trump's other crude remarks, this is equivalent to the old, wise, Hollywood star, Trump, advising the young inexperienced star, that when you are a star, you can do anything to a woman, including sexual assault, but that is not the limit to "anything". There is also rape, and forcing someone to perform unusual sex acts, physical or mental abuse of any sort, anything! Remember in the recording emphasis was on the word anything.

 

Trump is the master of evocative hyperbole, he can talk circles about Hillary who sounds boring in comparison. The problem for Trump using his gift for evocative hyperbole, he clearly maps out, for the world to see using plain, simple, unambiguous language, his deviancy, sense of extreme entitlement, and thus his personality disorder. What an embarrassment for any American.

Lots of people say Trump is a good speaker. I don't see it. His thoughts are disjointed and difficult to follow. I had a low opinion of him before all of this. Before he announced he was running for President. He has always seemed to has the nervous energy of a drug addict mixed with the rambling stream of consciousness of someone with adrenaline rushing to their head the moments before a fight breaks out. Donald Trump sounds like a megalomanic. While Clinton sounds boring she sounds sane. Trump does not.

[koti]

I hope this is not inappropriate, I came across this short video a few months ago and I find it interesting. I think it explains Trump's popularity phenomenon very well.

 

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=N7naGOTv6ks

[iNow]

Interesting analysis

I hope this is not inappropriate, I came across this short video a few months ago and I find it interesting. I think it explains Trump's popularity phenomenon very well.

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=N7naGOTv6ks

Interesting analysis

[Ten oz]

I hope this is not inappropriate, I came across this short video a few months ago and I find it interesting. I think it explains Trump's popularity phenomenon very well.

 

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=N7naGOTv6ks

The video is a logical analysis of the language Trump uses however I think it misses the mark. Of all the highlighted bits examined in Trump's response to Kimmel the most important line was ignored. Trump said "they did not come from Sweden". Which is a not so subtle way of saying they were not white people. Trump also said to look at what happened in Paris and California. There are more terror attacks in the middle east against Muslims than any other group yet Trump added Paris as a place outside the U.S. to look because it is in a marjority white country. Trump speaks in clear racist terms. Us (white people) vs them (not white people). The video is over intellectualizing Trump.

 

There is not a secret to Trumps language. His success isn't rooted in his use of one and two sylleble words. His success is rooted in his bigotry. His supporters like what he has to say.They are not being tricked. They really do want a wall on the southern border, they really do want minorities stopped and frisked by police, they really do want a ban of Muslims immigrant, there is no smoke and mirrors here. Trump isn't having to convince anyone of this stuff. His supporters already felt this way.

 

What has allowed Trump to succeed where the David Dukes, Pat Buchanans, and other bigots have failed is that Trump has already been a celebrity reality star and has had a respected business brand for decades. Trump already had a podium and mic. Those before him had to beat the streets stirring up exposure while defending themselves against charges of racism. Media just dismissed them as the idiots they are/were. Trump is already a house hold name so he didn't have to work for coverage and exposure. He has bypassed that hurdle. His message was pushed straight out by the media in a way Pat Buchanan could never achieve.

Edited October 16, 2016 by Ten oz

[Airbrush]

There is not a secret to Trumps language. His success isn't rooted in his use of one and two sylleble words. His success is rooted in his bigotry. His supporters like what he has to say.They are not being tricked. They really do want a wall on the southern border, they really do want minorities stopped and frisked by police, they really do want a ban of Muslims immigrant, there is no smoke and mirrors here. Trump isn't having to convince anyone of this stuff. His supporters already felt this way.

 

I mostly agree with you, but IMO his success is a combination of both factors, reflecting the bigotry of his followers AND his use of one and two syllable words, and don't forget how often he repeats what he says, so the knuckle-draggers can follow his speech. He is like a clever used-car salesman who can read his crowd and tell them exactly what they want to hear, in a fact-free zone. Hillary is not very good at that, and her obvious introversion hampers her.

[swansont]

What has allowed Trump to succeed where the David Dukes, Pat Buchanans, and other bigots have failed is that Trump has already been a celebrity reality star and has had a respected business brand for decades. Trump already had a podium and mic. Those before him had to beat the streets stirring up exposure while defending themselves against charges of racism. Media just dismissed them as the idiots they are/were. Trump is already a house hold name so he didn't have to work for coverage and exposure. He has bypassed that hurdle. His message was pushed straight out by the media in a way Pat Buchanan could never achieve.

 

It's also the timing. I think the media had more integrity ~20 years ago, so the media covers this when in the past the length and breadth of the bigotry would not have been aired.

 

He is also not a career politician, so he never learned the conventional wisdom that bigotry must be camouflaged or encoded. His is overt, and the constituency that responds to that is energized by it. The constituency that is uncomfortable at that language hasn't fully abandoned him.

[Ten oz]

 

I mostly agree with you, but IMO his success is a combination of both factors, reflecting the bigotry of his followers AND his use of one and two syllable words, and don't forget how often he repeats what he says, so the knuckle-draggers can follow his speech. He is like a clever used-car salesman who can read his crowd and tell them exactly what they want to hear, in a fact-free zone. Hillary is not very good at that, and her obvious introversion hampers her.

The most important part of his answer was not repeated. Everything else was fluff. The question in the video was asking if he really thought banning muslims was right and his answer was basically yes supported by "they did not come from Sweden", they are not white. The repeated parts are things he says for the rest of us not in his target audience. It is his way to water down the blatantly racist parts with a bunch of talk that means nothing.

 

If Trump was clever as the video and others suggest he would be able to sway his supporters. He would have been able to move towards the center some in the general and would be doing better than he is. Rather, his supporters rejected his attempts like his "softening" on immigration. He is not the leader of his supporters. He can't sell them on new views or positions. He just echos what they already believe and that is why he hasn't been able to grow his base or even shore up Republican support as the Republican nominee.

 

 

It's also the timing. I think the media had more integrity ~20 years ago, so the media covers this when in the past the length and breadth of the bigotry would not have been aired.

 

He is also not a career politician, so he never learned the conventional wisdom that bigotry must be camouflaged or encoded. His is overt, and the constituency that responds to that is energized by it. The constituency that is uncomfortable at that language hasn't fully abandoned him.

I agree. I fear someone more compenent than Trump, someone who truly premeditiates his languages and knows how to camouflage it, is watching all of thise and taking notes. No one could have predicted a year ago how sloppy and accomodating the media would be with a candidate like Trump. I hope Trump doesn't end up being a dry run for someone more dangerous.

[MonDie]

Sadly I think some may sympathize because most of us will commit an error of this sort at some point, but it's a regrettable mistake that comes down to communication skills and inhibition or disinhibition. It's like second order sexism when you prize disinhibition without regard for another's boundaries. Trump was not using sarcasm because the discussion was not about womens' rights or entitled celebrities. In fact he only says "I admit it" when he is admitting that he failed to seduce a married woman. I think it's evidence of an entitled personality, a facet of narcissistic personality that is especially elevated in men. Trump doesn't seem to possess the values of either camp. He doesn't seem to value honesty/information, cooperation, or general well-being. He doesn't value sexual purity or family values (hitting on a married woman). He doesn't exhibit Christian charity. Maybe the only reason he could compliment Clinton without flinching is because he values the ability to crush one's opponent.

 

In any case, I was reading an article comparing Donald Trump to Bill Clinton's independent opponent, Ross Perot, an article claiming that the Clinton campaign withheld criticism of Trump during the primaries because they anticipated crushing him in the election. Maybe the Republicans should utilize more left-wing style critiques while vetting their candidates.

Edited October 17, 2016 by MonDie

[Arete]

Incidentally, what old cars, Arete ?

 

1963 Mercury Comet, and a 1927 T roadster in bits all over my garage.

[MigL]

Must be difficult finding parts for the '27 T.