Trump loses the election

Knowing Donald Trump, my guess was always that he would make a gaffe so inexcusably insensitive and large that it would cost him the election. He’s made a number of these, but so far has had a Teflon patina. The latest, however, will cost him the endorsement of both Republican newspapers and fellow Republicans throughout the U.S.

His fatal remarks have just become public. The gaffes were made in 2005, and reflect his over-the-top sexism, but now they’re all over the Internet, and Republicans are running like lemmings to disavow him. He has apologized, but that doesn’t mean anything at this point; he’s gone; toast; and sleeps with the fishes. He’s an ex-candidate.

I have several hundred dollars in bets on this election, with my money on Hillary, and those who have bet me might as well pay off now.

Here’s what doomed Trump as a candidate; note that the language is graphic and offensive.

Update: a cartoon from reader Pliny the in Between (click to enlarge):

toon-backgroundt-002

318 Comments

  1. GBJames
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Ka-ching.

  2. Geoff Toscano
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    It seems a big deal at the moment but so did the issue with the Muslim parents a few months ago. He’ll shrug it off again and the only hope is that the polls are right and he loses come the day.

    • Nicolas Perrault
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      Agreed. It is not over until it is all over.

      • Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

        As long as Trump does not stand down, he still can become president. Blowhards don’t retreat when the heat is turned on; he is surrounded by minions who will give him breath so he just can blow harder.

        Very few voters regard Hillary as anything but a less poor choice, but many of Trump’s supporters view him as the absolute best for the job. Don’t underestimate minions.

        Probability wise, it will be a close call therefore the lack of an edge makes a bet more of a gamble than a calculated risk. If Trump gets in, look for impeachment drama which should occupy most of his term.

        • Carl
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

          I know people who regard Trump as the less poor choice. I’ll be interested to learn whether these latest developments will change their minds. I’m disappointed that previous knowledge hasn’t already swayed them.

          Most of the Trump “supporters” I know are better seen as Clinton haters. That makes it harder to argue against them. They can raise so many good points.

          • Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:23 am | Permalink

            Honestly I don’t see how this is any more shocking or outrageous than anything else he’s said during his career. Why is *this* the fatal report? This is just more of the same Trump that everyone already knows.

            • jwthomas
              Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

              And besides, all guys talk like that 🙂

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think he can shrug this one off. He’s boasting about assaulting women and getting away with it because he’s famous. At this point he’s meant to be increasing the number of white married women and independents who vote for him – those, along with a greater portion of the Hispanic vote are what he needs to win. He’s already lost too much of the Hispanic vote, and now, with this, he’s lost a whole lot more women and a majority of independent voters. In addition, many men, especially those under 50, are now taking a principled stand against him. Hillary’s share of the male vote was already increasing after the Machado incident – this will turn the leak into a flood.

      Of course, many traditional Republicans still won’t vote for Clinton, but a lot will just not vote at all.

      The rest of the world has been wondering for months how Trump got anywhere near the most powerful job on the planet. This is making us breathe a sigh of relief. Just imagine Trump dealing with yesterday’s news that Putin has moved nuclear weapons to the borders of the Baltic states and the increased activity detected at the North Korean nuclear launch site. Further, tension between India and Pakistan is increasing, and the Middle East is at war. Similar things always happen during US presidential election campaigns. The rest of the world doesn’t want Trump anywhere near the situation.

      • Grania Spingies
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

        I went over to Breitbart and similar places to see if this was making anyone on the Republican side pause and reconsider for even a second, and the answer is no, not even a little bit. The answers range from ‘Meh’ to ‘I’ve heard worse’ to ‘Pence ought to be ashamed of his lackluster statement on the whole issue’. Even the women are of the opinion that they “forgive” him.

        As for the call for Trump to step down and let Pence run for Presidency, I don’t think that women will fare any better under a Pence regime. He might be less likely to cause World War 3 than Trump, so he’s got that going for him.

        • SA Gould
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

          I read the further fight-wing sites, and they’ve just double-down. There is nothing that will change their minds.

          All of us lost when he entered the race and took out all the opposition. Just by being a bully.

          I don’t want Trump to lose, I want him to lose so big and dramatically, that this will end such idiocy.

          But that won’t happen either. I’ll bet money on THAT.

          • Grania Spingies
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

            I suspect that Trump is not the worst misogynist the Republicans have gathered under their big tent. He’s just the one that has been the most successful in terms of a Presidential bid, and perhaps the one who has felt the least pressure in life to watch his mouth while cameras are rolling.

            • Kevin
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

              Trump also has a tendency to say what he thinks whereas some other men refrain from saying what they think. There are an awful lot of unheard pigs.

            • Diane G.
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

              Precisely.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

          Yesterday, it was all but ignored on Fox News too, but CNN had multiple senior Republicans making anti-Trump statements who to date have supported him. Trump was supposed to be appearing at an event with Paul Ryan today, but Ryan uninvited him. Trump responded that he wasn’t going because he was busy with debate prep (after all day and several times previously mocking the need for debate prep) so he was sending Pence instead.

          I agree about Pence though. He would be as bad for women, though in a different way. His idea of respecting women is making sure they remain virgins until they’re married and all their decisions being made by they father or husband. Abortion would be banned, including for rape, incest, and life of the mother (which remains the GOP platform) and several forms of contraception would be banned too such as IUDs and the morning after pill.

        • rickflick
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

          Yes, I expected a stiff resistance to defeat among the loyalist. What else?
          But, to win Trump needed to peal off more independents and I think that’s just not going to happen. Even a few hundred thousand angry independents and his ship is sunk. I think there is a distinct possibility Trump will be replaced by the party.

          • Mark Sturtevant
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

            As we are seeing here and elsewhere there are good arguments for why this incident is fatal, and good arguments for why this incident will make no difference after a week or two.
            But hmm, there would be Republicans who might want to use this as a means to try to overthrow their current candidate for a new one. Not sure how that would be done, but.. interesting.

            • Posted October 14, 2016 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

              From what I’ve heard/read, it can only be done if Trump gives up. That won’t happen.

              However, GOP write-ins and independents (like McMullin in Utah) may sprig up all over, ensuring a HRC victory.

        • somer
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

          Have to say though I find it hard to believe that other than a pretty small minority of women, including conservative women, would vote for him now – its too hard to ignore something like this thats on film and provides a visual and sound meme.

      • Posted October 14, 2016 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

        I think the opposition to Drumpf has been keeping their powder dry until now. There was no need to attack with Drumpf shooting himself in the foot so effectively.

        Once he started to recover a little from his own gaffs, the bombs are beginning to fall on him.

        For the first time since LBJ 1964 (???) Utah is likely to not vote Republican (a local Mormon, independent looks set to win UT).

        Drumpf’s latest spewing is clearly the flying spittle of a desperate man. He’s about to be, in the most public way imaginable, branded as a loser. And a loser to “a girl” no less.

        • Posted October 18, 2016 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

          “He’s about to be, in the most public way imaginable, branded as a loser. And a loser to “a girl” no less.”

          Ah, what a happy thought!

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

      + 1

  3. BobTerrace
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Applicable to Trump:

    “He is one of those people who would be enormously improved by death.”
    ~Saki
    British (Burman-born) short story author (1870 – 1916)

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

      I’d never root for another’s death. In Trump’s case, however, I would read the obit with … well, you know.

  4. Jeff Lane
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Hello Jerry,

    and then there is this, I cannot fathom why this has not broken in the mainstream media

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/29/1543742/-Why-Recent- Child-Rape-Case-Against-Trump-Should-Not-Be-Ignored-Victim-Has-A-Witness

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump- Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen

    Regards Jeff Lane

    On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Why Evolution Is True wrote:

    > whyevolutionistrue posted: “Knowing Donald Trump, my guess was always that > he would make a gaffe so inexcusably insensitive and large that it would > cost him the election. He’s made a number of these, but so far has had a > Teflon patina. The latest, however, will cost him the endorsem” >

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      Yes, this too. The Trump narrative is that the media is against him but they only bring out the softballs. Just enough to get the clicks but not enough to destroy their moneymaker.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

        Yes, that’s a problem. For the media it’s best if it’s a real contest, so they play it that way.

        There’s also the issue of balanced reporting – the need to tell both sides of the story. That means though that they often give the impression that both sides are equal, such as when reporting on climate change or vaccination. In reality, the anti side should be dismissed, such as the pro-smoking lobby are nowadays.

    • somer
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      He has long made me feel physically ill when I see him. Saaary Breitbart, its a great, big tapeworm that you want to eat.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

      I too would like to know why we haven’t heard more about this in mainstream media. Who would vote for a man who does this?! This is a national disgrace for the US.

  5. Phil_Torres
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Jerry: I suspect you’re right. But it’s worth recalling previous instances of opprobrium that led us to similar conclusions, such as: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/trump-just-lost-any-chance-he-had-to-be-president/. There’s also the possibility of a bombshell being released that hurts the Clinton campaign.

    Thanks for posting this!

    • Wildhog
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

      I agree. I hope Trump is toast but Im not calling it done yet. Any time he keeps his mouth shut for a few days he rises in the polls as if the election is his by default. I wont feel confident he’ll lose until the election is over.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

      Yes, this sounds outrageous to us but not to many of the people who liked Trump before. I’ll keep my money until election night…

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

      Plus, enough women are used to hearing similar misogyny at their workplaces that they’re inured to this. I’d predict the “locker-room banter” excuse will prevail.

  6. dabertini
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    I have a lot more respect for john kasich now. Could you even imagine the difference between a trump vs. Clinton and a kasich vs. Clinton debate?! Way to go mike pence (the wolf wearing little red riding hood attire)!! It was wise to hook yourself up to the coattails of the dubious republican nominee!! Crash and burn relpublican party!! Crash and burn.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

      No, the Republicans are too drunk on the Kool-Aide, and their Kool-Aide is spiked with Milk of Amnesia. They’ll be happy little campers with no memory of Trump’s evil in no time.

    • Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      My nominee pick would have been Kasich.

      • Posted October 14, 2016 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

        Kasich is a religious nut too.

        • Posted October 15, 2016 at 10:02 am | Permalink

          There were limited choices. Would have been way better than Trump.

          • Posted October 17, 2016 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

            Agreed. Except he might have been more likely to actually get elected.

  7. ploubere
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Among the half of the country that support him, it’s unlikely this revelation will have a negative effect. And people who are offended by those comments were already against him. So it will change nothing.

    Evangelical leaders have already and hypocritically reaffirmed their support for him.

    • jeffery
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:03 am | Permalink

      Trumpanzees will say, “See- he’s a REAL man; just the kinda guy we need to lead this country!”

      • stuartcoyle
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

        Trumpanzees – That’s an insult to our close simian relatives who would certainly not accept Trump as their alpha male.

    • DiscoveredJoys
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      As a UK citizen the several thousand miles separation has allowed me to think relatively dispassionately that (sadly) Trump is awful but Clinton not much better.

      However the latest gaffe seems completely unacceptable. I’m not sure why it is so – perhaps because it can’t claim the cover of ‘political election speech’? A thin excuse but enough for it to work for those who wanted it to be for earlier gaffes.

      • SA Gould
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

        Do trust us Yanks on this- he will be so much worse.

      • Christopher
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

        “Clinton not much better”? They aren’t even in the same universe of despicably. Every politician has issues; none are perfect. Some are better than others, of course. But Trump vs. Clinton is like saying a migraine is almost as bad as a frontal lobotomy.

        Meanwhile, from the brilliant mind of bloated racist Trump-wannabe Nigel Farage, a quote on Fox news saying that Trump is “Not Running to Be Pope–He’s Running For President” Yes, from one half of the UK’s dipshit duo(wonder what bumbling Boris will say), morals don’t matter, unless you’re trying to be the pope.

        • Posted October 14, 2016 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

          And obviously NF doesn’t know his history of the popes either! No surprise there I guess.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      This time it actually is making a difference. His core supporters are, of course, continuing to back him, but many senior Republicans are coming out and saying they won’t. They will support down-ticket Republicans so as to hold the House and Senate, but not Trump.

      Money will dry up too. Many of the wealthiest donors will not want their names associated with the campaign, if only because of the damage it could do their brand. Women make most purchasing decisions – it doesn’t do to piss them off.

      • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

        I want to hear David Duke disown Trump. Now that would be something! The former grand whatever of the KKK saying Trump is too evil would be a taste of poetic justice.

      • Posted October 14, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

        I think the GOP money is already being shut off.

        This is truly an unprecedented election.

  8. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Social skills : cesspool / porn

    Imagine Clinton say… – oh god no don’t I’m sorry!

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      Point i, it’s indisputable that social skills matter in a President.

  9. Wildhog
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    So after all that Trump has said.. Such as that he would support trying US citizens in military tribunals, statements about banning the media, statements that are fundamentally at odds with how our country is set up to work, its braggy crude lockerroom banter that makes his campaign toast? If thats true – and it appears to be – it further destroys my faith in the American voter.

    • Mark R.
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      It’s not “braggy crude lockerrom banter” it comes down to the fact that this shows Trump is a sexual predator. His statement is really about condoning sexual assault and adultery.

      I agree that past statements and actions (or non-actions) should have already made his campaign toast, but this is a bombshell.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

        Exactly. It also makes it more real because it’s a tape of him saying it, rather than the multiple accusations such as the rape allegations etc.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

      Exactly, Wildhog.

      This fairly large portion of the US electorate has always been with us–it just took the right demagogue at the right time to peel back the veil. I’m really surprised it doesn’t happen more often.

  10. Charles Minus
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    I guess it’s worth pointing out that this is not just an other “gafffe.” It’s not about the words, this is about action, criminal action. Trump is bragging about sexual assault.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

      +1

      • dalefranzwa
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 12:07 am | Permalink

        I was going to make that point too. Lots of us uh “respectable” males either make or laugh at “locker room” humor (usually out of earshot of females). However, we don’t normally go around physically forcing ourselves on women (kissing, grabbing them in inappropriate places, etc) then bragging that women “let” us do this (in Trump’s case, because he’s rich). Most of us try to behave in a gentlemanly way (sort of) around women in public (at least, or so I think).

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:41 am | Permalink

      Yes

      Russell Blackford, Matthew Cobb made this distinction on Twi$$er, so I came over to see. Well done.

  11. Pliny the in Between
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Trump is a vile pig. Not exactly news to anyone with a viable pulse and some sense of self-awareness.

    Sadly, IMO, Paul Ryan’s defense of women was more illustrative of the depths of the problem of sexism in politics.

    http://farcornercafe.blogspot.com/2016/10/his-brand-of-sexism-isnt-our-brand-of.html

    • Dee
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      I had the same reaction to Paul Ryan’s response – instantly shouting at the television and flipping it off when I saw it last night. I’m so glad you pointed it out so clearly; your cartoon is right on the money. Thank you!!

    • Kevin
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      Rampant hidebound delusion.

      I think most men are irrecoverably built to be adjustably sexist. That is reason can usually make them honest through discourse and empathy. But Trump is on another playing field of sexism…super filth.

    • Mark R.
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, Paul Ryan, the knight in shining armor. What a dick.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

      Right on the money, Pliny!

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

      Exactly. Ryan peddles a less odious, but even more pervasive, brand of patriarchy.

  12. Frank Wagner
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    It’s not the language he used, but the behavior he brags about that is important. His “apology” mentions only his words, not his actions. “I said it, I was wrong and I apologize.” He has not even attempted to apologize for his actual behavior. Alleging that Bill Clinton did even worse compounds his problems. Hopefully this will inspire more women to come forward with Trump sexual harassment stories. However, it is fun watching his supporters try to defend him or change the subject. Clinton is very lucky that this came out shortly before the leak of her Wall Street speeches.

    • jeffery
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      His “apology” consisted of, “I’m, sorry if anyone was offended by this”, like there might be just a FEW people who were: he later went on to “minimize” his actions, saying, “nothing more than locker room banter”, and, “it was a private conversation”, like that makes it OK. He’s sorry, all right; sorry he got caught! Wait a minute- knowing him, he’s probably not even sorry about THAT.

    • somer
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

      Apparently he’s a good friend of Sky News, (ex) Manager Roger Ailes, so theres bound to be plenty of this sort of behaviour. To say nothing of his treatment of workers on the Trump tower, general dishonesty in word and deed, business failures, heartlessness and racism towards Mexicans and Muslims, gross insults to many large groups, contempt for American legal and political institutions, utter nonchalance about matters nuclear, ignorance about foreign policy, intention to wreck NATO, fondness for Putin, intention to enrage China by scrapping the long standing Pacific Trade agreement with them (which could only lead to tit for tat and economic depression assuming he carried it through), etc etc.

  13. Billy Bl.
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    An apology won’t change this guy’s character. He’s still the same guy, and always will be. Maybe both parties would benefit from dumping their nominees and going with the running mates.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

      Caine’s too religious. Were it not for that, he might be okay.

  14. GM
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Well, he might lose endorsements from official Republicans, but it is not those endorsements that got him the nomination in the first place.

    The people who truly believe in Trump will not be affected by this in any way.

    The ones that are not in love with him, but will support him because they are completely fed up with the establishment will still be completely fed up with the establishment.

    There are also many people who see nothing wrong with what he said, it’s just shit talking between men in private (or what they thought to be private).

    I don’t either — a human male is trying to have sex with as many human females as possible. That is a sound evolutionary strategy and as normal as it gets. Now if he actually grabbed someone by the genitals, that is a criminal offense, of course, and he should suffer the consequences, but there is no evidence that he has in fact done that.

    So let’s wait until the election is over and see what happens.

    Also, it is curious that this came out on the same day that Hilary’s transcripts were leaked. And those are barely getting any coverage while this is top news everywhere.

    One of these things actually affects the policies that will be adopted and that will affect hundreds of millions.

    The other doesn’t.

    • horrabin
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      Ah, the “it’s sound evolutionary strategy” beloved of male elephant seals and serial sexual harassers everywhere; Trump should totally use that in the debate on Sunday. “Hey, I’m just trying to have sex with as many females as possible, give me a break!”

      • somer
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

        Yes Rapists unite, stuff basic human rights, lets go for the sexy Nazi option.

    • somer
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      Hilary’s transcripts versus someone whose campaign has links to Putin both in funding and in one of his aides – and also in expressions of admiration for Putin

    • Mark R.
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

      You see nothing wrong with condoning sexual assault? Disturbing.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

      I agree. And I’ll add that quite a few of the “official” Republicans who are now publicly disavowing Trump may vote for him nevertheless.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

      … if he actually grabbed someone by the genitals, that is a criminal offense … but there is no evidence that he has in fact done that.

      In the tape, Trump says he does that. A “statement against interest” constitutes admissible evidence in every court in the country.

      Plus, a number of beauty-pageant contestants have previously come forward to say he does the non consensual-kissing thing.

      Anyway, stay tuned for the other shoes to start dropping. The tv networks are scouring their archives for outtakes as we speak. And don’t be surprised to see sexual-assault victims coming out against Trump in droves.

    • Carey Haug
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

      Genghis Khan pursued this strategy very successfully. Many Cental Asians and Euopeans are his descendants. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. At least we no longer take it for granted that powerful men can have their way with all the women they want.

      • GM
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

        Well, the reason men want to be powerful is so that they can have access to better mating opportunities.

        That’s how real life works.

        What we pretend that it is like because we have to conform to certain cultural norms does not change that fact.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

          You have heard of the “naturalistic fallacy,” haven’t you?

          Certain parasites are exquisitely adapted to the human digestive tract. That’s how real life works. Cultural norms pertaining to medical care do not change that fact.

          • GM
            Posted October 9, 2016 at 5:51 am | Permalink

            You ever heard of a false analogy?

            • somer
              Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:02 am | Permalink

              So the only brains that count are penis extensions?

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:01 am | Permalink

              That wasn’t an analogy; that was an example of the “naturalistic fallacy” at work. You’ve engaged in precisely the same fallacy here with your crabbed interpretation of the sexual proclivities of the human male.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

      As a modest woman who’s been raped twice, about ten years apart, and whose “genitals” have been grabbed by lesser likes of Trump, let me tell you: He’s not talking theory, here. He’s bragging about what he’s gotten away with.

      • Posted October 12, 2016 at 10:46 am | Permalink

        I’m very sorry you went through those terrible ordeals.

        I agree with you about Trump… this was a huge revelation of his malevolent character. Why is it so difficult for some people to see this?

        • Posted October 13, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

          Yesterday, a Trump supporter, waiting, as I was, to see the doctor, started in on me. She refused to even hear that his claims were real, and that others are also guilty. Later, I wondered whether she was feeling left out, feeling that apparently, her p***y hadn’t been worthy of aggressive grabbing.

          • Posted October 15, 2016 at 10:05 am | Permalink

            It’s very sad… it’s a good example of religious-like brainwashing and cognitive dissonance.

  15. Fam doc
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    I just sent a copy of trumps horrific diatribe to all the people that follow me on Twitter and Facebook,
    And I’ve already gotten an excuse from one of trumps minions
    He typed
    “OMG, Donald Trump just said what Bill Clinton did ”
    This is how the surrogates are going to handle it,
    How can we argue with these Trump supporters, it’s like Sam Harris said “if you don’t use facts, then what facts can I give you to change your mind .
    If you don’t use logic , then logically what can I say to make a point .
    Arguing with the trumpets is extremely frustrating .

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

      You have actually done a small but nice sociological study. And the result is not very encouraging.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

      I’d say the argument goes like this: At least Clinton didn’t have to rape his victims. They actually wanted to have sex with him!

  16. anon
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    I’m astonished this even counts as news. Does anyone of age to vote think people don’t say worse stuff all the time, in private?

    Reality TV and beauty contests are very close to raw sex appeal, much closer than modelling and movies. Appeal to the viewers, obviously, and more immediately to the people signing the cheques. And some big shot with a big mouth is showing off to some reporter… really what’s to see?

    And yet is seems to be snowballing.

    • Historian
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      This is not 1950. The vast majority of men do not think what Trump said. The idea that women are or should be chattel to the powerful or celebrities is rapidly disappearing. Although I suspect most social conservatives will stay with Trump, enough will now finally reject him to make his chances of victory exceedingly slim.

      • GM
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

        The vast majority of men do not think what Trump said.

        False.

        The vast majority of men are afraid to say in public what they truly think, because of the consequences of doing so.

        But in their own minds they do still of course dream of mating with as many attractive females as they could whether those females would like it or not.

        • GBJames
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

          And you know that how exactly?

        • Posted October 14, 2016 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

          Project much?

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

      You do understand this guy is the nominated person for a major party for president? Not joe the six pack moron down at the local bar watching fox television.

    • Mark R.
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

      Huh? What’s to see?

      Hmmmmm…

      The man who is running to be the most powerful person in the world is fine with sexual assault and adultery. There’s definitely something to see. Maybe not for a lot of men(sadly) but women (as far as I can tell) don’t really appreciate being sexually assaulted.

      • GM
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

        women (as far as I can tell) don’t really appreciate being sexually assaulted.

        So?

        This is not a banana republic somewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa where an out-of-control dictator can have the ability to actually implement his rape fantasies in real life.

        “Liberals” are crying: “We can’t have a misogynist and rapist in the White House” (well, you definitely can, it has happened in the past, the world did not end), “it will be so bad for the wymyn”.

        No it’s not going to be, there are 160 million women in this country, Trump can’t possibly go out and grope each and every one of them.

        Trump might be a serial rapist and that will still not directly affect the average person in any way.

        What will affect the average voter is the future administration’s economic and foreign policies.

        Which is not a subject of discussion at all, while irrelevant BS such as this dominates the news.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      I’ll confess to keeping a certain “male code” myself. (I’m not proud of it, can’t justify it, but there it is.)

      Nevertheless, the unrequited hondling of a happily married woman for sex while you’ve got a pregnant new bride at home isn’t in it. Much less is asserting an entitlement to sexual assault — the unsolicited “grabbing” of “pussies,” in the Trump parlance — because you’re a soi-disant “tv star.”

  17. Gary Fletcher
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    I thought he lost the election when he said he was going to build a border wall and make the Mexicans pay for it.

  18. Carl
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    I hope you are right. I remember having similar premonitions concerning Bill Clinton.

    If indeed this 2005 tape is what it takes to do Trump in, I view it as a sad thing. What he has said on the record should have been more than sufficient.

    • GM
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      What he has said on the record should have been more than sufficient.

      True. But so should have what the other candidate has done when in power.

      And in general, action speaks louder than words

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

        “action speaks louder than words”

        You come up with that one all on your own, didja?

        Trump has engaged in all manner of odious acts on top of all his repugnant words, and we’re likely to hear of many more before all is said and done.

        I have my differences with Hillary, a whole lot of ’em, and voted for her opponent in the primary. But she hasn’t done a goddamn thing that would “disqualify” her from office. That empty right-wing trope has grown tiresome.

        • GM
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

          1. I’m not a right winger

          2. I never said Hilary has done anything that disqualifies here from office.

          But the calculus is simple:

          Option A: More of the same policies that have brought the world to where it is now, and that are certain to result in a complete disaster in the future

          Option B: Dive into the unknown (nobody knows what Trump will actually do in office because he lies all the time about everything).

          Option A is certain death.

          Option B has some uncertainty associated with it.

          The rational choice is B.

          I wish it was different, but that’s what it has come down to.

          • Diane G.
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

            Troll much?

            • rickflick
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

              That’d be Option T.

          • Carl
            Posted October 9, 2016 at 12:35 am | Permalink

            What is so bad about the state of the world now? It’s better than ever on average and in almost every country. Less war, less murder, less violence in general, less poverty, better health, longer life spans, more liberty, more education, more food, and more wealth. The only negative I can think of off the top of my head is the poor choice we Americans have for President.

            • Carl
              Posted October 9, 2016 at 1:06 am | Permalink

              And now that I’ve shown how wrong one of your premises is, will you switch options?

              How about if you take into account the dumb ideas like:

              1. Build a wall along the southern border, and make Mexico pay for it.

              2. Default on the National debt.

              3. Deport 11 million illegal aliens (actually 3 million have already gone home).

              4. Destabilize the world by telling our allies we won’t honor treaties.

              5. Encourage Russian tyrants with public praise and rank ignorance about what they’ve already done.

              6. Rattle the nuclear saber.

              7. Abet nuclear proliferation.

              8. Support protectionist trade policies.

              To be fair, it is unknown if Trump will still hold these ideas once elected, or even next week, or will act on them. But you will always have his monumental ignorance and unwillingness to cure it.

              • Carl
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:28 am | Permalink

                GM, I’m not widely read in the kook literature, but I would bet your ideas come from there. Babbling a phrase like “the senility of the elites in the later stages of the imperial cycles is a well known historical phenomenon” gives you away.

                You have failed to address the challenges others made to your statements, though you probably think you have. Very Trump-like of you.

            • GM
              Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:00 am | Permalink

              This is why the “liberal” class votes for the likes of Hilary. You exemplified it very well.

              1. Their own situation is good, at least for the moment.

              2. They don’t really care about what happens to other people anyway despite their loud proclamations of the opposite.

              3. They are too ignorant of the state of the world to notice the trends because they are too busy making sure they adhere to the arbitrary social norms that are required for their continued belonging to their class.

              Nothing surprising here, first, the senility of the elites in the later stages of the imperial cycles is a well known historical phenomenon, and second, the human brain has not really evolved to grasp complex topic, to think on large scales and about the long term — it has evolved to ensure survival as a social primate, in the short term, with all the consequences.

              It is of course not the case that Trump looks likely to do anything that would address the problems of the world in a meaningful way.

              But with the alternative it basically is a certainty that nothing will change.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:52 am | Permalink

                It is rich that someone who complains “human brain has not really evolved to grasp complex topic [sic]” would support Donald Trump.

                Trump is an ignoramus. He knows nothing about public policy; he cares nothing about public policy, and he doesn’t care to learn anything about public policy. Hell, he doesn’t have enough respect for his own team’s dumb tropes to learn them well enough to use them effectively.

                And your paranoid ramblings regarding the coming “certain [and] complete disaster” (which you’ve failed to articulate here, despite Carl’s invitation above that you do so) don’t change that or provide even the semblance of a rational reason to put Donald Trump in the White House.

              • somer
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:02 am | Permalink

                You say the world will end if Trump is not elected then say “the human brain is not evolved to deal with complex problems and always looks for the short term” proffering this as the reason for the supposed modern disaster. Then you give the ultimate Mr short attention Trump as the solution. You say you’re not a conservative, but you reject any possibility we may have moved beyond Stone Age norms.

              • GM
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:25 am | Permalink

                It is rich that someone who complains “human brain has not really evolved to grasp complex topic [sic]” would support Donald Trump.

                I don’t support Trump, where did you get that idea from?

              • GM
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink

                And your paranoid ramblings regarding the coming “certain [and] complete disaster” (which you’ve failed to articulate here, despite Carl’s invitation above that you do so)

                I did mention something about long-term thinking, didn’t I?

                If you take your eyes off the next quarter stock market result or the next 4 years of the political cycle, and you also consider the state of the state of the world as a whole, you might understand what I am referring to.

                Otherwise there is little point having this discussion, the blinders are on and they’re heavy.

              • GM
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:31 am | Permalink

                You say the world will end if Trump is not elected then say “the human brain is not evolved to deal with complex problems and always looks for the short term” proffering this as the reason for the supposed modern disaster. Then you give the ultimate Mr short attention Trump as the solution. You say you’re not a conservative, but you reject any possibility we may have moved beyond Stone Age norms.

                I know it is too much to require basic reading comprehension from most people on the internet, but this is just too much.

                Where did I say Trump is the solution???

                Read what I wrote. Carefully.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

                You can blather about “long-term thinking” all you want, GM. But why won’t you identify for us this looming Malthusian disaster you seem to think only a shithouse-luck blunder by Donald Trump can spare us from.

              • Posted October 9, 2016 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

                “But why won’t you identify for us this looming Malthusian disaster you seem to think only a shithouse-luck blunder by Donald Trump can spare us from.”
                Answer here.

          • GBJames
            Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:46 am | Permalink

            “…rational choice…”

            I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

  19. Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    This won’t enrage anyone that is already in his camp. It’ll be seen as “just guys hanging out and bragging” and “make him seen more real”. When it comes to Trump, it’s opposite day and it’ll take more than a couple of guys talking about scoring with actresses to push over the undecided middle. In fact, “Liberal” outrage over this video might push a lot of fence sitters over to the Trump camp because they probably engaged in similar bragging with their buddies (mostly men, but also some women) and people are likely to fall back to where they are comfortable and accepted.

    Nothing in this video surprises me about Trump, and is far less troubling than how he views employees and international policy. Blowing an Iranian ship out of the water for taunting gestures and then saying that wouldn’t cause a war, and viewing his employment of American citizens as his “Sacrifice” comparable to losing a son in the war has far more immediate and damning implications for how he will run the country as opposed to how he talks about actresses with the guys on a tour bus. That this is the thing that will supposedly cost him the presidency and not the others (or anything else he’s said in public) makes me consider Canadian citizenship.

    • GM
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:16 am | Permalink

      In fact, “Liberal” outrage over this video might push a lot of fence sitters over to the Trump camp because they probably engaged in similar bragging with their buddies (mostly men, but also some women) and people are likely to fall back to where they are comfortable and accepted.

      Exactly.

      How exactly do the “liberals” think that men working in a coal mine talk about women?

      It’s exactly that kind of talk.

      This is very symptomatic of the betrayal on the part of the so called “left” of its supposed constituents.

      You hear all this talk about sexism and harassment, constantly. But guess who would be worst affected if sexism was policed throughout society in the same way that “liberals” have managed to institute in universities?

      It would be poor working class white males, and minority males in general.

      The ones least affected would be elite liberal males, who are already sufficiently “cultured” and adapted to behavior conforming with the requirements.

      So what happens is that the economic problems of working class people are neglected so that the liberal elites can talk about identity politics BS, which benefits mostly the liberal elites themselves, and in particular upper middle class and rich white women.

      Working class people and minority males get screwed twice — once because they suffer the most from the war on sexism, a second time because their actual problems, which are mostly economic in nature, are not addressed, by the very people who are supposed to be their defenders.

      Trump’s ascend is a direct result of the frustration of the working class with that situation.

      • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:34 am | Permalink

        “It would be poor working class white males, and minority males in general.”

        On that note one of Trump’s spokespeople, some blonde whose default expression is a sneer, excused Trumps language as being emblematic of the typical liberal Hollywood culture that Trump was part of at the time, a culture where language like this is the norm in rap music that is considered hip, and acceptable. the implication being when black people do it liberals think it’s cool, but when Trump does it it’s sexism. That defense will resonate with Trumps base.

      • BobTerrace
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:35 am | Permalink

        And who caused the “frustration of the working class”? The Republicans and their puppet masters did by favoring the wealthy and the corporate heads at the expense of the working class. They closed plants and sent jobs overseas. They hide trillions of dollars overseas to avoid taxes. They give tax breaks to those who don’t need or deserve it and attempt to remove it from those who do need it. They attempt to take Social Security and Medicare away from those who actually paid in to it.

        The one thing that the right wing has done well is to blame the liberals and left and Bill Clinton and others for the very things they did to screw up the country.

        All this obfuscation and finger pointing here is complete nonsense. Trump, the Republicans, the Tea Party, the Evangelicals, the alt-right and the white supremacists have been ruining the US and fooling the working class to support them. Trump is a vile person who acts sub-human and is wrong about everything he spews and lies about.

        • GM
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:45 am | Permalink

          The Republicans and their puppet masters did by favoring the wealthy and the corporate heads at the expense of the working class. They closed plants and sent jobs overseas. They hide trillions of dollars overseas to avoid taxes. They give tax breaks to those who don’t need or deserve it and attempt to remove it from those who do need it. They attempt to take Social Security and Medicare away from those who actually paid in to it.

          I am sorry to burst your partisan bubble, but NAFTA was passed by Clinton, the media markets were deregulated by Clinton, the banks were deregulated under too, etc. etc.

          Later it was Obama who gave away the public option without any fight even though he had the votes to pass whatever he wanted.

          And then he wanted to do the Grand Bargain but couldn’t only because Republicans were so extreme that they blocked him out of sheer spite.

          There is very little of substance that the two parties disagree on. They represent slightly different sets of business interests, but are equally bought and corrupt. One side has the religious fundamentalists on its side while the other is mired in the swamp of identity politics, but that’s it really.

          When it comes to economics and foreign policy, i.e. the stuff that matters the most, there is no real difference to be seen.

          • BobTerrace
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

            NAFTA has actually had very little effect on trade, look it up. There is nothing wrong with deregulating media markets. The problem of poor media has nothing to do with deregulation. Removing the Glass-Steagall act regulations was a mistake by everyone at that time. Progressives have been fighting to get those back, Particularly Elizabeth Warren. The biggest bulk of the US economic problems are due to the massive tax breaks for the wealthy under Reagan and under Bush. The economy was at its best when tax rates were much higher for higher incomes.

          • GBJames
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

            NAFTA was passed under Bush #2. Clinton added some environmental protections but he wasn’t there for negotiations or passage.

          • Mark R.
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

            “When it comes to economics and foreign policy, i.e. the stuff that matters the most, there is no real difference to be seen.”

            How about closing corporate loopholes, minimizing college debt, raising the minimum wage, retraining programs, strengthening social security, not starting wars, green-energy instead of fossil fuels, investing in infrastructure, understanding that climate change is a huge problem for the economy and foreign policy, appointing SCOTUS justices that will reinstate Glass-Steagall and repeal Citizens United. I could go on.

            One side would like to do these things, the other does not.

            • GM
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

              You seriously think one side really wants to do those things?

              This is a science blog.

              One would think that its readers would be more empirically minded than this.

              But apparently tribal allegiances trump everything

              • Mark R.
                Posted October 8, 2016 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

                First of all, this isn’t a blog. And Professor Coyne envisioned it as a science forum, but it has changed since then. Being “empirically minded” has nothing to do with it.

                And yes, one side does want to do those things. Perhaps not every Dem or even Hillary wants to do all of them, but many, many do. Have you heard of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Al Franken to list a few progressives? I know they aren’t in the majority, but they wield a lot of power, and by comparison NO Republican wants to do any of the things I mentioned.

              • GM
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

                Those people you listed are not the Democratic party.

                They are just as external to it as Trupm is to the Republicans

                The Democrats parade them to placate voters into thinking the party care about their well being. It doesn’t

      • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:56 am | Permalink

        You offensive stereotyping of working class men is in itself obscene. And totally wrong. I myself grew up in a working class environment – spent lots of time myself in banter in American locker rooms. Yes there is talk of sex… but not in terms totally demeaning women as a sex, not in bragging about how clever it is to grope them and getting away with it as a bragging point, not in considering them as sexual prey . A man saying that would be judged a egotistical creep, which is exactly what Trump is. He will find little forgiveness among working class American men – no matter what their other Trumpish views they may endorse.

        • frednotfaith2
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

          I agree. As a Navy brat who moved around quite a bit, most of the people I’ve known were of working class backgrounds and while far too many of my male friends, and even my dad and my uncles often said horridly sexist things I don’t recall any saying anything as vile as Trump’s comments. Worse, Trump knew he was being filmed and recorded when he said those things and it didn’t occur to him that they might become public and prove highly offensive to a great many people. He’s a loathsome, elitist lout. I truly hope this costs him the Presidency but I can’t yet overcome the pessimism that he might just yet pull it off. I won’t feel comfortable about this until the day after the election and it’s been determined that Hillary has won be a large margin.

          • Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

            “even my dad and my uncles often said horridly sexist things I don’t recall any saying anything as vile as Trump’s comments.”

            I served in the military back in the 80’s when men weren’t particularly enlightened, and sexist comments were rather commonplace, I never heard any brag about sexually assaulting a woman, and it wouldn’t have been considered acceptable if anyone had,

            • Diane G.
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

              And yet sexual assault continues to be a yuge problem for the military.

              • Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

                “And yet sexual assault continues to be a yuge problem for the military.”

                Yeah, but if even 5% of men engaged in it (I’ve read that as much as 6% of men display anti-social behavior), it doesn’t mean the other 95% condone it, or that the 5% would openly brag about it, and they wouldn’t because even sociopaths know it’s wrong. Apparently Trump’s wealth convinces him he’s above caring what people think about him.

        • Gabrielle
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

          I agree that the above is an insult to working class men. And I’m speaking as a college-educated middle class woman who’s worked around both elite and working class men at my company, which sells products to the automotive industry.
          In all my visits to our factories and to customer factories, I never once heard obscene language or was the recipient of lewd behavior from the plant workers. I had the pleasure of working with some real gentlemen at those sites, all of whom had not gone to college, and some who likely had not finished high school.
          On the other extreme – The elite men at my corporation are by and large womanizers; my suspicions about them have been confirmed by two of the men I work with. These elites, all married, are constantly on the prowl. Some are at least decent enough to leave women alone who show no interest, but others, in Roger Ailes-like form, believe all women at our company should be sexually available to them. I’ve been the recipient of this unwanted attention from four upper managers over the years (one occasion of which happened during an interview).
          Trump’s behavior doesn’t surprise me. If you want to see more of it, head to an expensive golf course, not to a NASCAR racetrack.

          • rickflick
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

            That’s an interesting observation. It fits with some of what I perceive as well. I’ve worked in pretty raunchy blue collar environments but the language and attitudes are constrained for the most part to amuse themselves behind the scenes, to reduce boredom. Not fully realized beliefs. They drop it when they leave the plant.
            Managers, on the other hand, may be playing a different game. They probably have more opportunity to dream up scenarios to fulfill there libidinous imaginations. Perhaps they imagine themselves somewhat apart from or above social norms.

      • WT
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

        I grew up in the ’90s in a poor, rural, predominantly white, working class area.

        I heard plenty of crude and lewd sexual comments. Locker room talk.

        I never heard someone brag about sexually assaulting someone. Or even just that it would be easy for them to do so because they were popular. Or even that they would want to do so.

        People who chalk this up as normal “locker room” talk: What the hell kind of locker rooms were you in??

      • somer
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

        A cooling of trade deals is one thing, but that is not what Trump has been proposing.
        America is still in a lot of debt to China, which it is happy to maintain. the Clintons implemented the trade agreements, particularly Asia Pacific agreements including China, that undid many manufacturing industries in the US. However Trump seems to be proposing simply dumping those agreements – which would inevitably lead to payback protectionism from China and maybe even recall of debt – i.e. could tip into major depression.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

        Really?

        I don’t believe our fellow citizens — of any class or color or gender — are impressed by a 59-year-old man with a pregnant new wife at home relentlessly trying to bang a happily married woman who has shown no reciprocal sexual interest in him whatsoever. And then there’s the matter of his unbidden kissing and pussy-grabbing.

        Locker-room boasting about one’s sexual exploits is one thing; this is something else entirely.

    • somer
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      I agree that he should have disqualified himself for office way way before this point – but I would not dismiss this as trivial – Trump seems to be talking about attempted rape and certainly about intention to do illegal sexual harassment (“grab her by the p**sy”). Regarding the latter (grab her by the **) The are not at a brothel.

      • anon
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

        “attempted rape”

        If he was talking about a business venture and said that you should “grab him by the balls” nobody would blink, right? Even though actually doing so would be assault. It’s an expression.

        Would they blink if a woman said it? And if she was describing a job (with a male boss)? And if she was advising a friend not to miss her chance on a date?

        I mean I think the guy is a slease-ball, and I know that there are woman who have made various allegations. But for _this_ tape, _this_ conversation… I don’t know if I’ve never seen so many people hearing what they want to hear.

        • Grania Spingies
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

          The difference is that one is a slightly fanciful description of trying to get someone to agree to terms and conditions that they may not want. The other is description of a physical assault. Trump wasn’t talking metaphorically. Surely that distinction hasn’t escaped you?

        • pali
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

          Grabbing or having someone by the balls is a long-used, well known expression that means you have an opponent in a vulnerable position. It is almost always a statement about a power relationship rather than a sexual advance. Grabbing someone by the pussy has no such history, and in the context of the conversation it only makes sense when taken literally.

  20. Phil Rounds
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately, this probably won’t put off many of his supporters (the actual voters). This kind of behaviour is actually ok with a lot of Americans. They don’t like to see it out in the open…and they may renounce it, but they’ll just chalk it up to “locker room banter”. There are a very large number of Hillary haters out there who would vote for Satan rather than see her win. IMO we should still be worried.

  21. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Come Monday morning, all he’ll have left is his half-basket of deplorables — the alt-right dead-enders. Everyone else, all the so-called “respectable” Republicans, will be peeking out at dawn’s early light to find that their flag is not there.

    • ploubere
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:25 am | Permalink

      Respectable republicans are already defending him.
      http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/08/tennessee-republicans-scold-still-stand-trump-after-vulgar-comments/91783306/

      • GBJames
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

        By some definitions of “respectable”.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

        All I see from the article you link to are some Tennessee Republicans who have denounced Trump’s statements, but have not yet summonsed the fortitude to break their silence on whether his candidacy should be abandoned completely.

        Plus, it’s not yet Monday. After Trump embarrasses his Party further at tomorrow night’s debate, and after the Republican “leaders” (such as they are) give the nod, the utter withdrawal of Trump’s GOP support will snowball. No Republican in a contested election will stand by him. Nor will but a very few others.

  22. somer
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    I hope you are right. The man is an all round psychopath. There are so many vile things that have come out about this man and we don’t see a crash in the polls. He crashes every barrier of decency, human feeling, honesty, competency for the job or responsibility to anyone except himself.
    I really have to pinch myself he’s the candidate.

  23. Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Yeah my head says Trump is toast, but the sick feeling in my stomach doesn’t entirely agree. I know that’s not rational, but no matter how much I tell that to my stomach it still disagrees with me.

  24. mike cracraft
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Not only is Trump toast, the GOP as we know
    it is history. After the defeat: a new center right party forms. If HC can’t improve things in 3 years, the Democrats will split as well. Then we’ll have a 4 party system.

    • GBJames
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

      I’ve been predicting the collapse of the Republican Party for a few years. But I’m not sure this is it. I think they will still try a shot with a true believer extremist Xtian. Pence, maybe. But it is hard to know what the final straw will be. There are many stupid right wing voters.

      • Posted October 14, 2016 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

        Something big will happen with the GOP. It has too. Drumpf is the logical extension (and I hope termination) of all the teabagger BS of the last bunch of elections.

        I would not be surprised to see the ‘baggers split off into a “patriot party” and leave the core GOP a little less insane than it has been since Obama was elected.

        The fact that a black man was elected to the US presidency seems to have unhinged a good chunk of the GOP voters. Time to amputate and bind the wounds.

  25. Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    Trump issued more of a not-pology than an apology. He apologized if you were offended by the remarks. He didn’t apologize for the remarks.

    I can only imagine this incident will make Trump’s staunchest supporters like him more. “He says what he thinks. That’s why we like him…”

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:45 am | Permalink

      “He apologized if you were offended by the remarks. He didn’t apologize for the remarks.”

      You must have missed his second apology that was released on video last night. It was an actually apology where he admitted he was wrong, but it still sounded disingenuous. Some have categorized it as a hostage tape.

      • Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

        Oh, I did indeed miss the second one then. I’d tend to agree that there was probably a decent amount of arm twisting involved there and I don’t think anyone, supporter or not, thinks this was a one off event completely out of line with his character.

        That said, I’m amazed this is the thing causing Republicans to flee. It’s far from the first misogynistic or sexist thing he’s said and his “policy” proposals are far scarier.

        • Mark R.
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

          I’m amazed that so many readers here (all males I suspect) characterize what Trump said as another “misogynistic or sexist thing”. He’s boasting about getting away with sexual assault. Why is this lost on so many people?

          • Posted October 14, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

            + a very large number (that Trump was boasting about assault)

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        Sure, Trumpian sincerity fairly dripped off the part of Apology 2 about how the Clintons are so much worse.

        • Posted October 14, 2016 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

          And besides, it was just the media conspiracy

          And … and … the sun got in my eyes! I ran out of gas! I got a flat tire! I didn’t have change for cab fare! I lost my tux at the cleaners! I locked my keys in the car! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!

          • Posted October 18, 2016 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

            You forgot one: “The dog ate my homework!”

            Hey, maybe that’s why Drumpf hasn’t studied!

            • Posted October 19, 2016 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

              At the class registration desks when you submitted your paper class registration forms (only on specific days for specific people!) back in the Pleistocene, when I was at university, the registry clerks had a small sign posted. It read, more or less like this:

              —————

              “My dog ate it!” “The wind took it!” “The sun got in my eyes!” “My car broke down!” [and many more] We’ve heard them all before; and none of them will work.

              You must get your registration submitted on time.

              • Posted October 19, 2016 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

                Well, that certainly cuts to the chase, doesn’t it?

  26. Frank Bath
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    I have to wonder if the secret services have plans in hand should Trump take the top spot.

  27. Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    What people need to be wary of so far as polls are concerned is the tendency we saw in the UK when the Tories were mired in scandal after scandal during John Major’s premiership, with cash for questions, dodgy donations from crooks and hypocritical double standards on matters of sexual behaviour: the phenomenon of the ‘shy’ Tory. In the case of America, the shy Republican.

    People will vote for something nasty in the privacy of the polling booth that they would never admit to to polsters or to their friends.

    Don’t be fooled by opinion polls that show Clinton winning by a decent margin! Get out and vote!

    • GM
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      The media has been portraying Trump supporters as racist sexist cavemen pigs for months.

      Some of them probably are.

      But this has had the effect that being a Trump supporter is not something one would want to admit in public.

      I too wouldn’t be surprised if there is a significant discrepancy between polls and actual votes

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

        We’ll find out soon enough which Trump supporters are “racist sexists cavemen pigs” — they’ll be the only ones left standing by him after this weekend.

  28. alexandra Moffat
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    trump may be dumped and Pence substituted – which is just about as bad. He is slimy and superficially calm, measured and thus “safe”.
    He has governor “credentials”.And he is a total theocrat. Very scary.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

      I agree. If Trump quits or is thrown out, we may face a more electable and potentially much more effective (in a bad way) candidate.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      I don’t believe there’s any mechanism by which Republicans can “dump” Trump. It’s possible, of course, that he would quit (not for the benefit of his Party or to help down-ticket Republicans, of course, but simply because he gets tired of having his nose rubbed in his mess). Then, however, because ballots are being printed and some jurisdictions have begun early voting, we’re off into uncharted waters. There be Trump dragons.

      • Posted October 14, 2016 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

        Yes, I’ve heard/read that only Trump could make this happen — and I sure don’t see that happening.

        We’ve started voting in MN. I probably will vote next week.

  29. WT
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    I agree with Jerry. Trump’s done. This is a big deal. He was already 5-6 points down in all poll averages off the back of the first debate and his subsequent behavior over the last week — with only a month to go, he was frankly already done before this came out. But this will have bigger repercussions.

    1) Yes, no one should be surprised Trump said something like this. It doesn’t surprise me, and seeing some Republican commentators and politicians react with shock and dismay over the last 12 hours is hilarious. They are either lying now, or they had deluded themselves previously. This is who Trump has always been, and it should have been obvious to anyone with a pulse.

    2) There are a handful of Republican congresspeople who have already renounced their endorsements. Why THIS comment, and not some of his others? For one, it’s not just gross and crude language — it’s bragging about his ability to commit sexual assault. For two, it’s on tape, which usually provokes stronger reactions in people than a quote in a transcript. And for three, there is a chunk of the GOP electorate (moderate and conservative women) that would actually be repulsed by this. Unlike disgusting comments aimed at Hispanics, blacks, or Muslims, this will actually lose them votes. I expect we’ll see more Republicans cut-and-run over the next few days. This is the kind of comment that causes people down-ticket to cut the cord.

    3) I expect Trump will still get 35-40% of the vote, bare minimum, because yes, a huge proportion of his voters will not be swayed by this or anything else. But visible unendorsements, infighting, and chaos will depress some proportion of them. It’s like old militia battles in war — the real casualties pile up when one side breaks discipline and fall into a rout. Some will stay home. Some will vote for Gary Johnson, or a write-in, or choose to only vote down-ballot. Even if it’s only 10% of them, that’s a few points. That’s significant.

    Right now, I would gladly put even money on Hillary not only winning, but winning by 5+ points. I think Democrats will win the Senate. Taking the House becomes plausible if she wins by 10-11 points — and something like 51% Hillary, 40% Trump, 8% Johnson, 2% Stein strikes me as a very plausible outcome right now.

    A Dem House would almost certainly evaporate in the 2018 midterms, but after the unprecedented gerrymandering efforts of 2010, I didn’t think the Dems would have a shot at the House again until 2020 or even later. That’s how bad things look right now.

    • Historian
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

      There are some who think that the Democrats won’t be able to retake the House until 2030. I doubt that even a landslide victory by Hillary this year can flip the House. What is now clear to close observers of American politics is that the 2010 election was extraordinarily important. The Democratic failure to effectively realize the potential of a Republican tsunami allowed the victors to redistrict both House and state legislatures to assure them political dominance for perhaps decades.

      http://www.vox.com/conversations/2016/10/5/13097066/gerrymandering-redistricting-republican-party-david-daley-karl-rove-barack-obama

      • WT
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        Yup. I was thinking of that exact article when referring to the unprecedented gerrymandering effort. It’s well worth a read, and more people ought to be aware of it.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

        It’s time for SCOTUS to revivify the “one person, one vote” doctrine to purge this unconscionable, and unconstitutional, gerrymandering.

        • Diane G.
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

          I don’t see how that ameliorates the gerrymandering effect?

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

            The Court will declare the gerrymandering done since 2010 to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause and order redistricting. Federal courts have exercised this authority since SCOTUS’s 1964 decision in Reynolds v. Sims.

            • Diane G.
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

              Thanks!

              *looks up Reynolds v. Sims*

              So how were things allowed to slip back into such egregious gerrymandering since then, I wonder? I’m guessing, no one minding the store…

    • WT
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      According to Jeff Blehar (@EsotericCD on Twitter, a writer for the conservative Decision Desk HQ), we’re already up to TWENTY ONE House/Senate/Governors (or candidates) rescinding their endorsements.

      Not people who were #NeverTrumpers or who pointedly made no endorsement — Republicans in or running for office who previously endorsed Trump, and have announced either that he should step down or that they will not vote for him within the last 24 hours. The dam is breaking.

      Sen: Thune, Sullivan, Ayotte, Crapo, Capito, Murkowski, Fischer
      House: Chaffetz, Love, Garrett, Byrne, Roby, Heck, Davis, Wagner, Hardy
      Gov: Herbert, Duagaard, Sandoval

      Meanwhile, Paul Ryan hasn’t yet unendorsed, but he did uninvite Trump to today’s rally in Wisconsin. He got booed for it.

      Deadlines are past in most if not all states, and early voting has started in some. At this stage, the only way Trump can be replaced is if he voluntarily steps down or if he dies or is otherwise incapacitated. Then the full 150 members of the RNC could vote on a replacement candidate, and electors in the electoral college would vote for that person instead. It would be unprecedented. But from what I’ve read, that would be a legal and valid process.

      Right now, Republicans are deservedly stuck in a lose-lose-lose situation. Stick by Trump? Unendorse and get booed by the Trumpkin base? Try to convince him to step down? You’re going to get hammered by voters for either of the first two options, and I’m skeptical that anyone is capable of convincing Donald Trump to do anything he doesn’t want to do.

  30. Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    It must be a generational thing. Bill Clinton did this but just doesn’t admit it. Dems never batted an eye

    • Mark R.
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

      Ahhhh, no. Bill Clinton engaged in consensual sex, Trump is condoning sexual assault. If you have a tape or a link or a photo or some other proof that Clinton “did this” I’d love to see it.

      • Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

        There are plenty of women who have already testified that his ‘consensual sex’ was hardly that. But Hillary and the Dems did exactly what you are doing right now. Silencing people and covering it up.
        Long and short, both parties are corrupt. Both Clinton and trump are horrible candidates. Neither would be a good choice in november

      • Carl
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

        Several women publicly accused Bill Clinton of forcible rape. Nothing was ever proven, so he gets a pass from legal point of view.

        However, if you admire Bill Clinton, or think he’s somehow better than Trump on this score, you should read the “biography” by Christopher Hitchens: “No One Left To Lie To”

        Under Betsey Wright’s supervision in the 1992 Clinton campaign, there was an entire operation funded with over $ 100,000 of campaign money, which included federal matching funds, to hire private detectives to go into the personal lives of women who were alleged to have had sex with Bill Clinton. To develop compromising material— black-mailing information, basically— to coerce them into signing affidavits saying they did not have sex with Bill Clinton.

        “Having sex” was the most fragrant and presentable way of describing the experience of certain women, like the Arkansas nursing-home supervisor Juanita Broaddrick, who was raped by Clinton while he was state attorney general in 1978. [See Chapter Six.] Even as the 1999 impeachment trial was in progress, NBC was withholding a long interview with this extremely credible and principled lady, whose affidavit sat in the “evidence room” at the House of Representatives. No Democrat ever went to look at the evidence, and this was not because of its presumed untruth. (By then, the use of the mantra “consensual sex” had become part of consensual, or consensus, politics.) And women who told the truth were accused, at best, of trying to lure a sitting president into a “perjury trap.” As if it were necessary to trick Clinton into telling a lie….

        Hitchens, Christopher. No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton (pp. xxxii-xxxiii). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.

        • Mark R.
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

          I in no way admire Bill Clinton, but have not done any in-depth research of the man. Sounds damning for sure…thanks for the information.

          • Carl
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

            Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you, personally, admired Bill Clinton.

        • Diane G.
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

          And there were equally strong forces in the Republican Party trying to get to the women and convince them to play the victim. It’s just possible the efforts Hitch documents were in response to such GOP machinations.

          • Carl
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

            I doubt it. Bill Clinton has always been a shrewd politician with a keen eye to his interests. He knew he’d have a problem, and set about managing it from early on. I suspect he was more than a step ahead of the Republicans on this. I agree Republicans must have had their own researchers, but they had the harder task, not knowing right where to look.

            • Diane G.
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

              ” I suspect he was more than a step ahead…”

              “Suspect” (on both our parts) is not proof. As for Hitch, I was much more comfortable with his secularism/antitheism than his politics. Not to mention some of his opinions about women.

              • Carl
                Posted October 8, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

                That Clinton felt the need to undertake such a task is the main take-away and the damning thing. As far as whose suspicion is right, I offer that Bill Clinton beat the Republicans at almost every turn, so why not in this instance.

                I have followed Hitchens since his early days as a self proclaimed Trotskyite. He was very far left on almost every issue. I’m not, but I enjoyed his honesty and the quality of his mind immensely. It was gratifying to see Brian Lamb ask him on a yearly basis for decades if he had rethought his socialism, and finally while still claiming to be a Marxist of some sort, admit that market economies perhaps provide better for humanity than socialized ones. Which politics caused you discomfort?

                As for his opinions about women, I must be unaware of or forgetting something. Is it the essay “Why Women Aren’t Funny?” What he writes there seems eminently reasonable. He doesn’t argue the patently false statement “no women are funny” only that on average, for evolutionary reasons, men are more funny – it’s part of the dimorphism of the species. Hitchens was champion of women and women’s rights.

              • Diane G.
                Posted October 8, 2016 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

                “…only that on average, for evolutionary reasons, men are more funny – it’s part of the dimorphism of the species.”

                Because he was such a science polymath and evo-psych is such an air-tight discipline…

                RE politics–as is brought up routinely, his rabid support for the wholly misbegotten Iraq war.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

      Jeez, I seem to recall a certain president being impeached over an extramarital affair. Plenty of Democrats were outspoken in their criticism of him, and none condoned his conduct. Hell, Al Gore ran so far from Monica’s blue dress that it cost him the 2000 election.

      • somer
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

        As you say there’s a world of difference between consensual and non consensual sex. I can’t understand why it has to keep being spelled out.

        And infidelity is not a Democrat thing. The Republican Congress led by sleazy Newt Gingrich paralysed the Clinton government and tried to impeach Bill Clinton over consensual affairs, whilst Gingrich himself was having affairs. He discussed divorce with his first wife as she was recovering from cancer in hospital and was unfaithful to both his wives.
        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633
        https://newrepublic.com/article/98097/newt-gingrich-scandal-hypocrisy

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

      The following is in no way an endorsement of Bill Clinton’s affairs: Having sex with an adult who wants to have sex with you (even if you shouldn’t do it) is not the same as groping and assaulting someone who doesn’t want sexual contact with you. Bill Clinton was sleazy as all get-out. Trump was/is a criminal who deserves to be on a sex-offender list much more than many of the people who are on it.

      • Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

        Ah… no. Bill Clinton didn’t just have sex with adult women who ‘wanted’ to have sex with him. But no worries. People will cover up for whoever they want to cover up for. The cognitive dissonance is amazing

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

      “Bill Clinton did this but just doesn’t admit it. Dems never batted an eye”

      I suspect if Clinton had been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women the reaction would have been comparable.

      • Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

        I kind of doubt that, since there were multiple women that came forward, accusing him of rape and molestation… And hillary, the media and the dem party attacked them and covered it up. Again, people will ignore what they want to ignore, if it’s their guy they’re protecting

      • Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

        And I mean the reaction from Dems would have been comparable.

    • Posted October 14, 2016 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      Hint: Bill Clinton isn’t running for President.

  31. Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Next we need bets on whether he’ll ever admit he legitimately lost the election. Given the Central Park Five, I say no.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      of course he will never admit he lost and we’ll reap the violence he has already set into motion.

  32. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    I suppose the hand wringers will continue to rub them together and fear the grand trump take over. I think that I’ve remained consistent with my politics throughout this two year election ad nauseam. The republicans are in a long term destruction phase and have been for several years now. Donald Trump will be lucky to get 5 states. I said that July 27 in the comments and before.

    Why anyone could think he still has half a chance, well…it’s time to confess to little understanding of the issues. Please look at the demographics and the math that is against the republican future. These people have no game plan except medieval and there are only so many people ready for that trip. I might go so far as to say Bush was the last republican president. Of course I could be wrong.

    Prof. Coyne has been correct to take all the bets he can get. It serves the hand wringers right. If the non religious box is getting more clicks than ever and the old white guys like trump are dying off, how is that good for republicans?

    • tomh
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

      Five states? I’d like to take that bet.

      • tomh
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

        & sub

      • Randall Schenck
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

        Well, the 5 states or less is a prediction, not a bet. I would certainly bet Hilary v Trump as the Professor has done. Those bets have to be much less than they were a few months back.

        • tomh
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

          As of yesterday in Vegas, you have to lay $333 to win $100, if you’re betting on Clinton.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

            Yeah, Clinton was about a 3-1 favorite in the betting markets earlier this week, and had climbed to about 7-2 before the “hot mic” tape was released. She’s on her way to 4-1 now, and it’s likely to get higher before it levels off (depending on how poorly Trump fares in the debate tomorrow).

            I see Trump as having a lock on 10 or 12 states and a nearly unshakable lead in maybe a half dozen others. If you want to lay odds on him doing better than that, I might be persuaded to cover your action …

            • tomh
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

              Thanks, but no thanks. I was responding to “lucky to get 5 states.”

    • Posted October 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

      I agree. This could easily be like 1972 or 1980.

      HRC could well win a [Y]uge majority of the states while only winning each state by smallish margins.

      Trump will poll about 40% (in my opinion) but the 40% will be so ill-distributed for him that his electoral college vote will be nearly nil — as you note.

      Looking at the poll-averaging at Politico, Trump only leads in Iowa and Ohio — and in Ohio, all the pools with him favored are from September or earlier.

      Donald: There is a conspiracy: A conspiracy of sane people who vote and want you nowhere near the White House!

      • rickflick
        Posted October 14, 2016 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

        “Trump will poll about 40%”

        But, if this was some election before 1920 when women got the vote, Trump would win a landslide. Terrible, but true. Men like John Wayne, James Bond, and Donald Trump.

        • Diane G.
          Posted October 14, 2016 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

          Sadly true.

          http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/in-a-mans-world-trump-would-still-win

          Defend yourselves, guys! (Or at least acknowledge how fortunate you are to have us ladies at the polls. 😉 )

          • Posted October 19, 2016 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

            “acknowledge how fortunate you are to have us ladies at the polls”

            Damned straight!

            And about to have one in the White House (as President)!

            • Diane G.
              Posted October 19, 2016 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

              Much appreciated. 🙂

  33. Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  34. Alpha Neil
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    An added bonus of all this is news articles on the BBC website that make repeated use of the word pussy. I always read BBC with an internal pretentious British accent so these articles are horrifying and fun at the same time.

    Why is everyone shocked that one of the biggest assholes on earth said awful things? Saying awful things is kind of what he does.

  35. rickflick
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    I’ve just been reading about Thomas Jefferson. “Thomas Jefferson – The art of power”, by Jon Meacham. The difference between Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Monroe, Madison…etc., vs Donald Trump is so stark as to bring about nausea.

    • Carl
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

      Try the Alexander Hamilton biography by Chernow, if you haven’t already. Hamilton had an extra-marital affair. His attitude and behavior after the discovery bears comparison to Trump or Bill Clinton. In his overall character, Hamilton stands as a giant compared to these two.

      If truth be told, Washington’s character (which did have some flaws)stands a good bit higher than that of Jefferson or Adams, but that isn’t much of put down.

      • rickflick
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

        I can sort of see your point, but Hamilton’s and Clinton’s indiscretions are fairly irrelevant in relation to the important political issues they faced. Hamilton was a Federalist and had monarchistic leanings – which could have spelled disaster for the US if he had prevailed completely. Jefferson balanced this against a strong democratic republican approach which has created what we now call the American Experiment. No comparison whatsoever to Donald Trump’s emotionally retarded rhetoric.

        • Carl
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

          Three cheers! Trump wouldn’t have a clue what you are talking about here with the Federalists vs. the party of Jefferson and Madison.

          The reason I want to see Trump lose is his stunning ignorance on so many topics. I also don’t think he’s particularly bright. Trump’s various statement’s about women and ethnic groups are not necessary for me to vote against him.

          • somer
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

            He can’t be compared to any ordinary politician, let alone a statesman or woman (tho quite a few of the founders were slaveholders they did have a profound sense of duty to the whites of the new nation and the stability of the country). Trump has no principles or responsibility whatsoever to other than his own immediate interest and power. He is incapable of feeling social remorse about anything or caring about any human being. He’s not even a particularly good businessman – he inherited vast wealth and his businesses produce no wealth or services for ordinary people. He probably pays no tax – at least it would be whatever he can get out of paying. He imported polish workers for the trump tower, paid them $8 per hour and had them sleep on the site. He’s also a foreign policy menace.

            • somer
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

              And he has a relationship to the truth that the rest of us have to the (hypothetical) parallel universe.

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

          It would be best to compare Trump or even Clinton with some characters closer to and after the invention of electricity. Besides Trump is a damn poor excuse of a person to compare to even Clinton, an actual President, considering Trump has not even been mayor of Hoboken. When we talk about Washington, Hamilton, Madison and such, we are talking about the inner circle of the founders. There is nothing today that compares or even comes close.

          Yes Hamilton had an affair with Maria Reynolds, a married woman but she and her husband were pulling a scam on Hamilton of sorts. He also admitted it in public and wrote a letter of confession about it. He was most concerned that his reputation for honesty in government be maintained and audits proved he never took a cent from the treasury. He would wipe the floor with the likes of Trump in every way a person could.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

        Now if the Republicans can only convince Trump to meet up with Aaron Burr on the Jersey Palisades …

        • Carl
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

          But then we would miss all the entertaining post loss Trumpplantions.

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

      I, on the contrary, find Jefferson far creepier than Trump – to hold such beautiful, inspiring speeches, and to make children to a slave woman. Sort of Jekyll & Hyde.

      • Carl
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Yes, there are definitely two sides of the ledger for Jefferson. He *owned* human beings. He knew it was wrong and agonized over it, but in the end only freed a handful on his death.

        On the plus, side he was perhaps the greatest influence on the man who did free the slaves. It was the logic of Jefferson’s thought and not his actions that Lincoln embraced.

        There were many in the founding generation who opposed slavery. Billions of people around the world today enjoy liberty they might not have, if the slavery issue had been addressed then, causing the American Revolution to fail. The American Revolution was much more than just some colonials separating from England, it was a revolution in the principles of government that has since spread around the world. May it continue.

        Jefferson was a flawed, yet great human being; Trump is a toad with almost no redeeming qualities.

        • rickflick
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

          Toads are cute.

          • Diane G.
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

            I’ve seen slime molds with more redeeming qualities than Trump.

          • Carl
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

            OK, OK. My dog has admonished me “we don’t insult toads in this house.” Substitute “stubby fingered buffoon with an orangutan hair transplant.” And that’s not an insult to orangutans – they wear it better.

          • somer
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

            +1 Trump’s more like a tapeworm. He was a genius and contributed to the new nation but he was a hypocrite about human rights – he slept with female slaves for years and he split up his slave families to sell slaves whenever he needed money

            • somer
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

              Sorry “He was a genius” – Jefferson was a genius. He did have a profound sense of duty to whites and the new nation but he was also happy to ruthlessly exploit his slaves

              • rickflick
                Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

                His hope was that slavery would end and once freed, blacks would be sent back to Africa so as not to represent a source of trouble going forward. He came to realize it would not happen in his lifetime.

              • somer
                Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

                In response to Rickflick. and I understand he slept with the slave/s after his wife, on her deathbed made him promise never to marry another woman as she was afraid her children would miss out economically if he did. He never remarried. But I gather he did also split up families to sell them once or twice. Admittedly he was living in such an institution which he made some unsuccessful efforts to change. But he didn’t free slaves either – though I imagine the class prejudices of the day would have made moving off the land,becoming a low paid professional in the north untenable and would have definitely have cost him his political career and influence and even (in the south) potentially incited a duel. Come to think of it the Donald could never have become a southern slave holder of note because his constant and indiscriminate verbal offensiveness and calumny would have got him killed in short order; wealth would have been no protection. And that terrible twos temperament is an integral part of the man.

              • rickflick
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

                Small correction: “her children would miss out economically if he did”. The way I read it, she had grown up with two mother-in-laws who treated her badly. She wanted her children to be raised by Thomas and the community at Monticello. It was apparently not an economic issue for her.

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted October 8, 2016 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

          Yes, well most of those in opposition to slavery were north of Virginia. Much easier to appose what you have no need for. Jefferson could never free all his slaves unless he wanted poverty much sooner than he got it. They were the capital to borrow the money he needed for all those finer things he was accustom to having. He also believed the state could supersede the federal so if he had made it to a later time, he may have been on the wrong side of the civil war that Lincoln won. Lincoln certainly had different ideas from Jefferson on states rights and constitutional law.

          • rickflick
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

            It’s very hard to make moral judgments from such a distant time and situation. Early in his career as a leader in the Virginia legislature Jefferson attempted to work against slavery by introducing bills to weaken it’s hold, but he was soundly defeated in his attempts. A point came when he decided to abandon the issue leaving it to a later generation to deal with. He was necessarily a proud and ambitious man who was compelled to weave a careful course toward his goal of building and protecting a democratic republic. Had he been an outspoken abolitionist, his base of support would have evaporated and the history of this country could have been vastly different.

            • Randall Schenck
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

              You are correct that Jefferson at a young age did work against slavery in the Virginia legislature but he turned very silent on the idea later and for most all of his life. His political life was wrapped up in being the leader of the democratic republicans who went against Washington and Hamilton and Adams and anyone who looked like a federalist. He was a great thinker and a great man but so many get carried away with much of it or ignore the lesser parts. He used Madison and his power over him to make his case for the other side while he was in the cabinet for Washington and after he resigned his post and went back to the farm. A very clever politician he was. He was more or less an SOB at times while Adams was President and he was Vice President.

              Don’t get the pedestal so high you can no longer see him. If we want to look at the Virginia farmer who may have fought for the north and to save the union I would rather think it Washington far more than Jefferson. Think of Jefferson as the founder of the two party system and hand to hand politics.

          • Carl
            Posted October 8, 2016 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

            Yes, it wasn’t Jefferson’s ideas concerning federalism that inspired Lincoln, it was his writings on liberty.

            All honor to Jefferson: to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that today, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.

            – Abraham Lincoln 1859

            • Randall Schenck
              Posted October 8, 2016 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

              Yes, and Jefferson certainly got all credit for that document although it got some editing from others. Also, Adams always thought he had written the required document earlier. But Jefferson did not participate as a soldier. He did not participate in the Constitution. He spent considerable time in France having a good time during the revolution. If I look for those who did the heavy lifting for much of the Revolution and getting the government started it would not be to Jefferson at the top of the list.

              • Carl
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 12:15 am | Permalink

                Jefferson had help on the declaration from Franklin, Adams and others. He also borrowed heavily from George Mason, another Virginia slave owner. Does this look familiar:

                That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.

                Jefferson authored the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, a large influence on our secular way of life. He (unconstitutionally) engineered the Louisiana Purchase and commissioned Lewis and Clark.

                He was a dirty campaigner – his party apparatus one time rumoring that John Adams was “hermaphrodite.”

                Jefferson drafted the “Kentucky Resolution” nullifying certain federal laws, in a dangerous way that had potential for sinking the young government.

                As Christopher Hitchens wrote, “Jefferson didn’t embody a contradiction, he was a contradiction.”

                People on this thread obviously have a deep knowledge of Jefferson. For those who might want to learn more, the very short biography. “Thomas Jefferson Author of America” is a good place to go. It deals with the noble and the ignoble, with the added bonus, its author is Christopher Hitchens.

      • somer
        Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

        If trump was in the slave holding era and lived in the south he’d be far more ruthless and revolting to them. He’d be raping all their women, especially the adolescents,unless they were ugly, working people to death, splitting up families when it suited etc. He just wouldn’t, for example play a role in fighting the civil war. He’s got no bravery but to be fair he’s not an obsessive genocidal hater like Hitler either. He wouldn’t organise a genocide; he just wouldn’t care if he caused it.

  36. Posted October 8, 2016 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    To tell the truth, I’m surprised there’s so much fuss about this. It’s terrible, of course, but it’s so consistent with the other things Trump has said that I find myself thinking, “Only NOW you noticed that Trumps an ass who should not be president??!!?”

    • Grania Spingies
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

      Yup, pretty much.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

      + 2

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

      Indeed. Trump’s stunning ignorance of an astonishing number of topics (as Carl mentioned above) has long been reason enough for me to be astonished that anyone considers him a reasonable candidate for the presidency of a major country.

  37. jamesisdead
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Coyne, My sentiments are certainly consistent with yours. It absolutely confounds me that he is still the Republican representative for President. I find this occurrence to be a remarkable step down that Trump was able to secure this nomination. Personally, I find this nomination certainly shows that the American populace is without any moral compass or reflects a true understanding of basic psychoanalysis and its true implications. If Trump were to secure the nomination of the presidency I would certainly be truly embarrassed for my fellow country men but would despair for the world’s other leaders. Trumps plan has been centered around hateful bigotry and xenophobia, the willful and consistent sexism that Trump espouses and I would certainly not feel safe if such a dire consequence were to come to fruition.   Regards, James Shumaker

  38. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know if this incident will finally topple Trump. But what would help Jerry to win his bets is if this environment now causes some women to step forward to say how this man was inappropriate with them.

  39. Mark R.
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    I think this will hurt him further because now the 2nd debate will probably be highly watched. Usually the 2nd debate isn’t as big a deal as the first, but after this there will probably be even more viewers than the first debate. And he’ll most likely do even worse. It will be fun watching him squirm onstage as women in the audience bring this up.

  40. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    All the Republican machers are coming out now with statements saying how outraged they are about Trump “as sons and husbands and fathers.”

    Shame none of them have Muslims or Latinos or African-Americans in their families; they might’ve run Trump out of the Party a whole lot earlier.

  41. Wayne Tyson
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Don’t collect your bets yet. Mike SixPence lurks in the wings . . .

  42. Wayne Tyson
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    I know a LOT of Dems who are pissed off at the Democrat Machine and Hillary for what they did to Bern. Some are voting Green. Others not at all.

  43. Siggy in Costa Rica
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Reading this I was expecting far worse than I heard in the clip. The comments here leave me with the impression that a lot of the readership lead a somewhat sheltered life. If you think this will be more than a speed bump for Trump, you overestimate how shocking this is to the majority of Americans. Most of your regular working class citizens are either going to get a chuckle out of it if they are male or a disappointed sigh if they are female. This sort of disrespect for women in the conversations of men among themselves is sadly fairly common in many social circles. You can judge him for it all you like, and many will, but for many this is just a “red-blooded American man being a man among other men”. The people who find this reprehensible didn’t like Trump to begin with. And of those who were already voting for Trump a formal, if insincere, apology will suffice to let them forgive him.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

      “This sort of disrespect for women in the conversations of men among themselves is sadly fairly common in many social circles”

      And even more common on the internet.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

      It’s not Trump’s hardcore supports who have a problem with this. You’re right; most of them won’t be offended at all.

      The real problem Trump has is with the Republican officeholders and establishment figures who have endorsed him. It puts them in an untenable position vis-à-vis the maintenance of their own public piety. If Trump’s toxic waste-dump backs up on them any further, they stand to lose not just the Presidency and the Senate (and, hence, the Supreme Court) for the time being. They’ll lose the women’s vote for the next generation.

      • Ken Phelps
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:17 am | Permalink

        Just in case there’s still anyone who doesn’t fully understand the profound insight of Trump supporters:

        • rickflick
          Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

          😉

  44. Wayne Tyson
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    I was raised in what you might call “redneck country,” and I was taught respect for women–and men. A real man, in my book, (in accordance with my upbringing) NEVER discusses his experiences with women at ANY time.

  45. Wayne Tyson
    Posted October 8, 2016 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    The “talking heads” on Tee Vee presume that men are not as offended by such slimy behavior as women. “Whar I come frum” the nearest man would have cleaned his clock on the spot! If not roast his balls for breakfast . . .

  46. Posted October 8, 2016 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    I haven’t read all the comments, but it seems to me that nobody has mentioned the real reason why Trump is now officially toast.

    Yes, yes. Of course. His supporters are going to stand by him. They’ll be no more upset by this than his earlier comments that he could commit murder at high noon in Times Square and nobody would blink an eye.

    But Trump has absolutely no get-out-the-vote infrastructure of his own and has instead been relying upon the Republican Party for his ground game. And that support is now dead.

    No candidate can win major office these days without a solid ground game. The ground game itself isn’t decisive; the candidate with a weaker ground game can still potentially win. But when it’s so overwhelmingly lopsided as it is now, it’s game over.

    On top of that, everybody who didn’t care for Trump but was going to vote for him anyway because either he’s not Hilary or because of the Supreme Court…well, he’s just lost the majority of those voters as well. The Republican establishment has made plain that they think Hilary isn’t as dangerous as Trump, including with respect to the Supremes — and everybody who’s similarly concerned is going to wake up with this over-the-top slap in the face from the establishment.

    I mean, think about it. A year ago, if somebody had suggested that Whitewater prosecutors would be endorsing a Clinton, and that the Speaker himself would be withdrawing support from the nominee, you would have wondered what they were smoking. But that’s the situation we’re in right now, and absolutely no candidate, despite the fervor of his core, can hope to compete in such an environment.

    The question is no longer who’ll win the election; it’s only about the dynamics of Trump’s defeat.

    Oh — and tomorrow night’s debate has an excellent chance of making even much of Trump’s core desert him. He’s on the ropes, he’s panicking…and he’s doubling down. He’s clearly never learned the first rule of holes, to the point that he’s going into the debate with a steam shovel. I personally wouldn’t be surprised at a complete on-air meltdown / explosion, though I wouldn’t bet money on it.

    Cheers,

    b&

    • WT
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      Absolutely correct re: turnout. I stick to poll averages and solid meta-analysis (538 or Princeton Election Consortium) when it comes to political races. It’s a lesson everyone should have learned after “Kerry’s winning because EXIT POLLS” in 2004 and “Romney’s winning once you unskew the polls!” in 2012. Don’t freak out over individual polls, but ignore the polls in aggregate at your own peril.

      However, there is a case to be made that the polls may be understating Clinton’s lead right now (and those don’t even reflect the last 24 hours yet). There have been leaks from both campaigns stating that their internal polls show that Trump’s worse off than the public polls do. And there has never been a presidential election in modern history with such asymmetry in turnout operations between the two campaigns. Hillary’s is the biggest and most data-driven to date; Trump barely has one at all. His entire strategy essentially hinges on activating the “missing majority” — motivating non-college whites who aren’t registered or don’t usually vote to come out to the ballot box. But there’s been no detectable surge in voter registration in that demographic: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

      Again, that is just a case to be made. I’m hesitant to assign it much weight. But the difference in turnout operations is genuinely without parallel in our modern presidential election history, so it could very well have an effect.

    • Carl
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

      “The Republican establishment has made plain that they think Hilary isn’t as dangerous as Trump, including with respect to the Supremes”

      I would like to read more about republican establishment thinking on Trump supreme court appointments. Can you point me somewhere?

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

      And who is the dude fondling his wife?

    • Kevin
      Posted October 8, 2016 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

      Wow

  47. Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    “Locker room banter” my …. I’m so angry, I could spit!

    It’s not the words he said! It’s the criminal actions he took, and clearly has no intention to stop taking, which his words are revealing!

    • Posted October 8, 2016 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

      And for every wretched politician and talking head to claims disapproval of his words, I claim “LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE”, because it’s NOT the WORDS that are so horrid and evil, it’s the mind behind the illegal, abusive, destructive acts, for which acts he should be tossed in jail (after suitable trial) and left to rot.

  48. Tom
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:21 am | Permalink

    Several weeks ago Wikileaks announced that it would release information damaging to Mrs Clinton.
    I think it odd that when this was released the recordings of Mr Trump’s remarks popped up and grabbed all the main headlines.
    Is this merely coincidence or was this recording held back for use at the right time?
    Incidently, although judging for across the pond, I think Mrs Clinton is a better choice for the American voter.

    • Posted October 9, 2016 at 5:05 am | Permalink

      “I think it odd that when this was released the recordings of Mr Trump’s remarks popped up and grabbed all the main headlines.”

      Coincidence, or perfectly orchestrated timing, it doesn’t, contrary to how Trump supporters are trying to spin it, mitigate what he said one bit.

      • Posted October 18, 2016 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

        That bit about the timing, though, gave me a thought: If the Clinton team had that Trump video on hand, ready to release to distract mainstream media from the Wikipedia salvo against Clinton, and deliberately succeeded in timing it just so…

        Then I see this battle between Trump and Clinton as a war, with the better potential Commander In Chief showing skillful strategy and tactics.

    • GBJames
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:41 am | Permalink

      “Is this merely coincidence…”

      Good point. There’s gotta be some kind of conspiracy here. Probably involving the Illumaniti and Area 51 government officials. And Mossad, of course. And why has news of Vince Foster’s murder gone dark?

      • GM
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:44 am | Permalink

        Well, the facts are:

        1. A lot of information about Clinton was going to be leaked and was leaked

        2. On the same day Trump’s tape appeared

        3. The media is basically completely silent about Clinton while all the headlines are about Trump

        4. Trump is hurt, Clinton escapes.

        Whether it is a conspiracy or coincidence, I don’t know, but those are the facts

    • charlize
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      This election has become so polarized that even the most devout worshipers at the altar of facts, reason and truth are willing to suspend all that in order to have their biases towards their hatred of the other candidate confirmed.

      Turns out that Trump actually stood up for beauty queen Alicia Machado against pageant officials less sympathetic to her weight gain.
      And his allegedly publicly naming her “Miss Piggy” and Miss Housekeeping has not been substantiated. She also does in fact appear in a sex tape of sorts.

      Trumps latest and so far greatest hit can also be seen as (however crude and tactless) an accurate observation as to how women can and do respond rather differently to men of wealth, fame, power. If reading up on the mechanisms of Mate selection seems too much of a chore google “trophy wife” and hit “images”
      And, yes, Trump will appear there too.

      • tomh
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

        “even the most devout worshipers at the altar of facts, reason and truth are willing to suspend all that in order to have their biases towards their hatred of the other candidate confirmed.”

        And your post is a perfect illustration of that. Trump “stood up” for Machado by continuing to trash her for her weight gain twenty years later. He never denied calling her Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping – slipping, “allegedly publicly,” into your description of events doesn’t negate the facts. And, no, there was not “in fact” a sex tape.

      • SA Gould
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

        Stood up for her? Was that as since as all his apologies and denials on everything he says and does? Please cite your source.

        • charlize
          Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

          I repeatedly tried posting links but this site does not appear to accept them. However, if you were truly interested in emerging from the comfort of your amniotic sac bathed in bias confirmation fluid, google is available to you to.

          • SA Gould
            Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

            The rules for posting on this site are available to *you.* Perhaps you could have read them.

          • Posted October 14, 2016 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

            Trump’s M.O. is always: Excuse his failures (“just locker room banter”) and when that doesn’t work, simply deny everything (“they’re all liars”, “it’s a conspiracy”*).

            These are not the moves of an honest man.

            He says he’s changed. Is there a single person on earth that honestly believes that lie?

            [* Well, yeah, the Democrat Party, along a good part of the electorate — including GOP members are united in opposition to him. If that’s a conspiracy, then I guess there is one. A conspiracy of voters to prevent him from soiling the White House.]

          • Posted October 18, 2016 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

            That reads suspiciously like an ad hominem attack, which would be a breach of Da Roolz…

          • Posted October 19, 2016 at 4:34 am | Permalink

            Charlize,

            Apologize for your snarkiness or you’re gone.

  49. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:51 am | Permalink

    After reading illuminating comments by Russell Blackford, Matthew Cobb’s comments on Twitter, wanted to say : I am glad to see a number of readers pointing out : this is all about admission of sexual assault. Full stop. Other interpretations lead to unproductive arguments over who says dirtier things, or who is more of a pig, as is evident by Trump and company’s responses – too easy to avoid the damning part of it.

    • GM
      Posted October 9, 2016 at 6:41 am | Permalink

      admission of sexual assault

      It’s interesting how the same people who repeat all the tine how Donald Trump lies about everything (which he indeed does) are ready to take his words literally when it suits them.

      Neither me nor you know what he actually did.

      • ThyroidPlanet
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 8:57 am | Permalink

        We know what he said. We have every reason therefore to make inferences based on what he said. There’s nothing controversial with that.

        But sure, it’d have to be resolved in the court of law, just like with OJ, or HRC.

        Where does that leave us? Are we to twiddle our thumbs?

      • tomh
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 9:57 am | Permalink

        GM wrote:
        “Neither me nor you know what he actually did.”

        How about all the women who have complained that this is typical behavior for him, beauty pageant contestants, employees, TV show applicants, etc. Think they know what he actually did?

        • GM
          Posted October 9, 2016 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

          Yes, they have

          Do we know they tell the truth?

          I cannot understand how supposedly smart and educated people can be so blinkered.

          Well, I actually can — the power of secular religions is just as strong as that of theistic ones, and social pressure to conform to groupthink can also be overwhelming.

          Anyway.

          The point is that in “polite company” only an extremely one-sided presentation of the role sex plays in the relationship between human males and human females is allowed. Females are portrayed as innocent victims that males prey on. And that’s it, you cannot say anything different.

          Which leads to an extremely distorted understanding of reality.

          The reality is that the optimal evolutionary strategy for males is to inseminate as many females as possible. Which leads to certain behavioral patterns, subject to environmental constraints.

          The optimal evolutionary strategy for the females is to secure as much material resources as they can for the optimal survival and social status of their much more limited potential offspring. Which leads to a different set of behavioral patterns.

          One of them is using sex as a means for securing material resources and advancement in the social ladder. I know this is a taboo subject, but it should not be, it is a fact of life.

          For every female I know that suffered some form of sexual harassment, I can think of several others who were/still are actively whoring themselves out in order to get ahead with their careers/get a favorable marriage/get material favors from males/etc. etc.

          I am sure you would observe the same if you opened your eyes and saw things for what they are.

          Women will not only let rich men touch them “inappropriately”, they will actively encourage it. That’s a fact of life. How do you know that if 20 years later they say they were “harassed”, they were in fact harassed?

          You don’t know that.

          But you are willing to immediately believe it because it fits your presuppositions about how the world works.

          • SA Gould
            Posted October 9, 2016 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

            How about when there are video tapes of him groping women? Does that work for you?

            • GM
              Posted October 9, 2016 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

              I haven’t seen them, but I didn’t say he never did it.

              What happens is that after sufficiently many women throw themselves at you because you have money, you start thinking that you can do anything. And then you end up doing the same to women who do not want it.

              The point is that the causal relationship is much more complex than the narrative of the unhinged sexual predator that is being pushed.

              • Posted October 18, 2016 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

                Watch the documentaries that start at Trump’s early childhood and education. Then, you can rethink what you wrote.

          • tomh
            Posted October 9, 2016 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

            “For every female I know that suffered some form of sexual harassment, I can think of several others who were/still are actively whoring themselves out…”

            Well, that settles it then. Damn women, always taking advantage of men. There oughtta be a law.

            • GM
              Posted October 9, 2016 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

              Sure, that is a proper argumentative response, I admit defeat

              • tomh
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

                Your argument is so specious that there is no proper response. Defending Trump because all the women might be lying, or, it’s not his fault because of “evolution,” or, it’s not his fault because so many women throw themselves at him, or, other bullshit theories. These are not arguments, these are merely rationalizations for your male-centered world view.

              • GM
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

                I am not defending Trump.

                All I am doing is exposing hypocrisy and deluded ideologically influenced thinking.

              • tomh
                Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

                Nice try. All you’re exposing is your irrational, male-dominant view of the world.

            • Posted October 18, 2016 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

              Maybe it’s time for a bit of roll change. Let’s pay the women more than men and leave the men struggling and whoring themselves out. How does that suit you, GM? We’ll even make sure it’s the men who have to get pregnant, with all the risks and scars from that, and then raise the kids, while struggling to put a roof over their heads at unfairly low wages. Sure!

              Meanwhile, as the men whore themselves out, the women will treat them like chattel, with condescension and disrespect, grabbing their body parts in an aggressive and even threatening way, all the way making like it’s no more than a game, accepted by all — or, at least, all those with power, all those who count, and all those who are willing to whore themselves to agree, so they might live a little longer and/or a little better in this short life.

            • Posted October 18, 2016 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

              Incidently, I see you put the blame of prostitution squarely on the women. Men are innocent? Where would whores be without men?

        • Posted October 18, 2016 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

          I would add that Trump lied either while bragging or about the brag being insignificant banter. Add the way he touches his own daughter publicly and what he’s said about her in public, knowingly into a hot mic, and I’d say the balance between which Trump words to believe are the ones in which he is bragging. Actions speak louder than words, as if his words aren’t loud enough.

      • somer
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 10:16 am | Permalink

        He said what he did on film – he tried to force himself on a woman and then he boasted about his intention to sexually assault women he was about to meet. As Ken Kukek explained that is legal evidence if anyone came forward. Its clear you see no problem with sexual assault

        • GM
          Posted October 9, 2016 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

          The exact words were “they let you do it”

          Sounds like consent to me

          • SA Gould
            Posted October 9, 2016 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

            “they let you do it”

            Riight… If you can get away with it- you can’t fight them off, or you can’t afford to lose your job (or are just trying to stick it out until you can get a new own), or if you too shocked the first time your boss does something similar.. you are *automatically*in the “they let you do it” (she consented) category.

            To men like Trump, “consent” only applies to himself.

            • GM
              Posted October 9, 2016 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

              As I said above, it’s quite probable that a number of women to which it happened did not want it.

              To go from that to completely denying the existence of golddiggers is insane.

          • Grania Spingies
            Posted October 9, 2016 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

            No, “they let you do it” is not the same as consent. Unless you think that every victim of domestic abuse is consenting because they don’t always run away or fight back.

            Don’t ever mistake silence for consent. There are way too many factors that feed into women (or men for that matter) submitting to intolerable abuse because they believe it is the safest option, either physically or socially etc.

            • GM
              Posted October 9, 2016 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

              I see, you’re from the “consent can be withdrawn after the fact” school of feminism

            • Posted October 18, 2016 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

              +111

          • Posted October 14, 2016 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

            You’ve exposed yourself pretty effectively. Thank you! Very good to know.

          • Posted October 18, 2016 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

            To me, Trump’s claim of, “They let you do it” looks like a lifetime of indoctrination to “be nice” added to fear of the power men hold in society, topped off with such shock at the indecent personal invasion, that no response can be mounted in time to make sense to the aggressor. Were a woman less hobbled by societal requirements for survival, her response would be turned against her by the likes of Trump, trashing her reputation, leading to her ostracization, which (as we know understand) can result in suicide.

            Never heard of such a case? Of course not. The dead tell no tales.

      • ThyroidPlanet
        Posted October 9, 2016 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        The question is : should any person be president given these specific statements. The answer is no. That’s it.

  50. Mike
    Posted October 9, 2016 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Trump is the end result of pandering to the Tea Party et al, and appealing to the baser instincts of its lunatic fringe.

  51. Posted October 14, 2016 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    I don’t care if Trump loses the election America is doomed either way.

    • tomh
      Posted October 14, 2016 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      Doomed? Sounds ominous.

  52. Posted October 14, 2016 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    I highly recommend Sam Harris’s latest post on Trump.

    Leave it to Sam to distill the Drumpf sewage to a pure serum/venom.


%d bloggers like this: