Sunday, October 09, 2016

Oh, NOW It is Unforgivable?

The leak of a recording of Trump's crude talk about women tells us more about the Democratic will to power than it does about Trump.

Sure, Trump said some crude things about women. Is it really a surprise that he isn't a sensitive sort? Few would defend his remarks. I don't.

But who doesn't know men like that? Who doesn't suspect that a lot of presidents and powerful men are like that?

Shoot, who hasn't been amazed and a little bit discouraged that there are women who seem to gravitate to men like that?

After celebrating the "Camelot" of John F. Kennedy's infidelity; after overlooking the abandonment and death of an intern in a submerged car of a Ted Kennedy; and after overlooking the serial abuse of women by Bill Clinton all through his career by arguing that sex (as if it was just "sex") is separate from policy (and that we should just "move on" and address real issues), I have no tolerance for the shocked face that Democrats are putting on about Trump's words.

Yes, Trump was wrong to say what he said. But it was back when Trump was a Democrat, recall, which might explain why the Days of Rage over this are being ginned up now.

Yet there is no outrage on the left over Hillary Clinton's serial corruption both in her actions and her ability to evade responsibility for her actions. The FBI itself has been corrupted by the expanding circle of corruption that she leaves in her wake.

Heck, Trump's supporters should boast that he can have as much p**** as he wants to thank him for keeping the constitutional right to bear arms legal.

What Trump said is revolting. What the Democrats are doing to demand Trump be shut down by feigning sudden outrage at the gambling going on in here is sickening.

I can't stand Trump. I don't like him. I didn't like him when he was a Democrat and businessman and I don't like him now. And this revelation is hardly a new way of looking at the highly flawed man.

But the ability of the Democrats and their media allies (if these are distinct populations) to suddenly be outraged about this kind of behavior in order to benefit Hillary Clinton, who should never be allowed near the Oval Office in a nation that values rule of law, is deplorable.

UPDATE: More, especially this which has the obvious Claude Rains reference that I display above.

Trump said it. He was wrong. But it was crudity and not illegality. Now let's "move on" shall we?

UPDATE: The media could focus on issues in the debate tonight, but they will be distracted by, erm, a furry mammal.

That's why their master created them, after all.

UPDATE: Yes, the Casablanca angle is truly the obvious one.

But if that author is bringing up a Star Trek angle where the shields are down and the warp drive is toast on the U.S.S. Trump, maybe we need to see how Trump handles the Kobayashi Maru scenario.

I hate this election. I didn't want Trump as the nominee but now that we have him and the alternative is the dangerously corrupt Clinton, what choice do I have but to vote against Clinton?

Given the polling in Michigan, I may have the luxury of voting for Johnson, it is true. But if it is close? We'll wait and see on that.

And in the meantime, as the Washington elites of both parties and the press gang tackle Trump over his remarks, you can see why I say that it is safer to have Trump in the Oval Office because all our national institutions will act as anti-bodies to constrain him.

UPDATE: Media-wise, I'm shocked that bias is going on in here:

Buried within the latest batch of e-mails from the hacker Guccifer 2.0, the Clinton campaign specifically singled out then-Politico and current New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman as someone they “have...a very good relationship with” and thus could assist them in the spin “achiev[ing] our objective and do the most shaping.”

This is shocking. Hillary was able to single out just one reporter as especially valuable?

That's pretty tough competition you beat out Maggie. Kudos.

Tip to Instapundit.