Witnesses: Trump Is Lying About Sexually Assaulting A People Magazine Writer
In his characteristically Trumpy way, Donald Trump has denied sexually assaulting People Magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff, suggesting she is too ugly for him to have propositioned (“Look at her, I don’t think so.” Charming!). But today, People published the accounts of several witnesses who have corroborated Stoynoff’s story. Brace yourself for a shock: it looks like Donald Trump is almost certainly lying about this . . . just like he lies about, well, pretty much everything:
Marina Grasic, who has known Stoynoff for more than 25 years, says she got a call from her friend the day after the attack. Stoynoff detailed everything about the attack, from Trump pushing her against a wall to the business mogul showing up at her massage appointment the following day, she says.
According to Grasic, her longtime friend was embarrassed and even thought of Trump’s then-pregnant wife when deciding not to come forward about the encounter.
“Natasha was also struggling about not hurting pregnant Melania if the story came out,” Grasic says. “Beyond just the attack, she was horrified by the vulgar circumstances under which she was attacked and propositioned to have an affair. She was there in a professional capacity, writing an article about their happy marriage, and after the incident Trump acted like nothing happened.
. . . .
Stoynoff’s former journalism professor, Paul McLaughlin, says that the writer called him in tears looking for advice the very night of the harrowing encounter. However, he cautioned her to remain quiet in fear of how Trump may retaliate.
“She wasn’t sure what she should do,” McLaughlin recalls. “I advised her not to say anything, because I believed Trump would deny it and try to destroy her.”
“It was tough decision but in a he said/she said we believed she would lose,” the professor said in a tweet regarding the incident. “He seemed rather nasty at the time.”
And it goes on and on. Liz McNeil remembers Stoynoff saying Trump had “shoved her against a wall.” Mary Green relates that Stoynoff told her: “He took me to this other room, and when we stepped inside, he pushed me against a wall and stuck his tongue down my throat. Melania was upstairs and could have walked in at any time.”
There’s even a witness who disputes Melania Trump’s claim that she didn’t run into Stoynoff on Fifth Avenue afterwards.
It is true that none of these people witnessed the attack. So what? Unless these six people are all completely fabricating the same story, why would Natasha Stoynoff tell them about this 11 years ago, and remain silent about it until Trump ran for President? Not to sue him; the statute of limitations has surely run on a civil suit. Not to derail a presidential bid; nobody is saying Stoynoff had a crystal ball that could see 11 years into the future. No, the conclusion is clear: Trump is lying, and lying big. (Stoynoff says in the story that maybe Trump has assaulted so many women in this way that he just forgot this one. That strikes me as overly generous on her part, to a fault.)
Why does this matter? Because if Trump is lying, it’s relevant. And Trump is lying all the time. It’s particularly egregious now, because he is lying and smearing the women who are telling the truth.
When Bill Clinton did this, most Republicans attacked him for it. Some were doing so because they were partisan hacks — and those people are the scum defending Trump today. Some did so out of principle, and they condemn Trump today like they condemned Clinton.
Trump has killed the GOP’s chances of taking the White House this year. Don’t let him kill your intellectual honesty too.
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
Oh, no! He’s criticizing Trump again! Time to carp carp carp!
Patterico (bcf524) — 10/18/2016 @ 7:50 pmAnd I predict lots of vulgar crap by some commenters.
What an awful election.
Simon Jester (c63397) — 10/18/2016 @ 7:51 pmOh goodness! A journalism professor would never lie. Why, those fine scholars teach ethics!
ProLifer (ea6c4f) — 10/18/2016 @ 8:08 pmAnd indeed, she feared being destroyed. The press is so very helpless! No way they could lash back at such a powerful man. Plus, it would have created a sex scandal, which would soil the media’s pristine reputation for probity.
ProLifer (ea6c4f) — 10/18/2016 @ 8:11 pmNow I believe that he did rape the 13-year old on Epstein’s island. The one who is suing him.
Leviticus, I apple-gize for arguing with you about it.
nk (dbc370) — 10/18/2016 @ 8:21 pm3 weeks before the election. Right.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/18/2016 @ 8:21 pmhow about them cubs?
narciso (d1f714) — 10/18/2016 @ 8:24 pmNo, I don’t believe any of the Cubs were ever on Epstein’s island.
nk (dbc370) — 10/18/2016 @ 8:34 pmThe one who is suing him.
You mean the one whose case was thrown out in California because the lawyers gave a fake address and phone number ?
That 13 year old ?
Are you sure she exists ?
Mike K (90dfdc) — 10/18/2016 @ 8:53 pmforget it mike, it’s chinatown,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/18/2016 @ 8:56 pmOnly Gene Simmons can stick his tongue down a woman’s throat. We rate this mostly false.
Pinandpuller (e82b4c) — 10/18/2016 @ 8:57 pmIt was dismissed for failing to state a federal cause of action. The court held that statutory rape is not a violation of a minor’s civil rights under federal law. And according to Snopes the girl brought it pro se — without a lawyer. But, yes, there are a lot of problems with the case, and I initially defended Trump.
nk (dbc370) — 10/18/2016 @ 9:06 pmhttp://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
nk (dbc370) — 10/18/2016 @ 9:08 pmWhen it’s carp, carp, carp it’s time to fish in a different hole.
Pinandpuller (e82b4c) — 10/18/2016 @ 9:09 pmWell, the thought occuured to me yesterday or the nght before that the Clinton people hadn’t and wouldn’t send two false stories to the same newspaper, and if the Jessica Leeds story was false, that meant the Natasha Stoynoff story had to be true. But, at the same time, the Natasha Stoynoff story also sounded implausible, because she was a media personality, and his wife could have walked in at any time, (even though she was expected to be sway for enough time to try this) so Donald Trump would have been taking a big risk. Also, Donald Trump does something here that nobody else reports.
I am not sure where the logic takes you.
Why did she still do a friendly story? It’s nt just being silent – it’s continuing with the assignment. Did she warn off other women during the years? Are we to believe that she told people only immediately after the fact? That should not be the case, so who was told in the interim?
She’s also in a dispute with Melania.
An ignorant Melania meets her in the street, and coincidentally Natasha has a friend with her too at the time, and says why don’t we see you any more? Melania denies they were friends.
So now we have a checkable fact in dispute:
Did Melania know her well enough to recognize her on the street?
Sammy Finkelman (22cc00) — 10/18/2016 @ 9:10 pmThe GOP killed its own chances.
steveg (5508fb) — 10/18/2016 @ 9:16 pmThey had “teh deepest bench evah!” and out of that emerged Trump.
To me, that shows that the GOP mismanaged the candidates, and misunderstood the needs of its base.
Trump moved into the GOP void and won handily.
Preibus is responsible for not controlling the primary. He let 17 people run.
Trump saw he could easily “divide and conquer”… plus candidates 1-16 were not deep. At all.
They couldn’t beat the vegeratormatic salesman from the QVC channel
Women and Men take note.
Say something to people (plural) asap
write it down in an email or a journal
My guess is that some of the corroborators of this story are actually new to the friendship and/or story. maybe even friends so new that they could not have heard any original story about Trump and instead found out about it in Sept 2016
steveg (5508fb) — 10/18/2016 @ 9:21 pmPlenty of sites are all pro-Trump all the time and are happy to trade credibility for profit. Gateway Pundit will never slam Trump. Sure, he gets linked by Drudge for treating a stupid and obviously untrue tweet as if it were golden evidence of voter fraud. So his credibility is shit. But pro-Trump! So maybe you’d like that better.
Patterico (186129) — 10/18/2016 @ 10:19 pmWell now, heh heh, it looks like Mr Trump has changed his view on Shariah Law Fritz Hollings
Pinandpuller (e82b4c) — 10/18/2016 @ 10:23 pmI know the Pattriarchy runs Patterica.
It’s more about the people who go fishing on some guy’s land and complain about what they catch.
The only fish running right now are Tuna and Cod.
Pinandpuller (e82b4c) — 10/18/2016 @ 10:29 pmpig sniffers like natasha lie all the time
jesus christ being a propaganda slut is what this trashcan does for a living
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/19/2016 @ 3:09 amOur esteemed host explains, succinctly, why some of us cannot vote for Mr Trump:
There is as much ‘proof’ that Donald Trump did these things as there is that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick. Why is it that some people accept, almost unquestioningly, Mrs Broaddrick’s claims, yet reject out-of-hand the claims being made by Mr Trump’s accusers.
Actually, there’s more evidence against Mr Trump, because he has already admitted, on tape, to groping women without their consent. It isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt in any individual case, but it sure meets the preponderance of the evidence standard.
If Hillary Clinton was a decent human being, she’d be up that 50 points she thinks she should be. If we had nominated any of the other sixteen Republican candidates, Mrs Clinton would be down the 50 points she ought to be.
The intellectually consistent Dana (f6a568) — 10/19/2016 @ 3:32 amUnless these six people are all completely fabricating the same story
nonono there’s only one person what needed to be lying and that’s a greedy trashcan what was wanting to make a slicky dollar off a casual social encounter with a wealthy powerful man (Mr. Trump)
the encounter supposedly happened in december 2005 right at the exact same time charlize was the focus of a campaign what was oscar-buzzing her really hard for north country, buzz what people magazine writers are all up into yes yes yes they are
and guess what magazine [pdf] was on the newstands all through december
colour me, for one, super duper dubious!
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/19/2016 @ 3:51 amThere is as much ‘proof’ that Donald Trump did these things as there is that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick.
oh my goodness
Juanita Broaddrick is of unimpeachable character what has led a decent moral life
Natasha on the other hand is a journalist hello
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/19/2016 @ 3:53 amTrump hasn’t killed my intellectual honesty,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/19/2016 @ 4:10 amClinton has honed it.
Don’t you get it?!? None of this matters… there’s nothing we can’t fix now!
http://i1.wp.com/heatst.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/jeat-fighter-breast-cancer.jpg?crop=0px%2C255px%2C3000px%2C1476px&resize=1320%2C650&strip=info
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/19/2016 @ 4:58 amSomeone needs to ask all these women why they didn’t come forward during the GOP primaries. Not a one. It suggests either that they’re lying or someone approached them and got them to time their announcements, probably with monetary inducements.
Gerald A (c3c15b) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:04 amBecause Juanita brodderick has been practically invisiblevfor 17 years, wheteas they will get the 24/7 treatment, because we still don’t know who burned the huntress’s church 8 years ago, because voldemort is still on the street despite speedway bombing and his minions other work, caprice
narciso (d1f714) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:14 amSomething happened just before the women came forward to say that Trump groped them.
nk (dbc370) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:14 amWait, wait, don’t tell, it’ll come to me ….
Yeah, I remember, now.
A video tape came out.
In which said Trump said that he would just go right up to women and star kissing them.
And grabbing them by the _ussy.
And getting away with it because he was rich and famous.
Before the tape it was “you did/I did not”.
After the tape it was “I did/yes you did”.
Condemned out of his own mouth.
Which looks like a butthole.
A butthole with external hemorrhoids.
Like Susan hoerchner ‘vouched’ for Anita hill, 25 years ago, what is this groundhog day?
narciso (d1f714) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:21 amnuffin gonna change my love for trump u oughta know by now how much I love trump
happyfeet (f8ad62) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:26 amYou say it, Rick astley, btw did people magazine ever apologize to George zimmerman, to the via fraternity.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:35 amWe have a press nearly as corrupt as Malaysia’s ask effendi ibrahim, and there are other resonances.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:37 amWho else was on the grapevine that slandered ibrahim to western audiences?
narciso (d1f714) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:43 amThis is so irrelevant when you consider the bigger picture.
But Trump has no bigger picture. It’s all about how awesome he is and how bad his competitors are. This is the perfect response to a guy who lied about Ted Cruz’s dad being a murderer.
That’s why this attack failed on Bill Clinton and actually drove his rating up, but it’s totally demolished Trump. Two democrats who treat women like meat, but one is a presidential sort of liar, and the other would be a hobo if he hadn’t been born into immense wealth and corruption.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:47 amExactly:
Even if Trump is a serial groper, this is a partisan hit job.
That every rational conservative told everyone in the world that Trump was vulnerable to these attacks, and told them repeatedly over the past 18 months, just goes to show that the GOP is not serious about their constituents, not serious about the supposed R platform, and seriously deluded.
We are so F’ed.
Steven Malynn (5c1dae) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:49 amBut Trump has no bigger picture.
Epigramatical.
nk (dbc370) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:50 amhahaha
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:09 amExactly, Gerald. And all this 3 weeks before the election. I call bullsh*t and I’m appalled that so many are taking the rat bait.
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:22 amOK. Let’s just give Hillary and her henchmen the presidency so we can get back to complaining about crooked they are and how screwed we are just like in the good old days of Michel/Dole Congress.
crazy (d3b449) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:24 amLast cycle it was “born into wealth and a political dynasty” when Romney was the candidate. You are a
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:25 amfooltool of the left, Dusty.Narciso? You should’ve been a journalist, your instincts are top-notch and, like an elephant, you never forget.
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:27 amThe deal is, you have to believe Trump.
Face it f**ktards, you walked right into this.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:28 am30. narciso (d1f714) — 10/19/2016 @ 6:21 am
I thought about that, too, because Anita Hill was lying, (as could be determined from checkable facts, like the question of whether she avoided Clarence Thomas, and her not only ridiculous, but extremely tendentious and political explanation that fit in with Democratic Party propaganda as to why she followed Clarence Thomas into a new job: Because the Department of Education was maybe going to be abolished.
That would not have abolished the jobs of most of the people working there, and she was Civil Service. And the threat was probably pretty much over by the time.
Sammy Finkelman (22cc00) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:40 amnk @29. In the 2005 video Trump said they let him do it, and he also said he did not succeed in seducing a married woman even though he went so far as to take her out shopping for furniture.
Sammy Finkelman (22cc00) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:43 amActually I believe Trump. But it’s a tough slog. An uphill row.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:44 amYep, Steve, or believe the people who are doing their damnedest to get Demoness Dowager Hillary Clinton elected, by any means necessary. You may be projecting here…
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:44 amA majority of the people believed Clarence Thomas after both he and Anita Hill had testified, but the Democrats kept on repeating that Anita Hill was telling the truth and was believed by people at the time, and over time, more people came to believe Anita Hill because there was no defense being put up for Clarence Thomas and what they said was going uncontradicted.
Now I always believed that Anita Hill was pressued into going public. And while I cannot find a reference to this on the Internet, I remember there was a round robin letter signed by Yale Law School graduates asking her to go public. It’s in the testimony somewhere, mentioned by some Senators. It might have been a letter merely urging her to tell the committee.
Anita Hill gave all the signs of being pressured to go public in order to stay consistent with what she had said before, and was trying to tell as small a lie as possible.
I actually don’t think she invented the story in 1991 as Clarence Thomas seemed to think, so if tis is the high tech lynching of Clarenece Thomas, then Natasha Stoynoff did tell this story privately before, but was maybe not entirely consistent on what she said. And taht claim about Melania Trump saying why don’t we see you anymore needs explanation. I mean, was she a frequent or even occasional guest?
What Anita Hill had done is, whenever she was asked why she quit her job, say that it was because she was sexually harassed. Actually, she wasn’t very good at it.
Now you may know that David Brock originally was going to write a book about the Anita Hill leak And then instead, he writes a book “The Real Anita Hill” about bad things about Anita Hill, and I wouldn’t count on it all being true. And drops the whole idea of writing about the leak.
We know something about the leak, but only about the last stage. Anita Hill had to first tell the Senate Judiciary Commitee, which dismissed it as irrelevant even if true.
I think David Brock was already protecting Clinton when he wrote the book The real Anita Hill.
Or that was when he joined Team Clinton.
Because I think Bill and Hillary Clinton were probably at the heart of the leak – I mean someone had to organize, and sign, that round robin letter. And it was a round robin letter – no first dssigner or organizer identified.
Anita Hill came from the Yale Law School graduating class of 1980 and Clarence Thomas from 1972. Hillary was 1972 and Bill was 1973 (Yes, Hillary was a year ahead of Bill, although she was one year younger. Bill had spent time as Rhodes scholar, although he dropped out the second year.)
Bill Clinton announced for presdent the day the Anita Hill story became public.
Sammy Finkelman (22cc00) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:47 amhappyfeet (28a91b) — 10/19/2016 @ 3:53 am
Actually she didn’t, not at that time, and that was part of the reason she didn’t go public.
Besides, she was politically tied to Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton knew how to cpick his targets.
Sammy Finkelman (22cc00) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:49 amSammy, he said what I said he said. He did not ask “Madam, may I?” He just went up and started kissing them and groping them. And after he did that, they “let” him by not slapping him, or kicking him, or macing him, or changing their seat on the plane, or running out of the bedroom at his house, etc.. Patterico has the video up some twenty or thirty posts back. I don’t want to see it again. You can go and find it for yourself if you want.
nk (dbc370) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:49 amThe intellectually consistent Dana (f6a568) — 10/19/2016 @ 3:32 am
Sammy Finkelman (22cc00) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:00 am50. nk (dbc370) — 10/19/2016 @ 7:49 am
That’s what he said. But he also said that, when he did that, they didn’t stop him, which implied he wouldn’t have been able to do it if they objected, presumably because it wouldn’t be very satsfactory to him if they were wriggling.
I don’t think that’s the definition of “letting” him do it.
But, in any case, these women all say they fought him off, ran away, and so on, which si waht you just said they did NOT do. Now this is what would likely happen in real life. So Donald Trump was at least lying about women letting him do it.
He also says that he wanted to to sleep with one particular woman, and takes it for granted that it required consent, which he says he did not obtain, and notes that he put some effort into it. (He then insulted her, and said she was now trying to make herself very attractive.)
Sammy Finkelman (22cc00) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:14 amAnd the Clinton hits just keep rolling in. New journalist has come forward alleging three assaults by BJ in 1980.
National Enquirer has detailed report in Hill’s hits and trysts.
Anonymous claims to have a video of BJ on top of Epstein’s thirteen-year-old sex slave.
Crikets, “But Trump is VULGAR!!! Eleventy times Seven!”
‘Tards.
DNF (755a85) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:14 am@nk:Sammy, he said what I said he said.
Don’t forget that time he said he wanted to murder people on Fifth Avenue. I don’t understand why that confession is getting drowned out by these others.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:21 amCan we get any relatives of victims of Trump’s confessed murderous impulses to step forward? There’s still time before the election.
If Hillary wins there will be so many enemies of the people to deal with, she might not get to Trump right away.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:22 amDon’t forget that time he said he wanted to murder people on Fifth Avenue.
No! That’s not what he said. He said he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and the f***tards who support him would still support him.
And his f***tards are still proving that he told God’s honest truth.
nk (dbc370) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:30 amCan we get somebody to give Gabriel an honesty injection? Gabriel, I’ve said it before, you are the most dishonest commenter on this site.
nk (dbc370) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:32 am@nk:He said he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and the f***tards who support him would still support him.
I don’t think he actually used the word f***tard, can we get Politico to factcheck that?
Gabriel, I’ve said it before, you are the most dishonest commenter on this site.
Well, you’re applying a double standard to the two statements. He didn’t say “I did” grab them by the p*, he said “you can”; just like he said he COULD shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue.
You’ve decided to freight one with a bunch of implications you don’t allow to the other. One you acknowledge to be hyperbole, because it suits you to do so, and the other you insist is some kind of confession.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:36 amIf Marco Rubio were the nominee, tonight’s debate conversation would be steered toward illary Clinton’s disastrous tenure at State as well as a concise prosecution by Rubio about illary’s reckless and illegal handling of national security documents.
Rubio would no doubt illuminate the recent announcement of potential prison time awaiting General Cartwright for mishandling information.
Instead, we’re going to be talking about the National Enquirer and the definition of groping.
Yay, America!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:37 am@Cruz:If Marco Rubio were the nominee
He’s be at 35% and we’d be hearing about the time he called a kid a f*t in third grade.
Oh, and he’d be telling us to pay no attention to Wikileaks, and all about his immigration reform plan which is 5% striciter than Hillary’s.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:38 amNK is right. You’re being intellectually dishonest and your response to him is an effort to muddy the waters and comes across as obnoxious.
Your argument is that Trump’s confession to murder was a joke, therefore his confession to sexually assaulting women is not credible. You will now deny this is what you meant because that’s how internet arguments work. Trump did not confess to murdering someone… he praised the loyalty he has from his supporters, who are indeed f***tards and Trump very much thinks so too. Trump’s comment about women was also self-praise of the way women tolerate what he does.
In both comments, Trump has the same basic premise: because he is special, he can break the rules others abide by. He doesn’t understand that these rules make us better people. I’m a better person when the sexual activity I engage in was welcomed by a woman. Trump doesn’t get this. I’m a better person when those who are my friends or loyal to me are honest with me and about me, and my friendship was earned because I’m a good person rather than an aristocrat in a corrupt system. This concept isn’t in Trump’s head.
This is similar to how Hillary sees the world, but she doesn’t laugh off rules just because she can, and then boast of it. She simply ignores rules that would make her accountable or interfere with her corruption. Trump would simply do the same, but worse.
It’s beyond tedious that this has to be explained, and you shouldn’t think your defense of Trump is fooling anyone or making any difference. America is rejecting Trump and I’m proud.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:41 amRubio would obviously be doing a lot better than Trump. No doubt the careful strategy used against Trump has peers for every GOP candidate, but Hillary is an exceptionally awful candidate herself and is totally beatable.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:44 am@Dustin:NK is right.
No, he’s not. He’s selectively interpreting the Trump b–sh-t to make it more sinister than it is, and not doing so when it would be absurd even to him.
And you’re no better than he, or the rest of the country that is chasing Buzzfeed squirrels instead of trying to defeat the person who is currently strangling our liberties.
But nk has been honest enough to say that he prefers Hillary to Trump. Which is fine. Just come out and say so.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:45 amI apologize, Gabriel. My phrasing makes it seem like I’m talking to you. I’m talking about you.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:47 am@Dustin:Rubio would obviously be doing a lot better than Trump.
He sold out the base already with the gang of 8. That’s why he was rejected in the primary. He’d be a Romney, a genteel opponent careful to make no unpleasantness. And the media would get to define him for the vast majority of voters who have no idea who he is even now.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:48 amI’m Hillary Clinton and I approved this ad.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:48 amDonald Trump said:
Trump said he could do anything. “Grab them by the pussy” was his example of what he said he could do.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:49 am@Dustin: I’m talking about you.
I know. The long-time regulars have always like to do this “Mean Girls” shtick where they talk about people they disagree with instead of talking to them. And it’s because they forget that this is characters on a page, not a high school with cliques.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:49 am@Dustin: Then why didn’t he say “I can do anything?” Why did he say “you”, which is what Americans say when they are speaking hypothetically?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:50 am@Dustin: He said “I” about the kissing part. Why didn’t he say “I” about the other?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:51 am@Dustin: And shooting people on Fifth Avenue was another example Trump used of what he could do.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:52 am@Dustin: I’ll repeat my challenge though. nk has been honest enough to say he prefers Hillary to be elected rather than Trump. He did not, to my knowledge, say he was willing to do anything to make that come about, just saying that he thinks Hillary would be less bad. Which is fine, he came out and said so.
What say you?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:54 amOh I see that was DRJ. My mistake then. But I’ll ask her too:
nk has been honest enough to say he prefers Hillary to be elected rather than Trump. He did not, to my knowledge, say he was willing to do anything to make that come about, just saying that he thinks Hillary would be less bad. Which is fine, he came out and said so.
What say you?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:59 amWhy does Trump sometimes talk about himself in the third person? Maybe for the same reason he pretends to be his own publicist. So he can brag about himself.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:02 amNo, Gabriel, you are lying again. I did not say that Hillary would be less bad. In fact, I said that I doubted that she would be less bad. I said that I did not think that “she would be so much worse that we needed to put Trump and his baggage in the White House to prevent it”.
You acknowledged my comment at the time, and you seemed to understand it. Are you by any chance getting hormone treatments for prostate cancer? They have been linked to dementia.
nk (dbc370) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:03 amYes, here’s your problem. Why you will lose. I’m on your side. Eventually. Not whole heartedly Yet I get insults.
I’m not projecting anything. The man bragged about not getting the clap as his personal Vietnam war. I am second to none in my disdain for John McCain the politician. But I would never denigrate his service as a Naval aviator. Also, as in so many things, Trump was just wrong when he said McCain was only a hero because he was caught. McCain was a hero for flying the mission before he was caught.
http://valor.militarytimes.com/recipient.php?recipientid=23680
I don’t like the man. But I don’t see how it helps me to lie about him. He was brave.
It pains me, coronello, that we are having the disputes we are having. I am not projecting. I am crying, not on the outside, over the country I’ll be leaving my descendants.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:04 amAs I said before, Gabriel, Hillary is horrible and Trump is bad. The only reason I would vote for Trump is to try to keep Texas from turning blue, which now is a distinct possibility thanks to Trump. He’s a loser as a person and he is going to lose.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:06 amGabriel Hanna, that is a distinction without a difference. You’re saying he supports Killery, will encourage anyone who listens to support Killery but he just won’t vote for her? Is that a political position or a political charade? You can’t be for somebody and at the same time you’re not for that somebody.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:06 amAnd that’s about enough. I don’t want to miss lunch. Sunshine and Moonflower are cooking today and they make the best soy-tofu-watercress ragout in the commune.
nk (dbc370) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:06 am@DRJ:Why does Trump sometimes talk about himself in the third person?
“You” is in fact second person. Was he telling Billy Bush what Billy Bush could do? That would be the most literal interpretation. But it’s obviously not what he meant.
@nk:I said that I did not think that “she would be so much worse that we needed to put Trump and his baggage in the White House to prevent it”.
Well, that is a preference for Hillary over Trump. I characterized you fairly, but I don;t blame you for resisting the word “prefer”.. You are not a supporter of Hillary, no, and I explicitly acknowledged it. But you think Hillary should be president if the only other choice is Trump. That’s what #NeverTrump means: that keeping Trump out is the most important outcome of the election.
Are you by any chance getting hormone treatments for prostate cancer?
Hurr hurr prostate and hormone jokes!
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:08 amA patriot sums up Election 2016. Thanks, Steve57.
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:10 am@Rev:Gabriel Hanna, that is a distinction without a difference. You’re saying he supports Killery, will encourage anyone who listens to support Killery but he just won’t vote for her?
you are not being fair to nk and I said no such think. If I think strychnine is less deadly than cyanide, that does not mean I am planning to drink a bottle of either, or thinking that anyone should.
nk and I disagree over who is which, that’s all. I’m not bothered by the prostate and hormone jokes because I’m an adult. He’s being a lot more forthright than most.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:11 amI told you what I think he meant in comment 67. The one you thought nk wrote. Poease read to the end of the comment.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:11 amThat’s how some of us view this election. How can you say this and then act like you don’t understand that view?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:12 am@DRJ:I told you what I think he meant in comment 67. Poease read to the end of the comment.
I did read it and I think your interpretation is wrong. That does not mean I did not read your comment.
When someone says “I’ve done well in America. America is a great country, because you can start out with nothing and end up rich”, are they claiming themselves to have started out with nothing and are rich now? Or are they speaking hypothetically?
And what if instead they said “I’ve done well in America. America is a great country, because I started out with nothing and ended up rich”, then it would be obvious they are making a claim about themselves.
Trump is a bullsh-tter. He says things with no regard for their truth value. Sometimes he tells truth and sometimes lies and sometimes says things so vague as to be trivial or meaningless.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:15 amTrump supporters will now start saying the NeverTrump people are to blame for Trump’s loss because we turned voters against him. They think we are mad because we couldn’t convince GOP voters to pick a conservative, but this isn’t anger. This is resignation because this was a winnable election but Trump blew it.
Trump and his supporters are never go blame. To a liberal like Trump, talk is what matters most. The fact that he has done nothing to win is not his fault. And it’s disappointing to see the GOP go from moderate left to full left.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:15 amSo Trump said “I can kiss them” and “do anything” because he’s a celebrity. But “Grab them by the pussy” is what other people do, not him?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:17 am@DRJ: How can you say this and then act like you don’t understand that view?
I understand it perfectly. And I keep saying so. But because we’ve all decided to take “sides”, anything I say in defense of people voting for Trump is interpreted as being on Team Trump.
Just like the Rev did just now, denying that it is possible for anyone to prefer Hillary to Trump without “supporting” Hillary. He’s decided anything against Trump puts you on Team Hillary.
I like the Rev just fine, and he and I are on the same page more often than not. I call him out when I think he’s wrong just like I do you. I like you just fine for what it’s worth.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:18 amHe stopped talking in the first person because he was generalizing about himself and other celebrities, and the benefits of being a celebrity. The downside is that people record celebrities and use the recordings later.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:19 am@DRJ:But “Grab them by the —–” is what other people do, not him?
He didn’t specify, he used an impersonal pronoun. He may have meant it your way, or not. There is no way to know from his words alone. If his words here are a confession, then so are his “shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” words. In that case he actually did say “I”, so we should be looking for relatives of his confessedly murderous impulses…
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:20 amAre you a scientist, engineer, or mathemetician?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:20 amOr maybe accountant?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:21 am@DRJ:The downside is that people record celebrities and use the recordings later.
And what’s silly about Trump is that he knows that perfectly well! The Access Hollwood tape could legitimate be a surprise but not all the times he went on Howard Stern!
He forgot that the media was using him. He thought he was using them. To some extent both were true. But he didn’t realize they care far more about electing Hillary that making money from his antics.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:22 amHow do you feel about in circumstantial evidence used to justify a conviction?
DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:23 amGabriel Hanna, Trump makes the Hindenburg look like Charles Lindbergh’s triumphant flight across the Atlantic to Paris. He has more baggage than The Love Boat.
He’s only a handful of points ahead in Texas, according to polling.
Only a knucklehead like Trump could make Texas close.
You’re swimming in fantasy if you don’t believe that Rubio would be winning this thing. Any number of others would be winning this thing, too; Cruz, Fiorina, Jindal, Walker.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:26 amAll of the aforementioned candidates would be singularly focused on prosecuting the case against illary.
@DRJ:How do you feel about in circumstantial evidence used to justify a conviction?
Law and science are somewhat antagonistic processes. In a trial, one side selectively cites evidence to support a narrative, and the other selectively cites evidence to support a different narrative. Each side strains at gnats and swallows camels, but different ones.
In science the evidence is supposed to suggest a narrative, and that narrative is provisional. Too much of the wrong kind of evidence and the narrative is discarded.
I’m not sure if you feel your question is answered.
The Trump stuff is all words. His words, other people’s words. No circumstantial evidence about it.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:30 am@Cruz supporter: Any number of others would be winning this thing, too; Cruz, Fiorina, Jindal, Walker.
Then one of them should have been able to win the primary. I find this hypothetical quite doubtful. If media witchraft is why Trump got the primary and not the others, then media witchcraft is too strong for candidates who, unlike Trump, are unknown to most of the public.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:32 amGabriel Hanna, you’re proving our point. You’re spending all morning discussing the nuances of a 2005 behind the scenes tape from Access Hollywood. That’s a sure sign that the campaign is not focused on prosecuting the case against illary.
If Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, Walker, or Jindal were our nominee, right now we’d be anticipating tonight’s debate when they will attack illary’s disastrous record as Secretary of Mistakes.
When the world is on fire, yet our candidate is talking about Access Hollywood and groping and all that, it’s a foreshadowing of President illary being sworn in on January 20.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:34 amCrazy wrote:
Uhhh, we told you, told everybody, what would happen if Donald Trump won the Republican nomination. “We” gave Hillary and her henchmen the presidency when “we” voted for Donald Trump in the primaries.
The Dana who can remember very recent history (f6a568) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:38 amGoing for a conviction on thought crime, are we?
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:39 amStephen Colbert shows an accusation where what someone said was exactly what Donald Trump said he did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35gzCtLHO3A
Bhe uses that to make everything else Donald Trump said wrong.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:39 am@Cruz Supporter:That’s a sure sign that the campaign is not focused on prosecuting the case against illary.
I work for the Trump campaign now? At any rate, all citizens who care about their liberty are responsible for prosecuting the case against Hillary, not just Trump’s campaign, and the less they focus on it the more we need to.
If Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, Walker, or Jindal were our nominee, right now we’d be anticipating tonight’s debate when they will attack illary’s disastrous record as Secretary of Mistakes.
Yeah, like Romney did such a bang-up doing. And they all had that chance all year. They could still be doing it now, instead of nursing hurt butts.
it’s a foreshadowing of President illary being sworn in on January 20.
It wouldn’t be if people stopped paying attention. When the media yells “squirrel” it’s your responsibility to keep your eye on what they want to distract you from, isn’t it?
Instead of refighting the primaries and coulda woulda shoulda.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:40 amThanks, they are often paid to forget the truth, and rember things that never happened.
narciso (7c71a8) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:47 amGabriel Hanna, we’ve been through this before time and time again.
The primaries are totally different than the general election.
I’ll give you one example as to how they’re different; Trump won the New York GOP primary, right?
But that doesn’t mean that he’s going to win New York in the general election, right?
Because they’re totally different animals, right?
And so by the same token the fact that Trump performed better in the primaries is zero guarantee that he would perform better than everyone other Republican in a general election.
All Republicans would support Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, Jindal, or Walker in the general election. But there’s a certain percentage of Republicans who won’t vote for Trump in the general election.
When you’ve lost people such as George Will, Max Boot, Kori Schake, John Negroponte, and Ken Adelman, it’s not a good omen.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:47 amAnd those people would all be voting for Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, Jindal, or Walker if any one of them were the nominee.
@adjectival Dana:“We” gave Hillary and her henchmen the presidency when “we” voted for Donald Trump in the primaries.
There were a lot of other things that happened in there that you are forgetting about. Trying to change the rules at the last minute to keep Trump out. GOP figures hanging back, tepidly endorsing, un-endorsing, re-endorsing. The GOP and its factions did not close ranks and fight an election, they chose to sling blame and engage in circular firing squads.
And it seems want to keep it up right until election day.
I was reading about the “Byzantine General” problem the other day. You have armies surrounding a city, if they all attack together they can win, but otherwise they lose. But some generals are unreliable, some are treacherous, and all of them can be impeded by the enemy, some will be trying to avoid blame for losing and so may hang back if they think others will, so how do you work out a system that gets them all at the same place at the same time?
And to think that pure math is supposedly not relevant.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:48 amAnything that takes the focus off of the avalanche of provable Hillary Clinton actions, malfeasance, incompetence, money laundering and other criminal activities works for the Democrats. Wake the EFF up, Tools of The Left®
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:48 am87. DRJ (15874d) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:17 am
No, he claimed he (even) does that, too.
And obtains consent , if not immediately at the time of contact, certainly after fact.
Now I see 3 possibilities:
A) Trump was telling the truth about suddenly touching women, but LYING about those women letting him do it.
B) Trump was telling the truth about suddenly touching women, and also telling the truth about those women letting him do it.
OR
C) Trump was LYING about suddenly touching women.
People seem to choosing A; Trump seems to be now claiming C; and everyone agrees that B is not true.
Or does anyone want to say B is generally true, and the women who objected are the exceptions, and therefore he was telling the absolute truth?
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:49 amPatterico said:
By Patterico’s definition, there are a lot of scum commenting in this thread. People I used to respect, but no longer do. They’re scum.
John Hitchcock (deb8cd) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:49 am@CRuz Supporter:And so by the same token the fact that Trump performed better in the primaries is zero guarantee that he would perform better than everyone other Republican in a general election.
OBVIOUSLY. Equally true of anyone winning the primary. Good Lord.
But there’s a certain percentage of Republicans who won’t vote for Trump in the general election.
Same for all the other candidates.
When you’ve lost people such as George Will, Max Boot, Kori Schake, John Negroponte, and Ken Adelman, it’s not a good omen.
The talking head and governing class? The open borders people and the nation-builders?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:49 am@Cruz Supporter:John Negroponte
When he was in the Post wetting his pants about Trump’s fascism, and that was posted here, I was the one who pointed out he’d been working with Hillary at state and so was his wife.
Not impressed.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:51 am@Cruz Supporter: No, it was Kagan who wrote in the Post. And Negroponte was working with Hillary on the same board Kagan was on at the same time.
These guys are the governing class. Their interests are not your interests.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:53 amI still don’t understand how encouraging people NOT to vote Trump could be interpreted as anything other than supporting Killery. Somebody’s gonna be president, if you tell people not to vote for Trump exactly who do you expect to win?
Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:54 amGabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 8:21 am
It’s not salacious.
Besides, it’s harder to misinterpret. The mind focuses a little bit more clearly on exactly what he said.
He didn’t say he wanted to murder anyone on Fifth Avenue. Or any other avenue, for that matter. He said he could do that, and it wouldn’t cost him very many votes.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:55 amLet’s talk the way you’ve decided to talk, mmkay?
The reason you don’t understand is because you’ve rejected logic and gone all Leftist with your emotionalism. Got that, big boy?
#NeverTrump
#NeverHillary
A pox on both houses, and on the rabid supporters of both. May they all rot in Sheol.
John Hitchcock (deb8cd) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:57 am@Rev Hoagie:Somebody’s gonna be president, if you tell people not to vote for Trump exactly who do you expect to win?
Well, here’s how I see it, one is cyanide and one is strychnine. Strychnine is not as likely to kill you, but it’s not in general a good idea to drink it.
And there is no reason why a nation of 350 million has to lace all its Kool-Aid with one or the other, even though everyone is under that impression.
My position is, drink what you like but try to talk people out of the cyanide.
So is nk’s. He just disagrees with me about who is which.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:57 amRev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:54 am
The people on Flight 93 also tried the impossible, and though they didn’t succeed, they still got a better result than if they had done nothing.
What i;d like to see is a minority president, preferably somebody elected with under 40% of the popular vote. I don’t know if that can happen.
And trump (and his supporters) should be encouraging people to vote third party if they can’t vote for him. Otherwise they’ll be voting for Hillary.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:59 amI hope all our right-of-center friends will pinch their nose and vote for Trump as I will, but man, my anger toward him is reaching a fever pitch.
Wikileaks is trying to throw Trump a lifeline, yet he’s still rambling on about groping and Access Hollywood.
If he had half a brain, he’d respond to any and every question about groping by saying, “Every time a Clinton runs for President, you guys and gals in the media always end up asking candidates questions about sex. The American people want to hear about jobs, the economy, the pipeline, Obamacare, and how to right all of the foreign policy disasters that Barack and Hillary have authored. So you guys can talk all you want about sex, but I’m going to talk about the future of America.”
Why won’t Trump pivot like that?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:59 amThat would show leadership.
Because he would rather talk about himself than America, I suppose.
113. If he was as bad a shot as a typical south or west side Chicago thug (commonly ridiculed as “leg-shooters” within the hip-hop community) or those NYPD in mid-town who killed a bystander a few years back, then that is relevant distinction.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:05 amCruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/19/2016 @ 9:47 am
Closed primary, in a state where the Republican party genberally loses election.
This leads to a party that tends to nominate losing candidates.
By the miracle of gerrymandering, the Republicans control the New York State Senate, and have for the last 40 or 50 years, although, in the last couple of sessions, they have had to use to use a couple of Democrats to do so. They even drew up a special seat for one of them: Simcha Felder, who runs as a Democrat, but votes to organize as a Republican. There is also a independent caucus now of about 4 Democrats.
The Republicans did lose control for a little while around 2009, but not for long.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:06 amSame person who wins no matter what anyone here does. The election was lost in the GOP primary.
Those begging folks to stop telling the truth if it doesn’t help the GOP are the reason the GOP is useless.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:07 am#109 Gabriel Hanna, at least we’re pushing you toward a semi-admission that the primaries are different than general election electability.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:08 amTrump’s forthcoming butt-kicking on Election Day is the proof in the pudding.
Don’t forget: Haiku says every conservative here who doesn’t “Shut the eff up” about Trump is a “tool of the left”. But Haiku also says he is not a Trumpkin.
The mental diseases of old age, I suppose.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:09 am@Dustin:Those begging folks to stop telling the truth if it doesn’t help the GOP are the reason the GOP is useless.
How did the left get gay marriage when every Democrat office holder came out against it?
Because they helped Democrats win anyway.
Party of Stupid gets cause and effect backward.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:10 am@Cruz:Gabriel Hanna, at least we’re pushing you toward a semi-admission that the primaries are different than general election electability.
I never said different. The only thing I said was, that no one has any evidence that some other R would be doing now. If you can open a portal to an alternate universe and bring me back a newspaper showing Rubio up 10, hey I’ll accept it.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:11 amLooking it overm, Trump didn’t even say grabbing women was something he did, or wanted to do, but rather that was something someone in his piosition could do. So it is like that shhot someone on Fifth Avenue comment.
To get away with murder in New York, you have to be in the original MAdison Square Garden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Kendall_Thaw
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:13 am#119 Sammy,
Exactly my point.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:14 amPrimaries are totally different than general election electability.
I guess most of us don’t really care about gay marriage. It’s a political device more than a legitimate issue. The budget deficit: there’s a real issue. But let’s talk about marijuana and gay marriage and the national tree and who can use the women’s room at Target and who has to decorate a cake because this is how we get to be the country that deserves this government.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:14 amI would have to agree with GH, you might see a substitution, not necessarily a net gain, of support for Rubio which in the aggregate might be larger. Rubio > Cruz > Trump in the sense that the professional class would be on board plus the cool hip Latino portion of the electorate might be swayed, but you could lose a lot of the base as well.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:16 amAnd Gabriel, what of all the polls during the Primary that said Trump would lose the General but several other GOP candidates (including Cruz and Rubio) could win the General? It was already known what would happen if Trump got the nomination. So many people who were lifelong GOP voters who declared they would never, ever vote for Trump are today saying they’ll never, ever vote for Trump. We didn’t lie. We told everyone back in December and January what was what.
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN
John Hitchcock (deb8cd) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:17 am“He didn’t specify, he used an impersonal pronoun. He may have meant it your way, or not. There is no way to know from his words alone. If his words here are a confession, then so are his “shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” words. In that case he actually did say “I”, so we should be looking for relatives of his confessedly murderous impulses…”
– Gabriel Hanna
How about the rest of the remarks:
“I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.
I did try and fuck her. She was married.
this was [unintelligible] — and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping.
She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture —
I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married.”
Want to parse those pronouns? Or argue that that’s not a confession?
Of course, the man lies like he breathes. Great point! Different point, though. Which point do you want to make?
Leviticus (efada1) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:19 amOr does anyone want to say B is generally true, and the women who objected are the exceptions, and therefore he was telling the absolute truth?
I go with B, Sammy, qualifying it with “the women Trump generally knows”. “Models”, starlets, gold diggers, and assorted entertainment industry floozies and chippies. He got into trouble (Trumpble?) when he put his hands on decent women.
nk (dbc370) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:23 amBlow it out your pinched backside, Dusty!
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:38 amNo Trump supporter was going to vote for a guy named Cruz even if I had dropped out of the primary.
Donald J. Trump @The Real nk (dbc370) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:38 am132 indeed!!!
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:39 amAnd you, Dusty, are a Tool Of The Left®, so there is some use for you. Be proud.
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:41 amIf he did drop out early in the primary process,the Trump voters might have split proportionately among the non-Latins (both real and fluid-exchange) based on factors such as who worked in a non-first responder public job (no Walker) had otherwise libertarian leanings (Paul), paid proper Homage to the America first message (Santorum), or still wanted a northeastern goombah (Christie).
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:43 amSomeone who has declared he’s going to vote for a corrupt lying Leftist Democrat con-man has the audacity to call someone else a tool of the Left? Of course, he’s the same scum who declares those who refuse to vote for the corrupt lying Leftist Democrat con-man of being in support of a corrupt lying Leftist Democrat witch. So the scum’s accusations are worthless.
John Hitchcock (deb8cd) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:46 amHaiku and hf,
According to Patterico’s definition in the article above,
You are both scum. And I mean that sincerely.
John Hitchcock (deb8cd) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:48 amCome on, man.
He made that remark seconds after talking about how he – Trump himself – just starts kissing women without consent. He was NOT speaking hypothetically any more about “grab them by the pu$$y” than he was about unsuccessfully moving on the married Nancy O’Dell “like a bitch.”
This is where Pat’s appeal to intellectual honesty comes in.
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:49 amJust don’t text and drive, Hitchcock. And avoid the greasy spoons.
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:53 amPreach on, Hitchcock! May the Lord’s blessings rain upon you.
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:54 am@99 TheDanawhocanrememberveryrecenthistory, I didn’t vote for him or support him either.
I agree he’s the last on the list of people who should be elected president, but Hillary’s at the top of the list of people who should never be elected president. He’s a selfish pig – she’s a self-serving python. Take your pick. Not choosing is still a choice.
crazy (d3b449) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:09 amTrumpkin Grandpa needs to stick to the sugar free candies. He gets mad when his blood sugar gets wonky. I’ll send an “electronic mail” to the assisted care facility.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:36 amJust think: Scott Walker was knocked out early and we wound up with a candidate who admits sexually molesting strangers and creeping in on 15 year old girls undressing when he isn’t talking about his daughter sexually.
Mark Foley just said “jeez man, what a weirdo”. Team R die hards were just tested for their integrity and let’s just say the GOP has no future place in American government.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:40 amTool on, Tool.
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:45 amOh, Haiku, you made that same joke a few minutes ago. Poor guy. He can’t remember.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:47 am“GANGSTER GOVERNMENT: Dem Operative Who Oversaw Trump Rally Agitators Visited White House 342 Times. “A key operative in a Democratic scheme to send agitators to cause unrest at Donald Trump’s rallies has visited the White House 342 times since 2009, White House records show. Robert Creamer, who acted as a middle man between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and ‘protesters’ who tried — and succeeded — to provoke violence at Trump rallies met with President Obama 47 times, according to White House records. Creamer’s last visit was in June 2016.”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/246806/
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:47 amYou ARE a tool, Dustin. Man up and deal with it.
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:49 amMr. Trump is a tool of love and prosperity so suck it
happyfeet (bebb04) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:51 amA New Accuser Comes Forward: Local Reporter Accuses Bill Clinton of Sexual Assault
—Ace
As Jazz Shaw asks: The media will put this reporter’s claims on endless loop just as they did in the case of Trump, right?
Just kidding. You’ll never hear from this woman again.
I’m old enough to remember when the Clintons had to bother smearing and intimidating witnesses to keep them out of coverage by the media.
Now the media just embargoes them on its own initiative.
After a long period of inappropriate and lurid suggestions, Clinton went there:
Leslie Milwee, a former news reporter with KLMN-TV in Arkansas, accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her three times in a studio editing room in 1980.
…
According to Milwee, Clinton followed her into an editing room during a visit to the KLMN studio.
“The first time I remember,” she explained. “I was sitting in a chair. He came up behind me and started rubbing my shoulders and running his hands down toward my breasts.”
“I was just stunned. I froze. I asked him to stop. He laughed.”
Milwee claims that Clinton did not climax during the first assault, but in the subsequent two occurrences, “it escalated where the aggressive nature of his touch and what he was doing behind me escalated.”
The second assault allegedly occurred one week after the first in the same editing room.
“He came in behind me,” Milwee claims. “He started hunching me to the point that he had an orgasm. He’s trying to touch my breasts, and I’m just sitting there very stiffly, just waiting for him to leave me alone.”
Milwee says she asked “him the whole time, ‘please do not do this. Do not touch me. Do not hunch me. I do not want this.’ and he finished doing what he was doing and he walked out.”
“The third time it happened it was just so overwhelming,” Milwee recalls.
Milwee says she thought about coming forward when Clinton was accused of rape in 1998 but decided to remain silent, given the smears and attacks against the other women.
This is not the first time she’s mentioned this. Click the link for a tweet posted in August making the allegation, in response to a Juanita Broaddrick tweet.”
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/366398.php
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:52 amThanks for sharing, Haiku! I will be sure to remember that when I tell the truth about serious problems with Team R’s candidate, I am a “tool of the left.” You’re so helpful in clearing this stuff up. Integrity is for tools!
Hey, remember that time the mods called you out for lying? Good times, good times.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:54 amHaiku is copying and pasting another website’s content in its entirety to flood the thread again. This is a good way to make a conversation difficult to follow. Thanks man!
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:00 pmEven when an article is cited properly, quoting it in its entirety is a copyright violation. But since Trump doesn’t have to obey any rules, why should the scum cheering him on?
John Hitchcock (deb8cd) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:03 pmLi’l B*tchy B*tch B*tch… pathetic, don’t read it, move along, Pinchy.
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:15 pm“WIKILEAKS: WHAT WAS JOHN PODESTA’S SECURITY CLEARANCE WHILE DISCUSSING ISIS STRATEGY WITH HILLARY?
Found via an Insta-reader, who notes that “We already know that neither had secure email.”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/246801/
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:17 pm@Colonel Haiku: I said it in another thread, but did anyone notice that when US intelligence and interests were at stake, no one could do anything about Wikileaks, but now that it might affect Hillary’s election, all of a sudden they can cut of Assange’s internet access?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:22 pmJohn, that’s true and it’s very rude to the blog owner who has to deal with complaints about it, but you’re not thinking passive aggressively. The idea a troll just made a little mess in the living room of his host pleases the troll.
And what makes this so sad is that it doesn’t make a difference. Here’s proof. It’s never been close. It was never going to be close.
There is only one solution to the fact the GOP is dishonestly thwarting the conservative movement, and it’s not more dishonesty. It’s time for the GOP to be loyal to me, not the other way around. If the GOP wants me to vote for them again, they better dump Trump in the next three weeks. It’s time for the people disaffected by the democrats and republicans to form a better party. No doubt Hillary will be the next president and she represents everything wrong with USA government, which is the perfect impetus for real change to our one party political dynamic.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:24 pm138. L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 10/19/2016 @ 10:49 am
Right, right. Which is why I first assumed he was saying that he himself, had done that, maybe not as often as some of the other things he descroibed, but he had done it. But, reading it over, it actually looks like he had segued over into the hypothetical.
What makes it non-hypothetical is that if he had never done it himself, there would be no basis for saying that he could get away with it. So he could be assumed to be saying he had done it himself, because if he hadn’t, he’d have no basis for his claim.
Except for one thing:
He’s almost certainly lying.
If we believe him just because he says something, we have to believe all of what he says, and he said the women had no objections because he was a celebrity – in fact that the reason he gave for being able to get away with it. (What he said can’t be interpreted as saying he could get away with it because he had lawyers and so on – he specifically stated “they let you do it”)
If it is not true that the women let him do it, he’s lying to Billy Bush, and if he’s lying, we can’t assume anything he says about it is based on personal experience, and if it not based upon personal experience, it is hypothetical.
Sammy Finkelman (22cc00) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:24 pmYou’re projecting. I’m just saying what I think while you’re being passive aggressive, trying to shut down viewpoints you don’t even disagree with but find inconvenient. You couldn’t be a bigger bitch.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:25 pmWe now we have one woman who says that specific groping motion happened: Natasha Stoynoff. And there is one chain of logic would support the notion she is telling the truth.
I noticed that each report seemed to go a separate newspaper. It looked to me that the Clinton campaign rule was one fake story per newspaper. Now the New York Times had two. If the story of Jessica Leeds was a false, and it looked very false to me, by elimination the story of Natasha Stoynoff had to be true!
Except that the story itself sounded very strange. Donald Trump is supposedly doing this to somebody working on a story for People magazine while his wife has departed for a few minutes – but might suddenly return sooner. That doesn’t sound right.
Also we have Melania Trump meeting Natasha Stoynoff in the street – now in front of a witness – and asking why don’t we see you anymore? Melania denies this. Of course she might not remember or might not be honest here, but we have a resolvable question: Did Natasha Stoynoff periodically visit Donald Trump up to that point? And why?
That was a very specific claim about himself. For the other one, he couldn’t plausibly claim it was true unless he had done it himself, but the claim was not just that he had done it, but that they had let him do it, and that I think we can safely assume is not true.
I don’t know if Nancy O’Dell has confirmed his claim of taking her to a place to help her to choose furniture, and would like to see a link if she has, but I assume it’s true. It would help if she has, or will, confirm that.
Sammy Finkelman (22cc00) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:25 pmDustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 11:40 am
To be fair:
1. He claimed he (at least started to) molest strangers, but now seems to be claiming he was lying, and technically what he claimed may not be molestation at all because he also claimed he got (instant) consent.
2. He admitted to walking in on girls in a state of undress but didn’t specifically state that he also did it in the teen beauty contest, although some constestants say that he did (at least once)
and
3. While he did talk about his daughter sexually, it was only in response to a question or questions from Howard Stern.
Sammy Finkelman (22cc00) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:28 pmWell, Haiku, next time you break the law on this site, you can’t plead ignorance.
John Hitchcock (deb8cd) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:32 pmA scripted show that is extremely sexual, where Trump quizzed his daughter about sex? I wasn’t even talking about that, but there are so many examples of Trump being creepy that I should be more specific I guess?
My bad?
My friend, this country is better than that. I can’t stand Hillary, but if the GOP expects to win with this garbage it’s delusional (and of course they didn’t).
The establishment understood this would happen before the primary was over. They knew that lining up with Trump was crashing the presidential race. They did this specifically to stop Cruz and conservative reform. They weren’t bluffing. It is their way or it’s no way. Now I’m told to be loyal to these people and I just don’t see what’s in it for me.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:34 pm@John Hitchcock: next time you break the law on this site
Murder, arson, copyright infringement. Is there no depth below which he won’t sink?
And let’s not forget, let’s NOT forget that keeping wildlife, um… an amphibious rodent, for… um, you know domestic… within the city… that ain’t legal either.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:37 pmGabriel, you’re a shi+bird who approves of violating the law as long as it’s one of your people violating the law, even if it harms a third party.
John Hitchcock (deb8cd) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:39 pmI didn’t quote the entire post, Hitchcock. The good news for you is that you don’t need any seat belts in your vehicles any more. Pucker * Power!
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:40 pmSammeh highlights how Dusty is pathologically prone to mischaracterize everything he reads or hears, as long as it can be used to support the narrative rattling around that rattle-can head of his.
Colonel Haiku (7967f2) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:43 pm““He didn’t specify, he used an impersonal pronoun. He may have meant it your way, or not. There is no way to know from his words alone. If his words here are a confession, then so are his “shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” words. In that case he actually did say “I”, so we should be looking for relatives of his confessedly murderous impulses…”
– Gabriel Hanna
How about the rest of the remarks:
“I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.
I did try and f*ck her. She was married.
this was [unintelligible] — and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping.
She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture —
I moved on her like a b*tch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married.”
Want to parse those pronouns? Or argue that that’s not a confession?
Of course, the man lies like he breathes. Great point! Different point, though. Which point do you want to make?
Leviticus (efada1) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:48 pm…and?
That has the ring of Trump saying in two debates a year apart that when he referred to a woman as a “pig,” he was only talking about Rosie O’Donnell, as if everyone ought to get a free pass for saying that about her.
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:48 pmYeah, except no. My conversation with Sammy was straightforward and respectful. And while you try so hard to call me dishonest, you know I’m actually a straight shooter. You simply think my honest views aren’t helpful to your side and therefore I am a ‘tool of the left’ if I don’t shut up like a partisan hack.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:52 pmOh, for the days when hf talked normally, Eric Blair was here, and Haiku wasn’t.
John Hitchcock (deb8cd) — 10/19/2016 @ 12:55 pm“86. Trump supporters will now start saying the NeverTrump people are to blame for Trump’s loss because we turned voters against him.”
No, they won’t be blaming the neverTrumpers.
Voters are going to vote for whoever they like best (or, in Chicago, whoever gives them the most cigarettes and Ripple).
There are already 50+ million Democrats and thousands of “journalists” telling the voters to vote for Hillary. Another thousandor so nevertrumpers telling blog readers to vote against Trump doesn’t even move the needle.
The NT’ers are nowhere as important as they think they are.
The neverTrumpers are a splinter group that doesn’t amount to more than a few thousand people. Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) will get more votes than there are #neverTrumpers.
The nevertrumpers are just making a lot of noise.
Oh, hey, I see the Libertarians are having a LNC meeting on the weekend of Dec 9, 2016. Marriott Inn, Alexandria, Va. “•Our Alexandria Residence Inn hotel offers 5 meeting rooms, 1,600 sq. ft. of event and meeting space. perfect for group gatherings from 2 to 150.”
Maybe the nevertrump party can join in with the LNC and get a quantity discount if they take collectively book both the 150 capacity meeting room AND the 50 capacity one.
fred-2 (ce04f3) — 10/19/2016 @ 2:46 pmFred-2, thanks for Hillary. Thanks a lot.
Dustin (ba94b2) — 10/19/2016 @ 2:58 pm