Trump TALKED about sexual assault...

Until the Left Wingery acknowledges these facts and condemns these actions, they have no moral authority to condemn Trump.

In short, my fellow Weigantians..

If you refuse to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton accountable, you don't get to hold Trump accountable..

It's that simple...

Michale

Michale

It's amazing how many women support Trump....

But they are just irredeemable deplorables, AKA Patriotic Americans, so they don't really matter much.. :^/

Michale

You know I thug em, fuck em, love em, leave em
Cause I don’t fuckin need em
Take em out the hood, keep em lookin good
But I don’t fuckin feed em
First time they fuss I’m breezin
Talkin bout, “What’s the reasons?”
I’m a pimp in every sense of the word, bitch
Better trust than believe em
In the cut where I keep em
til I need a nut, til I need to beat the guts
Then it’s, beep beep and I’m pickin em up
Let em play with the dick in the truck
Many chicks wanna put Jigga fist in cuffs
Divorce him and split his bucks
Just because you got good head, I’m a break bread
so you can be livin it up? Shit I
parts with nothin, y’all be frontin
Me give my heart to a woman?
Not for nothin, never happen.
-Jay Z

'nuff said about the Left Wingery faux "outrage" over Trumps locker room talk from a decade ago...

Anyone who gives a pass to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton for their real and tangible attacks on women has absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to condemn Trump for his *words*....

Trump TALKED about sexual assault...

Bill Clinton COMMITTED sexual assaults and rape. And Hillary Clinton aided and abetted sexual assaults and rape and committed character assassinations of Bill's victims...

Until the Left Wingery acknowledges these facts and condemns these actions, they have no moral authority to condemn Trump.

It's really that simple...

Michale

Good question.
Do you think people who start illegal wars are extremists?

A

I couldn't resist either... and it was so much better this time.

Friedman... pffft.

As for The Intercept, you will find many supporters and many critics of Greenwald there.
You will also discover that you are only rarely on the same page as most of his critics.
And, as a bonus, the comment policy allows you to speak your mind and be as disrespectful as you please... though that holds true for the responses you will receive too. It's mostly civilized though.

It can be liberating, and painful.
But the opinions are often informative... and some of the characters will have you rolling on the floor.
And much of the journalism is top notch.

A

I agree. I don't want Al Qaida to be in control either. But that isn't the two choices.

Frankly, Elizabeth is right, we need a negotiated peace that safeguards all the players who are not crazy extremists.

The problem is, who defines who is an extremist and who isn't.

-I fear for the people of Syria if al Qaida gets control of the country. This is a group with a lot of scores to settle and little or no restraint when it comes to torturing people to death and mass murder of whole communities.-

I fixed it for you.
An undeniable reality that is well documented.

As a reminder, you may recall that the people pushing for regime change in Syria are the same people who partnered with Assad in the US rendition program (aka torture), and are now funding and arming "rebels" who collaborate with the people who attacked us on 9/11.

If morality is to be the justification for our new policy, the immorality of our old and current policies can't be ignored in an honest debate.

Similarly, the morality behind the justification for our new policy should not only be doubted as the actual motivation due to our tarnished history, it also needs to be compared to the immoral consequences of the new policy.

A

"Yes, because we are discussing the current situation here, not trying be apologists for Russian aggression."

So, according to you, the "rebels" don't exist in the "current situation" and anybody who dares to step into reality is an "apologist for Russian aggression"?

I guess that would make you an apologist for al Qaida?

Is that how a "discussion" should proceed?

A

For everyone wishing to comment on the upcoming debate (2.5 hours to go, and counting...), please click on over to the open debate thread to do so:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/10/09/open-debate-thread/

:-)

-CW

Thanks!

:-)

-CW

To everyone -

I probably won't post an article after tonight's debate. Then Monday will be "look at the map and the EVs" day.

Unless something wild happens, then I may just have to post some comments tonight! But probably not, just in case anyone's wondering. Maybe I'll post a blank article, just so we can have a lively commentary thread during the debate separate from this one... maybe that's the ticket...

-CW

There is only one path to end the suffering and that is to bring the proxy-driven civil war in Syria to an end.

There would be restraint under my proposal and a big role for the United Nations as well.

I fear for the people of Syria if Assad gets control of the country again. This is a regime with a lot of scores to settle and little or no restraint when it comes to torturing people to death and mass murder of whole communities.

All of which continues to surprise as much as disappoint me, considering that most of what I believe about how the US should conduct foreign policy I learned from and was influenced by none other than Vice President Biden over the course of his long and illustrious senate career

Was it as good as the first time? Heh. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm not that strong. :)

Seriously, we are often on the same page. Speaking of which, what is there not to like about reading Tom Friedman's NYTimes pieces?

I will check out the Intercept but, I'm not a big fan of Glenn Greenwald. Isn't he the guy who gave us the Snowden document dump? Say no more. You probably don't want to get me started on that whole sad episode as we may not even been in the same book on that one!

I'm hoping that Obama and Kerry will see the light and be guided in a good direction Re. Syria before the administration runs out of time. If Biden has anything to say about it, then they won't leave it for the next administration to deal with.

Yes, because we are discussing the current situation here, not trying be apologists for Russian aggression.

Absent from your analysis is any mention of culpability for the foreign militant al Qaida and affiliated "rebels" or the US and our "allies" who are arming and funding them.

Their attacks on Syrian police and soldiers is what started the "civil war".

Blaming the Russians for the refugee crisis when they didn't even get into the fight until after millions had already been displaced is nonsense.

I don't think a "lever" to make the Russians abandon Syria exists.

And a "negotiated cease fire" which the Wahhabi Sunni "rebels" wouldn't abide by does not seem to be what Liz was proposing.

Using that failure to preclude other diplomatic efforts doesn't make any sense.

A

I am very pleased you do not support a US intervention in Syria.

The US was the driving force in creating the UN... so all Americans should put a lot of stock in the organization.
The UN didn't create the international laws (that we were also a driving force in establishing and are bound by) but it is the venue where international consensus for action within the law can be achieved.
(that paragraph needs a whole lot of qualifiers and clarifications, but that's the basic gist)

In your first example in Korea, no Security Council action is needed. International law guarantees the right to self defense. And legal self defense would begin before you could even say the words Security Council.
If S Korea provoked a response somehow using illegal methods, then it's probable a claim of self defense wouldn't be valid. The Germans used that approach repeatedly in WWII and the courts didn't buy their legal claims. At Nuremburg, more Germans were prosecuted for illegal wars of aggression than for crimes against humanity.

A US military intervention in Syria doesn't come anywhere near the concept of self defense... though I don't think you were trying to make a comparison.

The false WMD claims in Iraq were invented as a pretext for making the US invasion legal, but since they were lies and since the UN didn't buy it (referring there to the second UN resolution that Bush abandoned while pretending that the first one was sufficient), our war was an illegal war of aggression which under international law is a war crime.

Likewise, in Libya, a UN resolution authorizing a no fly zone was then used to justify a bombing campaign to effect an illegal regime change... a war of aggression which under international law is a war crime.

Your contention about context is valid, but the international laws of war are fairly clear on a wide range of situations, so there isn't much wiggle room.
The major exception at the moment is drone warfare, and our actions have been based on a rather tenuous interpretation of laws that might apply.

Of course, the real problem we face is that US leaders (and some other countries too) have a habit of breaking international laws whenever they see fit, because there isn't an effective method of holding us or anyone with a veto or a protector on the UN Security Council accountable.

The only occasionally effective check on our president is vocal opposition from Americans... which is one of the reasons why I'm here.

As for the Rwanda example, I'm not sure.
I've never read an analysis on such a situation.
I suspect that a peace keeping mission falls into a different category assuming we don't go in guns blazing, and I also suspect that UN authorization and international cooperation would have been forthcoming... but that's just a wild guess with nothing backing it up.

A

We have tried a negotiated cease fire, but to no avail. Saddam thinks he can win this war and so will prosecute it until he thinks otherwise.

Frankly, at the moment that will only be when Russia stops supporting him. The only way to get Russia to back off is to find some lever that can be applied to make them. Since they are winning the propaganda war at home with their "brave pilots" and also forcing a refugee crisis on the EU, it is a win-win for them for the lever is going to have to be pretty compelling.

Sanctions are not going to do it this time. A no-fly zone would stop the air bombardment, but the Russians would simply replace that with long range guns. And even if Russia is forced out, Iran will stand behind Assad.

Europe better by prepared for more Syrian refugees, and we should take a lot more of them ourselves.

Or we could send the troops in to settle it (which they could, pretty quickly) and we could be responsible for another Iraq.

I think there is more we can do to help stop the slaughter in Yemen at the moment.

OK... I just fell in love with you all over again.

Despite comment 89.

I think you've got it right on Syria.
Diplomacy and international cooperation, reevaluating our relationship with the Saudis... sorry AIPAC... the alternatives to Assad are just not acceptable or even achievable without an even larger humanitarian disaster.

I hope your wisdom spreads, and quickly.

The other website I frequent is The Intercept.
They've got a 4 part series called Code of Silence up right now that is really well written and intriguing. I think part 4 is at the top of the page now, so you have to scroll down to start at the beginning.
Heads up, their comment section is a cross between a Mensa meeting, the wild west, and a funny farm... with an unusual influx of rather twisted Trump supporters recently.

A

I've been to Turkey three times for a total of around 4 months.

Kurds live everywhere in Turkey.
They are for the most part well integrated and not treated as interlopers, and most are satisfied with their lives in a fairly safe country with decent opportunities. The violent fight for independence was mostly limited to the predominantly Kurdish areas in the south east of Turkey, and was being conducted by a minority of the Kurdish population within Turkey. After a long period of fighting, negotiations had basically ended the violence. Kurdish could be taught in the schools in their areas and they could run for political office.

Erdogan was in danger of losing an election, so he went all nationalistic Trump on the Kurds for political reasons, using an attack by al Qaida or IS (it may have even been a false flag operation)to falsely accuse the Kurds in order to look tough and keep his job. Unfortunately it worked. He launched a crackdown that triggered a violent response, and he escalated further and the violence has been ongoing ever since.

Some Kurds do want to reclaim all of the areas where they have historically predominated, but most are well aware that they will not be able to beat Turkey militarily.

An independent homeland comprised mainly of northern Iraq and north eastern Syria would be acceptable to most Kurds, and would be such a huge advance that it already qualifies as a major victory.

A peace deal with Turkey (not going to happen with Erdogan) that added a sliver of Turkish land would basically be a symbolic gesture, not so much for the sake of a Kurdistan, but rather for reasons of internal stability among the Kurds that would remain in Turkey.

At the moment, it's a pipe dream.
Erdogan isn't the only barrier either. His beliefs are shared by many, and such a deal would also open up a can of worms with the Armenians in north eastern Turkey and the genocide issue.
I think the Kurds who want a quarter of Turkey are the easiest problem to deal with.

BTW, I don't know if you caught the news from a couple of days ago, but one Kurdish political group in northern Iraq is currently cooperating with Erdogan. Turkish troops have been "invited in" to the area to "help fight IS" to the chagrin of many Kurds, and with the Iraqi government launching a formal protest at the UN.

Like the situation wasn't complicated enough.

A

A little nuance may be appropriate here as I explain what I meant in [84] ...

As with most comments here, [84] needs to be read and understood in its entirety without taking small bits of it out of context resulting in misinterpretation.

I think the US needs to accept the reality of the situation in Syria. Which is to say that the US has no credible military threat with which to apply leverage over Russia and Iran to encourage one outcome or another.

To be clear, there is no military solution to this problem. Perhaps, if this is said often enough and loud enough then people in the White House and Pentagon will be more able to accept the reality of the situation and move on to another strategy that has any prospect of being successful.

I am talking about a diplomatic solution that will involve all of the major stakeholders reaching a consensus that all of them can live with and be moved to live up to. And, that includes the Assad regime.

You meant something difference - can you elaborate?

->

I think he is living off loans from dodgy characters

Whoever is asking for a 5 minute edit feature has my support.

I think you are right. I also think the big secret in the taxes is that Trump is bust. I think he is living of loans to dodgy characters and his tax returns will show far too little income to justify his pretend lifestyle.

By the way, I'm a huge fan of Tom Friedman and I think all of his books are well worth the read.

One of the first books I read on the Middle East was "From Beirut to Jerusalem" by Thomas Friedman - and frankly I think it is his only book that is of any value.

Anyway, there is a chapter called "Hama Rules" that gives a good idea what the Assad family think cleaning up a rebellion looks like.

I'm not ready to give Assad unfettered power over Syria in a hurry.

I really appreciate it.
Thank you.

I'm sorry my sloppy writing left it open to misinterpretation.

A

Political scientists will be looking for gravity waves caused by the disappearance of so much money.
I see a Nobel Prize in Political Physics!

Art of the Deal Baby!

Anyway, do you support a boots on the ground military intervention in Syria without UN authorization even though it would be illegal?

I strongly believe that a US boots on the ground military intervention or imposition of a no fly zone would be inordinately counterproductive in terms of both ending the Syrian proxy-driven civil war and defeating IS and the ideology that underpins it.

Therefore, I would not support any such measure to further intervene militarily in Syria.

President Obama and Secretary Kerry (and, especially, Secretary Clinton) must understand that there is no credible US military threat in Syria and that a functioning Assad regime that is allowed the space to clean up this mess while EVERYONE acts to dispense with the IS cadre is better that what's there now - by a bloody long shot and for a bloody long time already!

What Kerry should be discussing with his counterparts from Syria, Russia, Iran and others at a serious meeting of the major stakeholders is an end to all of the proxy wars and an all in effort to defeat IS in Syria and Iraq, once and for all.

Of course,the necessary leadership for this does not exist in theatre or anywhere near it, for that matter. And, so, President Obama should take the lead and meet with Putin, Assad and other regional leaders and issue a joint statement confirming the reality of the situation and a plan to end the proxy-driven civil war and heartbreaking human suffering in Syria.

And, that's just for starters, assuming any of these world leaders are serious about effectively handling the refugee crisis and defeating the violently deranged Islamist extremists.

I'm told that the Arabs in the region, especially the Saudis, would go nuts if such a scenario played out. I say it's time for a serious reassessment of the US-Saudi relationship.

"Anyway, do you support a boots on the ground military intervention in Syria without UN authorization even though it would be illegal?
Again, like Bush in Iraq."

Since you seem to put a lot of stock in UN approval making military actions "legal" I would like your take on a possible scenario:

What if North Korea were to attack and/or invade South Korea again, it goes to the Security Council, and either one or both China and Russia veto any UN action? Because of that, would then any South Korean or American military action in defense of South Korea being "invaded" then be "illegal" because it lacked any UN "sanction?"

My contention would be that just because "some" military action sometimes lacks UN "sanction" does not "automatically" or necessarily make such military action "illegal." I think, in fact, it would be highly "context" specific.

As another example, suppose the USA HAD intervened militarily in Rwanda in order to halt the genocide that took place there, without UN approval? Would that have been "illegal" also?

Bear in mind, I am not arguing the merits of the case of direct American military intervention in Syria. I in fact, think such an American intervention would be a mistake also and make things even worse.

I don't make apologies that are not apologies. I took your comments literally and thought you were just being condescending towards CW. For misinterpreting the intent of your words, I apologize. For wrongly accusing you, I apologize. I hope you will accept this in the spirit that it is offered.

Russ

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6HsTbbIAAAlZwr.jpg

Do you see why giving up some sliver of land won't get the Turks anywhere? The Kurds lay claim to somewhere in the vicinity of a fourth of Turkey, and portions of four other countries besides. They're not going to settle for a token strip of land, like they're the Cherokee Nation or something. In their minds, they're talking homeland, and they're playing the long game.

Honestly, it's a wonder that a secular, democratic, optimistic group of people like the Kurds even exist in that portion of the world. It's very hard to even sympathize with the Turks, especially given all of the anti-democratic things their present president has done, and been allowed to do in that ostensibly 'democratic' country.

This Chris, I think, is the full video:

http://ns8.ns.twc.com.edgesuite.net/news/NY1/2016/10/trump-uncensored-full-video_22053642_18_31_09.mp4

One question?

Are you with Hillary/Kaine/Trump?Pence for the Syria no fly zone, or are you with Obama against it?

No sarcasm...

A

Another reply without a response and you want me to answer your question?

Is it wrong that I'm irked?

Throw me a bone.

A

Accepting disappointment from Hillary ensures it will happen, and that doesn't sit well with me. So, I rail against Obama, I will continue to go after Hillary, and I will continue to be after you to speak up too.

The idea that Dems can pursue the same objectives as the neocons and completely go against the ideals they claim to value without any consequences from the Democratic rank and file (or pundits) just amazes me.
Oh, it's just foreign policy...

Uh, yeah, but there's NEVER going to be money for Dem domestic policies if we keep flushing trillions down the toilet abroad.

It bothers me watching good people getting played by the two party, one system establishment. And it bothers me even more to see the death and destruction the indifference and ignorance allows in our names.

Remaining silent isn't an option.

The suck eggs comment was actually directed toward Turkish support for the "rebels" not their ongoing hostilities with Kurds, but since you asked, Erdogan would never go for it. But if a wise leader ever takes over in Turkey, I think they would be well advised to give up a nominal sliver of land for an independent Kurdistan in exchange for peace. The benefits for Turkey would be huge.

Resistance from Iran would be just as great, though a nominal sliver could be negotiated somehow, and Kurdish areas in Iran are much smaller to begin with... but that should probably be set aside until hostilities with Turkey and Syria are resolved. The Shiites in Iraq owe the Kurds big time right now, and they already had an autonomy agreement before the Islamic State created an existential threat, so as long as the Kurds don't demand the whole pie I think an agreement for independence is possible. Syria isn't in any position to make demands or stop the Kurds, but the Kurds settling for less than the whole pie and a non-aggression pact would probably head off future conflicts. That is of course with Assad... if the "rebels" take over Syria, the Kurds will be in their crosshairs indefinitely.

The Kurds have paid a heavy price, but they are in the best position they've ever been in.
But we've betrayed them before, and that's probably the biggest risk they still face... despite our current good relations and military aid.

In any case, theorizing about the future of the Kurds needs to take a back seat to stopping a disastrous US military intervention in Syria.

Whenever Hillary or whoever talks about a safe zone or no fly zone while ignoring international law and the consequences, people need to challenge it and in the end ask what Obama asked-
"Then what?"

A

You are right, the GOP really doesn't have any great options-but some bad options are better than others.

By writing off a weak shot at the White House, the GOP can better control the Congress. Keep playing the obstruction game they played so well against Obama. That impacts the Supreme Court makeup. Why mess up the latter trying to prop up a weak Presidential hopeful who will be a loose cannon if he somehow defies odds and wins?

It's a mistake to take rally crowds too seriously. They do not reflect the broader electorate. Live events draw in the Blue Light Covenanteers...the take no prisoners crowd. The slice of the electorate the GOP needs to pin down and capture is more pragmatic...and sensitive to the possibility that Trump just might be a con artist. Which the GOP pros know to be mostly true.

CW-69

Clinton is showing surprising strength post the 1st debate. It's hard to see this in raw polling data, but when I look at state by state probabilities of Clinton victory(NYT UpShot summary table), Clinton looks to have an 80-90% chance of racking up 270 plus EC votes. Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina provide some cushion in the 60-70% range, and even Ohio is looking to lean a bit Democrat. Republican pros can read the UpShot as well anybody and act accordingly.

I am playing a bunch o' hunches, but taken together, the signal looks consistent to me. Trump has fallen like a rock. His current chances of winning the WH look about the same as when he was competing in a 4 man GOP primary battle. The question is how much he can recover with just a month to go...filtered through two more debates ...which seems to suck at.

What's the other website that you frequent?

Well, to be honest, I don't use it to actually block out anyone; just to turn the volume down a tad during tornados :). There is such a thing as too much cow bell!

I haven't blocked anyone either......... yet ;)

Oh, tornadoes... being that I live in Texas, I have a most excellent storm shelter that I call my Hobbit Hole. You never know when you're going to need it... just like your Monkey. :)

Sarcasm and snark are my bread and butter... but I don't mind sharing.
But give, and you shall receive... even if it comes at a cost... yes, I noticed that your reply was not a response.

While I have your exhausted attention, which part of the evidence about Russian involvement in the hacking did you find most convincing?
Oh, silly me.
I completely forgot that they didn't present any evidence... never mind.
I think the quote they put out was "we believe"... like faith... no evidence required.
I think Bush used the same terminology for WMDs in Iraq.

Anyway, do you support a boots on the ground military intervention in Syria without UN authorization even though it would be illegal?
Again, like Bush in Iraq.

Weird pattern, huh?

As for CW, the same rules apply.
Equal opportunity, and sometimes too subtle by half.

But, you know (sorry, Hillary's speech excerpts got that stuck in my head) graciousness can be a double edged sword like so many things.
Graciousness to the establishment is partially to blame for the current state of affairs... and more graciousness is required when I call it out.
It's a vicious circle.

But like I said, it's going to be a long four years with neolibcon Hillary being defended by supposed Democrats... assuming she doesn't solve all of our problems with a blinding flash in a tiff with Russia... or take me out with a drone like she wanted to do with Assange.

Maybe this will cheer you up.
I just read that Wikileaks only released 2,000 of the 50,000 emails so far... more to come!
I wonder if there are enough Trump tapes to distract people?
Folks at the other website I frequent are pretty pissed off already. You would not like it there one bit. Lots of lawyers who would really tire you out. I'm lighthearted and easy going by comparison.
No, really.

A

Well, to be honest, I don't use it to actually block out anyone; just to turn the volume down a tad during tornados :). There is such a thing as too much cow bell!

Thank you, Charlie Brown! :)

Unsurprisingly, I'm a huge Vince Guaraldi fan. This time of year, I prefer 10 hours of the Great Pumpkin Waltz :).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flWB-WaKm5U

They may try a la Dole; but just no good options for the GOPe at this point. Ryan et al were heckled by the crowd today in Wisconsin, and Nevada Senate-hopeful Joe Heck got booed for saying Trump should step down.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/8/13212650/gop-elites-renouncing-trump-voters-heckle

I imagine John Boehner is have a nice chuckle over his bourbon on the rocks at the moment...

Believe it or not, that's Trumps most recent tweet:

"Certainly has been an interesting 24 hours!"

Okay, now you've gone and compared me to BO... "Big Orange." Well you better watch it bud... because I will have you know that there is this guy who posted this most excellent and totally functional Tamper Monkey device that allows me to block out posters...... Heh, just kidding!

I loaded your Monkey, and it totally works.

Thank you, Charlie Brown! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOCrBa8peCg

That's the impression I got, too. The one in the purple, that Billy Bush called "hot shit" or whatever.

Does anyone have a link to the full, unedited video? All the clips I've seen on teevee cut a bunch of stuff out, and not only the vulgarities. I'd like to see it from beginning to end...

Paula [50] -

Pence, the naked opportunist. That's how I'd put it. But sometimes tying your dinghy to a sinking ship turns out badly, so we'll just have to wait and see...

TheStig [55] -

The GOP is going to give Trump the Dole treatment? Hadn't heard that yet... this just gets better and better!

I'm wondering about Trump showing up, too. Maybe if he blows it off, Hillary will get the full time to herself!

altohone [57] -

I already expect Hillary to disappoint me on foreign policy, maybe that's why it's not as big a deal to me as it seems to be with you. But I am interested: if we told Turkey to go suck eggs, would you have us support an independent Kurdistan if they decided to declare one (in pieces of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran)? Right now, Turkey seems to be the only reason why we wouldn't, although keeping our relationship with the Iraqi government would probably be a secondary reason. Anyway, interested on your take, since you've obviously thought about it a lot.

[58] -

As for HuffPost, I gave up a long time ago trying to figure them out. The headline is changed only on the front page link, as far as I can tell. When you click through to the page (at least, as of last night), my original headline appears (minus the volume number, I gave up that fight a long time ago with them).

-CW

There. Fixed! Correction note appended at the end. Thanks for the eagle eye, too!

:-)

-CW

Damn! You are entirely right, and we certainly invite such pickiness here. Lemme go fix it...

-CW

:)

Credit: https://twitter.com/AdrienMenielle/status/784809316419330048

The point that needs hammering is "the words" are not the problem, offensive as they are. It is the actions being depicted that are the problem. Trump is bragging that he accosts/molests women with impunity. He presents it as "here's what I always do" which means he did it over and over. And we have no reason to assume he didn't accost some woman yesterday.

I know, right? That's sort of what I was trying to say about Melania's statement:

"The words my husband used are unacceptable and offensive to me. This does not represent the man that I know. He has the heart and mind of a leader. I hope people will accept his apology, as I have, and focus on the important issues facing our nation and the world."

How does this not represent him? Trump allowed his girlfriend (now wife) to be photographed nude in and around his private aircraft and distributed worldwide. Trump has always objectified women (which is sometimes a woman's choice, to be sure), but let's now take issue with his "words"? Ms. Strumpet doesn't mind the actions, but the words are "unacceptable and offensive" to her: "Display it, don't say it."

Okay.... well.... an interesting day, to say the least.

Believe it or not, that's Trumps most recent tweet:

"Certainly has been an interesting 24 hours!"

As far as black swans go, PEC has an interesting take:

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/08/what-color-is-the-swan/

He sees this as a 'white swan': it's not like it's particularly surprising, given Trump's earlier statements, that he would say something like this. But the revelation of his comments comes at a time when it's becoming increasingly obvious that there's not a lot of upside to being on the Trump Train anymore - so expect to see the passengers jumping off despite any potential risk of broken legs...

Glad to hear you're OK! Despite the way you talk about it, it must have been pretty scary when the window blew in. Here's to hoping for sunny skies in your near future!

I have long since grown tired of your endless sarcasm and/or self-righteousness. That's my territory, after all. Ahem.

Also, try to be a little more respectful toward our always gracious host.

Thanking you in advance, as always.

Pence has condemned Trump. Is Pence going to resign? Or is going to stay on in hope of becoming the desinated successor. I'm no sure how that happens.

Going back to an earlier thought, things have gotten weirder. A lot weirder. Professional grade.

What's up with HuffPo changing the awesome headline of FTP this week?

Very weak.

A

"As for Syria, I commented quite a bit on Hillary's hawkishness in the primary season, as I recall. And the danger that a "no fly zone" could lead to Russian/US dogfights in the skies. I didn't think it was that notable during the debates, because I think everyone's accepted the fact that neither candidate has much of a clue what to do next in Syria. Just like pretty much everyone else -- there is no easy answer, at this point"

First, NOT setting up a safe zone/no fly zone, NOT violating international law and NOT provoking a war with Russia (we aren't just risking "dogfights in the skies") is actually the easy answer on that particular detail in Syria.
And quoting Obama to support that position is the easy answer for a pundit who believes in rule of law and not starting crazy wars.

Second, Hillary being "hawkish" in the primary debates and Hillary/Kaine agreeing with Trump/Pence now is a distinction worthy of debate.
Trump and Pence are wacko, and every sane person should be concerned about Hillary and Kaine sharing their wacko policy.

Third, on the Syria issue in general, cutting off our support for the "rebels" is also an easy answer.
Al Qaida and all groups that cooperate with them and share their ideology are our enemies.
Admitting that Assad defending his country from al Qaida is EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD DO shouldn't be difficult for any sane person either.
Admitting that if a foreign power was funding and arming 160,000 foreign militants in an attack on America, we would react just as harshly against them and any Americans who joined or supported them also shouldn't be difficult for any sane person.

Fourth, we should tell Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan and Israel to go suck an egg and make it clear that due to the evolving circumstances on the ground, their aspirations for regime change in Syria will no longer be supported.
Friends don't let friends support al Qaida.
Admittedly, this is a harder answer with probable repercussions, but a huge majority of Americans would support it with a few reminders about 9/11.

Fifth, we should keep supporting the Kurds in reclaiming and defending the areas where they have traditionally been the majority.
They are the only group in Syria who are not anti-American, and we should leave it up to them to decide if they want autonomy within Syria or independence.

At the moment, I would be happy with some sane acknowledgement on my first point though.
It's a no brainer.
Legal, not crazy.
Obama is right.

But it needs to be said because the interests who dismiss legalities are pushing hard into crazy town.

A

"Display it, don't say it."

So... your campaign is being hammered about past statements regarding your treatment of women as objects. Who is the dim bulb in the Trump campaign who decided to highlight Ms. Strumpet?

Will Trump even show up at the Sunday debate? Trump has got to realize that the scandal containment module has blown a gasket. I think it is Game Over. Does he want to spend his own money on looking the fooll?

They are so predictable, aren't they?

{51} Balthasar: Yep!

"Saint Pence releases his statement"

I beat him to it. See [2].

Let's parse that statement, shall we?

As a husband and father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the eleven-year-old video released yesterday. I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them.

That was a long time ago, but yeah, even I winced.

I am grateful that he has expressed remorse and apologized to the American people.

..and hopeful that he'll get a pass on this one too.

We pray for his family

Think of Trump's wife and children! Oh, right..

and look forward to the opportunity he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the nation tomorrow night.

We have a team locked away to craft a totally accurate statement about what's in Trump's heart. With any luck it will be more detailed than his medical report.

As a husband and father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump in the eleven-year-old video released yesterday. I do not condone his remarks and cannot defend them. I am grateful that he has expressed remorse and apologized to the American people. We pray for his family and look forward to the opportunity he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the nation tomorrow night.

I guess since the tape is "from eleven years ago" that means it's ok. Of course, anything Bill or Hillary did or said from the minute they were born is still fair game. (Or were accused of doing, no matter how many times/ways they've been found innocent.)

And, of course, more stories are coming out. Someone on CNN talking about a friend of hers being groped by the Donald in 2010. And there will be more.

But hey, Saint Pence finds it in his deeply Christian heart to forgive the Donald. The Donald is despicable. Pence, the sanctimonious enabler/accomplice? Worse.

Bush had either just interviewed Trump, or was about to, for Entertainment Tonight. But the microphones were still hot, and they caught some locker-room talk about some of the women walking around (assumably outside the bus).

Far be it for me to be picky, but:

I thought the show was Access Hollywood, an Entertainment Tonight-type show that apparently everyone (including me! see my posts at the end of the previous thread) can't remember the name of most of the time.

My impression was that Trump, et. al, were discussing the blonde PR girl that meets with them at the end of the video. She's waiting just out of camera view. Another girl walks by, and someone says,'get out of the way honey' a few seconds later, because they've been looking at the publicist's legs, and the second girl was blocking their view. At the very end of the video, Trump kisses her on the cheek and then looks pointedly at Billy Bush as if to say, "See that? I kissed her like I said I would."

Just as any other stud-wannabe would do in high school..

Writing headlines is the most fun part of this job. Heh.

Michale [33] -

Another county heard from! Glad you and yours survived... good luck with the cleanup and rebuild...

altohone [34] -

I imagine the folks at the top at ET are mighty annoyed right now. They could have gotten the scoop of the entire campaign, and showed all the "news" shows up. Kind of like how the Natl Enquirer broke the John Edwards love child story. But now we'll all remember the Post guy for breaking the story... like I said, if I was an ET executive, I'd be spitting mad right now!

TheStig [35] -

It's been weird. It will probably get weirder.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
-Hunter S. Thompson

Heh.

John From Censornati [38] -

Funniest thing I've heard yet: "I bet Kellyann Conway was holding a gun to his head, just off screen."

altohone [39] -

No problem -- I'm on West Coast Time. I was just glad I caught ONE of the bombshells... worst thing is when you write a whole column, post it, then go and read the headlines and realize you've utterly missed the boat. See my first paragraph... at least I caught one of them this time.

As for Syria, I commented quite a bit on Hillary's hawkishness in the primary season, as I recall. And the danger that a "no fly zone" could lead to Russian/US dogfights in the skies. I didn't think it was that notable during the debates, because I think everyone's accepted the fact that neither candidate has much of a clue what to do next in Syria. Just like pretty much everyone else -- there is no easy answer, at this point.

ListenWhenYouHear [40] -

OK, here's the final word for you two. I wrote "somehow made its way" to subtly imply that OF COURSE it was leaked by Team Clinton. Too subtle by half, but that was my intent. Turned out to be a good thing, since TC apparently wasn't even involved. The reporter knows who leaked it to him, but he isn't talking. The Post ran a story on how it got the leak, I can dig it up if anyone's interested.

Anyway, so that's the whole story: I thought it was Team Clinton, but when I wrote this article the breaking news had JUST broken -- there wasn't anything other than the initial story up at the Post, and nobody knew where the video came from. So I just went with "somehow made its way" which, looking back, seems to cover all the bases pretty well for how little I knew at the time.

Sometimes being vague turns out to be the smart way to go, I guess that's the moral of the story.

Paula [46] -

When Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor out here and had groping accusations against him, he swore he'd investigate the whole thing if elected (ha!) and we all started calling him Gropenfuhrer. Still (cautionary note), he did win his election.

-CW

All: Can we call it "Gropergate?"

What is the statute of limitations on sexual assault in NY?

No Donald, these words reflect exactly who you are, and we've known it for a long time.

Trump is only sorry because he got caught.

A non-apology apology?
You're stooping lower.

First, the "new to politics" part is a clue to put your thinking cap on...

You may want to work on that comprehension thing.
You didn't take my words literally.

I didn't say it was the Post holding on to the recording as you falsely claimed.

I also said "just "made its way" to the Post today"...
... not "just today "made its way" to the post".

I can see why you might not catch the distinction though. I should have left off the word "today" just to avoid the problem... since the timing of when it happened is irrelevant to the point.
Read the sentence without the word "today" if you still can't grasp it.

Did you notice that CW (22) knew exactly what I meant?

A

"If it has fake tits, it's asking for a chick magnet like Trump to sexually assault it by grabbing its crotch."

This could probably work for Palin and Blingrich as well.

http://sadanduseless.com/animation.php?gif=2

Hmmmm, reading comprehension issues? Let's see....

I know you're new to politics, so you might actually believe that the recording of Trump just "made its way" to the Post today.

In other words, give us a break by pretending that this recording wasn't being held for a strategically timed release. It's beneath you.

I apologize if I mistook this to mean you thought Chris was foolish to believe the Post had just received the video today. I guess my taking your words literally was the problem. I'll work on that.

Better safe than sorry... not knowing who released the recording makes all the difference to the point I was making.

I guess the time stamp on one of the articles (recording/WL/your post) was inaccurate or one of them had been updated or it was a time zone thing. My mistake.

And, you're right... Wikileaks missing a deadline and a prime opportunity for wider exposure (hardly any outlets are covering the latest release now) was very unprofessional.
Or crafty.

No comment on Hillary/Kaine joining with Trump/Pence in going against Obama on Syria?
Interesting.
It's going to be a long four years.

A

Paul Westerberg

"You should always consider what really motivates Assange and remember that context is very important but largely missing in most of his document dumps, to say nothing of the source for the release of these Wall Street speech excerpts being Russian intelligence"

Thanks for pointing out to me the things I am failing to consider... your concern is very endearing. In the same spirit... don't put your hand on a hot stove.

Please do share what "really motivates Assange".
I didn't know you had such info, or I would've asked long ago.
From what he has stated publicly, he seems to be motivated by disgust about the secrecy, hypocrisy and corruption by the governments and leaders in this world.
Establishment defenders are plainly comfortable with it.
Not me.
I share his disgust.

Given that the documents Wikileaks has released are about events/issues/policies from known history, we do have the "context".
Thousands of journalists (even quite a few from outlets you deem credible) have used those documents to deliver reports that they and their organizations deemed important and in the public interest. This journalism provided both analysis and even more context.

You may not feel the releases and journalism are newsworthy, but every major media outlet and the professionals who work there disagree.
Some of them may rag on Assange, and do their best to paint the releases in the most favorable light possible for the establishment they serve... but they still use the documents.

As for the "Russian intelligence" bit...

... way to emphasize the point CW highlighted in his post... "neo-McCarthyist hysteria".

Some people, despite the evidence, believe that the government shares the truth and doesn't lie to us.
Some people believe that having those truths and lies exposed is bad.
Some people want other people to ignore those truths and lies by pointing to dangling shiny objects.

A

Trump is currently having a meltdown on the prediction markets. He's had a total of five meltdowns, but he eventually recovered from each of the first four, a little stronger than he went in. Still, he never cracked a 30% chance of winning the WH for very long. This 5th nosedive is different, it's steeper, deeper (he's dropped 20 probability points in about 24 hrs), and he is showing no signs of pulling out. The markets are imperfect predictors, but they tend to be a reliable leading indicator about where the polls are going.

There's an important debate tomorrow night. The election is about a month away. (I'll be voting in about a week). Trump is pulling out of reserved ad buys, he looks short of money. Before this is all over save the shouting (and possibly mob violence, I kid, I kid...I hope) I see the Donald going into election eve as something near a 1 to 10 long shot.

It's been weird. It will probably get weirder.

I didn't falsely accuse CW of anything... see his response.
And I didn't say the Post was sitting on it.
Pretty funny that you compare me to the troll after displaying reading comprehension issues.

"I am sure that the video wasn't "just discovered" by whoever sent it to the Post"
There ya go... is reality so hard to admit?

Of course, Entertainment Tonight can't legally air the foul language, and may indeed have faced legal consequences if they had even just aired a censored version... and nobody in Hollywood knows the Clintons right?

A

We're running off of a generator right now and I have to curtail my pooter time to be able to run the TV for the grandkids and mundane stuff like a small AC unit and refrigerator etc etc...

As to the storm itself, it wasn't too bad. We lost some shingles off the roof, pool fence was blown down and a fair strong gust over-pressured the house (we had the door open for ventilation. 3 adults and 4 children in a confined space with no running water for a day...well, you can imagine it gets pretty ripe.. :D) anyways, the over pressure blew out the living room windows... Next year, I am thinking plywood.. :D

Other than that, everything seemed to be good.. No major problem. We're at a higher elevation than the surrounding area so flooding is usually never a problem...

So, we're good.. I'll be checking in when we're back to normal..

Thanx again for all the well wishes...

Humbly...

Michale

yikes. was the title of this article a pun?

JL

Trump groping on film

*LOL*

I hope somebody at the town hall debate asks Trump about groping Bill Clinton at the golf course:

http://thememoryhole2.org/blog/trump-clinton-photos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

That would be a good Dem talking point had they themselves not foolishly participated in jacking them up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1j9Lq1l0eo

Does that remind you of anyone? WTF?

I think we more or less agree. I used the word drop, meaning cease to support, with money, organizational skills, endorsements etc. Reallocate resouces down ticket. Trump is on the state ballots, and as far as I can determine, and everybody else in the world is stuck with that.

Oh, I see... but what if they can actually replace Trump if he quits? Argh... I hope they're stuck with him.

Now I have to tell on myself. So... it's Friday night/Saturday morning, having a nice glass of wine with my significant other and reading all the posts to him and get to the ones about p-gate, and I told him: OMG, they can't call it that on television, they're going to have to call it Bushgate for Billy Bush. So he spews his wine across the room, and I ask him what's so dang funny... and he says Bushgate... Bush-gate... Bush... gate!

Sometimes I am apparently funny without even trying. :)

I remember that column (cue harp music).

I Googled Pussygate, and it IS a thing, but only in the less fashionable neighborhoods of the media multiverse.

Since you brought it up, I went for a stroll through my own archives. You're welcome!

:-)

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/01/09/bridgegate-really/

-CW

Um, well, when I wrote this article, nobody knew how the tape got to the Post and the Hillary/WikiLeaks thing hadn't even happened yet. Does that help?

I assumed (but didn't add to this article) that the tape came straight from the Clinton campaign. They've been saying for months now that they've got a ton of oppo research that they were going to hold onto until the closing days of the campaign, so I just figured this was the first "leak" of this type.

But I was wrong. Turns out Entertainment Tonight discovered the film in their files, and was planning on dropping the scoop themselves. Someone (presumably who works for the show) leaked it to the Post before they could do this. Makes sense, since that's where the footage came from (who else would have access to their archives?).

AS for WL, I am left wondering why they didn't release their scoop earlier, during their press conference. They had the world's attention, and they didn't deliver. But, like I said, that story hadn't broken when I wrote this. I can't write about stuff that hasn't happened yet...

Paula [14] -

Nice story! Thanks for sharing it...

TheStig [18] -

My CW.com policy is to avoid vulgar and obscene language at all times in my writing. Except, of course, when it is a direct quote. Then I consider it a public service to report exactly what was said.

:-)

-CW