Sunday, October 9, 2016

Is the Trump Candidacy Over?

If the fat lady isn’t singing yet, she is certainly warming up.

Donald Trump has been counted out many times before, so one hesitates to count him out again.

True, he offered an apology. If he knew that he had to humble himself he was admitting that his problem was real. Some people have said that the apology was not sufficiently sincere, but, in these circumstances, the only way to make the apology sincere would be to withdraw in shame. And he is not about to do that. It would feel too much like coitus interruptus.

After all, he was just engaging in a little locker room banter. It was nowhere near as bad as what Bill Clinton did.

Don’t be surprised, however, if more women come forth to explain that they were assaulted by Donald Trump. Jill Harth has reported on her encounters with Donald Trump and she does not describe a man who is all talk and no action.

Anyone who did not know that Trump was a womanizer, that he is more a ladies’ man than a man’s man, has not been paying attention. It’s something he has in common with Bill Clinton and John Kennedy. In fairness, Trump has always presented himself as a great seducer of women.

We are not talking about a man having an extramarital affair. We are not talking about a man who has a lover and who remains loyal to her. With Trump, we are talking about a man who feels a compulsion to hit on every attractive woman he meets. Even in the presence of her lover or husband. Read the story of Jill Harth.

In New York City, where people have done business with Donald Trump, no one considers him a great business leader. A great marketer, perhaps. A genius at self-promotion, undoubtedly. A television star, for certain. But if you ask people in construction or banking in New York, no one wants to do business with Donald Trump.

With Trump, manliness is an act. It’s a dramatic persona. It explains why he is so thin-skinned. He allowed himself to be baited by Hillary at their first debate when he knew that she was going to bait him. And he wasted days of the campaign on an absurd discussion about a former Miss USA’s weight. If a cheap shot suffices to cause him to become unhinged, it means that he does not feel very confident about his abilities or even his success. Letting yourself be baited is a sign of weakness, not of strength.

As I have been wont to remark, Trump presents the image, the persona of an alpha male without really being one. A real alpha male exudes a quiet confidence and humility… he does not have to make himself a spectacle because his work speaks for him.

To take a recent example, Trump is no Dwight Eisenhower. Anyone who cannot tell the difference does not know the difference. If Trump was really the great success he says he is, he would not be running around groping women. Great leaders set an example. They do not abuse their power and authority.

The same applies to John Kennedy, who is now lionized as a great president, but who was not even close to being great. And to Bill Clinton, who brought far more executive experience to the oval office, but who was married to Hillary. Take Anthony Weiner, a total vulgarian. He seems to have limited himself to various social media sites, but, after all, he was married to Huma.

Someone remarked recently that, come this January, we will have a chronic womanizer in the oval office. I thought immediately that they were talking about Trump and Hillary. In fairness, Hillary seems to have settled into a meaningful long term relationship. Yesterday, the Washington Post announced  her anniversary: Hillary and Huma have been a couple for twenty years.

I don’t think you need to read between the lines to figure out what they were saying. Keep in mind, this is the Washington Post:

Few people know this, but Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton celebrated their professional anniversary in September: it’s been 20 years since the two first started working side-by-side.

Now, with the election roughly 30 days away, many are wondering how Abedin’s role might evolve in a Hillary Clinton White House. Would she continue on as Clinton’s body woman, confidante, fixer, mind-reader? Or after two decades, is she (understandably) ready for a change?

And this:

Then again, Abedin is like a daughter to Clinton (the affection is mutual: on the podcast, Abedin called her “one of the greatest American women in the history of the world”); 

Anyone who knows anything about psychology knows that this level idealization  bespeaks true love.

Hillary will not need to be womanizing in the White House. I am sure you are feeling relieved. And yet, one understands that if Hillary had been caught groping a woman or if Bill had been exposed as having a new girlfriend, the left and the media would circle the wagons and defend her to the death. They have already defended Hillary against charges of incompetence and corruption that go far beyond anything Trump has ever imagined.

Hillary herself, the nation’s leading feminist hypocrite, tweeted that we cannot allow Donald Trump to get into the White House. The same Hillary knew that her husband had raped Juanita Broaddrick. She knew that her husband had stuck a cigar in Monica Lewinsky’s you-know-what. She knew that her husband had been jerking off into the White House sink--- and she wanted to ensure that her husband not be thrown out of the White House by a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

The double standard and the raw hypocrisy is positively breathtaking. The same feminists who did not care how Bill Clinton treated women as long as he defended Gloria Steinem’s right to have an abortion, are up in arms, in the highest dudgeon, over a short-fingered vulgarian who never attempted to hide his womanizing.

And everyone seems to have ignored the stench of corruption that has attached itself to the Hillary candidacy. And, in a better world, we would have been spending the weekend exposing the fact that  Hillary believes in open borders. She idolizes Angela Merkel. She wants to open the nation to Syrian immigrants, the kind of immigrants, as Merkel has discovered, who bring their rape culture with them.

One thing it’s not about is: protecting women from rapists. In Sweden recently, a little girl was molested in school by refugees. The complaint was dismissed by the feminist overlords because she was pretty and blonde:

A 9-year-old white girl was repeatedly beaten, sexually assaulted, and emotionally tormented by a group of migrant children at her school. However, instead of reporting it to the authorities, the school decided to cover up the sickening abuse, giving outraged parents a 5-word, infuriating excuse.

A fourth grader at a Swedish public school in Eskilstuna got her first introduction to multiculturalism, the leftist pipe dream that all cultures are created equal and can happily coexist. Unfortunately, this helpless little girl serves as the perfect example of not only why this is blatant propaganda perpetuated to further the liberal agenda but also that the more aggressive, inhumane culture always overtakes the tolerant, progressive culture if given the chance.

The parents of the young girl demanded answers after their child revealed the horrors she was forced to face on a daily basis. The child explained that she was regularly called “pussy” and “whore,” and subjected to beatings on the school playground and bus. The final straw came when she shamefully divulged how some of the students had pulled her pants down in the cafeteria and proceeded to grind sexually against her while the other children watched.

When the parents confronted the school, they were shocked at the condescending response they received. Fria Tider reports, the school excused the abuse by saying that the girl was a natural target because “she is blonde and sweet.”

If you really want more rape, allow Hillary to bring in more Muslim refugees. Keep in mind, Sweden is the rape capital of the Western world. That nation is so feministically correct that schoolboys are told that they have to pee sitting down… because peeing standing up is sexist.

Of course, Republicans cannot make this argument. Because they chose as a standard bearer Donald Trump.

In truth, the damage that Hillary is planning to do will far exceed anything that Trump will do. And yet, it looks like Trump is going to lose and that the GOP, to its evident chagrin, has nominated the one candidate who is in no position to capitalize on Hillary’s corruption and on her policy follies.

In large part, this is because Trump is an amateur. He brings no experience to the table, has no track record in government and is incapable of presenting a conservative philosophy or political agenda. As the nation saw in the first presidential debate he does not know enough to make the case for his policies. Besides, he does not really have policies. Trump’s real problem is the one that some of us have been pointing out from the onset of his campaign.

Trump is selling a persona. He is not selling a man. He is selling an image and a mask, not the real thing. This explains why his Teflon coating is no longer working. Behind the mask is… nothing.

We can argue, cogently, that Bill Clinton did far worse. And yet, Bill Clinton was functioning as the president and the economy was doing well. He had something real to counterbalance his infidelities. Bill Clinton had a track record. He had some real achievements… and some demerits. Besides, he was married to Hillary, so people were inclined to sympathize with his condition. They felt his pain.

Since Trump has consistently touted the greatness of his own wife, one cannot see him as totally Clintonian.

With Trump the persona is all there is. And this makes his position especially vulnerable.  True enough, the persona is utterly and totally macho. It is machismo gone wild. but, as I have often mentioned, machismo is a caricature of masculinity, the kind that exists most especially in cultures where women hold power and authority. And where the only version of manly behavior that breaks through the din is the man who is as vulgar as feminists think all men are.

The answer to political correctness is the man’s man, the gentleman, the great warrior, the humble business leader or the modest public servant. Of course, feminists tend not to believe that such figures exist. They believe that behind the mask of good behavior all men are predators and misogynists. For them Donald Trump will provide an orgy of confirmation bias. He is even better than the Rabbit.


Trigger Warning said...

"If the fat lady isn’t singing yet, she is certainly warming up."

And if Trump does what he told the WSJ he will do, the fat lady's stage appearance (the singer, not the Columbian beauty blimp / gun moll / Proglodyte mascot) won't be over until the votes are counted in November.

The Reschlublicans disavowing Trump now are merely voicing dis-dis-disavows. All, as far as I know, disavowed the voter's choice early on, and were arm twisted by the RNC to dis-disavow.

It should be high entertainment until election night. I seriously doubt anyone's mind was changed by this event.

"[I]f you ask people in construction or banking in New York, no one wants to do business with Donald Trump."

I guess that's why he's done so much business there. Because nobody "wants" to do business with him. Here's a list of NYC projects nobody "wanted" to do:


Sam L. said...

Trump has not sold out America; Clinton has. Obama has.

Stuart Schneiderman said...

For TW-- there's also this:

sestamibi said...

I remember the similar controversy surrounding Clarence Thomas' SCOTUS nomination--25 years ago, after Anita Hill was dredged up at the last minute in a desperation ploy.

And I remember reading back then that black talk radio stations were then deluged with calls of support from black men. One can only hope that this time around men will finally have had enough of the cuntification of America and its degeneration into a place where bastardy is the norm, fewer and fewer men get more and more pussy, where the remainder of those left out find their previously healthy urges criminalized, and yet are expected to pay for the socialized support system of aforesaid bastard children.

I didn't support Trump in the nomination process, but you damn well bet I do so enthusiastically now.

Trigger Warning said...

Like you, I respect Arends, but that's pretty old news. Arends argument looks pretty silly when he compares Trump to Enron, G Crossing,and They're all history. Trump is still going strong, as exemplified by those NYC buildings, not to mention his global developments. And not including his brand.

Trump is a major risk-taker. Risk-takers risk and sometimes lose. Remember the NeXT Machine, Jobs' baby? It was a great machine, I bought one and lived it, and a total market debacle.

It's easy to write articles a la Arends about business failures, but hard to copy the successes. Thats why Trump has a private jet and Arends is still pounding a keyboard. And the NY guys who don't "want" to deal with Trump obviously do.

I'm a Clinton supporter for her uncanny level of ineptitude and viciousness. I think you will find she is just what American voters ordered. And so richly deserve. I won't be surprised if she goes full Nebuchadnezzar and ends up eating grass on the White House lawn.

But Trump is a wily businessman, and given a choice, I'd rather sit at a negotiating table with a woman whose main accomplishment is marrying a psychopathic political genius. Not Donald Trump.

AesopFan said...

Some interesting thoughts from J. E. Dyer on the Trump issue.
If you don't recognize the name, she is a retired naval intelligence officer, and worth reading on anything to do in the Middle East.

"...For what it’s worth, I don’t perceive Trump to see women only as “pu**y” to be grabbed. If he did, his life would have been far less successful than it has been. Most of his children would be all messed up, instead of accomplished people in their own right. I think Trump is always in tactical-bulldozer mode – often crude and going for interpersonal dominance – when he’s talking in any venue other than at home with family. (As an aside, Trump would wipe the floor with “performative debaters.” He’d figure them out and run rings around them inside of five minutes.)

Yes, that’s analytical guesswork on my part. That’s what it looks like from out here, where I still wish Ted Cruz were the GOP nominee. So, you know, grains of salt. Use your judgment.

But I do know this for sure. The old-consensus, status quo establishment sees women as exploitable political causes, exploitable economic units, and votes. I’m sure some politicians and pundits mean better than that. But regardless of the personal sentiments of individuals, that’s how the status quo of our polity sees and treats women. It is built to bait and trigger and exploit women. Having polite-spoken men and women in charge of it doesn’t change that.

The people aren’t stupid to see that, and to see that Hillary will just accelerate the exploitation of that status quo, against the people, both women and men.

That’s kind of the genius of this whole election cycle: the people keep trying to make it about the real issues that now deform their very lives, whereas the establishment “elite” keeps being distracted by all the Pavlovian red herrings, and demanding that the people join them in being silly.

I know the MSM are trumpeting the Trump audio as the thing that’s going to bring him down. But “Trump and the women” is probably going to go the way of all the other “Trump truth” moments. Ultimately, it won’t bring Trump down. The voters will overlook it, not because they have no character, but because their government, which does have no character, is out of control – and that’s what has to matter.

Even when defenders of the status quo say the right things, the people know that they aren’t saying them for the right reasons. It won’t be Trump who was “exposed” here. It will be the emptiness of our terribly, even vilely over-politicized vision of human life."

AesopFan said...

For a satirical take on the issue, no one beats Scott Adams, even if he may be wrong.
"I don’t know how to write this post without unintentionally disrespecting the real victims of abuse in any form. I apologize in advance if it comes off that way. But it’s part of the national conversation now, and unavoidable. The best I can do is focus on how voters perceive the situation. I don’t have an opinion about who did what to whom because I wasn’t in the room any of those times. That said…


My view is that if either Clinton or Trump can be judged by the weight of the allegations against them, both are 100% unfit for the office. I think Trump supporters think it’s worth the hit to our national brand just to get some specific improvements in the country.

Clinton supporters have been telling me for a few days that any visible support for Trump makes you a supporter of sex abuse. From a persuasion standpoint, that actually makes sense. If people see it that way, that’s the reality you have to deal with. I choose to not be part of that reality so I moved my endorsement to Gary Johnson.

I encourage all Clinton supporters to do the same, and for the same reason. I don’t know if any of the allegations against the Clinton’s are true, but since we are judging each other on associations, you don’t want to be seen as supporting sex abuse by putting an alleged duo of abusers (the perp and the clean-up crew) into office. I think you will agree that it doesn’t matter if any of the allegations are true, because the stink from a mountain of allegations – many that seem credible to observers – is bad for the national brand too. To even consider putting the Clinton’s back in the White House is an insult to women and every survivor of abuse.


If you take allegations of sex abuse seriously – and you should – vote Johnson. To vote for Clinton or Trump is to be seen by others as an enabler for sexual abuse. I don’t think that’s what anyone had in mind by breaking the glass ceiling. Don’t let it happen to you."

I think I will move to Patagonia if either one of them wins.

AesopFan said...

Impassioned critique of the rampant hypocrisy of the Left, from Heather MacDonald (no shrinking violet, she, nor much of a fan of hypocrisy):

"If any of these newfound exponents of female modesty felt any comparable nausea at the blatant display of female sexuality and, dare I say it, “p...y,” in Beyoncé’s acclaimed rock video “Formation,” say, they kept it to themselves. Beyoncé and her female chorus line rhythmically thrust their butts, crotches, and breasts to the camera, while Beyoncé brags of her sexual prowess:"
...(I will not copy the lyrics -- such as they are -- here)
"President Obama has singled out Beyoncé for praise, and the singer is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, to not a word of protest from Clinton regarding her status as a role model for young girls. Bill Clinton met with Beyoncé and her husband, rapper Jay Z, in September. If Bill or Hillary thinks the lyrics of Jay Z’s “Big Pimpin‘” “horrific,” in Hillary’s words, they are not letting on:.." (or here)
"The New York Times’ follow-up story also labelled Trump’s remarks “lewd.” If either of those paper’s critics have ever objected to such lewdness in popular culture, it has escaped attention. Have they objected to college campus sex weeks, which routinely invite porn stars to offer how-to demonstrations on S & M sex? Do they squirm with discomfort when campus administrators pass out tips on the use of sex toys to achieve better orgasms? Not on the record, at least.
Other Hillary Clinton supporters have hardly been shy about exploiting sex to get ahead. Clinton fan Amy Schumer admits: “I have used sex as a marketing tool and it has worked." "
"The sudden onset of Victorian vapors among the liberal intelligentsia and political class at the revelation of Trump’s locker-room talk is part and parcel of the Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to feminism and sexual liberation. ...Trump’s gratuitous nastiness to men and women alike, kicking people when they are down, unfits him to serve as the premier civic role model for the nation’s children. But the feminists can’t have it both ways: declaring that women should be equal to men in all things and then still demand a chivalric deference to female’s delicate sensibilities. Either women are the same as men or they’re not. It is particularly galling to see the selective resurrection of Victorian values from the same crowd that has been pushing transgender locker rooms on the world, in an effort to destroy the last shred of girls’ innate sexual modesty.
This opportunistic, on-again, off-again appearance of traditional sexual values characterizes the campus-rape myth as well."
"But Democrats are the most shameless in their outrage over the Trump braggadocio, having dismissed Bill Clinton’s White House and gubernatorial escapades for years, and standing as the party of maximal sexual liberation, unlike the Republicans. The New York Times rejects the relevance of Clinton’s predatory White House behavior on the ground that “Mr. Clinton is not running for president.” But the Times did not find Clinton’s behavior significant when Clinton was in office, either.
Ideally, no man would ever paw a female or push himself on her. The default norm of sexual modesty, coupled with the chivalric ideal that gentlemen should treat females like ladies, used to be the most effective defense against such high-testosterone behavior. Feminism, however, has declared both modesty and chivalry sexist, leaving females to improvise a response to the inevitable excesses of the male sex drive, when they are not trying to leverage it to their own advantage."

Anonymous said...

For all those prudish Dems so shocked and disgusted, Bill Clinton has a funny cigar story for ya...

Anonymous said...

They've been saying Trump's candidacy has been over since he started running. He's still running. His Ju-Jitsu on Bill's past last night was a long time coming. Trump said at the first debate that he didn't want to go there, which was a signal. Game on.

BrianE said...

There have been some pretty significant policy statements during the debates that are being ignored, IMO.

Trump identified the stock market bubble, led by the Fed, we're in. That deserves attention.

Clinton, when saying we need a no-fly zone in Syria, is essentially saying she would risk a shooting conflict with Russia, since they're moving in S300 missle systems which would make enforcing the no-fly zone problematic.

Trump on the other hand recognizes that the time to oust Assad was punted by Obama. It's time to move on.

Energy policy, important differences-- as Clinton will continue to shut down coal to the detriment of the economy.

Supreme Court nominations. No surprise there, but I do expect Trump to honor his commitment to the choices he announced previously.

Could Trump give a speech detailing any of these policies? Probably, but we are a sound-bite nation. The question that should be asked is: Could the American people stay focused for a two-minute policy speech?

Sam L. said...

"Then again, Abedin is like a daughter to Clinton (the affection is mutual: on the podcast, Abedin called her “one of the greatest American women in the history of the world”);" Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Do I detect an air of pedophilia here?

Sam L. said...

Say, was yesterday "Peak Trump"? I'll bet every day will be declared "Peak Trump" until election day.

Anonymous said...

Huma Weiner = trojan horse.

Ares Olympus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ares Olympus said...

The "Trump tapes" bother me the most not because what Trump said, not as a measure of his character, but the almost innocent confessional quality. He's clearly proud of the fact that he considers beautiful women having a magnetic power over him.
I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

And he's made similar confessional statements in public, like the republican debates where he admits he gives money to politicians in all parties for access.

So whether it is "money" or celebrity, he's honestly reflecting his feeling of entitlement, and if you asked him if this "status" is fair or good, I imagine a possibility he would agree that it has possible downside he would like to change.

If I were to ask him a question at the debate it might be "Have you ever grabbed a woman by the crotch as you boasted without permission? Or was that just hyperbole? Whether you tried or not, do you really think some women would allow this behavior and not complain? Do you think some women want this behavior, as long as they're getting something out of it too, perhaps like free furniture? How do you think celebrities differentiate between the women who are willing and the women who are unwilling? Finally, do you think men should be punished for sexual assault if a woman gives signals that she wants to be grabbed?"

Probably too many questions at once, and you know most politicians would sidestep them all, but Trump is so childlike and innocent, he'd probably love the chance to express his opinions on this subject, even at a presidential debate.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @October 10, 2016 at 11:50 AM:

"[Trump] admits he gives money to politicians in all parties for access..."

Is this a revelation to you, Ares? Really?

What do you imagine will happen when "they" take the money out of politics?

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, indeed, that is a virtue of Trump, confessing the truth of power that the rest of us are supposed to ignore.

So that's why rather than trying to shame Trump, my preference would be to ask more intimate questions to how he sees his personal privilege expressed in his personal relations, and perhaps his vision how everyone can become a billionaire like him if they think big enough.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @October 10, 2016 at 2:31 PM:

Huh? Who ignores it? Trump is doing the one thing Leftists can't fathom: he's telling the truth. Where do you think these tax loopholes for "millionaires and billionaires" come from? Warren Buffett talks a good game, while challenging the IRS on his large tax debt. George Soros claims to desire a just and open society, while destabilizing foreign currencies. Eric Schmidt wants information to be shared with all, except his own. All Democrats, all Lefties, all buying power.

How do they do it? They claim to be for whatever Lefties like you want them to be for. An anything goes society, except for making money. That's sin.

But if you take money out of politics, no one has a voice. All we get are Marx's prattling poets and coffee house hipsters singing "Imagine."

The ones who fail to look in the mirror are the morally magnificent who claim to be saving the world while ingratiating themselves. I don't think Trump or anyone who supports him is under the illusion that Trump is falling all over himself to demonstrate how virtuous or pure he is. Contrast that with the cackling crusader, who is the most self-serving of them all. You're with her. Her and Senator Squaw, who makes up this phony story that she's 1/32nd Native American so she can get a professorship at Harvard. That's aside from all your Climate Change friends who can't tell you where Hurricane Matthew is gonna go in a 24-hour period, but somehow have a telepathic channel to the Almighty as to what the climate is going to be in 50 years.

While you're asking Trump these "more intimate questions," I'm sure you'll give Shrillary a pass because she really deleted 30,000 emails about Chelsea's wedding and her yoga lessons. Perhaps Julian Assange will prove useful in the end in a way the most transparent Administration in history couldn't divulge, as if saying he should be droned isn't enough to show you the depths to which these politicians will go.

Once again, you lack self-awareness. You accuse people of things you couldn't hope to know. I am sad for you. Go back to your blog and spare us all. Make yourself adequate again.


Ares Olympus said...

IAC, and I'll be sad for you as well, but I don't think you need my pity.

I'm not the one name-calling here, while I mainly don't understand how partisanship holds you so deeply.

I'm still waiting for WikiLeak to show that Hillary said anything to bankers except what we expect her to say - that they're important, and they shouldn't be so naughty, and she's on their side. Did we have any doubt?

Left-Right clearly are insufficient terms to define the teams involved. The Democrats are just apparently smarter at the moment, in getting the money on their side, no matter how many tax breaks the Republicans offer.

Anonymous said...

AO - Do you believe the things you write here? Or are you that needy for attention that you say such stupid things? It's not name calling to label you a troll. It's true.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @October 10, 2016 at 6:44 PM:

You are astoundingly naive about money, power and how the two interact. And pathetically partisan in your naïveté. Maybe someday you'll wake up.

This is a human problem, not a Demoblican or Republicrat problem. This is why politicians must be contained, why they must have limits with specific and enumerated powers. Power is intoxicating and its applications limitless.

There is nothing easier on earth than giving away other people's money.

Government is singly the most inefficient way to allocate resources. Politics is not about value, it's about power. The Founders saw this. I don't understand why you cannot.

Leftists want to bring about heaven on earth -- perfect human equality. A theoretical utopia. There is nothing they will not do to achieve this impossible end, and they will hypocritically surround themselves with all the trappings and luxuries of power.

You do not see this. That's what's sad.