As Donald Trump’s campaign continues to spiral out of control, I’m left with a sense of utter bewilderment at the ridiculous and hypocritical ways he and his campaign are defending him and counter-attacking Hillary Clinton recently.
Sure, if you’re a mindless drone who believes anything the orange buffoon says, what Trump’s been doing the past few days plays right into your hands. Since the second presidential debate it’s been abundantly clear that Trump’s “plan” through Election Day is to do everything he can to fire up and energize his base to set up his “after election” plans. Many assume he’ll create his own conservative propaganda empire where he’s going to make lot of money relying upon those same mindless drones to believe whatever lies and conspiracies he makes up about those he feels like going after.
To prove all of this I don’t need to use anything else but what I’ve witnessed from Trump, his campaign and his supporters since the video came out of the GOP presidential candidate admitting that he enjoys sexually assaulting women and tried to cheat on his current wife with another married women.
Has the video hurt him in the polls? Yeah — a little.
However, most of that was from moderates and independents, not his actual supporters. In fact, polls done right after the video was released showed that most of the people backing him couldn’t care less about what he said.
But, please, tell me again how Hillary Clinton was wrong when she called “half” of them deplorable. I mean, besides being wrong about it just being “half” — clearly it’s much more than that.
What I’ve seen from Trump’s campaign and those supporting him following the release of this video has been a nearly non-stop display of hypocrisy and a wide-array of absurd defenses of his comments.
First, let’s be clear about what Trump said on that video: He admitted to Billy Bush that he enjoys sexually assaulting women.
Grabbing a woman “by the p–sy” and kissing females without their permission is sexual assault — period. So, for those still defending Trump, they’re quite literally backing a man who admitted that he’s a sexual predator.
Also, no, it was not “locker room talk.” As Trevor Noah perfectly said, there’s a difference between crude language (which is not uncommon in a male locker room) and glorifying non-consensual sexual contact.
When you look at how Trump and his supporters dance around this issue, it’s quite remarkable.
On one hand, you’ll see them often mention that these comments were made 11 years ago and he’s “changed.” That might be a valid defense — if there weren’t plenty of examples of Trump saying and doing blatantly sexist things throughout his campaign. He attacked the looks of Carly Fiorina, suggested Ted Cruz’s wife was ugly, and most recently criticized Alicia Machado’s weight.
Furthermore, as they try to use this “it happened 11 years ago” defense to make excuses for Trump, they’ll bring up allegations of sexual misconduct levied against Bill Clinton from the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s — to attack Hillary Clinton. Because, you know, it makes sense to claim that 11 years is a long time, while using events that happened much longer ago to criticize a woman who wasn’t even the person accused of sexual misconduct.
So, which is it? Does the amount of time since Trump said those horrific comments mean he no longer thinks that way, or is it still valid to criticize Bill’s past issues that happened much longer ago than when the “grab them by the p–sy” comment was made?
Oh, and spare me this b.s. about “he wasn’t running for president then.” That doesn’t even make sense. Just because he wasn’t running for president when he admitted to being a sexual predator and enjoying sexually assaulting women doesn’t suddenly negate that from being an important issue when judging whether or not someone should be our next president.
Plus if you’re going to use the “you can’t use something against someone when they weren’t running for president” line, then why are they bringing up Clinton’s emails? Last I checked, she wasn’t running for president when she had that server, therefore (at least according to this “logic”), none of that should be used by her critics to attack her “judgement.” According to Trump’s surrogates who are using this “logic,” bad judgement from a time in someone’s life when they weren’t running for president shouldn’t matter.
Then I can’t help but notice that to these folks every sexual allegation against Bill Clinton is absolutely true, but the women coming forward now accusing Trump of sexual assault and harassment are liars and he’s claiming none of these accusations ever happened.
Nothing like Trump making these women who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault pawns in his desperate attempt to bring the attention off his horrific behavior, pretending like he actually cares about the alleged victims of sexual assault, to then instantly dismiss other women as liars who are accusing him of non-consensual sexual behavior — even though he’s someone who’s on tape admitting that he enjoys sexually assaulting women.
We also can’t forget that some of the women coming forward with accusations against Trump are describing exactly what he’s boasted about doing during various interviews over the years with people like Howard Stern. So it’s a little difficult to sell that these women are liars when they’re saying he walked into dressing rooms full of women who weren’t dressed, when that’s exactly what he bragged about doing to Stern.
Then there’s his stance that Bill wouldn’t have settled with Paula Jones unless he was guilty.
If he wants to say that, okay, fine. What about all the cases on which Trump’s settled — including a racial discrimination case brought against his company by the Department of Justice?
In fact, there are several lawsuits where Trump’s settled, several of which accused his companies of discriminating against women, minorities and the disabled.
So, again, which is it? Does settling a lawsuit imply guilt or doesn’t it? Trump seems to think it does in the Paula Jones case, but not when he’s settled various lawsuits, many of which have been linked to discrimination against minorities and women.
And can someone logically explain to me how using Trump’s own words is somehow Clinton “going negative”? Never in my life have I seen someone accused of running negative ads when all they’re actually doing is using the exact words of their opponent.
Then there’s the defense that these things were said in private, so they shouldn’t be used against him — said by the very same people using private emails that were hacked by Russians against Hillary Clinton. If what someone says in private is more of who they really are, as Trump’s supporters claim is the case with these hacked emails, then wouldn’t that mean Trump is, in fact, exactly the sexual predator he’s bragged about being on several occasions?
Now there’s one of the latest revelations where he’s on video making horrific sexual comments about a 10-year-old, bragging to someone that he’ll be able to “date her in 10 years.”
I guess that was just “locker room talk” too, right? I can’t say I’ve been in any locker room, or around any human being, who’d point out a 10-year-old girl to reference for a lewd sexual comment.
I’m sure the excuses his campaign and supporters will make about that comment are going to be equally as absurd as everything else I’ve listed here.
It’s all so ridiculous.
The “logic” behind all of this is so illogical that it’s nearly impossible to even attempt to follow it because it’s not grounded on a semblance of reasonable or rational thought. Donald Trump and his supporters literally just make up the rules as they go along based upon what best suits their propaganda and it doesn’t matter how idiotic or hypocritical what they’re saying is.