VOX Donald Trump is trying to gaslight us on E. Jean Carroll’s account of rape
The president’s response to the advice columnist’s accusation is to make us doubt our own eyes
Trump's statement: “I’ve never met this person in my life.”
Trump's Statement on Video
"Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better 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. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."
Jean Carroll's account of the sexual assault.
"Carroll claims that in the mid-1990s, she ran into Trump in a Bergdorf Goodman store and was asked to help him buy lingerie for an unnamed woman. The then-52-year-old agreed and from there, their exchange went south. The writer claimed that Trump pinned her against a wall and then forced “his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.”
Apparently she makes the 16th woman to accuse the President of doing what he bragged to Billy Bush about. And yet people who claim to be "good Christians" defend him over and over...
And let's not forget him screwing Stormy soon after Melania delivered him a son...
The president’s response to the advice columnist’s accusation is to make us doubt our own eyes
Trump's statement: “I’ve never met this person in my life.”
Trump's Statement on Video
"Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better 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. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."
Jean Carroll's account of the sexual assault.
"Carroll claims that in the mid-1990s, she ran into Trump in a Bergdorf Goodman store and was asked to help him buy lingerie for an unnamed woman. The then-52-year-old agreed and from there, their exchange went south. The writer claimed that Trump pinned her against a wall and then forced “his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.”
Apparently she makes the 16th woman to accuse the President of doing what he bragged to Billy Bush about. And yet people who claim to be "good Christians" defend him over and over...
And let's not forget him screwing Stormy soon after Melania delivered him a son...
86 comments:
Can Democrats raise issues about TRump's marital past without raising issues about Rep. Omar's?
--Hiram
Her issues seem quite different.
But you make a good point, why is it difficult for people to do what I do...
Acknowledge that Trump is a very very flawed individual...
That I may still need to vote for again.
Instead they try to deny exactly his sinful past and continual lying.
It is like they believe that acknowledging his flaws will somehow taint them...
I mean Omar apparently is no saint either,
why is it so hard for people to acknowledge
this while continuing to support her?
Instead supporters will make up justifications and defend her bad choices.
In Trump's case, I can vote for the man because many of his positions align better with mine than a DEM candidate.
But I sure would not leave the sleaze alone with one of my daughters, enter into a business deal with him or take anything he says as true just because he said it.
His positions are so unclear as to be meaningless.
Moose
I don't know that they are unclear...
I think he is just really bad at negotiating to accomplish things. :-(
I mean goals to:
- reduce federal regulations and red tape
- make trade deals support US workers and manufacturers
- getting federal government out of healthcare
- resolving Palestinian, Iran, North Korea, etc
- stopping illegal entries into the USA
- make US immigration policy work for USA, not the world's needy
- install justices who are anti-abortion
seem pretty clear...
I can't believe you would risk 4 more years of Trump foreign policy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/24/have-we-become-numb-trumps-loathsomeness/?utm_term=.15fc5393524b
How can you vote for a rapist for president?
I have no problem criticizing Omar. But she is just a Congress person, and Congress people don't count for much in this world.
--Hiram
WAPO Loathsome
Laurie,
Maybe the DEMs will give me a better option???
Maybe even a few reasonable positions:
- make trade deals that support US workers and manufacturers
- stop illegal and unapproved entries into the USA
- make US immigration policy work for USA, not the world's needy
- minimize federal government's role in healthcare
- reduce federal regulations and red tape where ever possible
- resolving Palestinian, Iran, North Korea, etc
By the way, I can not access the WAPO piece.
Apparently I have used up my free access for now.
But the title is intriguing.
"have we become numb trumps loathsomeness?"
I would say yes for the most part. Unfortunately. :-(
Have we become numb to Trump’s loathsomeness?
'They are playing with very dangerous territory': Trump denies sexual assault claim
Speaking to reporters June 22, President Trump denied allegations made by magazine writer E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump attacked her in 1995. (The Washington Post)
By Paul Waldman
Opinion writer
June 24 at 12:43 PM
Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly described The Post’s Saturday front page. This version has been corrected.
When we look back on June 2019, we’ll say that this was the time when a credible allegation of rape was made against the president of the United States, and he had already shown himself to be such a loathsome character that it was treated as a third-tier story, not worthy of much more than a passing mention here and there in the news.
After New York magazine published author and advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s account last Friday of an encounter she says she had with Trump in a Bergdorf Goodman that ended with him raping her in a dressing room, many of our most important news outlets reacted with only minor interest. Most of the nation’s biggest newspapers — aside from The Post — left it off on their front page the next day. None of the five Sunday shows mentioned it at all.
There are many reasons to find Carroll’s allegation credible. She’s a fairly well-known public figure. Her description of what happened to her — him slamming her against a wall, mashing his face against hers, yanking down her tights, and penetrating her — accords not only with the allegations of multiple other women but Trump’s own words on that infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, in which he bragged that he can sexually assault any woman he pleases. “I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”
Just to remind ourselves, these are just some of the accusations women have made against the president:
Kristin Anderson says she was in a bar when Trump reached under her dress and grabbed her genitals.
Jessica Leeds says Trump groped her when they sat next to each other on a plane.
Natasha Stoynoff says Trump got her in a private room, pushed her up against the wall, and kissed her against her will. They were interrupted by a butler, allowing Stoynoff to get away.
--Hiram
Hiram,Thank you !!!
This is why I posted on the topic...
My level of frustration that older Christian
"Trump True Believers" will find some way
to block all of this out.
How do they do this?
One I was talking to blamed Stormy Daniels
for not honoring her hush money agreement...
While being able to somehow accept the fact
Trump was f**king a porn star while his wife
was home breast feeding their baby.
There has to be some serious self deception
going on here. Or maybe these folks just are
not as religious as they say. I mean many of then
want to send innocent women, children and men back
to their poor violent countries. Probably not what
Jesus would do.
Here are some related pieces:
How can Christians Support Donald Trump
Or is it just fear and greed
Human behavior definitely fascinates me... :-)
There is an article going around talking about how different sides don't understand each other. I tend to disagree with that. I think people may understand each other too Forwell.
Trump, to use the Washington Post's word, is "Loathsome". Everybody knows that whether or not they are willing to say that out loud. Nobody would want him at their house for dinner. No one would trust him to go door knocking for a candidate. Absolutely no one would ever want their daughter participating in a beauty pageant run by Mr. Trump. These are views which are universally held. But if he is willing to do deliver on promises most important to an individual, why do his personal qualities matter at all? Trump delivers. For that significant portion of the population for whom abortion is a single, Trump delivers strong and committed pro life judges. For business people, Trump delivers tax cuts, the largest in American history. I understand that given those things, and some others, even the most committed moralizer has a strong interest in just looking away. I understand. Don't I?
--Hiram
A FB Friend linked to it.
The Atlantic Misunderstandings
Here was the comment I left for him.
"Sometimes I think this true and sometimes I wonder if the GOP and DEM folks self report incorrectly.
I would assume that you would self report that you are not for "open borders"... However when I ask how many we should allow in, what should happen at the border, why we are leaving water for border violators... You usually have no answers or say that we need to be compassionate...
And of course the Conservatives who say they support immigration typically only want wealthy Caucasian Christians or others who will assimilate quickly. So are they actually pro-immigration?
Which is funny since most of their ancestors came here broke and not speaking English... :-)"
I think you have the crux of it.
My question though is why do people have such a hard time being like me.
Acknowledge that Trump is a very flawed human who may be the best option at the time.
Instead these folks energetically defend him as honest and attack anyone who calls him out...
They would happily stone the boy who noted the Emperor's naked body rather than acknowledge the naked man standing in front of them ????
It must be some kind of a self defense mechanism.
I mean I have had them get adamant and tell me that Trump does not lie, even though the facts abound. Instead they insist that people are just out get him.
"Acknowledge that Trump is a very flawed human who may be the best option at the time."
If Donald Trump is the "best option", then you best stop calling yourself a centrist. Because you ain't. You're just as much of a right-wing lunatic as the rest of them.
Now I agree that I am internally conflicted about maybe having to vote for a lying, manipulative, abuser like him.
However if given the choice of sending our country down a democratic socialist path or voting for that idiot... The idiot wins because I fear his impact less.
Now if the DEMs somehow nominate a true Centrist, I will be happy to vote for them...
And no I do not mean someone in the middle of the DEM party... Which of course puts them quite a bit Left of the majority of the population.
Maybe 2020 is a good time for a real 3rd party candidate...
Fiscal Conservative
Social Liberal
"The idiot wins because I fear his impact less."
It's just you making excuses. Donald Trump is just yet another Republican who blows up the debt. You claim to care about that, but when push comes to shove, you don't. Donald Trump stands in stark contrast to all the values and principles and things you claim to hold dear -- hammers you are more than ready to use to whack a poor brown person -- but when push comes to shove you don't care about that. Line up some mediocre white dude and you're all in.
Now you do realize that it is an outlay / spending problem, as is clearly shown in the lower graph.
Now I am very unhappy with most politicians and citizens right now for their selfish actions.
I mean how many people out there support raising taxes and cutting spending?
You know... Acting like a responsible adult.
I guess we will get what we deserve, I just feel bad for the kids.
But I am sure not up for supporting politicians who openly say that they want to spend more and try to tax their way out of this disaster.
I truly hope we have better choices in 2020...
The "Center" of American Politics Is on the Left
https://prospect.org/article/center-american-politics-on-left
why do people have such a hard time being like me.
Because they have different interests and different priorities. And often, because they disagree on what is effective.
At the moment, I am watching a show on which Trump's border policy is being discussed. What they are saying is that in effect, Trump's tougher policies are leading to more illegal immigration. The idea is that for Trump projecting an image of "toughness" is more important than actually achieving policy goals. What's wrong, where our disagreement is, is with the means, not really the policy goals where really there isn't that much disagreement at all.
Trump believes in "toughness". In negotiations, it means he storms out a lot, and a certain amount of table pounding is involved. But I just don't see how being 'tough' especially when dealing with negotiators, in this case far more experienced than he is, necessarily leads to better results. Where Trump is concerned, it has led to cave in after cave in, something our adversaries have learned all too well.
--Hiram
Laurie,
Propect Center of American Politics is on the Left
I am not sure that cherry picking a few surveys counts as proof.
But when I get time this will make for an interesting post.
Hiram,
I am fine with people having different interests and priorities.
What frustrates me is their desire to believe "their guy/gal" is an angel...
And the opponent's "guy/gal" is a demon...
"But I am sure not up for supporting politicians who openly say that they want to spend more and try to tax their way out of this disaster."
No, you'll instead vote for the guy who will tax less and spend more. Brilliant!
Benjamin Wittes thread
Okay... Here are my apparent choices:
1. person who promises to reduce government regulations and cut spending but may not
2. person who promises to increase government regulations and spending significantly
My options definitely are poor to say the least... :-(
I have not linked here for a long time. Even with our booming economy, our total government spend is still 35.4% of GDP...
What frustrates me is their desire to believe "their guy/gal" is an angel...
I don't know of any angels in public service. I know Rep. Omar is pretty darn flawed. And don't get me started on the Clintons. And I don't think the other side believes their politicians are angels either. If you look at their statements with any degree of care at all, few of Trump's political supporters defend him on moral grounds at all. There are times when their evasions on those points are of museum quality.
One of my favorite moments in politics was when Gingrich had to be replaced and one candidate after another had to drop out on moral guys until they found one who seemed ok who I believe is now doing time somewhere.
--Hiram
here are your choices:
a dangerous, corrupt, lying, idiotic, sexual predator (and whatever other character flaws I forgot to mention)
or
an intelligent person of good character who will not be able to implement their agenda due to obstruction in the Senate
I agree with lying, sexual predator...
And I would even add narcissist and poor deal maker...
Not so sure about corrupt, idiotic or dangerous...
In some ways he is making some good choices and manipulating people effectively.
Hiram,
Maybe it is need of people to defend their "champion"?
If I tell Trump True Believers that he lies often...
They say I am wrong and it is the fact checkers who are lying to attack Trump.
Back when I used to say that Hillary did some very questionable things.
Her supporters would insist that I was wrong.
"1. person who promises to reduce government regulations and cut spending but may not"
Donald Trump isn't advocating for lower spending. His FY2020 budget proposal shows an increase in spending of 15% over the next 5 years -- the same percentage Obama increased spending over his entire 8-year term (both calculations based on inflation-adjusted dollars). You need to stop pretending that Republicans stand for something that they don't.
If you rewind to 2016, every single analysis showed that Hillary Clinton was a better candidate on the debt than Donald Trump.
Why don't you just admit you like the "owning the libs" and the racism?
" he is making some good choices and manipulating people effectively."
examples? I can't think of a single good thing Trump has done.
Sean,
It looks like he wanted the FEDs to do less welfare and regulating. Which seems consistent with my and the GOP view that state's should have the primary responsibility for those issues.
I have never understood collecting the money at the federal level and distributing back to the states.
Yes she did want to tax a lot more and spend more.
Laurie,
That is likely because you disagree with:
The capitalist agenda that says strong American companies hire people and enable us to care for the truly disabled.
Or that something really needs to be done to motivate consumers to buy high US content goods if we want keep jobs here and raise wages
Or that we need to protect low capability American workers from a flood of additional low capability workers
Or that too many regulations can be just as bad as too few regulations
Or that rural communities and states should have the power to enact their own laws, not have an liberal activist SCOTUS forcing important decisions upon them.
Or that the other NATO allies should pay their commitment.
So yes I can understand how you have not seen some of the benefits of his erratic and verbose leadership.
Trump's First 2 Years
Even the Guardian acknowledges his Promises Kept
VOA Report Card
Maybe it is need of people to defend their "champion"?
Maybe. But champion of mine though she may be, I don't run around defending Omar a lot, and i would certainly support a challenger to her in the primary. She certainly should answer questions about her marital history and her tax issues.
They say I am wrong and it is the fact checkers who are lying to attack Trump.
This is where maybe there is a failure of mutual understanding. Putting aside what they say and pay lip service to, do they really believe Trump is not a liar? That he lies about big things and small, relevant and irrelevant, practically all the time. Have you noticed how few people are actually willing to provide witness to Trump's good character?
--Hiram
Back when I used to say that Hillary did some very questionable things.
Her supporters would insist that I was wrong.
Which questionable things are that? As I recall I criticized Hillary in real time for things like taking money for speeches from bankers. The email thing, although aggravating, was basically nonsense. She has something of a political tin ear, but that's not a moral failing.
The problem and really the weakness Democrats have is that they are willing to acknowledge the failings of their candidates, and to many this gives them the appearance of weakness. It's why Democrats are vulnerable to charges of double standards and hypocrisy. Republicans are just as hypocritical, the difference is that they just don't care.
--Hiram
--Hiram.
Hiram,
Yes you are more non-committal like myself.
Yes I assume the people who yell loudest know at some level that their "champion" is flawed. And yet they are the only "champion" they have and therefore defend them against "attacks" from the "other tribe".
Do you hear me defending against attacks on Omar? The most I an willing to say that a lot of the charges against her unproven, but even I am willing to acknowledge that where there is a lot of smoke around, there just might be a fire nearby.
--Hiram
Something Republicans love to do is to lecture the rest of us on their patriotism and their moral superiority. My favorite thing about the Trump presidency how visibly and emphatically, it demonstrates the emptiness of those claims.
--Hiram
"It looks like he wanted the FEDs to do less welfare and regulating. Which seems consistent with my and the GOP view that state's should have the primary responsibility for those issues."
But he's spending money like a drunken sailor everywhere else. And exploding the debt. Just keep making excuses as to why your so-called principles are so disposable.
Per the VOX piece, it looks like he is only wanting to spend more on
national defense and caring for our veterans...
What is in the "everything else" bucket.
There is this Commerce piece also.
Somehow I think National Defense and Effectiveness Improvements are key Federal Roles.
As for the insults...
I think I have been pretty consistent over the years that I think States should be caring for their citizens, while the Feds should be caring for National Defense, Interstate Commerce, etc.
Which principles am I disposing of again?
I generally oppose states. At the very least, boundary lines should be redrawn to more effectively represent modern conditions. There is simply no rational reason why the Dakotas should have 4 senators.
--Hiram
"Per the VOX piece, it looks like he is only wanting to spend more on
national defense and caring for our veterans..."
His FY2020 budget proposal shows an increase in spending of 15% over the next 5 years -- the same percentage Obama increased spending over his entire 8-year term (both calculations based on inflation-adjusted dollars). You need to stop pretending that Republicans stand for something that they don't.
You criticized Obama for his spending. You criticized Clinton for her spending plans. Donald Trump spends more than them, and you don't complain. And he jacks spending while cutting taxes blowing the debt out of the water, and you spend your time bitching and moaning about Democrats.
"Which principles am I disposing of again?"
Already answered.
The reason is pretty simple...
We want the middle of the country to stay part of the USA.
Why would the people in those huge swaths of the country want to stay part of the USA if they had no say in how our country was run?
Voter influence and engagement is important.
but so is
Regional influence and engagement.
Sean,
Oh come now... The only reason Obama did not spend a lot more was because he a had GOP congress fighting him tooth and nail for 6 years of his Presidency.
Remember all those shutdowns, sequestration discussions, etc.
Now we really do not know what Hillary would have spent, but with her supporting free college and more government supported healthcare, it would have been more than Trump.
And remember this golden oldie
Or this new one with no comments
Both sides and ALL older citizens own the National Debt disaster... :-(
The cost of Hillary's college and healthcare plans was less than 1/2 of the Trump Tax Cut ($900B over 10 years versus $2.3T) -- and she had plans to pay for it!
We want the middle of the country to stay part of the USA.
How well do we achieve that goal? Many middle of the country states barely exist. The ones that do are dominated by out of state economic forces that relentlessly manipulate their politics. South Dakota senators are much cheaper to buy than New York senators.
--Hiram
"The only reason Obama did not spend a lot more was because he a had GOP congress fighting him tooth and nail for 6 years of his Presidency."
Check the record of the two years where he had Democratic control of Congress. Check his budget proposals. There's no crazy spending there. We've covered this dozens of times before, but once a talking point is lodged in your head it's never leaving despite how many times it's shown to be inaccurate.
No lobbyist was ever hired to get less money for their client. Cutting spending simply has no constituency and that's why it never happens.
--Hiram
Hillary's College Plan
Hillary's Healthcare Plan
HillaryCare vs TrumpCare
Please remember that I was for the corporate tax reductions, but not for the personal reductions. The good news is that hopefully they will go away to 2025.
And please remember that "plans to pay for it" means more taxes...
As for Obama's first 2 years... He apparently was so busy getting his healthcare entitlement and new taxes passed, and we can not forget that Great Recession he was fighting. The reality is that the budget was already way up to fight that, and additional taxes would have been a bad idea.
This is a different and yet rational view.
Hiram,
My point exactly...
The kids can not vote
and the parents and grand parents
want THEIR money or services
Even it screws the kids...
And yes South Dakota is there... :-)
Unfortunately due to other travel plans I will miss the fireworks this year. :-(
We even have a golf course. :-)
"And please remember that "plans to pay for it" means more taxes..."
Yeah, that's better than doing what Bush and Trump have done -- raise the spending and cut taxes at the same time.
It is definitely worse for our kids...
But it is apparently what our current citizenry like.
"It is definitely worse for our kids..."
How so, and compared to what?
As I have repeated many times in many different way...
Our generation and those few before are are happy to spend more and collect less...
Some are also willing to coddle non-performers which does our country no good at all...
To make up the difference we borrow money to pay the bills.
That debt will become a burden on their future...
"Some are also willing to coddle non-performers which does our country no good at all..."
Then we should kick them out and send them back to their ancestral homes. Or maybe put them in concentration camps, since we've already started down that road.
Moose
Barack Obama mostly paid for his big plans, and he actually cut some spending. Hillary Clinton had ways to pay for her relatively modest spending proposals.
Donald Trump has spent more and cut taxes at the same time.
This ain't a "both sides" deal. One party has acted much more responsibly when they have had power.
But because it isn't your party, you sit here and dissemble to explain why you keep voting against what you say you care about.
Moose,
What should our society do with people who are not willing to be responsible and pull their own weight? That is an interesting question.
Especially in this highly competitive modern world of ours...
If you were on a ship pulling at the oars with 100 people, trying to win a race... What would you do with those folks who refused to row and were just dead weight in the boat? Would you make the stronger rowers work harder or would you confront the "dead weight"?
Sean,
Being "debt responsible" is not necessarily being "long term responsible".
This is an intersting oldie
I reject the notion that increasing government spending invariably equals a loss of freedom. Government spending in many cases protects and enhances freedom. Making sure that every American can get health care enhances freedom. Protecting people from discrimination enhances freedom. Providing quality public education enhances freedom. I could go on, but you get the idea.
We can cut taxes and services, but that doesn't make us more free.
"What should our society do with people..."
Put them in concentration camps and let them rot. They don't produce enough beans to count.
Moose
Sean,
Unfortunately when you tax me and my family at significantly higher rates to pay for those "freedoms". You take away our freedom to use that fruit of our labor, saving, and investing as we desire...
It is not that simple.
Moose,
I don't like that idea. It costs money to run concentration camps...
How can we incentivize or push them to stop being a drain on our society and start being responsible contributor?
I just disagree with your concept that everyone is owed stuff, whether they try or not...
Well, Afghanistan has low taxes, I'm sure you'll like it there. Loads of freedom!
"How can we incentivize or push them to stop being a drain on our society and start being responsible contributor?"
Make our country and economy work for them instead of the 1%.
See how simple it is?
Moose
Our economy seems to work pretty well for all my blue collar friends who got a high school degree, got married, limited themselves to 1 or 2 children, and made other good choices.
The USA used to be very successful with less taxing and spending.
When?
The USA used to be very successful with less taxing and spending.
Back then it it didn't have armies, health care, or old people.
--Hiram
Actually the USA has always had old people, armies, and medical care.
And the total government spend as a percent of GDP was < 10% 100 or so years ago.
Now that I am at a computer.
There are spending history graphs here
We became very successful after WWII, which involved HUGE amounts of government spending and very high marginal tax rates.
Moose
The spending was during WWII... Revenues never spiked...
More History
It is interesting that FED revenues have varied between 18 and 20% of GDP for a long time.
Now if only citizens would agree to spend only that much.
Post a Comment