The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Not a Lot of Progress in Thinking About "Unwanted Sexual Advances" Since Anita Hill
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Screenshot 2016-10-16 05.13.31

That raises the question of which heterosexual man never made an “unwanted sexual advance”? Warren Beatty in the year after the release of Bonnie and Clyde? Wilt Chamberlain during the Lakers’ 33-game winning streak? Jimmy Page and Robert Plant during Led Zep’s “Stairway to Heaven” tour of Australia?

Way back in 1992 I pointed out that the conventional definition of illegal sexual harassment as making “unwanted sexual advances” threatened to get President-Elect Bill Clinton impeached eventually:

The word in the orthodox description that especially troubles Americans (and baffles Europeans) is “unwanted.” Logically speaking, we could, like the Khmer Rouge in the Year Zero, try to abolish all sexual advances, unwanted and wanted. Given enough secret policemen, it might almost be doable. But to try to eliminate just the advances that turn out to be “unwanted” while preserving the “wanted” ones, requires not just a police state but a time machine. …

Trust me, few guys like getting rejected. It’s just that no advance is wanted or unwanted until it’s made. Unwanted sexual advances are the price we all pay for the survival of the species. …

Surveys report that a large minority of American women say they have been sexually harassed. What these confirm is that the majority of women don’t take the fundamentalist definition seriously, otherwise the surveys would find not 30% or 40% agreement, but virtually 100% . What self respecting woman would admit that no man had ever made an unwanted sexual advance toward her? She’d be admitting either that no man’s ever made her a sexual advance or that she’s never met a sexual advance she didn’t like.

It’s discouraging that our elites are as dumb about this simple point as they were two dozen years ago the first time a Clinton ran for President.

 
    []
  1. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The rock star Rod Stewart often proudly sported the slogan ‘Sex Police’ at concerts, in videos, stage sets etc. Apparently, it’s a long running in-joke with the aptly named Rod and his entourage.
    All stems back tons time in the 1970s when Rod Stewart and his crew were touring Germany, and winded up in Hamburg’s notorious Reeperbahn.
    One night, many of Rod’s entourage retired to their hotel rooms with questionable female company. Somehow, Rod Stewart had procured a German police cap and uniform. Suitably attired, Rod kicked down the hotel room doors and barked, in best cod German accent ‘Ve are de Sex Police and have come to arrest you’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/not-a-lot-of-progress-in-thinking-about-unwanted-sexual-advances-since-anita-hill/#comment-1610322
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. iffen says:

    It’s discouraging

    Well, it can be described as discouraging. We could also call it catastrophic. I think that this is one of the reasons why I like your writing, Steve. You are an optimistic, glass half full type guy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    The glass is half empty. --The pessimist

    The glass is half full. --The optimist.

    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be. --The engineer.
  3. AndrewR says:

    Sailer I don’t know why you didn’t go into law, given your reflexive contrarianism.

    One vestige of my Catholic upbringing is a general reticence to talk about my sex life with people other than my sexual partners and close friends, but I suppose in this case it’s germane.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve made anything that could be construed as an “unwanted sexual advance”, and not for lack of effort or opportunity. I had a high number of sex partners during my more degenerate years (none of which were strictly transactional affairs (just to preemptively shut the trolls up)).

    It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.

    And all my “unwanted” advances were arguably not that unwanted at all. All the instances involved women who were clearly sexually aroused but, for whatever reasons, did not want to sate their desires. And frankly that’s never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.

    When most people talk about “unwanted sexual advances” they’re talking about advances from guys like Trump with overinflated egos and underdeveloped empathy. If you don’t believe the stories that these women are saying about him, you’re dumb.

    Read More
    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    And while I shouldn't have to write any of the following, since this blog has a high number of low IQ, fanatically pro-Trump trolls who will derail the discussion while casting the most venomous sort of shade onto me, let me say this to decrease the chance of such comments being written and our negligent host approving them:

    Yes, I think the allegations are all a distraction from the wikileaks leaks.

    Yes, I think the media is all in for HRC. Yes, I also believe all of Bill Clinton's accusers.

    Yes, I think Hillary Clinton is a despicable human and would make a catastrophic president.

    No, I would not piss on her if she were on fire.

    Yes, I am probably still going to vote for Trump.

    But yes, I believe his accusers and I believe there are probably more to come.

    , @reiner Tor
    In some of my sexual advances that were rejected I was sure beforehand that they would be accepted. In some cases I believe it was just the way I proposed, not using the right words or getting nervous mid-sentence or being disturbed by someone (and then unable to proceed as smoothly as before), or something similar. And some of my accepted sexual advances were total surprises to me, I was just giving them a try without expecting much, and, voilà.

    So if you can tell with 100% certainty then you're quite enviable. Most men I know are never so certain.

    Ps.

    I know I'm mixing you up with someone else, but I had the firm belief that you were the Andrew who - while certainly making a lot of sexual proposals - didn't propose much to women. So I now have to reconsider things you've written.

    , @JW Bell
    Judging by reddit.com/r/relationships it's hard for a lot of men (and women).
    , @al gore rhythms
    I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve made anything that could be construed as an “unwanted sexual advance”

    So can I, in which case if every man has a similar record that's 1-5 unwanted sexual advance per man, which would probably cover just about the whole female population, so you've really proved Steve's point. Bear in mind that every time a wife says 'not tonight, I've got a headache' that husband has made a sexual advance of the unwanted kind.

    By the by, I've just finished reading the Houellebecq novel 'Submission' about the Islamic takeover of France which Steve wrote about a while back. He makes a pretty strong case for
    Islam being the only viable way that rejuvinating Patriarchy can ever be injected back into moribund European societies. The French characters in the book were previously members of Nativist movements who concluded that Islam was the only way left for European society. It's not as easy to dismiss as I would like.

    , @Forbes

    And all my “unwanted” advances were arguably not that unwanted at all.
     
    That's a mighty colossal rationalization you got there. Are we gonna rate "unwanted" on a 5-scale now? And yours all came in at 1 and 2...

    And your favorite part of sex doesn't even include sex. LOL.

    IHTG seems to have the right call.
    , @Marty T
    I do believe that many of these women are telling the truth. And therefore, my support for Trump has only solidified. We're not even fighting about policy anymore. We're fighting for the right of men to be men, to take a chance, to take a risk, to be free.
    , @Anonymous

    And frankly that’s never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.
     
    Um, no offense or anything, but are you sure you're heterosexual?
    , @a k

    It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.
     
    I presume it must be so when one's IQ is superior to 80.

    Besides, at every height on the intelligence ladder, it's inherent in human psychologic dynamics that their wills and wishes are seen as wishes and wills of the objects of those.

    Trump is exactly the type of man women fall for (for real, not only in comments posted by himself online).
  4. Zogby says:

    How can a man know whether a sexual advance is wanted before making one? One way is by asking, but this all goes back to wide-spread hypocrisy about the subject. How many women want to be asked first? How many women would respond positively to a verbal query even if they’re interested? Are women that expect and want men to take risk less entitled to their desire than ones that would rather be asked verbally?
    Formally it has to be illegal to make a sexual advance, because women are entitled to protection, certainly minors are. But then all assault is illegal, and men still get into bar-brawls, fist fights, etc. They don’t run to mama, to the press or to police every time that happens.
    There has to be some leeway where people can act on primal instincts without making a Federal case of it. People who want to cooperate have equal rights to people who don’t, and they’re entitled not to have their ability to cooperate foreclosed by people who don’t want to cooperate.
    That’s why men are afraid to publicly come out and state that some of the accusations levelled at Trump, even if true – are insignifcant. It’s not behavior that should be legal – but who gives a sh*t if it happened? There are gray areas in life, and a lot more is at stake than this garbage.
    Hillary Clinton is a woman who more than likely has been sexually repressed most of her adult life. Why was her husband chasing so many other women all those years? Where was she getting her sexual needs fulfilled? This pussy-grab-gate agenda isn’t about protecting women. It’s about protecting sexually repressed people of both genders. Clinton assumes everybody is as sexually repressed as her and would give a da*n.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I think you can get to the point you are making only by fogging up what is a "sexual advance". Of course the "new rules" that feminists are trying to impose (and retroactively to boot) make no sense - in real life women do not give express advance verbal consent at every stage in some kind of strange robotic call and response - "May I touch your arm now" "Yes, you may touch my arm now.", etc. That has never happened among humans in the past and is unlikely to start now.

    BUT, the flip side of this is that sexual advances normally proceed in certain steps and women give at least implicit or non-verbal consent to each of these steps, opening the door to the next - little mm hmms or moving closer rather than recoiling or whatever. It's very hard to put these in words but like the Supreme Court justice said about pornography, you know it when you see it. But if what these women are saying is true, Trump did not listen for or even wait for any of these signals, he just plowed ahead confidently - probably as Trump confessed this approach had worked for him many times in the past and had never gotten him arrested or publicly humiliated before.

    Now what makes these allegations so damaging to Trump is that he described this exact MO to Billy Bush but then publicly denied that he had ever acted on it - it was purely locker room boasting. He fell into Cooper's carefully laid trap. He should have said, "Yes, gay Anderson, I confess that in the past I was not always a gentleman but I am a better man now and why are we wasting time talking about my private sex life with women, a subject with which you have no familiarity? Can't we talk about yours or Hillary's instead or maybe, just maybe we should view this as an attempt to draw attention away from pressing national issues, Hillary's past actions and so on.... " If had done this, these women's revelations would have had no power.
    , @Former Darfur
    I doubt Hillary was ever sexually repressed. She is a switch hitter who has always had as many women as she wanted and at least a few men.
  5. AndrewR says:
    @AndrewR
    Sailer I don't know why you didn't go into law, given your reflexive contrarianism.

    One vestige of my Catholic upbringing is a general reticence to talk about my sex life with people other than my sexual partners and close friends, but I suppose in this case it's germane.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I've made anything that could be construed as an "unwanted sexual advance", and not for lack of effort or opportunity. I had a high number of sex partners during my more degenerate years (none of which were strictly transactional affairs (just to preemptively shut the trolls up)).

    It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.

    And all my "unwanted" advances were arguably not that unwanted at all. All the instances involved women who were clearly sexually aroused but, for whatever reasons, did not want to sate their desires. And frankly that's never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.

    When most people talk about "unwanted sexual advances" they're talking about advances from guys like Trump with overinflated egos and underdeveloped empathy. If you don't believe the stories that these women are saying about him, you're dumb.

    And while I shouldn’t have to write any of the following, since this blog has a high number of low IQ, fanatically pro-Trump trolls who will derail the discussion while casting the most venomous sort of shade onto me, let me say this to decrease the chance of such comments being written and our negligent host approving them:

    Yes, I think the allegations are all a distraction from the wikileaks leaks.

    Yes, I think the media is all in for HRC. Yes, I also believe all of Bill Clinton’s accusers.

    Yes, I think Hillary Clinton is a despicable human and would make a catastrophic president.

    No, I would not piss on her if she were on fire.

    Yes, I am probably still going to vote for Trump.

    But yes, I believe his accusers and I believe there are probably more to come.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    since this blog has a high number of low IQ, fanatically pro-Trump trolls

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80amNNMJHII
    , @Danindc
    Andrew if you had more interesting things to say then we would care about who gets your vote for President.

    Also, please eliminate the term "throwing shade" from your vocabulary....unless you are a mulatto woman writing for Jezebel....if that's the case then by all means...
    , @Chris Mallory

    But yes, I believe his accusers and I believe there are probably more to come.
     
    What difference does it make?
    , @D. K.
    So, let us low-IQ defenders of Donald Trump against the recent spate of accusations of "sexual assault" take a look at what you, instead, so readily believe, Andy:

    1) You believe an old woman who claims that about half of her life ago, in the first-class section of a flight from Dallas to New York, Trump physically molested her, both feeling up her breasts and her "pussy" for about fifteen minutes, before she finally decided to give up her first-class seat, rather than to complain and have Trump sent packing to stowage. You believe this despite the fact that she uses language out of an old rock'n'roll lyric. You believe her despite the fact that she says that he raised the armrest to get at her, when it is known that first-class seats' armrests, back then, were not movable. You believe her despite the fact that a British man who claims to have been the one sitting across the aisle, as a 24-year-old, denies that any such molestation took place, and claims that she was the one coming on to Trump. You believe it despite the fact that stewardesses or stewards, in that era, would have been hovering over the first-class passengers, like waiters at a top-rated restaurant. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that if Trump had limited himself to feeling up her breasts, she might not even have minded his sexual assault. You believe her despite the fact that she is a left-wing New York activist who supposedly shares a telephone number with the Clinton Foundation. You believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and just when the Clinton campaign and its mainstream-media auxiliary are pushing the Trump-is-a-sexual-predator theme, to turn even more potential voters, especially women, against Trump, and to distract from the tidal wave of WikiLeaks releases about the true nature of Mrs. Clinton and her political circle.

    2) You believe a middle-age woman who once competed on "The Apprentice" when she now says that Trump sexually assaulted her during that period of her life. You believe that despite her e-mail from this spring, wanting to reconnect with the former reality-show host, and inviting him to visit her restaurant in California, in the lead-up to the California primary, which took place on June 7. You believe her even though one of her own first cousins wrote a letter, which he allowed the Trump campaign to publish, saying that she never said a negative word about Trump, until this belated claim, less than a month before Election Day-- and, in fact, previously had talked up Trump's presidential campaign to her cousin and his family, after her spending the years since her appearance on "The Apprentice" lauding Trump, and saying that she wished to emulate him. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her making this claim now.

    3) You believe a middle-age reporter who claims that Trump sexually molested her, in a room at his Mar-a-Lago Resort, during the brief interlude in which his pregnant wife had gone upstairs to change her outfit, for the accompanying photographer, during a joint interview for "People" magazine, until Trump's butler walked in on the scene, causing Trump to cease and desist. You believe this despite the fact that the then-butler, who no longer works for Trump, has publicly stated that it never happened. You believe it despite the fact that Melania Trump's lawyer already has sent a cease and desist letter to "People" magazine, demanding a retraction, and threatening to sue-- specifically denying the reporter's claims that she was a friend of the Trumps who broke off her friendship because of the incident, and that she had run into Melania and her infant son, Barron, just outside of Trump Tower, a couple of years later, regretting that she could no longer be a part of their lives, while Melania had asked her wistfully why Melania and her husband never saw their good friend, the reporter, anymore. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her belated claim.

    4) You believe a now barely middle-aged woman who claims that Trump either "nudged" her or "grabbed" her in the ass, while standing beside his own date, and future wife, after a Ray Charles concert at Mar-a-Lago, on January 24, 2003. You believe this despite the fact that she cannot distinguish between being nudged and grabbed. You believe this despite the fact that she did not see who nudged or grabbed her, and merely assumed that it was Trump, whom she saw behind her, when she turned around, but who was not looking at her, nor hovering behind her, hoping for a reaction. You believe her despite the fact that a picture alleged to be from that night is dated January 1, 2003, rather than January 24, 2003. You believe her despite the fact that a Ray Charles concert listing shows that he cancelled a Seattle concert, a few thousand miles away, the night before, and then had no concert scheduled for the next night. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that Melania was then Trump's fiancee, when he did not propose to her until about fifteen months later. And, again, you believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and in the midst of the aforementioned Clinton tactics, to go public with her story, sixteen months after Trump announced his candidacy, nearly six months after he became his party's presumptive nominee, about two and a half months after he formally accepted the nomination in Cleveland-- and several months after "The New York Times" pathetic attempt to portray him as a misogynist, in a long, quickly rebutted article by the same two Slim Helu henchpersons. (It is a great relief for the Clinton campaign that this woman, who will turn 37 the weekend before the election, survived to tell this serviceable tale, despite being arrested, on May Day 2012, for driving under the influence-- and really looking the part!-- with her young child in the car, would you not agree, Andy?)

    Feel free and welcome to cite your most recent score from a professionally administered adult intelligence test, Andy, so that I, Steve Sailer, Ron Unz, and the rest of us low-IQ denizens of this blog might "ooh!" and "ahh!" at your otherworldly intelligence, and preternatural grasp of human relations.
  6. There’s evidence that Trump may be ahead in early voting in Florida.

    The state of Florida keeps data on vote-by-mail requests. Here are the ballot requests by party affiliation (for Republicans and Democrats).

    Republican -

    Vote-by-Mail Provided (Not Yet Returned): 991,579
    Voted Vote-by-Mail: 198,674

    Democrat -
    Vote-by-Mail Provided (Not Yet Returned): 953,964
    Voted Vote-by-Mail: 193,610

    https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats

    Florida has 4.6 million registered Democrats and 4.1 million registered Republicans.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article45554313.html

    So Trump seems to be turning out Republicans more successfully than Hillary is turning out Democrats (at least in Florida). There were concerns about the Republican party turnout effort, especially with the national party not fully supporting Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Some warnings:

    Florida contains many Cubans and Bush family members that are registered as R, but will probably be voting for the Regime. It also contains a smaller number of "crackers" or white registered Democrats in the northern (read: Southern) part of the state, they will vote Republican.

    As far as I am aware, Governor Scott isn't tied to the House of Habsburg-Bush, so he may be able to direct the state party into organizing for Trump. But I recall Cernovich saying that new registrations were throttled.
  7. Anon7 says:

    We’ve arrived at the end times of sexual politics in America, an era that started in the 1820′s with women married to men who fell victim to cheap 120 proof beverages, beginning the Temperance movement (the national criticism of male behavior) and the Suffrage movement (the political replacement of disgusting, fallible men with the perfect part of humanity – women).

    The female empowerment and male white knighting that resulted has now reached its logical conclusion; all women are victims and we must stand society on its head to offer our infinite contrition.

    As Hillary totters spastically toward victory in November with a Botox grimace of joy, we men are left with the feeling that Saurona has got the ring of power and women have won a dismal victory so complete that no man can see its ending, if you’ll forgive my butchery of Tolkien.

    Read More
  8. @AndrewR
    And while I shouldn't have to write any of the following, since this blog has a high number of low IQ, fanatically pro-Trump trolls who will derail the discussion while casting the most venomous sort of shade onto me, let me say this to decrease the chance of such comments being written and our negligent host approving them:

    Yes, I think the allegations are all a distraction from the wikileaks leaks.

    Yes, I think the media is all in for HRC. Yes, I also believe all of Bill Clinton's accusers.

    Yes, I think Hillary Clinton is a despicable human and would make a catastrophic president.

    No, I would not piss on her if she were on fire.

    Yes, I am probably still going to vote for Trump.

    But yes, I believe his accusers and I believe there are probably more to come.

    since this blog has a high number of low IQ, fanatically pro-Trump trolls

    Read More
  9. @AndrewR
    Sailer I don't know why you didn't go into law, given your reflexive contrarianism.

    One vestige of my Catholic upbringing is a general reticence to talk about my sex life with people other than my sexual partners and close friends, but I suppose in this case it's germane.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I've made anything that could be construed as an "unwanted sexual advance", and not for lack of effort or opportunity. I had a high number of sex partners during my more degenerate years (none of which were strictly transactional affairs (just to preemptively shut the trolls up)).

    It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.

    And all my "unwanted" advances were arguably not that unwanted at all. All the instances involved women who were clearly sexually aroused but, for whatever reasons, did not want to sate their desires. And frankly that's never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.

    When most people talk about "unwanted sexual advances" they're talking about advances from guys like Trump with overinflated egos and underdeveloped empathy. If you don't believe the stories that these women are saying about him, you're dumb.

    In some of my sexual advances that were rejected I was sure beforehand that they would be accepted. In some cases I believe it was just the way I proposed, not using the right words or getting nervous mid-sentence or being disturbed by someone (and then unable to proceed as smoothly as before), or something similar. And some of my accepted sexual advances were total surprises to me, I was just giving them a try without expecting much, and, voilà.

    So if you can tell with 100% certainty then you’re quite enviable. Most men I know are never so certain.

    Ps.

    I know I’m mixing you up with someone else, but I had the firm belief that you were the Andrew who – while certainly making a lot of sexual proposals – didn’t propose much to women. So I now have to reconsider things you’ve written.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Part of it is that I dislike rejection so much that I don't make advances unless I am extremely confident they'll be well-received.

    And I've never posted about my sex life in any way on Unz before today.

    , @Jack D
    I realize that Trump is a busy guy who gets right to the point, but (perhaps outside of drunken frat parties) I don't think it is a customary type of sexual advance to proceed directly to third base on someone you just met without even first touching 1st and 2nd - I think that is against the rules.

    Steve's post is sort of proof of the idea that people understand what they want to understand. When Trump said that Hillary should try doing without her armed Secret Service protection, Hillary supporters completely missed that he was trying to make the point "guns for me but not for thee" and read it as "Trump is threatening Hillary with assassination". Likewise, Steve is now spinning the point that it is COMPLETELY impossible to tell whether a sexual advance is unwanted until after you have made it - ergo it is OK to stick your hand up the dress of woman you just met. And keep in mind, that we have Trump on tape SAYING that this is exactly his strategy - that is what makes these allegations so doubly damaging.

    Now, we know that Bill Clinton has probably done the same or worse (with Hillary as his enabler) and the fate of our country should not turn on such trivial issues, but you can't really explain Trump's behavior away with the idea that sexual advances can only be "unwanted" in retrospect.
    , @gruff
    I thought AndrewR had in the past alluded to his being gay too. Must improve reading comprehension.
  10. AndrewR says:
    @reiner Tor
    In some of my sexual advances that were rejected I was sure beforehand that they would be accepted. In some cases I believe it was just the way I proposed, not using the right words or getting nervous mid-sentence or being disturbed by someone (and then unable to proceed as smoothly as before), or something similar. And some of my accepted sexual advances were total surprises to me, I was just giving them a try without expecting much, and, voilà.

    So if you can tell with 100% certainty then you're quite enviable. Most men I know are never so certain.

    Ps.

    I know I'm mixing you up with someone else, but I had the firm belief that you were the Andrew who - while certainly making a lot of sexual proposals - didn't propose much to women. So I now have to reconsider things you've written.

    Part of it is that I dislike rejection so much that I don’t make advances unless I am extremely confident they’ll be well-received.

    And I’ve never posted about my sex life in any way on Unz before today.

    Read More
  11. So all those old movies where the guy gets slapped in scene one and ends up with the girl at the end didn’t have a shred of truth. I wonder why the female part of the audience didn’t just refuse to watch such lies and propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Former Darfur

    He's never caught one spy I'm told
    He's never even caught a cold
    Got his degree from Disney Land
    But he's the last of the secret agents
    And he's my man

    He's an underwhelming kind of sleuth
    He thinks James Bond is some kind of suit
    He's farther back than also ran
    But he's the last of the secret agents
    And he's my man

    He'd come in third in a two-horse race
    I've never had to slap his face
    (What a shame)
    But people try to understand
    He's the last of the secret agents
    And he's my man

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7XtfIQUWe0
  12. Maj. Kong says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    There's evidence that Trump may be ahead in early voting in Florida.

    The state of Florida keeps data on vote-by-mail requests. Here are the ballot requests by party affiliation (for Republicans and Democrats).

    Republican -

    Vote-by-Mail Provided (Not Yet Returned): 991,579
    Voted Vote-by-Mail: 198,674

    Democrat -
    Vote-by-Mail Provided (Not Yet Returned): 953,964
    Voted Vote-by-Mail: 193,610

    https://countyballotfiles.elections.myflorida.com/FVRSCountyBallotReports/AbsenteeEarlyVotingReports/PublicStats

    Florida has 4.6 million registered Democrats and 4.1 million registered Republicans.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article45554313.html

    So Trump seems to be turning out Republicans more successfully than Hillary is turning out Democrats (at least in Florida). There were concerns about the Republican party turnout effort, especially with the national party not fully supporting Trump.

    Some warnings:

    Florida contains many Cubans and Bush family members that are registered as R, but will probably be voting for the Regime. It also contains a smaller number of “crackers” or white registered Democrats in the northern (read: Southern) part of the state, they will vote Republican.

    As far as I am aware, Governor Scott isn’t tied to the House of Habsburg-Bush, so he may be able to direct the state party into organizing for Trump. But I recall Cernovich saying that new registrations were throttled.

    Read More
  13. Blobby5 says:

    Mine seem to have been all in the unwanted category, me and Mr. Mojo have never been pals.

    Read More
  14. JW Bell says:
    @AndrewR
    Sailer I don't know why you didn't go into law, given your reflexive contrarianism.

    One vestige of my Catholic upbringing is a general reticence to talk about my sex life with people other than my sexual partners and close friends, but I suppose in this case it's germane.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I've made anything that could be construed as an "unwanted sexual advance", and not for lack of effort or opportunity. I had a high number of sex partners during my more degenerate years (none of which were strictly transactional affairs (just to preemptively shut the trolls up)).

    It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.

    And all my "unwanted" advances were arguably not that unwanted at all. All the instances involved women who were clearly sexually aroused but, for whatever reasons, did not want to sate their desires. And frankly that's never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.

    When most people talk about "unwanted sexual advances" they're talking about advances from guys like Trump with overinflated egos and underdeveloped empathy. If you don't believe the stories that these women are saying about him, you're dumb.

    Judging by reddit.com/r/relationships it’s hard for a lot of men (and women).

    Read More
  15. rienzi says:

    When you are a rock star, billionaire, professional athlete, tv/movie star, you don’t need to make sexual advances. Women, in droves, will throw themselves at you like you are the last lifeboat off a sinking ship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Right. Someone of Trump's stature essentially can't make "unwanted advances." They only become "unwanted" retroactively when he fails to extend commitment and/or a payout from the Clinton campaign enters the picture.
  16. Danindc says:
    @AndrewR
    And while I shouldn't have to write any of the following, since this blog has a high number of low IQ, fanatically pro-Trump trolls who will derail the discussion while casting the most venomous sort of shade onto me, let me say this to decrease the chance of such comments being written and our negligent host approving them:

    Yes, I think the allegations are all a distraction from the wikileaks leaks.

    Yes, I think the media is all in for HRC. Yes, I also believe all of Bill Clinton's accusers.

    Yes, I think Hillary Clinton is a despicable human and would make a catastrophic president.

    No, I would not piss on her if she were on fire.

    Yes, I am probably still going to vote for Trump.

    But yes, I believe his accusers and I believe there are probably more to come.

    Andrew if you had more interesting things to say then we would care about who gets your vote for President.

    Also, please eliminate the term “throwing shade” from your vocabulary….unless you are a mulatto woman writing for Jezebel….if that’s the case then by all means…

    Read More
  17. Whiskey says: • Website

    The whole point of female empowerment is to exile beta males to the outer darkness and only have Tom Brady and Justin Bieber around. That’s it. Women in a nutshell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    A lot of liberal women actually do like beta males. If they wanted macho alphas they would hang around with macho alphas.
    , @Olorin
    You kidding? Empowered Females (TM)--females who want power for being females, rather than actually doing something worthy of higher status (as the small minority of truly excellent and exceptional women may)--adore beta males.

    They create and reward beta males. Empowered Females (TM) mate with and dump and manipulate and discard beta males all the time.

    Besides, not all alpha males are "macho" per that Hispanic term.

    These we might reasonably call alpha males:

    http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/jscfeatures/photos/Apollo_then/ap11-s69-39601.jpg

    http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/1181962cape-canaveral-florida-this-photo-from-nasa-files-shows-the-picture-id515408202

    What about these?

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ap11-KSC-69P-631HR.jpg

    http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/ATM-Object-NASA-control-631.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg

    Without whom those alphas would never have flown anything anywhere.

    Men can be alpha without being macho. Men can be macho and still be devolved butt-holes (a kind of beta we don't discuss: beta brained). The terms of the discussion are idiotic and doing little good for normal white guys.

    Also the majority of women, Empowered (TM) and otherwise, are mediocre humans who don't know what they want and are waiting for a gentleman to guide them in discovering that.

    Hint: they really, truly, don't all want to be astronauts. Really. That's just what they were taught or pressured to say after saying they want to cure cancer and care about children and hunger. Many were taught this by mediocre females who stomped the few women who really did want, and were capable of, those things. The one thing that women are NOT allowed to do in the company of other women is excel or stand out in any way.

    A mediocre female who arrives at the realization that she needs a fierce gentleman as her north star is going to be slapped down and punished again and again by the Sisterhood of females with power who revel in making women into mentally, morally, physically diseased sluts. (This is why they never speak out against Islamic misogyny. It cuts too close to home, so to speak.)

    Men put this pressure on women as well. I've noted in the past that the love of my life thought she'd end up alone forever because she refused to "do porn stuff" on dates with guys she'd just met. The pressure on her was huge to act against her instincts, and it was hitting her at her mating prime of life. But she's strong...and lord was she worth the wait on my end as well.

    The whole point of this bolshie culture is to seed doubt, confusion, disorder, and hatred at the most intimate levels of our lives. I say we stop succumbing to it. Throw it back in their faces. Quit letting the media be the message.

    And start playing a little more hard to get. Why do you think some of our grandparents held the ideal, and often the practice, of never "making a pass" involving physical contact till well after the banns were read?

    The cheapening of relations between the sexes is as close to "evil" as anything I can think of. If I recall my early religious propagandizing, it is the Abrahamic religions that put enmity between man and woman. Men and women pulling together in common for something higher don't have the time for such Mediterranean/Near Eastern/African nonsense. We've got winter to prepare for.

  18. Any woman unable or unwilling to brush off an advance–in a civil manner—should stay at home.

    Read More
  19. Jack D says:
    @reiner Tor
    In some of my sexual advances that were rejected I was sure beforehand that they would be accepted. In some cases I believe it was just the way I proposed, not using the right words or getting nervous mid-sentence or being disturbed by someone (and then unable to proceed as smoothly as before), or something similar. And some of my accepted sexual advances were total surprises to me, I was just giving them a try without expecting much, and, voilà.

    So if you can tell with 100% certainty then you're quite enviable. Most men I know are never so certain.

    Ps.

    I know I'm mixing you up with someone else, but I had the firm belief that you were the Andrew who - while certainly making a lot of sexual proposals - didn't propose much to women. So I now have to reconsider things you've written.

    I realize that Trump is a busy guy who gets right to the point, but (perhaps outside of drunken frat parties) I don’t think it is a customary type of sexual advance to proceed directly to third base on someone you just met without even first touching 1st and 2nd – I think that is against the rules.

    Steve’s post is sort of proof of the idea that people understand what they want to understand. When Trump said that Hillary should try doing without her armed Secret Service protection, Hillary supporters completely missed that he was trying to make the point “guns for me but not for thee” and read it as “Trump is threatening Hillary with assassination”. Likewise, Steve is now spinning the point that it is COMPLETELY impossible to tell whether a sexual advance is unwanted until after you have made it – ergo it is OK to stick your hand up the dress of woman you just met. And keep in mind, that we have Trump on tape SAYING that this is exactly his strategy – that is what makes these allegations so doubly damaging.

    Now, we know that Bill Clinton has probably done the same or worse (with Hillary as his enabler) and the fate of our country should not turn on such trivial issues, but you can’t really explain Trump’s behavior away with the idea that sexual advances can only be “unwanted” in retrospect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    One thing I find rather amazing is how people swing from one extreme to the other in how they choose to interpret what Trump has to say.

    In one moment, they criticize him severely as "lying" because he engages in what are clearly exaggerations and over-generalizations for effect, and in the next moment they take every word out of his mouth as 100% literal truth-- which they use to demonstrate his perfidy, because, in their view, the literal interpretation indicates an evil act.

    But the Grand Unifying Theory of Trump Interpretation is that he always exaggerates and over-generalizes for effect (unless he's on teleprompter). He is massively, chronically sloppy in this way whenever he speaks impromptu.

    Most of his supporters at least unconsciously get that about him. They simply adjust their understanding of what he says to factor out the exaggerations and over-generalizations, etc. They respond instead to the truth of what he says after these adjustments.

    One of the things that makes Trump so unacceptable as a politician these days to so many people is that he doesn't have either a lawyerly background or a lawyerly disposition or a lawyerly talent. He completely lacks the precision we have come to expect of our politicians. He unloads gotchas like a pinata.

    But, given who he is, and how he exaggerates for effect, no one would reasonably take his boasts to Billy Bush as the literal truth of what he does with women. Sure, you could insist that he must be talking about going to third base without any precautionary assessment as to whether that might be acceptable for the woman. But, truly, who, knowing Trump, would insist that that literal and rigid interpretation was a fair way to take what he said?
    , @5371
    [ Likewise, Steve is now spinning the point that it is COMPLETELY impossible to tell whether a sexual advance is unwanted until after you have made it – ergo it is OK to stick your hand up the dress of woman you just met]

    Don't pretend to be stupid. It depends completely on which woman.

    , @Lurker

    Now, we know that Bill Clinton has probably done the same or worse
     
    I think we know that Bill has done the same and worse.

    And we don't really know that Trump has.
    , @James Kabala
    Maybe we can somehow get back to the era in which respectable people did not make "sexual advances" at all, at least not as a first step. Given that "dating" is now used as a synonym* for "sexually involved with each other," that doesn't seem likely any time soon.

    * I almost said it was a euphemism rather than a synonym, but it isn't even that any more - it is just what the term means.

    , @Johann Ricke

    I realize that Trump is a busy guy who gets right to the point, but (perhaps outside of drunken frat parties) I don’t think it is a customary type of sexual advance to proceed directly to third base on someone you just met without even first touching 1st and 2nd – I think that is against the rules.
     
    Maybe he learned his approach from playing Monopoly - go directly to third base; do not pass first or second.
  20. Good God, gentlemen! Some of you sound like you’re letting women run your lives. You are allowing yourselves to be controlled by women who have been propagandized into a sexual double standard that places the males of our species into a double bind.

    Drop this crap.

    Vote for Trump. Who cares what the girly men and women say? You have a natural right to attempt to mate, for God’s sake! Clumsy passes cannot, should not, and must not be allowed to be illegal, shameful, or politically fatal.

    None of this matters in the face of the terrible problems that face us.

    Read More
  21. @AndrewR
    And while I shouldn't have to write any of the following, since this blog has a high number of low IQ, fanatically pro-Trump trolls who will derail the discussion while casting the most venomous sort of shade onto me, let me say this to decrease the chance of such comments being written and our negligent host approving them:

    Yes, I think the allegations are all a distraction from the wikileaks leaks.

    Yes, I think the media is all in for HRC. Yes, I also believe all of Bill Clinton's accusers.

    Yes, I think Hillary Clinton is a despicable human and would make a catastrophic president.

    No, I would not piss on her if she were on fire.

    Yes, I am probably still going to vote for Trump.

    But yes, I believe his accusers and I believe there are probably more to come.

    But yes, I believe his accusers and I believe there are probably more to come.

    What difference does it make?

    Read More
  22. Jack D says:
    @Zogby
    How can a man know whether a sexual advance is wanted before making one? One way is by asking, but this all goes back to wide-spread hypocrisy about the subject. How many women want to be asked first? How many women would respond positively to a verbal query even if they're interested? Are women that expect and want men to take risk less entitled to their desire than ones that would rather be asked verbally?
    Formally it has to be illegal to make a sexual advance, because women are entitled to protection, certainly minors are. But then all assault is illegal, and men still get into bar-brawls, fist fights, etc. They don't run to mama, to the press or to police every time that happens.
    There has to be some leeway where people can act on primal instincts without making a Federal case of it. People who want to cooperate have equal rights to people who don't, and they're entitled not to have their ability to cooperate foreclosed by people who don't want to cooperate.
    That's why men are afraid to publicly come out and state that some of the accusations levelled at Trump, even if true - are insignifcant. It's not behavior that should be legal - but who gives a sh*t if it happened? There are gray areas in life, and a lot more is at stake than this garbage.
    Hillary Clinton is a woman who more than likely has been sexually repressed most of her adult life. Why was her husband chasing so many other women all those years? Where was she getting her sexual needs fulfilled? This pussy-grab-gate agenda isn't about protecting women. It's about protecting sexually repressed people of both genders. Clinton assumes everybody is as sexually repressed as her and would give a da*n.

    I think you can get to the point you are making only by fogging up what is a “sexual advance”. Of course the “new rules” that feminists are trying to impose (and retroactively to boot) make no sense – in real life women do not give express advance verbal consent at every stage in some kind of strange robotic call and response – “May I touch your arm now” “Yes, you may touch my arm now.”, etc. That has never happened among humans in the past and is unlikely to start now.

    BUT, the flip side of this is that sexual advances normally proceed in certain steps and women give at least implicit or non-verbal consent to each of these steps, opening the door to the next – little mm hmms or moving closer rather than recoiling or whatever. It’s very hard to put these in words but like the Supreme Court justice said about pornography, you know it when you see it. But if what these women are saying is true, Trump did not listen for or even wait for any of these signals, he just plowed ahead confidently – probably as Trump confessed this approach had worked for him many times in the past and had never gotten him arrested or publicly humiliated before.

    Now what makes these allegations so damaging to Trump is that he described this exact MO to Billy Bush but then publicly denied that he had ever acted on it – it was purely locker room boasting. He fell into Cooper’s carefully laid trap. He should have said, “Yes, gay Anderson, I confess that in the past I was not always a gentleman but I am a better man now and why are we wasting time talking about my private sex life with women, a subject with which you have no familiarity? Can’t we talk about yours or Hillary’s instead or maybe, just maybe we should view this as an attempt to draw attention away from pressing national issues, Hillary’s past actions and so on…. ” If had done this, these women’s revelations would have had no power.

    Read More
  23. gruff says:
    @reiner Tor
    In some of my sexual advances that were rejected I was sure beforehand that they would be accepted. In some cases I believe it was just the way I proposed, not using the right words or getting nervous mid-sentence or being disturbed by someone (and then unable to proceed as smoothly as before), or something similar. And some of my accepted sexual advances were total surprises to me, I was just giving them a try without expecting much, and, voilà.

    So if you can tell with 100% certainty then you're quite enviable. Most men I know are never so certain.

    Ps.

    I know I'm mixing you up with someone else, but I had the firm belief that you were the Andrew who - while certainly making a lot of sexual proposals - didn't propose much to women. So I now have to reconsider things you've written.

    I thought AndrewR had in the past alluded to his being gay too. Must improve reading comprehension.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I don't recall the context but I did share that I was bi.

    It was probably along the lines of my theory that guys like me (and I think there's a lot of us) are starting to opt out of the hetero life completely due to the current societal incentive structure. Women are largely insufferable and there are no longer any real social forces in check to make a man want to commit to a woman. The only forces now are purely biological. Strictly straight guys might be willing to put up with female drama in order to keep their willies wet, but for guys like me there is no incentive unless ome wants children (which I'm not really eager to have).

  24. @Jack D
    I realize that Trump is a busy guy who gets right to the point, but (perhaps outside of drunken frat parties) I don't think it is a customary type of sexual advance to proceed directly to third base on someone you just met without even first touching 1st and 2nd - I think that is against the rules.

    Steve's post is sort of proof of the idea that people understand what they want to understand. When Trump said that Hillary should try doing without her armed Secret Service protection, Hillary supporters completely missed that he was trying to make the point "guns for me but not for thee" and read it as "Trump is threatening Hillary with assassination". Likewise, Steve is now spinning the point that it is COMPLETELY impossible to tell whether a sexual advance is unwanted until after you have made it - ergo it is OK to stick your hand up the dress of woman you just met. And keep in mind, that we have Trump on tape SAYING that this is exactly his strategy - that is what makes these allegations so doubly damaging.

    Now, we know that Bill Clinton has probably done the same or worse (with Hillary as his enabler) and the fate of our country should not turn on such trivial issues, but you can't really explain Trump's behavior away with the idea that sexual advances can only be "unwanted" in retrospect.

    One thing I find rather amazing is how people swing from one extreme to the other in how they choose to interpret what Trump has to say.

    In one moment, they criticize him severely as “lying” because he engages in what are clearly exaggerations and over-generalizations for effect, and in the next moment they take every word out of his mouth as 100% literal truth– which they use to demonstrate his perfidy, because, in their view, the literal interpretation indicates an evil act.

    But the Grand Unifying Theory of Trump Interpretation is that he always exaggerates and over-generalizes for effect (unless he’s on teleprompter). He is massively, chronically sloppy in this way whenever he speaks impromptu.

    Most of his supporters at least unconsciously get that about him. They simply adjust their understanding of what he says to factor out the exaggerations and over-generalizations, etc. They respond instead to the truth of what he says after these adjustments.

    One of the things that makes Trump so unacceptable as a politician these days to so many people is that he doesn’t have either a lawyerly background or a lawyerly disposition or a lawyerly talent. He completely lacks the precision we have come to expect of our politicians. He unloads gotchas like a pinata.

    But, given who he is, and how he exaggerates for effect, no one would reasonably take his boasts to Billy Bush as the literal truth of what he does with women. Sure, you could insist that he must be talking about going to third base without any precautionary assessment as to whether that might be acceptable for the woman. But, truly, who, knowing Trump, would insist that that literal and rigid interpretation was a fair way to take what he said?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    no one would reasonably take his boasts to Billy Bush as the literal truth of what he does with women
     
    Fair enough, until a number of women stepped forward to say that is what he literally did.

    When they do the analysis of a plane crash, it is never one thing that brings down the plane - it is always a series of things . If it had JUST been the boasts to Billy, or if it had JUST been the women ("liars") coming forward out of the blue after so many years, he might have gotten past it. But what made this so damaging was the combination.
    , @Perplexed
    "One of the things that makes Trump so unacceptable as a politician these days to so many people is that he doesn’t have either a lawyerly background or a lawyerly disposition or a lawyerly talent. He completely lacks the precision we have come to expect of our politicians."

    One of the things that make lawyer Hillary so boring is her well-honed ability to say nothing at great length. Asked what she accomplished at the State Department, she (eventually) said the determination not to do things the way they had been done, and that was what she was proudest of.

    The only time any truth leaks out is speeches in which she wants free trade and open borders. But we're not her audience then.
  25. Jefferson says:

    “That raises the question of which heterosexual man never made an “unwanted sexual advance”?

    The definition of unwanted sexual advances is extremely broad especially for guys like me who are not considered to be part of a vibrant demographic. So if I tell a woman she has sexy legs I am seen as even more evil than Syrian refugee rapists and the Pakistani pimp rapists in Rotherham according to social justice warrior feminazis.

    I’m not Black, I’m not married to Crooked Hildabeast, and I’m not Muslim, so The Nice White Lady Feminazis would not give me a pass for catcalling women.

    Read More
  26. 5371 says:
    @Jack D
    I realize that Trump is a busy guy who gets right to the point, but (perhaps outside of drunken frat parties) I don't think it is a customary type of sexual advance to proceed directly to third base on someone you just met without even first touching 1st and 2nd - I think that is against the rules.

    Steve's post is sort of proof of the idea that people understand what they want to understand. When Trump said that Hillary should try doing without her armed Secret Service protection, Hillary supporters completely missed that he was trying to make the point "guns for me but not for thee" and read it as "Trump is threatening Hillary with assassination". Likewise, Steve is now spinning the point that it is COMPLETELY impossible to tell whether a sexual advance is unwanted until after you have made it - ergo it is OK to stick your hand up the dress of woman you just met. And keep in mind, that we have Trump on tape SAYING that this is exactly his strategy - that is what makes these allegations so doubly damaging.

    Now, we know that Bill Clinton has probably done the same or worse (with Hillary as his enabler) and the fate of our country should not turn on such trivial issues, but you can't really explain Trump's behavior away with the idea that sexual advances can only be "unwanted" in retrospect.

    [ Likewise, Steve is now spinning the point that it is COMPLETELY impossible to tell whether a sexual advance is unwanted until after you have made it – ergo it is OK to stick your hand up the dress of woman you just met]

    Don’t pretend to be stupid. It depends completely on which woman.

    Read More
  27. The stakes of the election are too high to waste time on crap like this:

    - Proxy wars with Russia
    - Warren 2.0 court that will likely make places like this neutered or banned
    - Another $10 trillion in public debt to where talk of default becomes more frequent
    - Amnesty of 11 million (read: 25+ million) immigrants
    - Large scale Syrian importation program

    Look at the big picture here. If you think Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan will save you in 2020, you are lying to yourself. With demographics, this is really the last shot if you are a Republican. This is not the time to flex your martyr complex and throw yourself on the cross.

    Read More
  28. D. K. says:
    @AndrewR
    And while I shouldn't have to write any of the following, since this blog has a high number of low IQ, fanatically pro-Trump trolls who will derail the discussion while casting the most venomous sort of shade onto me, let me say this to decrease the chance of such comments being written and our negligent host approving them:

    Yes, I think the allegations are all a distraction from the wikileaks leaks.

    Yes, I think the media is all in for HRC. Yes, I also believe all of Bill Clinton's accusers.

    Yes, I think Hillary Clinton is a despicable human and would make a catastrophic president.

    No, I would not piss on her if she were on fire.

    Yes, I am probably still going to vote for Trump.

    But yes, I believe his accusers and I believe there are probably more to come.

    So, let us low-IQ defenders of Donald Trump against the recent spate of accusations of “sexual assault” take a look at what you, instead, so readily believe, Andy:

    1) You believe an old woman who claims that about half of her life ago, in the first-class section of a flight from Dallas to New York, Trump physically molested her, both feeling up her breasts and her “pussy” for about fifteen minutes, before she finally decided to give up her first-class seat, rather than to complain and have Trump sent packing to stowage. You believe this despite the fact that she uses language out of an old rock’n’roll lyric. You believe her despite the fact that she says that he raised the armrest to get at her, when it is known that first-class seats’ armrests, back then, were not movable. You believe her despite the fact that a British man who claims to have been the one sitting across the aisle, as a 24-year-old, denies that any such molestation took place, and claims that she was the one coming on to Trump. You believe it despite the fact that stewardesses or stewards, in that era, would have been hovering over the first-class passengers, like waiters at a top-rated restaurant. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that if Trump had limited himself to feeling up her breasts, she might not even have minded his sexual assault. You believe her despite the fact that she is a left-wing New York activist who supposedly shares a telephone number with the Clinton Foundation. You believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and just when the Clinton campaign and its mainstream-media auxiliary are pushing the Trump-is-a-sexual-predator theme, to turn even more potential voters, especially women, against Trump, and to distract from the tidal wave of WikiLeaks releases about the true nature of Mrs. Clinton and her political circle.

    2) You believe a middle-age woman who once competed on “The Apprentice” when she now says that Trump sexually assaulted her during that period of her life. You believe that despite her e-mail from this spring, wanting to reconnect with the former reality-show host, and inviting him to visit her restaurant in California, in the lead-up to the California primary, which took place on June 7. You believe her even though one of her own first cousins wrote a letter, which he allowed the Trump campaign to publish, saying that she never said a negative word about Trump, until this belated claim, less than a month before Election Day– and, in fact, previously had talked up Trump’s presidential campaign to her cousin and his family, after her spending the years since her appearance on “The Apprentice” lauding Trump, and saying that she wished to emulate him. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her making this claim now.

    3) You believe a middle-age reporter who claims that Trump sexually molested her, in a room at his Mar-a-Lago Resort, during the brief interlude in which his pregnant wife had gone upstairs to change her outfit, for the accompanying photographer, during a joint interview for “People” magazine, until Trump’s butler walked in on the scene, causing Trump to cease and desist. You believe this despite the fact that the then-butler, who no longer works for Trump, has publicly stated that it never happened. You believe it despite the fact that Melania Trump’s lawyer already has sent a cease and desist letter to “People” magazine, demanding a retraction, and threatening to sue– specifically denying the reporter’s claims that she was a friend of the Trumps who broke off her friendship because of the incident, and that she had run into Melania and her infant son, Barron, just outside of Trump Tower, a couple of years later, regretting that she could no longer be a part of their lives, while Melania had asked her wistfully why Melania and her husband never saw their good friend, the reporter, anymore. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her belated claim.

    4) You believe a now barely middle-aged woman who claims that Trump either “nudged” her or “grabbed” her in the ass, while standing beside his own date, and future wife, after a Ray Charles concert at Mar-a-Lago, on January 24, 2003. You believe this despite the fact that she cannot distinguish between being nudged and grabbed. You believe this despite the fact that she did not see who nudged or grabbed her, and merely assumed that it was Trump, whom she saw behind her, when she turned around, but who was not looking at her, nor hovering behind her, hoping for a reaction. You believe her despite the fact that a picture alleged to be from that night is dated January 1, 2003, rather than January 24, 2003. You believe her despite the fact that a Ray Charles concert listing shows that he cancelled a Seattle concert, a few thousand miles away, the night before, and then had no concert scheduled for the next night. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that Melania was then Trump’s fiancee, when he did not propose to her until about fifteen months later. And, again, you believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and in the midst of the aforementioned Clinton tactics, to go public with her story, sixteen months after Trump announced his candidacy, nearly six months after he became his party’s presumptive nominee, about two and a half months after he formally accepted the nomination in Cleveland– and several months after “The New York Times” pathetic attempt to portray him as a misogynist, in a long, quickly rebutted article by the same two Slim Helu henchpersons. (It is a great relief for the Clinton campaign that this woman, who will turn 37 the weekend before the election, survived to tell this serviceable tale, despite being arrested, on May Day 2012, for driving under the influence– and really looking the part!– with her young child in the car, would you not agree, Andy?)

    Feel free and welcome to cite your most recent score from a professionally administered adult intelligence test, Andy, so that I, Steve Sailer, Ron Unz, and the rest of us low-IQ denizens of this blog might “ooh!” and “ahh!” at your otherworldly intelligence, and preternatural grasp of human relations.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Let's say I'm on a jury. You get on the stand and testify that a certain ghetto dweller (let's call him D'vacious) just walked up to you and punched you in the head as part of a knockout game. D'vacious says, "I dindu nothin'." His lawyer states that there were other people present who say this didn't happen, the circumstances could not be as you describe, you have a grudge against the accused , you have in the past spoken well of the accused and never mentioned this incident, and so on.

    And I might accept his explanation or say that we will never really know who is telling the truth. I can't convict. Fair enough.

    But then 3 or 4 more people get on the witness stand and say that this fellow socked them in the jaw without provocation. He proceeds to call them all liars as well. Now I am a little less sure that every single one of them is a liar - I'm beginning to see a pattern.

    Then the prosecution plays a tape of D'vacious in a bar saying , "When I feel angry, what I do is I sock the next person I see in the jaw. This makes me feel better." When asked about this, D'vacisous say that it is mere boasting - in real life he would never do such a thing. Do I STILL accept his explanation or do I take his statement as corroboration that what the alleged victims are saying is really true? At what point should I convict D'vacious and stop giving him the benefit of the doubt?
    , @scrivener3
    Scott Adams point is right. He said someone might try to assassinate Trump thinking that they were doing a good deed. Today I saw Trump portrayed as a combination of the worse parts of Roy Cohen and Joseph McCarthy. For months we have been told by the MSM that Trump is a fascist and like Hitler.

    If Trump is a new incarnation of Hitler, every American has a motive to stop him. After all if some patriotic German could have stopped Hitler, even by lying, it would have been a good thing. The ends justify the means. Of course in fact Trump is in no way anything like Hitler.

    Many women could well think that they would be doing the Country a service if they could somehow stop the election of DJT, given the way Trump is portraid in the MSM.
    , @AndrewR
    tl;dr
    , @Hail
    Thank ou, D.K., for this comprehensive listing of the faults with the "accusers."

    You believe her despite the fact that she says that he raised the armrest to get at her, when it is known that first-class seats’ armrests, back then, were not movable.
     
    The anti-Trump point-and-click thugs have fanned out on this and are disputing it. Do we have a knockout source on this?
  29. Jack D says:
    @candid_observer
    One thing I find rather amazing is how people swing from one extreme to the other in how they choose to interpret what Trump has to say.

    In one moment, they criticize him severely as "lying" because he engages in what are clearly exaggerations and over-generalizations for effect, and in the next moment they take every word out of his mouth as 100% literal truth-- which they use to demonstrate his perfidy, because, in their view, the literal interpretation indicates an evil act.

    But the Grand Unifying Theory of Trump Interpretation is that he always exaggerates and over-generalizes for effect (unless he's on teleprompter). He is massively, chronically sloppy in this way whenever he speaks impromptu.

    Most of his supporters at least unconsciously get that about him. They simply adjust their understanding of what he says to factor out the exaggerations and over-generalizations, etc. They respond instead to the truth of what he says after these adjustments.

    One of the things that makes Trump so unacceptable as a politician these days to so many people is that he doesn't have either a lawyerly background or a lawyerly disposition or a lawyerly talent. He completely lacks the precision we have come to expect of our politicians. He unloads gotchas like a pinata.

    But, given who he is, and how he exaggerates for effect, no one would reasonably take his boasts to Billy Bush as the literal truth of what he does with women. Sure, you could insist that he must be talking about going to third base without any precautionary assessment as to whether that might be acceptable for the woman. But, truly, who, knowing Trump, would insist that that literal and rigid interpretation was a fair way to take what he said?

    no one would reasonably take his boasts to Billy Bush as the literal truth of what he does with women

    Fair enough, until a number of women stepped forward to say that is what he literally did.

    When they do the analysis of a plane crash, it is never one thing that brings down the plane – it is always a series of things . If it had JUST been the boasts to Billy, or if it had JUST been the women (“liars”) coming forward out of the blue after so many years, he might have gotten past it. But what made this so damaging was the combination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Perplexed
    Oh, for God's sake. Listen to Stefan Molyneux's deconstruction of these "witnesses" and then come back and argue about the quality of the testimony.

    I think the Clinton/Bush machine are taking advantage of hysterical women. Like the Satanic day care wave of hysteria.
    , @candid_observer

    Fair enough, until a number of women stepped forward to say that is what he literally did.
     
    Really, do you seriously believe the testimony of women who, as best I can make out, in every single case, did not speak to others about this supposed unwanted groping until after Trump ran for President? One of them supposedly waited 30+ years before she told even family and friends -- and now gives interviews everywhere, with obvious relish.

    Again, what's the Grand Unifying Theory of this phenomenon? Answer: that they are all lying, and for the same kind of reasons: to take an opportunity to pull down Trump or promote themselves. There's very little question that some of them are doing so, given the countervailing evidence. Why assume that this explanation applies only to the few who are already demonstrably lying? Why not assume that if there a good handful who are obviously lying, then there might be another handful who are lying, but just not yet so obviously?

    I'll be convinced that Trump is doing this sort of groping only when I hear of a case that doesn't fall into this category. Maybe they exist, but we haven't heard of them yet.

    You really should contrast his cases with those of either Clinton or Crosby. These sorts of rumors and cases dogged both Clinton and Crosby for years before a convenient moment ripened for the accusations to come to the fore.

  30. Jack D says:
    @D. K.
    So, let us low-IQ defenders of Donald Trump against the recent spate of accusations of "sexual assault" take a look at what you, instead, so readily believe, Andy:

    1) You believe an old woman who claims that about half of her life ago, in the first-class section of a flight from Dallas to New York, Trump physically molested her, both feeling up her breasts and her "pussy" for about fifteen minutes, before she finally decided to give up her first-class seat, rather than to complain and have Trump sent packing to stowage. You believe this despite the fact that she uses language out of an old rock'n'roll lyric. You believe her despite the fact that she says that he raised the armrest to get at her, when it is known that first-class seats' armrests, back then, were not movable. You believe her despite the fact that a British man who claims to have been the one sitting across the aisle, as a 24-year-old, denies that any such molestation took place, and claims that she was the one coming on to Trump. You believe it despite the fact that stewardesses or stewards, in that era, would have been hovering over the first-class passengers, like waiters at a top-rated restaurant. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that if Trump had limited himself to feeling up her breasts, she might not even have minded his sexual assault. You believe her despite the fact that she is a left-wing New York activist who supposedly shares a telephone number with the Clinton Foundation. You believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and just when the Clinton campaign and its mainstream-media auxiliary are pushing the Trump-is-a-sexual-predator theme, to turn even more potential voters, especially women, against Trump, and to distract from the tidal wave of WikiLeaks releases about the true nature of Mrs. Clinton and her political circle.

    2) You believe a middle-age woman who once competed on "The Apprentice" when she now says that Trump sexually assaulted her during that period of her life. You believe that despite her e-mail from this spring, wanting to reconnect with the former reality-show host, and inviting him to visit her restaurant in California, in the lead-up to the California primary, which took place on June 7. You believe her even though one of her own first cousins wrote a letter, which he allowed the Trump campaign to publish, saying that she never said a negative word about Trump, until this belated claim, less than a month before Election Day-- and, in fact, previously had talked up Trump's presidential campaign to her cousin and his family, after her spending the years since her appearance on "The Apprentice" lauding Trump, and saying that she wished to emulate him. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her making this claim now.

    3) You believe a middle-age reporter who claims that Trump sexually molested her, in a room at his Mar-a-Lago Resort, during the brief interlude in which his pregnant wife had gone upstairs to change her outfit, for the accompanying photographer, during a joint interview for "People" magazine, until Trump's butler walked in on the scene, causing Trump to cease and desist. You believe this despite the fact that the then-butler, who no longer works for Trump, has publicly stated that it never happened. You believe it despite the fact that Melania Trump's lawyer already has sent a cease and desist letter to "People" magazine, demanding a retraction, and threatening to sue-- specifically denying the reporter's claims that she was a friend of the Trumps who broke off her friendship because of the incident, and that she had run into Melania and her infant son, Barron, just outside of Trump Tower, a couple of years later, regretting that she could no longer be a part of their lives, while Melania had asked her wistfully why Melania and her husband never saw their good friend, the reporter, anymore. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her belated claim.

    4) You believe a now barely middle-aged woman who claims that Trump either "nudged" her or "grabbed" her in the ass, while standing beside his own date, and future wife, after a Ray Charles concert at Mar-a-Lago, on January 24, 2003. You believe this despite the fact that she cannot distinguish between being nudged and grabbed. You believe this despite the fact that she did not see who nudged or grabbed her, and merely assumed that it was Trump, whom she saw behind her, when she turned around, but who was not looking at her, nor hovering behind her, hoping for a reaction. You believe her despite the fact that a picture alleged to be from that night is dated January 1, 2003, rather than January 24, 2003. You believe her despite the fact that a Ray Charles concert listing shows that he cancelled a Seattle concert, a few thousand miles away, the night before, and then had no concert scheduled for the next night. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that Melania was then Trump's fiancee, when he did not propose to her until about fifteen months later. And, again, you believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and in the midst of the aforementioned Clinton tactics, to go public with her story, sixteen months after Trump announced his candidacy, nearly six months after he became his party's presumptive nominee, about two and a half months after he formally accepted the nomination in Cleveland-- and several months after "The New York Times" pathetic attempt to portray him as a misogynist, in a long, quickly rebutted article by the same two Slim Helu henchpersons. (It is a great relief for the Clinton campaign that this woman, who will turn 37 the weekend before the election, survived to tell this serviceable tale, despite being arrested, on May Day 2012, for driving under the influence-- and really looking the part!-- with her young child in the car, would you not agree, Andy?)

    Feel free and welcome to cite your most recent score from a professionally administered adult intelligence test, Andy, so that I, Steve Sailer, Ron Unz, and the rest of us low-IQ denizens of this blog might "ooh!" and "ahh!" at your otherworldly intelligence, and preternatural grasp of human relations.

    Let’s say I’m on a jury. You get on the stand and testify that a certain ghetto dweller (let’s call him D’vacious) just walked up to you and punched you in the head as part of a knockout game. D’vacious says, “I dindu nothin’.” His lawyer states that there were other people present who say this didn’t happen, the circumstances could not be as you describe, you have a grudge against the accused , you have in the past spoken well of the accused and never mentioned this incident, and so on.

    And I might accept his explanation or say that we will never really know who is telling the truth. I can’t convict. Fair enough.

    But then 3 or 4 more people get on the witness stand and say that this fellow socked them in the jaw without provocation. He proceeds to call them all liars as well. Now I am a little less sure that every single one of them is a liar – I’m beginning to see a pattern.

    Then the prosecution plays a tape of D’vacious in a bar saying , “When I feel angry, what I do is I sock the next person I see in the jaw. This makes me feel better.” When asked about this, D’vacisous say that it is mere boasting – in real life he would never do such a thing. Do I STILL accept his explanation or do I take his statement as corroboration that what the alleged victims are saying is really true? At what point should I convict D’vacious and stop giving him the benefit of the doubt?

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @scrivener3
    The statute of limitations for bringing a civil assault and battery claim in NY is one year. If you don't complain in a year, you are barred because memories fade and it is harder to determine the truth the more time has passed.

    The statute for criminal assault is three to five years. You could discover a camera record of the event after that time and the criminal is free. He could confess to doing it and he is free.

    There is a reason for statute of limitations, as we are seeing here.

    Not a practicing lawyer, not legal advice just what I understand from reading.
    , @AndrewR
    That's totally different.

    We all know a white quasi-nationalist would never lie. It's not like he's black.

    Why do you want Hillary to become president and destroy America?????

    , @SPMoore8
    I don't know if these stories are true or not, but you have the procession backwards and that makes a lot of difference.

    This story began with the widely disseminated tape of Trump boasting of grabbing them, etc.

    From that POV, any woman who emerges posterior to the wide publicity of that claim is immediately suspect because it suggests that they were influenced by the tape, and this provides a convenient ground for publicity, fame, $$$, and just plain old support for HRC.

    The same goes for the claims against Cosby as well, the difference is that some of those claims were actually reported and/or litigated at the time of the incidents.

    What the accusers against Trump have to do -- again, assuming any of this is relevant, given the track record of Hillary's spouse, who will be occupying the White House with her -- is come up with allegations that sound true, have independent corroboration from the time of the incident, etc. Otherwise it's just political mudslinging.

    BTW, I don't know if any or some or a lot of these claims have that measure of substantiation; I haven't been paying attention. However, I do know that Joe Blanton gave up a Grand Slam yesterday.
    , @D. K.
    What did the prosecution in your hypothetical do to overcome the sworn testimony of the cited defense witnesses who were present and swore that no such thing occurred, nor even could have occurred, Jack? What did it do to overcome those other defense arguments about the credibility of the proffered prosecution witnesses? Even if D'vacious committed the attacks that the prosecution witnesses, beside the claimed victim in your case at trial, testified to his committing, there needs to be convincing evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that he committed THIS offense; simply proving that he committed similar offenses in the past does not meet that burden. You cannot try someone for a specific crime based simply on the fact that he had committed similar offenses in the past-- nor will any such prejudicial testimony of previous offenses be allowed into evidence, absent some compelling nexus between the specifics of this crime and those earlier crimes.

    For the record, Trump did not say to Billy Bush that Trump HAD grabbed anyone by her "pussy," nor that he was going to do so, nor that he wanted to do so; he merely was stating, hypothetically and hyperbolically, that a celebrity male could get away with such tactics-- because the women would ALLOW the celebrity to do so!

    That you really cannot imagine multiple accusers coming forth against Trump, simply for political or personal reasons, under these circumstances, Jack, does not speak highly of your imagination....
  31. What about the unwanted sexual advances made by women towards Trump?

    Or is that too deplorable to even mention.

    I believe that quite a number of the claims that have surfaced are imaginary or malicious recasting of polite demurrals by Trump.

    Read More
  32. @D. K.
    So, let us low-IQ defenders of Donald Trump against the recent spate of accusations of "sexual assault" take a look at what you, instead, so readily believe, Andy:

    1) You believe an old woman who claims that about half of her life ago, in the first-class section of a flight from Dallas to New York, Trump physically molested her, both feeling up her breasts and her "pussy" for about fifteen minutes, before she finally decided to give up her first-class seat, rather than to complain and have Trump sent packing to stowage. You believe this despite the fact that she uses language out of an old rock'n'roll lyric. You believe her despite the fact that she says that he raised the armrest to get at her, when it is known that first-class seats' armrests, back then, were not movable. You believe her despite the fact that a British man who claims to have been the one sitting across the aisle, as a 24-year-old, denies that any such molestation took place, and claims that she was the one coming on to Trump. You believe it despite the fact that stewardesses or stewards, in that era, would have been hovering over the first-class passengers, like waiters at a top-rated restaurant. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that if Trump had limited himself to feeling up her breasts, she might not even have minded his sexual assault. You believe her despite the fact that she is a left-wing New York activist who supposedly shares a telephone number with the Clinton Foundation. You believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and just when the Clinton campaign and its mainstream-media auxiliary are pushing the Trump-is-a-sexual-predator theme, to turn even more potential voters, especially women, against Trump, and to distract from the tidal wave of WikiLeaks releases about the true nature of Mrs. Clinton and her political circle.

    2) You believe a middle-age woman who once competed on "The Apprentice" when she now says that Trump sexually assaulted her during that period of her life. You believe that despite her e-mail from this spring, wanting to reconnect with the former reality-show host, and inviting him to visit her restaurant in California, in the lead-up to the California primary, which took place on June 7. You believe her even though one of her own first cousins wrote a letter, which he allowed the Trump campaign to publish, saying that she never said a negative word about Trump, until this belated claim, less than a month before Election Day-- and, in fact, previously had talked up Trump's presidential campaign to her cousin and his family, after her spending the years since her appearance on "The Apprentice" lauding Trump, and saying that she wished to emulate him. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her making this claim now.

    3) You believe a middle-age reporter who claims that Trump sexually molested her, in a room at his Mar-a-Lago Resort, during the brief interlude in which his pregnant wife had gone upstairs to change her outfit, for the accompanying photographer, during a joint interview for "People" magazine, until Trump's butler walked in on the scene, causing Trump to cease and desist. You believe this despite the fact that the then-butler, who no longer works for Trump, has publicly stated that it never happened. You believe it despite the fact that Melania Trump's lawyer already has sent a cease and desist letter to "People" magazine, demanding a retraction, and threatening to sue-- specifically denying the reporter's claims that she was a friend of the Trumps who broke off her friendship because of the incident, and that she had run into Melania and her infant son, Barron, just outside of Trump Tower, a couple of years later, regretting that she could no longer be a part of their lives, while Melania had asked her wistfully why Melania and her husband never saw their good friend, the reporter, anymore. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her belated claim.

    4) You believe a now barely middle-aged woman who claims that Trump either "nudged" her or "grabbed" her in the ass, while standing beside his own date, and future wife, after a Ray Charles concert at Mar-a-Lago, on January 24, 2003. You believe this despite the fact that she cannot distinguish between being nudged and grabbed. You believe this despite the fact that she did not see who nudged or grabbed her, and merely assumed that it was Trump, whom she saw behind her, when she turned around, but who was not looking at her, nor hovering behind her, hoping for a reaction. You believe her despite the fact that a picture alleged to be from that night is dated January 1, 2003, rather than January 24, 2003. You believe her despite the fact that a Ray Charles concert listing shows that he cancelled a Seattle concert, a few thousand miles away, the night before, and then had no concert scheduled for the next night. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that Melania was then Trump's fiancee, when he did not propose to her until about fifteen months later. And, again, you believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and in the midst of the aforementioned Clinton tactics, to go public with her story, sixteen months after Trump announced his candidacy, nearly six months after he became his party's presumptive nominee, about two and a half months after he formally accepted the nomination in Cleveland-- and several months after "The New York Times" pathetic attempt to portray him as a misogynist, in a long, quickly rebutted article by the same two Slim Helu henchpersons. (It is a great relief for the Clinton campaign that this woman, who will turn 37 the weekend before the election, survived to tell this serviceable tale, despite being arrested, on May Day 2012, for driving under the influence-- and really looking the part!-- with her young child in the car, would you not agree, Andy?)

    Feel free and welcome to cite your most recent score from a professionally administered adult intelligence test, Andy, so that I, Steve Sailer, Ron Unz, and the rest of us low-IQ denizens of this blog might "ooh!" and "ahh!" at your otherworldly intelligence, and preternatural grasp of human relations.

    Scott Adams point is right. He said someone might try to assassinate Trump thinking that they were doing a good deed. Today I saw Trump portrayed as a combination of the worse parts of Roy Cohen and Joseph McCarthy. For months we have been told by the MSM that Trump is a fascist and like Hitler.

    If Trump is a new incarnation of Hitler, every American has a motive to stop him. After all if some patriotic German could have stopped Hitler, even by lying, it would have been a good thing. The ends justify the means. Of course in fact Trump is in no way anything like Hitler.

    Many women could well think that they would be doing the Country a service if they could somehow stop the election of DJT, given the way Trump is portraid in the MSM.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bugg
    For a time early in his business career, Roy Cohn was Trump's lawyer.

    Women will always tell you what high end guys were attracted to them. Had a girlfriend who had 2 members of U2 early in their career hit on her during a airline flight in Europe.Wasn't said like "oh, what beasts they were, how awful!"more like "see, I'm hot, and you're lucky to go out with me!" if subtly.

  33. Bill B. says:

    My impression is that celebrity males eager for sexual partners will use physical touching as a quick way of detecting women who might be game for more. It’s a screening mechanism and need not be impolite at all.

    This is quite different from the Bill Clinton approach of assuming the sale in a rather more pointed way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    So you are saying it is polite for a celebrity to stick his hand up the dress of a woman he just met who is sitting next to him in a club or an a plane? Which book of etiquette can I find this in?

    I agree that that approach would certain save time and in some cases might elicit a positive response, but it might also backfire and get you arrested or at least in political trouble, which is why, as far as I know, it is NOT widely recommended, even on PUA blogs, even for celebrities and other "alphas".
  34. @Jack D
    Let's say I'm on a jury. You get on the stand and testify that a certain ghetto dweller (let's call him D'vacious) just walked up to you and punched you in the head as part of a knockout game. D'vacious says, "I dindu nothin'." His lawyer states that there were other people present who say this didn't happen, the circumstances could not be as you describe, you have a grudge against the accused , you have in the past spoken well of the accused and never mentioned this incident, and so on.

    And I might accept his explanation or say that we will never really know who is telling the truth. I can't convict. Fair enough.

    But then 3 or 4 more people get on the witness stand and say that this fellow socked them in the jaw without provocation. He proceeds to call them all liars as well. Now I am a little less sure that every single one of them is a liar - I'm beginning to see a pattern.

    Then the prosecution plays a tape of D'vacious in a bar saying , "When I feel angry, what I do is I sock the next person I see in the jaw. This makes me feel better." When asked about this, D'vacisous say that it is mere boasting - in real life he would never do such a thing. Do I STILL accept his explanation or do I take his statement as corroboration that what the alleged victims are saying is really true? At what point should I convict D'vacious and stop giving him the benefit of the doubt?

    The statute of limitations for bringing a civil assault and battery claim in NY is one year. If you don’t complain in a year, you are barred because memories fade and it is harder to determine the truth the more time has passed.

    The statute for criminal assault is three to five years. You could discover a camera record of the event after that time and the criminal is free. He could confess to doing it and he is free.

    There is a reason for statute of limitations, as we are seeing here.

    Not a practicing lawyer, not legal advice just what I understand from reading.

    Read More
  35. Perplexed says:
    @candid_observer
    One thing I find rather amazing is how people swing from one extreme to the other in how they choose to interpret what Trump has to say.

    In one moment, they criticize him severely as "lying" because he engages in what are clearly exaggerations and over-generalizations for effect, and in the next moment they take every word out of his mouth as 100% literal truth-- which they use to demonstrate his perfidy, because, in their view, the literal interpretation indicates an evil act.

    But the Grand Unifying Theory of Trump Interpretation is that he always exaggerates and over-generalizes for effect (unless he's on teleprompter). He is massively, chronically sloppy in this way whenever he speaks impromptu.

    Most of his supporters at least unconsciously get that about him. They simply adjust their understanding of what he says to factor out the exaggerations and over-generalizations, etc. They respond instead to the truth of what he says after these adjustments.

    One of the things that makes Trump so unacceptable as a politician these days to so many people is that he doesn't have either a lawyerly background or a lawyerly disposition or a lawyerly talent. He completely lacks the precision we have come to expect of our politicians. He unloads gotchas like a pinata.

    But, given who he is, and how he exaggerates for effect, no one would reasonably take his boasts to Billy Bush as the literal truth of what he does with women. Sure, you could insist that he must be talking about going to third base without any precautionary assessment as to whether that might be acceptable for the woman. But, truly, who, knowing Trump, would insist that that literal and rigid interpretation was a fair way to take what he said?

    “One of the things that makes Trump so unacceptable as a politician these days to so many people is that he doesn’t have either a lawyerly background or a lawyerly disposition or a lawyerly talent. He completely lacks the precision we have come to expect of our politicians.”

    One of the things that make lawyer Hillary so boring is her well-honed ability to say nothing at great length. Asked what she accomplished at the State Department, she (eventually) said the determination not to do things the way they had been done, and that was what she was proudest of.

    The only time any truth leaks out is speeches in which she wants free trade and open borders. But we’re not her audience then.

    Read More
  36. AndrewR says:
    @D. K.
    So, let us low-IQ defenders of Donald Trump against the recent spate of accusations of "sexual assault" take a look at what you, instead, so readily believe, Andy:

    1) You believe an old woman who claims that about half of her life ago, in the first-class section of a flight from Dallas to New York, Trump physically molested her, both feeling up her breasts and her "pussy" for about fifteen minutes, before she finally decided to give up her first-class seat, rather than to complain and have Trump sent packing to stowage. You believe this despite the fact that she uses language out of an old rock'n'roll lyric. You believe her despite the fact that she says that he raised the armrest to get at her, when it is known that first-class seats' armrests, back then, were not movable. You believe her despite the fact that a British man who claims to have been the one sitting across the aisle, as a 24-year-old, denies that any such molestation took place, and claims that she was the one coming on to Trump. You believe it despite the fact that stewardesses or stewards, in that era, would have been hovering over the first-class passengers, like waiters at a top-rated restaurant. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that if Trump had limited himself to feeling up her breasts, she might not even have minded his sexual assault. You believe her despite the fact that she is a left-wing New York activist who supposedly shares a telephone number with the Clinton Foundation. You believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and just when the Clinton campaign and its mainstream-media auxiliary are pushing the Trump-is-a-sexual-predator theme, to turn even more potential voters, especially women, against Trump, and to distract from the tidal wave of WikiLeaks releases about the true nature of Mrs. Clinton and her political circle.

    2) You believe a middle-age woman who once competed on "The Apprentice" when she now says that Trump sexually assaulted her during that period of her life. You believe that despite her e-mail from this spring, wanting to reconnect with the former reality-show host, and inviting him to visit her restaurant in California, in the lead-up to the California primary, which took place on June 7. You believe her even though one of her own first cousins wrote a letter, which he allowed the Trump campaign to publish, saying that she never said a negative word about Trump, until this belated claim, less than a month before Election Day-- and, in fact, previously had talked up Trump's presidential campaign to her cousin and his family, after her spending the years since her appearance on "The Apprentice" lauding Trump, and saying that she wished to emulate him. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her making this claim now.

    3) You believe a middle-age reporter who claims that Trump sexually molested her, in a room at his Mar-a-Lago Resort, during the brief interlude in which his pregnant wife had gone upstairs to change her outfit, for the accompanying photographer, during a joint interview for "People" magazine, until Trump's butler walked in on the scene, causing Trump to cease and desist. You believe this despite the fact that the then-butler, who no longer works for Trump, has publicly stated that it never happened. You believe it despite the fact that Melania Trump's lawyer already has sent a cease and desist letter to "People" magazine, demanding a retraction, and threatening to sue-- specifically denying the reporter's claims that she was a friend of the Trumps who broke off her friendship because of the incident, and that she had run into Melania and her infant son, Barron, just outside of Trump Tower, a couple of years later, regretting that she could no longer be a part of their lives, while Melania had asked her wistfully why Melania and her husband never saw their good friend, the reporter, anymore. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her belated claim.

    4) You believe a now barely middle-aged woman who claims that Trump either "nudged" her or "grabbed" her in the ass, while standing beside his own date, and future wife, after a Ray Charles concert at Mar-a-Lago, on January 24, 2003. You believe this despite the fact that she cannot distinguish between being nudged and grabbed. You believe this despite the fact that she did not see who nudged or grabbed her, and merely assumed that it was Trump, whom she saw behind her, when she turned around, but who was not looking at her, nor hovering behind her, hoping for a reaction. You believe her despite the fact that a picture alleged to be from that night is dated January 1, 2003, rather than January 24, 2003. You believe her despite the fact that a Ray Charles concert listing shows that he cancelled a Seattle concert, a few thousand miles away, the night before, and then had no concert scheduled for the next night. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that Melania was then Trump's fiancee, when he did not propose to her until about fifteen months later. And, again, you believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and in the midst of the aforementioned Clinton tactics, to go public with her story, sixteen months after Trump announced his candidacy, nearly six months after he became his party's presumptive nominee, about two and a half months after he formally accepted the nomination in Cleveland-- and several months after "The New York Times" pathetic attempt to portray him as a misogynist, in a long, quickly rebutted article by the same two Slim Helu henchpersons. (It is a great relief for the Clinton campaign that this woman, who will turn 37 the weekend before the election, survived to tell this serviceable tale, despite being arrested, on May Day 2012, for driving under the influence-- and really looking the part!-- with her young child in the car, would you not agree, Andy?)

    Feel free and welcome to cite your most recent score from a professionally administered adult intelligence test, Andy, so that I, Steve Sailer, Ron Unz, and the rest of us low-IQ denizens of this blog might "ooh!" and "ahh!" at your otherworldly intelligence, and preternatural grasp of human relations.

    tl;dr

    Read More
  37. Corn says:

    “But, given who he is, and how he exaggerates for effect, no one would reasonably take his boasts to Billy Bush as the literal truth of what he does with women. Sure, you could insist that he must be talking about going to third base without any precautionary assessment as to whether that might be acceptable for the woman. But, truly, who, knowing Trump, would insist that that literal and rigid interpretation was a fair way to take what he said?”

    Good point. Clinton & Media would have you believe that Trump is a bloviating bag of hot air that can’t be trusted on any issue. Unless he’s regaling some guy with sexcapades, in which case he must absolutely be speaking in a 100% truthful manner.

    Read More
  38. Perplexed says:
    @Jack D

    no one would reasonably take his boasts to Billy Bush as the literal truth of what he does with women
     
    Fair enough, until a number of women stepped forward to say that is what he literally did.

    When they do the analysis of a plane crash, it is never one thing that brings down the plane - it is always a series of things . If it had JUST been the boasts to Billy, or if it had JUST been the women ("liars") coming forward out of the blue after so many years, he might have gotten past it. But what made this so damaging was the combination.

    Oh, for God’s sake. Listen to Stefan Molyneux’s deconstruction of these “witnesses” and then come back and argue about the quality of the testimony.

    I think the Clinton/Bush machine are taking advantage of hysterical women. Like the Satanic day care wave of hysteria.

    Read More
  39. AndrewR says:
    @Jack D
    Let's say I'm on a jury. You get on the stand and testify that a certain ghetto dweller (let's call him D'vacious) just walked up to you and punched you in the head as part of a knockout game. D'vacious says, "I dindu nothin'." His lawyer states that there were other people present who say this didn't happen, the circumstances could not be as you describe, you have a grudge against the accused , you have in the past spoken well of the accused and never mentioned this incident, and so on.

    And I might accept his explanation or say that we will never really know who is telling the truth. I can't convict. Fair enough.

    But then 3 or 4 more people get on the witness stand and say that this fellow socked them in the jaw without provocation. He proceeds to call them all liars as well. Now I am a little less sure that every single one of them is a liar - I'm beginning to see a pattern.

    Then the prosecution plays a tape of D'vacious in a bar saying , "When I feel angry, what I do is I sock the next person I see in the jaw. This makes me feel better." When asked about this, D'vacisous say that it is mere boasting - in real life he would never do such a thing. Do I STILL accept his explanation or do I take his statement as corroboration that what the alleged victims are saying is really true? At what point should I convict D'vacious and stop giving him the benefit of the doubt?

    That’s totally different.

    We all know a white quasi-nationalist would never lie. It’s not like he’s black.

    Why do you want Hillary to become president and destroy America?????

    Read More
  40. Jefferson says:

    The vast majority of Crooked Hildabeast’s single ladies supporters would be open to dating the rapists Bill Clinton and Nate Parker if they were single.

    Read More
  41. SPMoore8 says:
    @Jack D
    Let's say I'm on a jury. You get on the stand and testify that a certain ghetto dweller (let's call him D'vacious) just walked up to you and punched you in the head as part of a knockout game. D'vacious says, "I dindu nothin'." His lawyer states that there were other people present who say this didn't happen, the circumstances could not be as you describe, you have a grudge against the accused , you have in the past spoken well of the accused and never mentioned this incident, and so on.

    And I might accept his explanation or say that we will never really know who is telling the truth. I can't convict. Fair enough.

    But then 3 or 4 more people get on the witness stand and say that this fellow socked them in the jaw without provocation. He proceeds to call them all liars as well. Now I am a little less sure that every single one of them is a liar - I'm beginning to see a pattern.

    Then the prosecution plays a tape of D'vacious in a bar saying , "When I feel angry, what I do is I sock the next person I see in the jaw. This makes me feel better." When asked about this, D'vacisous say that it is mere boasting - in real life he would never do such a thing. Do I STILL accept his explanation or do I take his statement as corroboration that what the alleged victims are saying is really true? At what point should I convict D'vacious and stop giving him the benefit of the doubt?

    I don’t know if these stories are true or not, but you have the procession backwards and that makes a lot of difference.

    This story began with the widely disseminated tape of Trump boasting of grabbing them, etc.

    From that POV, any woman who emerges posterior to the wide publicity of that claim is immediately suspect because it suggests that they were influenced by the tape, and this provides a convenient ground for publicity, fame, $$$, and just plain old support for HRC.

    The same goes for the claims against Cosby as well, the difference is that some of those claims were actually reported and/or litigated at the time of the incidents.

    What the accusers against Trump have to do — again, assuming any of this is relevant, given the track record of Hillary’s spouse, who will be occupying the White House with her — is come up with allegations that sound true, have independent corroboration from the time of the incident, etc. Otherwise it’s just political mudslinging.

    BTW, I don’t know if any or some or a lot of these claims have that measure of substantiation; I haven’t been paying attention. However, I do know that Joe Blanton gave up a Grand Slam yesterday.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    . . . and then a solo shot to the next hitter that he faced! I have my late mother's four ticket stubs from Games 4-7 of the 1945 World Series lying a few feet away from where I am typing, inside a monogrammed wallet that her then-boyfriend had made and given to her, during the war, before she subsequently met my father, through an uncle of mine who worked in the steel mill with my mother, during the war. After 1969, 1984, and 2003 (not to mention last year, when the Mets had home-field advantage)-- or, indeed, the entirety of my life, from the age of about six months-- I am not holding my breath that this is the year....
    , @Jack D

    From that POV, any woman who emerges posterior to the wide publicity of that claim is immediately suspect because it suggests that they were influenced by the tape, and this provides a convenient ground for publicity, fame, $$$, and just plain old support for HRC.
     
    That's one way of looking at it. What the women in these cases (both Trump and Cosby) say is the other way around - I thought that this was an isolated case when it happened to me, I didn't think I would be believed, etc. But now that I hear Trump/Cosby accusing these OTHER women of lying , I can no longer remain silent.

    Now you may not believe this but I'll bet you that a lot of undecided female voters in swing states might.
    , @Hail

    I don’t know if these stories are true or not, but you have the procession backwards and that makes a lot of difference. This story began with the widely disseminated tape of Trump
     
    These women know that "coming forward" means:

    (1) Instant fame and acclaim,
    (2) or, failing (1), at least Attention (!),
    (3) Sympathy from four-fifths of the U.S. elite media (note that a nobody launched herself onto above-the-fold front page of the NYT and WashPost overnight with a simple accusation),
    (4) Boosting the chances of Hillary Clinton,
    (5) Perhaps money for themselves, especially if they market themselves correctly (note the hiring of "celebrity attorney Gloria Allred)...

    Up to 100 million women in the USA are in the right age range. It is simply not the shock of the century that a few have made the above calculation and are okay with making false and unethical accusations.

  42. @AndrewR
    Sailer I don't know why you didn't go into law, given your reflexive contrarianism.

    One vestige of my Catholic upbringing is a general reticence to talk about my sex life with people other than my sexual partners and close friends, but I suppose in this case it's germane.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I've made anything that could be construed as an "unwanted sexual advance", and not for lack of effort or opportunity. I had a high number of sex partners during my more degenerate years (none of which were strictly transactional affairs (just to preemptively shut the trolls up)).

    It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.

    And all my "unwanted" advances were arguably not that unwanted at all. All the instances involved women who were clearly sexually aroused but, for whatever reasons, did not want to sate their desires. And frankly that's never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.

    When most people talk about "unwanted sexual advances" they're talking about advances from guys like Trump with overinflated egos and underdeveloped empathy. If you don't believe the stories that these women are saying about him, you're dumb.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve made anything that could be construed as an “unwanted sexual advance”

    So can I, in which case if every man has a similar record that’s 1-5 unwanted sexual advance per man, which would probably cover just about the whole female population, so you’ve really proved Steve’s point. Bear in mind that every time a wife says ‘not tonight, I’ve got a headache’ that husband has made a sexual advance of the unwanted kind.

    By the by, I’ve just finished reading the Houellebecq novel ‘Submission’ about the Islamic takeover of France which Steve wrote about a while back. He makes a pretty strong case for
    Islam being the only viable way that rejuvinating Patriarchy can ever be injected back into moribund European societies. The French characters in the book were previously members of Nativist movements who concluded that Islam was the only way left for European society. It’s not as easy to dismiss as I would like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    It's obvious that Islam is Europe's future. The challenge is to minimize the number of legacy Muslims. No European country should have more than five or ten percent of its population of non-native heritage.
  43. Lurker says:
    @Jack D
    I realize that Trump is a busy guy who gets right to the point, but (perhaps outside of drunken frat parties) I don't think it is a customary type of sexual advance to proceed directly to third base on someone you just met without even first touching 1st and 2nd - I think that is against the rules.

    Steve's post is sort of proof of the idea that people understand what they want to understand. When Trump said that Hillary should try doing without her armed Secret Service protection, Hillary supporters completely missed that he was trying to make the point "guns for me but not for thee" and read it as "Trump is threatening Hillary with assassination". Likewise, Steve is now spinning the point that it is COMPLETELY impossible to tell whether a sexual advance is unwanted until after you have made it - ergo it is OK to stick your hand up the dress of woman you just met. And keep in mind, that we have Trump on tape SAYING that this is exactly his strategy - that is what makes these allegations so doubly damaging.

    Now, we know that Bill Clinton has probably done the same or worse (with Hillary as his enabler) and the fate of our country should not turn on such trivial issues, but you can't really explain Trump's behavior away with the idea that sexual advances can only be "unwanted" in retrospect.

    Now, we know that Bill Clinton has probably done the same or worse

    I think we know that Bill has done the same and worse.

    And we don’t really know that Trump has.

    Read More
  44. speaking of slate, Jamelle Bouie says TBC was utterly debunked, I wonder what he’s thinking of.

    Read More
  45. Jefferson says:

    The bright side of Nice White Lady Feminazis is that most of them will die childless without ever becoming mothers, so they will not pass on their poisonous ideology to future young White females. The family line ends with them, the buck stops with them.

    I don’t want these types of White women breeding anyways, because I consider them an extremely undesirable demographic.

    I only encourage Non Feminazi White women to breed. It puts a huge smile on my face knowing that the likes of Sarah Silverman and Elizabeth Warren for example will never have any daughters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    most of them will die childless without ever becoming mothers, so they will not pass on their poisonous ideology to future young White females
     
    Their medium of transmission is memetic, not genetic. That is their raison d'être.
  46. D. K. says:
    @Jack D
    Let's say I'm on a jury. You get on the stand and testify that a certain ghetto dweller (let's call him D'vacious) just walked up to you and punched you in the head as part of a knockout game. D'vacious says, "I dindu nothin'." His lawyer states that there were other people present who say this didn't happen, the circumstances could not be as you describe, you have a grudge against the accused , you have in the past spoken well of the accused and never mentioned this incident, and so on.

    And I might accept his explanation or say that we will never really know who is telling the truth. I can't convict. Fair enough.

    But then 3 or 4 more people get on the witness stand and say that this fellow socked them in the jaw without provocation. He proceeds to call them all liars as well. Now I am a little less sure that every single one of them is a liar - I'm beginning to see a pattern.

    Then the prosecution plays a tape of D'vacious in a bar saying , "When I feel angry, what I do is I sock the next person I see in the jaw. This makes me feel better." When asked about this, D'vacisous say that it is mere boasting - in real life he would never do such a thing. Do I STILL accept his explanation or do I take his statement as corroboration that what the alleged victims are saying is really true? At what point should I convict D'vacious and stop giving him the benefit of the doubt?

    What did the prosecution in your hypothetical do to overcome the sworn testimony of the cited defense witnesses who were present and swore that no such thing occurred, nor even could have occurred, Jack? What did it do to overcome those other defense arguments about the credibility of the proffered prosecution witnesses? Even if D’vacious committed the attacks that the prosecution witnesses, beside the claimed victim in your case at trial, testified to his committing, there needs to be convincing evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that he committed THIS offense; simply proving that he committed similar offenses in the past does not meet that burden. You cannot try someone for a specific crime based simply on the fact that he had committed similar offenses in the past– nor will any such prejudicial testimony of previous offenses be allowed into evidence, absent some compelling nexus between the specifics of this crime and those earlier crimes.

    For the record, Trump did not say to Billy Bush that Trump HAD grabbed anyone by her “pussy,” nor that he was going to do so, nor that he wanted to do so; he merely was stating, hypothetically and hyperbolically, that a celebrity male could get away with such tactics– because the women would ALLOW the celebrity to do so!

    That you really cannot imagine multiple accusers coming forth against Trump, simply for political or personal reasons, under these circumstances, Jack, does not speak highly of your imagination….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The burden of proof in the court of public opinion does not need to be beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no duty to vote for someone to begin with - you can not vote for him if you have the slightest doubt, if you wish.
  47. Forbes says:
    @AndrewR
    Sailer I don't know why you didn't go into law, given your reflexive contrarianism.

    One vestige of my Catholic upbringing is a general reticence to talk about my sex life with people other than my sexual partners and close friends, but I suppose in this case it's germane.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I've made anything that could be construed as an "unwanted sexual advance", and not for lack of effort or opportunity. I had a high number of sex partners during my more degenerate years (none of which were strictly transactional affairs (just to preemptively shut the trolls up)).

    It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.

    And all my "unwanted" advances were arguably not that unwanted at all. All the instances involved women who were clearly sexually aroused but, for whatever reasons, did not want to sate their desires. And frankly that's never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.

    When most people talk about "unwanted sexual advances" they're talking about advances from guys like Trump with overinflated egos and underdeveloped empathy. If you don't believe the stories that these women are saying about him, you're dumb.

    And all my “unwanted” advances were arguably not that unwanted at all.

    That’s a mighty colossal rationalization you got there. Are we gonna rate “unwanted” on a 5-scale now? And yours all came in at 1 and 2…

    And your favorite part of sex doesn’t even include sex. LOL.

    IHTG seems to have the right call.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Why not? You don't think there's a difference between sexually assaulting a woman you don't know versus trying to get to third base before your girl is ready?
  48. @Jack D

    no one would reasonably take his boasts to Billy Bush as the literal truth of what he does with women
     
    Fair enough, until a number of women stepped forward to say that is what he literally did.

    When they do the analysis of a plane crash, it is never one thing that brings down the plane - it is always a series of things . If it had JUST been the boasts to Billy, or if it had JUST been the women ("liars") coming forward out of the blue after so many years, he might have gotten past it. But what made this so damaging was the combination.

    Fair enough, until a number of women stepped forward to say that is what he literally did.

    Really, do you seriously believe the testimony of women who, as best I can make out, in every single case, did not speak to others about this supposed unwanted groping until after Trump ran for President? One of them supposedly waited 30+ years before she told even family and friends — and now gives interviews everywhere, with obvious relish.

    Again, what’s the Grand Unifying Theory of this phenomenon? Answer: that they are all lying, and for the same kind of reasons: to take an opportunity to pull down Trump or promote themselves. There’s very little question that some of them are doing so, given the countervailing evidence. Why assume that this explanation applies only to the few who are already demonstrably lying? Why not assume that if there a good handful who are obviously lying, then there might be another handful who are lying, but just not yet so obviously?

    I’ll be convinced that Trump is doing this sort of groping only when I hear of a case that doesn’t fall into this category. Maybe they exist, but we haven’t heard of them yet.

    You really should contrast his cases with those of either Clinton or Crosby. These sorts of rumors and cases dogged both Clinton and Crosby for years before a convenient moment ripened for the accusations to come to the fore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    I would go further and argue that the strongest evidence against the idea that Trump is an out-of-control groper is precisely the fact that, even given all his fame and riches, and incentive for contrived claims against him, has not had such rumors dogging him before running for Presidency.
    , @D. K.
    . . . COSBY! ('Bing' has been dead for thirty-nine years and two days, by now....)
    , @Jack D
    It's my understanding of the accounts of some of these women that they did in fact tell friends or family at the time and that some of these friends and family have corroborated to the press that they were so informed. Maybe the whole bunch of them are lying but at some point you have to posit a LOT of liars.

    Ms. Leeds has told the story to at least four people close to her, who also spoke with The New York Times.
     
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html
    , @Neil Templeton
    I don't care if he is a groper, or that Bill Clinton is. We are electing a President of the United States, not a Boy Scout troop leader. If charges are criminal, he can face them. Otherwise, it's not relevant.
  49. Jack D says:
    @D. K.
    What did the prosecution in your hypothetical do to overcome the sworn testimony of the cited defense witnesses who were present and swore that no such thing occurred, nor even could have occurred, Jack? What did it do to overcome those other defense arguments about the credibility of the proffered prosecution witnesses? Even if D'vacious committed the attacks that the prosecution witnesses, beside the claimed victim in your case at trial, testified to his committing, there needs to be convincing evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that he committed THIS offense; simply proving that he committed similar offenses in the past does not meet that burden. You cannot try someone for a specific crime based simply on the fact that he had committed similar offenses in the past-- nor will any such prejudicial testimony of previous offenses be allowed into evidence, absent some compelling nexus between the specifics of this crime and those earlier crimes.

    For the record, Trump did not say to Billy Bush that Trump HAD grabbed anyone by her "pussy," nor that he was going to do so, nor that he wanted to do so; he merely was stating, hypothetically and hyperbolically, that a celebrity male could get away with such tactics-- because the women would ALLOW the celebrity to do so!

    That you really cannot imagine multiple accusers coming forth against Trump, simply for political or personal reasons, under these circumstances, Jack, does not speak highly of your imagination....

    The burden of proof in the court of public opinion does not need to be beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no duty to vote for someone to begin with – you can not vote for him if you have the slightest doubt, if you wish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Do I really need to point out, Jack, that you are the one who responded to me-- a retired attorney and legal consultant, inter alia-- with that hypothetical that you yourself invented, involving a criminal trial, with you as an hypothetical juror in that trial?!? If you do not wish for me to deconstruct your own inane and inapposite hypothetical, Jack, then I hereby suggest that you do not pose your own inane and inapposite hypothetical, in an unsolicited response to me, in the first place!

    I am well aware, Jack, that voters are allowed, and able, to vote based upon any criterion or criteria that they may choose-- whether material or not, whether relevant or not, whether competent or not, whether rational or not, and whether true or not! That is beside the point in debating whether the recent spate of convenient and uncorroborated claims against Donald Trump are true or false.

  50. D. K. says:
    @SPMoore8
    I don't know if these stories are true or not, but you have the procession backwards and that makes a lot of difference.

    This story began with the widely disseminated tape of Trump boasting of grabbing them, etc.

    From that POV, any woman who emerges posterior to the wide publicity of that claim is immediately suspect because it suggests that they were influenced by the tape, and this provides a convenient ground for publicity, fame, $$$, and just plain old support for HRC.

    The same goes for the claims against Cosby as well, the difference is that some of those claims were actually reported and/or litigated at the time of the incidents.

    What the accusers against Trump have to do -- again, assuming any of this is relevant, given the track record of Hillary's spouse, who will be occupying the White House with her -- is come up with allegations that sound true, have independent corroboration from the time of the incident, etc. Otherwise it's just political mudslinging.

    BTW, I don't know if any or some or a lot of these claims have that measure of substantiation; I haven't been paying attention. However, I do know that Joe Blanton gave up a Grand Slam yesterday.

    . . . and then a solo shot to the next hitter that he faced! I have my late mother’s four ticket stubs from Games 4-7 of the 1945 World Series lying a few feet away from where I am typing, inside a monogrammed wallet that her then-boyfriend had made and given to her, during the war, before she subsequently met my father, through an uncle of mine who worked in the steel mill with my mother, during the war. After 1969, 1984, and 2003 (not to mention last year, when the Mets had home-field advantage)– or, indeed, the entirety of my life, from the age of about six months– I am not holding my breath that this is the year….

    Read More
  51. It’s discouraging that our elites are as dumb about this simple point as they were two dozen years ago the first time a Clinton ran for President.

    What’s dumb about it?

    Seems to be working (for them) like a charm.

    Read More
  52. D. K. says:
    @Jack D
    The burden of proof in the court of public opinion does not need to be beyond a reasonable doubt. You have no duty to vote for someone to begin with - you can not vote for him if you have the slightest doubt, if you wish.

    Do I really need to point out, Jack, that you are the one who responded to me– a retired attorney and legal consultant, inter alia– with that hypothetical that you yourself invented, involving a criminal trial, with you as an hypothetical juror in that trial?!? If you do not wish for me to deconstruct your own inane and inapposite hypothetical, Jack, then I hereby suggest that you do not pose your own inane and inapposite hypothetical, in an unsolicited response to me, in the first place!

    I am well aware, Jack, that voters are allowed, and able, to vote based upon any criterion or criteria that they may choose– whether material or not, whether relevant or not, whether competent or not, whether rational or not, and whether true or not! That is beside the point in debating whether the recent spate of convenient and uncorroborated claims against Donald Trump are true or false.

    Read More
  53. unit472 says:

    You just can’t win if you are a man. Eliot Spitzer spent a lot of money to have a ‘wanted’ sexual advance with a woman who advertised for sexual ‘customers’. Cost him his job as Governor of New York. Larry Craig put his shoe into an adjacent toilet stall to signal he was available for sex and he was arrested. Exposing your genitals to a female is also considered a felony even if you did it discreetly and from across the street. Pointing suggestively to your crotch might also be considered lewd conduct. There is just no way for a man to ask a woman for sex without making an unwanted advance or illegal offer.

    Read More
  54. @candid_observer

    Fair enough, until a number of women stepped forward to say that is what he literally did.
     
    Really, do you seriously believe the testimony of women who, as best I can make out, in every single case, did not speak to others about this supposed unwanted groping until after Trump ran for President? One of them supposedly waited 30+ years before she told even family and friends -- and now gives interviews everywhere, with obvious relish.

    Again, what's the Grand Unifying Theory of this phenomenon? Answer: that they are all lying, and for the same kind of reasons: to take an opportunity to pull down Trump or promote themselves. There's very little question that some of them are doing so, given the countervailing evidence. Why assume that this explanation applies only to the few who are already demonstrably lying? Why not assume that if there a good handful who are obviously lying, then there might be another handful who are lying, but just not yet so obviously?

    I'll be convinced that Trump is doing this sort of groping only when I hear of a case that doesn't fall into this category. Maybe they exist, but we haven't heard of them yet.

    You really should contrast his cases with those of either Clinton or Crosby. These sorts of rumors and cases dogged both Clinton and Crosby for years before a convenient moment ripened for the accusations to come to the fore.

    I would go further and argue that the strongest evidence against the idea that Trump is an out-of-control groper is precisely the fact that, even given all his fame and riches, and incentive for contrived claims against him, has not had such rumors dogging him before running for Presidency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Forbes
    Good lord, yes, how many high profile people are regularly subjected to salacious stories, rumors, gossip and often, but not always deserving of consideration. Meanwhile, it's been crickets for a brash and outspoken target such as Trump, until now?
    , @Rob McX
    Exactly.

    Number of harassment accusations in last month: 10(?)
    Number of harassment accusations in previous 70 years: 0
  55. FKA Max says:

    Interesting parallels here…

    JUDY WOODRUFF: You spend an entire chapter, final chapter on his death. He was 70 years old. He was off with a young woman who was his mistress, died of a massive heart attack.

    Why devote — why was that the end — why was that particular thing the end, and why devote that much time to it?

    RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, unfortunately, for a whole generation, it came to define and in many ways to diminish him.

    The fact is, there’s a lot we didn’t know. The background is that he was dying. He had a very serious heart condition, which, again, he kept from the public. To this day, that’s news. But in a larger sense, there’s one continuing, historically relevant, significant part of that story, and that is the role of the press.

    The way I tell the story is the story of a cover-up that unraveled very quickly. I argue, beginning that night, not with Gary Hart or later incidents, but beginning the night of Nelson Rockefeller’s death, the press redefined what was traditionally considered public vs. private.

    And you can get a pretty good argument over whether it’s been good for journalism or good for democracy, but there’s very little doubt that it began with Nelson Rockefeller’s death and the cover-up that unraveled.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nelson-rockefeller-biography/

    I agree with this: Donald Trump’s Empire State Role Model

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424753/donald-trumps-empire-state-role-model-michael-barone

    Rockefeller was richer than Trump, a more gifted art-and-architecture patron, and less given to boasting. He had a much longer public career, from running FDR’s Latin American desk to being Gerald Ford’s vice president. But through all that, he was regarded by insiders as an unguided missile, not subject to institutional constraint, seeking power to do whatever he wanted. Rockefeller was elected governor when Donald Trump was twelve and served until Trump was 27 and about to make his jump to Manhattan.

    This is Trump to a T, in my opinion:

    A politician who self-described as having a “Democrat heart with a Republican head,” Nelson Rockefeller would be something of a political anomaly today. Biographer Richard Norton Smith, author of “On His Own Terms,” joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what distinguished the four-time New York governor and former vice president.

    Read More
  56. D. K. says:
    @candid_observer

    Fair enough, until a number of women stepped forward to say that is what he literally did.
     
    Really, do you seriously believe the testimony of women who, as best I can make out, in every single case, did not speak to others about this supposed unwanted groping until after Trump ran for President? One of them supposedly waited 30+ years before she told even family and friends -- and now gives interviews everywhere, with obvious relish.

    Again, what's the Grand Unifying Theory of this phenomenon? Answer: that they are all lying, and for the same kind of reasons: to take an opportunity to pull down Trump or promote themselves. There's very little question that some of them are doing so, given the countervailing evidence. Why assume that this explanation applies only to the few who are already demonstrably lying? Why not assume that if there a good handful who are obviously lying, then there might be another handful who are lying, but just not yet so obviously?

    I'll be convinced that Trump is doing this sort of groping only when I hear of a case that doesn't fall into this category. Maybe they exist, but we haven't heard of them yet.

    You really should contrast his cases with those of either Clinton or Crosby. These sorts of rumors and cases dogged both Clinton and Crosby for years before a convenient moment ripened for the accusations to come to the fore.

    . . . COSBY! (‘Bing’ has been dead for thirty-nine years and two days, by now….)

    Read More
  57. The question not asked is, how many women did not receive a sexual advance that wanted one?

    Read More
  58. Who gives a damn?

    This country is sinking into an oblivion of financial insolvency, deindustrialization, and widespread penury for the masses…… but our media and political over class are more concerned about whether Trump harasses women.

    This country is completely f*****

    Read More
    • Replies: @BenKenobi
    Quite so. We should start our own country, Mr Walker. In your honour perhaps our flag could be the Red, Black, and Blue?
  59. “That raises the question of which heterosexual man never made an “unwanted sexual advance”? Warren Beatty in the year after the release of Bonnie and Clyde? Wilt Chamberlain during the Lakers’ 33-game winning streak? Jimmy Page and Robert Plant during Led Zep’s “Stairway to Heaven” tour of Australia?”

    Steve, you’re imagining scenarios where women make all the sexual advances, wanted or unwanted. You don’t understand: it turns out Beatty, Chamberlain, Page and Plant made all kinds of unwanted advances in those golden times.

    That is, as determined decades later, and only by women they turned down.

    Read More
  60. Forbes says:
    @candid_observer
    I would go further and argue that the strongest evidence against the idea that Trump is an out-of-control groper is precisely the fact that, even given all his fame and riches, and incentive for contrived claims against him, has not had such rumors dogging him before running for Presidency.

    Good lord, yes, how many high profile people are regularly subjected to salacious stories, rumors, gossip and often, but not always deserving of consideration. Meanwhile, it’s been crickets for a brash and outspoken target such as Trump, until now?

    Read More
  61. Jack D says:
    @SPMoore8
    I don't know if these stories are true or not, but you have the procession backwards and that makes a lot of difference.

    This story began with the widely disseminated tape of Trump boasting of grabbing them, etc.

    From that POV, any woman who emerges posterior to the wide publicity of that claim is immediately suspect because it suggests that they were influenced by the tape, and this provides a convenient ground for publicity, fame, $$$, and just plain old support for HRC.

    The same goes for the claims against Cosby as well, the difference is that some of those claims were actually reported and/or litigated at the time of the incidents.

    What the accusers against Trump have to do -- again, assuming any of this is relevant, given the track record of Hillary's spouse, who will be occupying the White House with her -- is come up with allegations that sound true, have independent corroboration from the time of the incident, etc. Otherwise it's just political mudslinging.

    BTW, I don't know if any or some or a lot of these claims have that measure of substantiation; I haven't been paying attention. However, I do know that Joe Blanton gave up a Grand Slam yesterday.

    From that POV, any woman who emerges posterior to the wide publicity of that claim is immediately suspect because it suggests that they were influenced by the tape, and this provides a convenient ground for publicity, fame, $$$, and just plain old support for HRC.

    That’s one way of looking at it. What the women in these cases (both Trump and Cosby) say is the other way around – I thought that this was an isolated case when it happened to me, I didn’t think I would be believed, etc. But now that I hear Trump/Cosby accusing these OTHER women of lying , I can no longer remain silent.

    Now you may not believe this but I’ll bet you that a lot of undecided female voters in swing states might.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spmoore8
    That points to what I said earlier, if Trump loses, as I expect, it won't be because of this. And I don't think it will be because of this.
    , @D. K.
    One woman says it took place in the first-class section of a scheduled airline flight, with the people across the aisle able to see its taking place. Rather than push the button for first-class service, or yell out, or ask for assistance from another first-class passenger, she claims that she allowed it to continue for fifteen minutes, and then simply got up and went and took an empty coach seat, in the rear of the plane, never informing anyone with the airline of the attack, nor the authorities, after landing in New York, despite there being witnesses to the entire incident.

    A second woman-- a reporter-- claims that she was teamed with a photographer, doing a story on Donald and Melania Trump, down at Mar-a-Lago. She claims that Trump attacked her-- with no mention of where her photographer was, nor what he might have been doing, while Melania Trump went upstairs to change her clothes-- and that Trump's butler walked in, causing Trump to release her. The butler denies it; Melania Trump denies other claims in the reporter's new story; the unnamed photographer who accompanied her and filed pictures from her interview is never cited by the reporter, nor by reporters reporting on the reporter's uncorroborated claims, as to what he saw, heard or was contemporaneously told by the belatedly self-proclaimed victim.

    A third woman claims that Trump assaulted her during her tenure as a contestant on his reality show, "The Apprentice." No specifics that could be fact-checked have been cited, as far as I know, and her claim is wholly uncorroborated, as well as inconsistent with her subsequent actions, and what she always said to her close relatives about her experience-- and even about Trump's recent presidential campaign, until after he failed to respond to her e-mail invitation to come to her restaurant, while campaigning in California, in the spring. Her own first cousin was willing to rat her out for her two-faced duplicity, saying that this is the first time he and his family have ever heard her utter an unfavorable word about Trump!

    A fourth woman claims that Trump either "nudged" her or "grabbed" her ass, from behind, in a crowded public venue, also down at Mar-a-Lago, after a supposed Ray Charles concert, which was apparently unlisted, while she was with her then-boyfriend, and Trump was with his then-girlfriend, and current wife, Melania.

    So, at least three of the four most prominent claimants, by their own admissions, were "sexually assaulted" in the presence of witnesses-- yet the claimants did nothing about it, until many years later. The notion that they originally feared that they would not be believed is a bit much, since there were witnesses present at the time, in at least three of the four cases, each of which was reputedly a lone attack by Trump against that particular woman. Witnessing the alacrity with which much of the public is willing to accept these uncorroborated claims, now, many years later, despite their politically convenient timing for the candidate that these women doubtless support, it is very difficult to believe that Trump's reputation, pre-campaign, would have saved him from similar credulity, earlier in this millennium, or even thirty-some years ago, when the now-elderly left-wing broad claims to have been assaulted, in early middle age, by the somewhat-younger Donald Trump.
  62. BenKenobi says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Who gives a damn?

    This country is sinking into an oblivion of financial insolvency, deindustrialization, and widespread penury for the masses...... but our media and political over class are more concerned about whether Trump harasses women.

    This country is completely f*****

    Quite so. We should start our own country, Mr Walker. In your honour perhaps our flag could be the Red, Black, and Blue?

    Read More
  63. eah says:

    Read More
  64. Jack D says:
    @candid_observer

    Fair enough, until a number of women stepped forward to say that is what he literally did.
     
    Really, do you seriously believe the testimony of women who, as best I can make out, in every single case, did not speak to others about this supposed unwanted groping until after Trump ran for President? One of them supposedly waited 30+ years before she told even family and friends -- and now gives interviews everywhere, with obvious relish.

    Again, what's the Grand Unifying Theory of this phenomenon? Answer: that they are all lying, and for the same kind of reasons: to take an opportunity to pull down Trump or promote themselves. There's very little question that some of them are doing so, given the countervailing evidence. Why assume that this explanation applies only to the few who are already demonstrably lying? Why not assume that if there a good handful who are obviously lying, then there might be another handful who are lying, but just not yet so obviously?

    I'll be convinced that Trump is doing this sort of groping only when I hear of a case that doesn't fall into this category. Maybe they exist, but we haven't heard of them yet.

    You really should contrast his cases with those of either Clinton or Crosby. These sorts of rumors and cases dogged both Clinton and Crosby for years before a convenient moment ripened for the accusations to come to the fore.

    It’s my understanding of the accounts of some of these women that they did in fact tell friends or family at the time and that some of these friends and family have corroborated to the press that they were so informed. Maybe the whole bunch of them are lying but at some point you have to posit a LOT of liars.

    Ms. Leeds has told the story to at least four people close to her, who also spoke with The New York Times.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    "Ms. Leeds described the events to those close to her more recently, as Mr. Trump became more visible politically and ran for president."

    Sorry, Jack, old boy, but thirty-some years after the fact is not what those of us in the legal business-- "and, when I say 'the business,' I mean, of course, the industry!"-- consider to be a "contemporaneous utterance" which may be admitted into evidence in support of a subsequent claim, as an exception to the Hearsay Rule:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

    (I will make an admission of my own: I do not believe that the dubious gay "witness" who claims to have been across the aisle from Trump and the older divorcee, back in the days of Braniff International Airways, is telling the truth, either! I think that he is a fabulist-- as a disproportionate number of gay men seem to be!?!)
  65. @Jack D
    I realize that Trump is a busy guy who gets right to the point, but (perhaps outside of drunken frat parties) I don't think it is a customary type of sexual advance to proceed directly to third base on someone you just met without even first touching 1st and 2nd - I think that is against the rules.

    Steve's post is sort of proof of the idea that people understand what they want to understand. When Trump said that Hillary should try doing without her armed Secret Service protection, Hillary supporters completely missed that he was trying to make the point "guns for me but not for thee" and read it as "Trump is threatening Hillary with assassination". Likewise, Steve is now spinning the point that it is COMPLETELY impossible to tell whether a sexual advance is unwanted until after you have made it - ergo it is OK to stick your hand up the dress of woman you just met. And keep in mind, that we have Trump on tape SAYING that this is exactly his strategy - that is what makes these allegations so doubly damaging.

    Now, we know that Bill Clinton has probably done the same or worse (with Hillary as his enabler) and the fate of our country should not turn on such trivial issues, but you can't really explain Trump's behavior away with the idea that sexual advances can only be "unwanted" in retrospect.

    Maybe we can somehow get back to the era in which respectable people did not make “sexual advances” at all, at least not as a first step. Given that “dating” is now used as a synonym* for “sexually involved with each other,” that doesn’t seem likely any time soon.

    * I almost said it was a euphemism rather than a synonym, but it isn’t even that any more – it is just what the term means.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Groping of the type Trump is accused of happened at least for the last century or so even among "respectable people" (other than religious fundamentalists) well short of marriage, but certainly not on the first few "dates" let alone within minutes of introduction. The big difference was really that due to lack of contraception, people did not dare have full intercourse with someone they were not prepared to marry. On the one hand, once people were engaged, it was sort of OK if the 1st baby came a little early so sometimes the festivities began a little early and OTOH, if an accidental pregnancy did occur among people who were not yet engaged, quickly getting married was more or less expected in order to remain in respectable society. But a lot of less than "sex" (as Bill Clinton defines it) happened among people who were "going steady".
  66. Spmoore8 says:
    @Jack D

    From that POV, any woman who emerges posterior to the wide publicity of that claim is immediately suspect because it suggests that they were influenced by the tape, and this provides a convenient ground for publicity, fame, $$$, and just plain old support for HRC.
     
    That's one way of looking at it. What the women in these cases (both Trump and Cosby) say is the other way around - I thought that this was an isolated case when it happened to me, I didn't think I would be believed, etc. But now that I hear Trump/Cosby accusing these OTHER women of lying , I can no longer remain silent.

    Now you may not believe this but I'll bet you that a lot of undecided female voters in swing states might.

    That points to what I said earlier, if Trump loses, as I expect, it won’t be because of this. And I don’t think it will be because of this.

    Read More
  67. @candid_observer

    Fair enough, until a number of women stepped forward to say that is what he literally did.
     
    Really, do you seriously believe the testimony of women who, as best I can make out, in every single case, did not speak to others about this supposed unwanted groping until after Trump ran for President? One of them supposedly waited 30+ years before she told even family and friends -- and now gives interviews everywhere, with obvious relish.

    Again, what's the Grand Unifying Theory of this phenomenon? Answer: that they are all lying, and for the same kind of reasons: to take an opportunity to pull down Trump or promote themselves. There's very little question that some of them are doing so, given the countervailing evidence. Why assume that this explanation applies only to the few who are already demonstrably lying? Why not assume that if there a good handful who are obviously lying, then there might be another handful who are lying, but just not yet so obviously?

    I'll be convinced that Trump is doing this sort of groping only when I hear of a case that doesn't fall into this category. Maybe they exist, but we haven't heard of them yet.

    You really should contrast his cases with those of either Clinton or Crosby. These sorts of rumors and cases dogged both Clinton and Crosby for years before a convenient moment ripened for the accusations to come to the fore.

    I don’t care if he is a groper, or that Bill Clinton is. We are electing a President of the United States, not a Boy Scout troop leader. If charges are criminal, he can face them. Otherwise, it’s not relevant.

    Read More
  68. D. K. says:
    @Jack D

    From that POV, any woman who emerges posterior to the wide publicity of that claim is immediately suspect because it suggests that they were influenced by the tape, and this provides a convenient ground for publicity, fame, $$$, and just plain old support for HRC.
     
    That's one way of looking at it. What the women in these cases (both Trump and Cosby) say is the other way around - I thought that this was an isolated case when it happened to me, I didn't think I would be believed, etc. But now that I hear Trump/Cosby accusing these OTHER women of lying , I can no longer remain silent.

    Now you may not believe this but I'll bet you that a lot of undecided female voters in swing states might.

    One woman says it took place in the first-class section of a scheduled airline flight, with the people across the aisle able to see its taking place. Rather than push the button for first-class service, or yell out, or ask for assistance from another first-class passenger, she claims that she allowed it to continue for fifteen minutes, and then simply got up and went and took an empty coach seat, in the rear of the plane, never informing anyone with the airline of the attack, nor the authorities, after landing in New York, despite there being witnesses to the entire incident.

    A second woman– a reporter– claims that she was teamed with a photographer, doing a story on Donald and Melania Trump, down at Mar-a-Lago. She claims that Trump attacked her– with no mention of where her photographer was, nor what he might have been doing, while Melania Trump went upstairs to change her clothes– and that Trump’s butler walked in, causing Trump to release her. The butler denies it; Melania Trump denies other claims in the reporter’s new story; the unnamed photographer who accompanied her and filed pictures from her interview is never cited by the reporter, nor by reporters reporting on the reporter’s uncorroborated claims, as to what he saw, heard or was contemporaneously told by the belatedly self-proclaimed victim.

    A third woman claims that Trump assaulted her during her tenure as a contestant on his reality show, “The Apprentice.” No specifics that could be fact-checked have been cited, as far as I know, and her claim is wholly uncorroborated, as well as inconsistent with her subsequent actions, and what she always said to her close relatives about her experience– and even about Trump’s recent presidential campaign, until after he failed to respond to her e-mail invitation to come to her restaurant, while campaigning in California, in the spring. Her own first cousin was willing to rat her out for her two-faced duplicity, saying that this is the first time he and his family have ever heard her utter an unfavorable word about Trump!

    A fourth woman claims that Trump either “nudged” her or “grabbed” her ass, from behind, in a crowded public venue, also down at Mar-a-Lago, after a supposed Ray Charles concert, which was apparently unlisted, while she was with her then-boyfriend, and Trump was with his then-girlfriend, and current wife, Melania.

    So, at least three of the four most prominent claimants, by their own admissions, were “sexually assaulted” in the presence of witnesses– yet the claimants did nothing about it, until many years later. The notion that they originally feared that they would not be believed is a bit much, since there were witnesses present at the time, in at least three of the four cases, each of which was reputedly a lone attack by Trump against that particular woman. Witnessing the alacrity with which much of the public is willing to accept these uncorroborated claims, now, many years later, despite their politically convenient timing for the candidate that these women doubtless support, it is very difficult to believe that Trump’s reputation, pre-campaign, would have saved him from similar credulity, earlier in this millennium, or even thirty-some years ago, when the now-elderly left-wing broad claims to have been assaulted, in early middle age, by the somewhat-younger Donald Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I realize the press is spinning these stories in a very one sided (anti-Trump) way but your take on these stories is equally one sided. For example, you say that Leeds was assaulted "in early middle age" by a "somewhat younger" Trump. At the time in question, Leeds was 38 and Trump was 34. I would not consider this to be exactly a May-December romance. If everything you were saying was clearcut and verifiably true, then sure these women would not be at all credible, but it's not as clear as you make it sound.

    If you remember, many years ago, Sen. Gary Hart , then a leading Presidential contender, dared the press to follow him around. So they did and they discovered that he was having an affair and his political career was finished. Trump, by his response to Cooper's question, in effect dared the press to dig up dirt on him and unless he was really a choir boy he should never have done that - he was in effect daring women to come forward and make accusations, so they have.

    Bill Clinton is virtually the only American politician to have survived multiple bimbo eruptions - he is like one of those people who gets Ebola but does not die. {Political} scientists such as the people running the Trump campaign should have studied Bill's case for clues on what you have to do to survive such an eruption but they didn't. Of course it helped that the entire liberal establishment was in the can for Bill, but there was more to it than that, such as the famous joint 60 Minutes appearance with Hillary. As I have mentioned before, Melania has been nowhere to be seen since her disastrous convention speech, so Donald has been out there alone calling these woman liars and unattractive, etc. - maybe this works for you, but it's not working for a lot of female voters.

    , @Chrisnonymous

    So, at least three of the four most prominent claimants, by their own admissions, were “sexually assaulted” in the presence of witnesses
     
    To be fair, Ray Charles would not be a very good witness.
    , @AndrewR
    Yeah what kind of 34 year old man could be attracted to a 38 year old woman?

    That's like early middle age, dude. Yuck.
    , @EriK
    You're wiping the floor with them. Well done.
  69. That raises the question of which heterosexual man never made an “unwanted sexual advance”? Warren Beatty in the year after the release of Bonnie and Clyde? Wilt Chamberlain during the Lakers’ 33-game winning streak? Jimmy Page and Robert Plant during Led Zep’s “Stairway to Heaven” tour of Australia?

    ROTFLMAO!

    Read More
  70. D. K. says:
    @Jack D
    It's my understanding of the accounts of some of these women that they did in fact tell friends or family at the time and that some of these friends and family have corroborated to the press that they were so informed. Maybe the whole bunch of them are lying but at some point you have to posit a LOT of liars.

    Ms. Leeds has told the story to at least four people close to her, who also spoke with The New York Times.
     
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html

    “Ms. Leeds described the events to those close to her more recently, as Mr. Trump became more visible politically and ran for president.”

    Sorry, Jack, old boy, but thirty-some years after the fact is not what those of us in the legal business– “and, when I say ‘the business,’ I mean, of course, the industry!”– consider to be a “contemporaneous utterance” which may be admitted into evidence in support of a subsequent claim, as an exception to the Hearsay Rule:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

    (I will make an admission of my own: I do not believe that the dubious gay “witness” who claims to have been across the aisle from Trump and the older divorcee, back in the days of Braniff International Airways, is telling the truth, either! I think that he is a fabulist– as a disproportionate number of gay men seem to be!?!)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    So either she is a very evil and conniving person who carefully laid a trap for Trump many months ago and sprung it as an "October surprise", or else she really had no intention of going public with this until Trump publicly denied that he had ever done what he said on tape that he had done and practically dared her to come forward. So now he is in the position of saying, "I was lying when I was talking in private to my friend Billy Bush but I'm not lying to you the public now when the stakes are so high." Even if he is telling the truth now, he has, by running his big mouth, put himself in a position where few will believe him.
  71. Anon7 says:

    Women want control over male behavior, it’s just that simple. I just saw an NFL commercial in which a top player described his achievements and then sits quietly while a young woman “buys him” or at least his jersey or some other related junk at the NFL online store. She controls him with her phone.

    The next commercial was an NFL Pink spot, in which a heavily dreadlocked and tattooed player takes over for a woman who works in a restaurant so she can go get a breast exam. The ensuing dialog emphasizes how hard her job is, and how incompetent he is.

    Male behavior is inexcusable and irredeemable. They must be controlled. Female imperatives will decide this election unless every guy in America decides to vote. Let’s hope.

    Read More
  72. Jack D says:
    @D. K.
    One woman says it took place in the first-class section of a scheduled airline flight, with the people across the aisle able to see its taking place. Rather than push the button for first-class service, or yell out, or ask for assistance from another first-class passenger, she claims that she allowed it to continue for fifteen minutes, and then simply got up and went and took an empty coach seat, in the rear of the plane, never informing anyone with the airline of the attack, nor the authorities, after landing in New York, despite there being witnesses to the entire incident.

    A second woman-- a reporter-- claims that she was teamed with a photographer, doing a story on Donald and Melania Trump, down at Mar-a-Lago. She claims that Trump attacked her-- with no mention of where her photographer was, nor what he might have been doing, while Melania Trump went upstairs to change her clothes-- and that Trump's butler walked in, causing Trump to release her. The butler denies it; Melania Trump denies other claims in the reporter's new story; the unnamed photographer who accompanied her and filed pictures from her interview is never cited by the reporter, nor by reporters reporting on the reporter's uncorroborated claims, as to what he saw, heard or was contemporaneously told by the belatedly self-proclaimed victim.

    A third woman claims that Trump assaulted her during her tenure as a contestant on his reality show, "The Apprentice." No specifics that could be fact-checked have been cited, as far as I know, and her claim is wholly uncorroborated, as well as inconsistent with her subsequent actions, and what she always said to her close relatives about her experience-- and even about Trump's recent presidential campaign, until after he failed to respond to her e-mail invitation to come to her restaurant, while campaigning in California, in the spring. Her own first cousin was willing to rat her out for her two-faced duplicity, saying that this is the first time he and his family have ever heard her utter an unfavorable word about Trump!

    A fourth woman claims that Trump either "nudged" her or "grabbed" her ass, from behind, in a crowded public venue, also down at Mar-a-Lago, after a supposed Ray Charles concert, which was apparently unlisted, while she was with her then-boyfriend, and Trump was with his then-girlfriend, and current wife, Melania.

    So, at least three of the four most prominent claimants, by their own admissions, were "sexually assaulted" in the presence of witnesses-- yet the claimants did nothing about it, until many years later. The notion that they originally feared that they would not be believed is a bit much, since there were witnesses present at the time, in at least three of the four cases, each of which was reputedly a lone attack by Trump against that particular woman. Witnessing the alacrity with which much of the public is willing to accept these uncorroborated claims, now, many years later, despite their politically convenient timing for the candidate that these women doubtless support, it is very difficult to believe that Trump's reputation, pre-campaign, would have saved him from similar credulity, earlier in this millennium, or even thirty-some years ago, when the now-elderly left-wing broad claims to have been assaulted, in early middle age, by the somewhat-younger Donald Trump.

    I realize the press is spinning these stories in a very one sided (anti-Trump) way but your take on these stories is equally one sided. For example, you say that Leeds was assaulted “in early middle age” by a “somewhat younger” Trump. At the time in question, Leeds was 38 and Trump was 34. I would not consider this to be exactly a May-December romance. If everything you were saying was clearcut and verifiably true, then sure these women would not be at all credible, but it’s not as clear as you make it sound.

    If you remember, many years ago, Sen. Gary Hart , then a leading Presidential contender, dared the press to follow him around. So they did and they discovered that he was having an affair and his political career was finished. Trump, by his response to Cooper’s question, in effect dared the press to dig up dirt on him and unless he was really a choir boy he should never have done that – he was in effect daring women to come forward and make accusations, so they have.

    Bill Clinton is virtually the only American politician to have survived multiple bimbo eruptions – he is like one of those people who gets Ebola but does not die. {Political} scientists such as the people running the Trump campaign should have studied Bill’s case for clues on what you have to do to survive such an eruption but they didn’t. Of course it helped that the entire liberal establishment was in the can for Bill, but there was more to it than that, such as the famous joint 60 Minutes appearance with Hillary. As I have mentioned before, Melania has been nowhere to be seen since her disastrous convention speech, so Donald has been out there alone calling these woman liars and unattractive, etc. – maybe this works for you, but it’s not working for a lot of female voters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    The majority of female voters are going to vote for the Democratic candidate; the overwhelming majorities of single and non-White female voters are going to vote for the Democratic candidate. They will rationalize their votes in whatever ways seem most plausible to them-- just as the majority of males, and the overwhelming majorities of married males and White males, will do in support of their votes for the Republican candidate. If Trump were running as the Democratic nominee, this year, the Establishment, the press, feminists, and female voters at large, would not give a [w]hit about his relationships with women, past or present-- period!

    I left the Democratic Party, at age 42, explicitly because of the fact that both the party, per se, and the vast majority of its voters, both male and female, were seemingly willing to support Bill Clinton, even after it became clear, in 1998, that the powers-that-be had been protecting him from his own personal history, by lying to the public about his pathological, and even outright criminal, behavior. I am neither a Republican (past, present, nor future) nor a conservative (paleo-, neo-, nor otherwise), and I never have voted for a Republican candidate for federal office, dating back to the 1974 Indiana primary, as a 17-year-old high-school senior.

    I am not defending Trump out of partisanship; I am defending him because he is being unfairly attacked and demonized, as no other candidate for president in my lifetime, including Barry Goldwater and George Wallace. There are copious qualities of Donald Trump, the man, and policy positions of Donald Trump, the presidential candidate, that I despise! When people attack those qualities and positions, reasonably and accurately, I do not step in to defend him or them. When Two-Minute Hates are unleashed against him or them, based on apparent lies, or at least gross distortions, I will defend him. When someone attacks Hillary Clinton, or even Bill Clinton, unfairly, I will defend her, him or them, as well. The single greatest enemy of the Clintons, however, is the unvarnished truth! They are the single most corrupt couple in the history of American public life.
  73. I used to work with a lesbian who flirted with me for some reason. Consequently, I thought she was just tomboyish… Even Wilt Chamberlain couldn’t get 100%: nobody could.

    The amazing thing is that some Dems report all of Trump’s advances were wanted.

    Read More
  74. @D. K.
    One woman says it took place in the first-class section of a scheduled airline flight, with the people across the aisle able to see its taking place. Rather than push the button for first-class service, or yell out, or ask for assistance from another first-class passenger, she claims that she allowed it to continue for fifteen minutes, and then simply got up and went and took an empty coach seat, in the rear of the plane, never informing anyone with the airline of the attack, nor the authorities, after landing in New York, despite there being witnesses to the entire incident.

    A second woman-- a reporter-- claims that she was teamed with a photographer, doing a story on Donald and Melania Trump, down at Mar-a-Lago. She claims that Trump attacked her-- with no mention of where her photographer was, nor what he might have been doing, while Melania Trump went upstairs to change her clothes-- and that Trump's butler walked in, causing Trump to release her. The butler denies it; Melania Trump denies other claims in the reporter's new story; the unnamed photographer who accompanied her and filed pictures from her interview is never cited by the reporter, nor by reporters reporting on the reporter's uncorroborated claims, as to what he saw, heard or was contemporaneously told by the belatedly self-proclaimed victim.

    A third woman claims that Trump assaulted her during her tenure as a contestant on his reality show, "The Apprentice." No specifics that could be fact-checked have been cited, as far as I know, and her claim is wholly uncorroborated, as well as inconsistent with her subsequent actions, and what she always said to her close relatives about her experience-- and even about Trump's recent presidential campaign, until after he failed to respond to her e-mail invitation to come to her restaurant, while campaigning in California, in the spring. Her own first cousin was willing to rat her out for her two-faced duplicity, saying that this is the first time he and his family have ever heard her utter an unfavorable word about Trump!

    A fourth woman claims that Trump either "nudged" her or "grabbed" her ass, from behind, in a crowded public venue, also down at Mar-a-Lago, after a supposed Ray Charles concert, which was apparently unlisted, while she was with her then-boyfriend, and Trump was with his then-girlfriend, and current wife, Melania.

    So, at least three of the four most prominent claimants, by their own admissions, were "sexually assaulted" in the presence of witnesses-- yet the claimants did nothing about it, until many years later. The notion that they originally feared that they would not be believed is a bit much, since there were witnesses present at the time, in at least three of the four cases, each of which was reputedly a lone attack by Trump against that particular woman. Witnessing the alacrity with which much of the public is willing to accept these uncorroborated claims, now, many years later, despite their politically convenient timing for the candidate that these women doubtless support, it is very difficult to believe that Trump's reputation, pre-campaign, would have saved him from similar credulity, earlier in this millennium, or even thirty-some years ago, when the now-elderly left-wing broad claims to have been assaulted, in early middle age, by the somewhat-younger Donald Trump.

    So, at least three of the four most prominent claimants, by their own admissions, were “sexually assaulted” in the presence of witnesses

    To be fair, Ray Charles would not be a very good witness.

    Read More
  75. D. K. says:

    What might the late Left-leaning English dramatist who named his fatal tumor after none other than the malignant Australian carpetbagger, Rupert Murdoch, have thought about the current spate of accusations against candidate Donald Trump, as we approach the thirtieth anniversary of the premier of Dennis Potter’s masterpiece, the six-part British television series “The Singing Detective” (originally broadcast, in the United Kingdom, from Sunday, 16 November 1986 through Sunday, 21 December 1986)?

    ***

    Marlow, still confined to a wheelchair, recounts to Dr. Gibbon his frightening dream of the previous night. The behavior of the nightmarish scarecrow in it reminded him of the one he saw from a train window when he returned from London. It was similar in appearance to the one he had seen on the trip to London. The scarecrow seemed to be watching him. Gibbon tries in vain to convince him that the scarecrow represented his mother. Marlow’s recollection that the scarecrow represented, rather, his terrifying schoolteacher gives way to guilt at having subjected young Mark to her castigation. He then reveals that he had defecated on the teacher’s desk, and describes his terror at the thought that she might discover what he did – that he would be found out and beaten. His rage at her cruelty obscures the fact of his delinquency – that is, what he had actually done – as well as the question of why he had done it.

    When he had the sudden inspiration to say that he had seen Mark do it, several classmates suddenly found themselves able to confirm his accusation. They, too, had seen Mark “do his nasty!” Marlow recounts to Dr. Gibbon:

    “I sat at my desk, perjurer, charlatan, and watched and listened and watched and listened as one after another they nailed that backward lad hands and feet to my story. I have not seriously doubted since that afternoon that any lie will receive almost instant corroboration and almost instant collaboration if the maintenance of it results in the public enjoyment of someone else’s pain, someone else’s humiliation.”

    ***

    [ Read More

  76. Jack D says:
    @D. K.
    "Ms. Leeds described the events to those close to her more recently, as Mr. Trump became more visible politically and ran for president."

    Sorry, Jack, old boy, but thirty-some years after the fact is not what those of us in the legal business-- "and, when I say 'the business,' I mean, of course, the industry!"-- consider to be a "contemporaneous utterance" which may be admitted into evidence in support of a subsequent claim, as an exception to the Hearsay Rule:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803

    (I will make an admission of my own: I do not believe that the dubious gay "witness" who claims to have been across the aisle from Trump and the older divorcee, back in the days of Braniff International Airways, is telling the truth, either! I think that he is a fabulist-- as a disproportionate number of gay men seem to be!?!)

    So either she is a very evil and conniving person who carefully laid a trap for Trump many months ago and sprung it as an “October surprise”, or else she really had no intention of going public with this until Trump publicly denied that he had ever done what he said on tape that he had done and practically dared her to come forward. So now he is in the position of saying, “I was lying when I was talking in private to my friend Billy Bush but I’m not lying to you the public now when the stakes are so high.” Even if he is telling the truth now, he has, by running his big mouth, put himself in a position where few will believe him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    Machado was groomed for a year. So there's precedent.
    , @D. K.
    How did he lie to Billy Bush? Did he claim that he had grabbed any strange women by the "pussy?" No! Did he say that he was planning to do so? No! Did he even say that he wanted to do so? No! He said that a celebrity male COULD grab strange women by the "pussy" because they were celebrities, and those women would ALLOW those celebrity males to do so, based on their celebrity. That is an hypothetical and hyperbolic claim-- made in jest, in private-- not an admission against one's legal interests of having committed "sexual assault," as all the goodthinkers now claim! As for kissing women without first getting their "express, written consent," I cannot recall a single instance, drunk or sober, when I asked a woman's permission to kiss her for the first time, let alone thereafter!?!

    As for Ms. Leeds, the superannuated left-wing activist, she is reported, by her own champions, never to have said anything about this alleged incident until well over thirty years after the fact. Is it really too difficult to believe that she would have concocted such a story to tell her friends and associates, with Trump, the misogynist and "new Hitler," in the news every day, beginning sixteen months ago? Is it really too difficult to believe that she would have done ANYTHING to keep Trump from defeating feminist icon and glass-ceiling-breaker Hillary Clinton, in her quest to become the first ostensibly female President of the United States? Is it really too difficult to believe that her friends and associates, after watching Trump's denial, a week ago, would have urged her to go public with the story that she had been telling to them privately, for well over a year? Did she really need to fear that the mainstream press would conscientiously vet her anti-Trump story, if she went with it to "The New York Times" and other Establishment propaganda outlets? When is the last time that a woman who lied about such a thing, let alone against a person hated by the press and the rest of the Establishment, was brought to heel for making up such an accusation? Ms. Mangum had to murder her own boyfriend before she was finally brought to justice....

  77. L Woods says:

    This couldn’t possibly be more of a non-issue. True or not (and they’re not), these allegations are laughably trivial in the face of the matters the outcome of this election will determine. Yet here we are, mass democracy taken to its logically absurd conclusion, with the fate of civilization itself being determined by which lecherous alpha male reminds women more of the douchebags they busily threw themselves at in their young years without receiving commitment.

    Read More
  78. @eah
    https://twitter.com/Bill__Clinton__/status/787741071077875713

    That is disgusting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Actually, no, that is funny (a matter of taste and opinion I suppose)-- this is what is "disgusting":

    https://twitter.com/OnMessageForHer/status/787028181744181248
  79. Jack D says:
    @James Kabala
    Maybe we can somehow get back to the era in which respectable people did not make "sexual advances" at all, at least not as a first step. Given that "dating" is now used as a synonym* for "sexually involved with each other," that doesn't seem likely any time soon.

    * I almost said it was a euphemism rather than a synonym, but it isn't even that any more - it is just what the term means.

    Groping of the type Trump is accused of happened at least for the last century or so even among “respectable people” (other than religious fundamentalists) well short of marriage, but certainly not on the first few “dates” let alone within minutes of introduction. The big difference was really that due to lack of contraception, people did not dare have full intercourse with someone they were not prepared to marry. On the one hand, once people were engaged, it was sort of OK if the 1st baby came a little early so sometimes the festivities began a little early and OTOH, if an accidental pregnancy did occur among people who were not yet engaged, quickly getting married was more or less expected in order to remain in respectable society. But a lot of less than “sex” (as Bill Clinton defines it) happened among people who were “going steady”.

    Read More
  80. I was only nine years old when Charles Aznavour pussygrabbed Barbra Streisand, in the middle of the daylight on national TV!

    It’s been 40 years since then and I’m still shaking , especially when I think of a little sad frog that also witnessed the horror.

    Read More
  81. AndrewR says:
    @al gore rhythms
    I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve made anything that could be construed as an “unwanted sexual advance”

    So can I, in which case if every man has a similar record that's 1-5 unwanted sexual advance per man, which would probably cover just about the whole female population, so you've really proved Steve's point. Bear in mind that every time a wife says 'not tonight, I've got a headache' that husband has made a sexual advance of the unwanted kind.

    By the by, I've just finished reading the Houellebecq novel 'Submission' about the Islamic takeover of France which Steve wrote about a while back. He makes a pretty strong case for
    Islam being the only viable way that rejuvinating Patriarchy can ever be injected back into moribund European societies. The French characters in the book were previously members of Nativist movements who concluded that Islam was the only way left for European society. It's not as easy to dismiss as I would like.

    It’s obvious that Islam is Europe’s future. The challenge is to minimize the number of legacy Muslims. No European country should have more than five or ten percent of its population of non-native heritage.

    Read More
  82. Jack D says:
    @Bill B.
    My impression is that celebrity males eager for sexual partners will use physical touching as a quick way of detecting women who might be game for more. It's a screening mechanism and need not be impolite at all.

    This is quite different from the Bill Clinton approach of assuming the sale in a rather more pointed way.

    So you are saying it is polite for a celebrity to stick his hand up the dress of a woman he just met who is sitting next to him in a club or an a plane? Which book of etiquette can I find this in?

    I agree that that approach would certain save time and in some cases might elicit a positive response, but it might also backfire and get you arrested or at least in political trouble, which is why, as far as I know, it is NOT widely recommended, even on PUA blogs, even for celebrities and other “alphas”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    So you are saying it is polite for a celebrity to stick his hand up the dress of a woman he just met who is sitting next to him in a club or an a plane? Which book of etiquette can I find this in?

    I agree that that approach would certain save time and in some cases might elicit a positive response, but it might also backfire and get you arrested or at least in political trouble, which is why, as far as I know, it is NOT widely recommended, even on PUA blogs, even for celebrities and other “alphas”.

    If they are already making out or petting--and the evidence is consistent with that's having been exactly what was going on--isn't moving a hand beneath the waistline a common next step? How many men verbally ask permission when making out advances in extent of touching?

  83. D. K. says:
    @Jack D
    I realize the press is spinning these stories in a very one sided (anti-Trump) way but your take on these stories is equally one sided. For example, you say that Leeds was assaulted "in early middle age" by a "somewhat younger" Trump. At the time in question, Leeds was 38 and Trump was 34. I would not consider this to be exactly a May-December romance. If everything you were saying was clearcut and verifiably true, then sure these women would not be at all credible, but it's not as clear as you make it sound.

    If you remember, many years ago, Sen. Gary Hart , then a leading Presidential contender, dared the press to follow him around. So they did and they discovered that he was having an affair and his political career was finished. Trump, by his response to Cooper's question, in effect dared the press to dig up dirt on him and unless he was really a choir boy he should never have done that - he was in effect daring women to come forward and make accusations, so they have.

    Bill Clinton is virtually the only American politician to have survived multiple bimbo eruptions - he is like one of those people who gets Ebola but does not die. {Political} scientists such as the people running the Trump campaign should have studied Bill's case for clues on what you have to do to survive such an eruption but they didn't. Of course it helped that the entire liberal establishment was in the can for Bill, but there was more to it than that, such as the famous joint 60 Minutes appearance with Hillary. As I have mentioned before, Melania has been nowhere to be seen since her disastrous convention speech, so Donald has been out there alone calling these woman liars and unattractive, etc. - maybe this works for you, but it's not working for a lot of female voters.

    The majority of female voters are going to vote for the Democratic candidate; the overwhelming majorities of single and non-White female voters are going to vote for the Democratic candidate. They will rationalize their votes in whatever ways seem most plausible to them– just as the majority of males, and the overwhelming majorities of married males and White males, will do in support of their votes for the Republican candidate. If Trump were running as the Democratic nominee, this year, the Establishment, the press, feminists, and female voters at large, would not give a [w]hit about his relationships with women, past or present– period!

    I left the Democratic Party, at age 42, explicitly because of the fact that both the party, per se, and the vast majority of its voters, both male and female, were seemingly willing to support Bill Clinton, even after it became clear, in 1998, that the powers-that-be had been protecting him from his own personal history, by lying to the public about his pathological, and even outright criminal, behavior. I am neither a Republican (past, present, nor future) nor a conservative (paleo-, neo-, nor otherwise), and I never have voted for a Republican candidate for federal office, dating back to the 1974 Indiana primary, as a 17-year-old high-school senior.

    I am not defending Trump out of partisanship; I am defending him because he is being unfairly attacked and demonized, as no other candidate for president in my lifetime, including Barry Goldwater and George Wallace. There are copious qualities of Donald Trump, the man, and policy positions of Donald Trump, the presidential candidate, that I despise! When people attack those qualities and positions, reasonably and accurately, I do not step in to defend him or them. When Two-Minute Hates are unleashed against him or them, based on apparent lies, or at least gross distortions, I will defend him. When someone attacks Hillary Clinton, or even Bill Clinton, unfairly, I will defend her, him or them, as well. The single greatest enemy of the Clintons, however, is the unvarnished truth! They are the single most corrupt couple in the history of American public life.

    Read More
  84. @Jack D
    So either she is a very evil and conniving person who carefully laid a trap for Trump many months ago and sprung it as an "October surprise", or else she really had no intention of going public with this until Trump publicly denied that he had ever done what he said on tape that he had done and practically dared her to come forward. So now he is in the position of saying, "I was lying when I was talking in private to my friend Billy Bush but I'm not lying to you the public now when the stakes are so high." Even if he is telling the truth now, he has, by running his big mouth, put himself in a position where few will believe him.

    Machado was groomed for a year. So there’s precedent.

    Read More
  85. @D. K.
    The majority of female voters are going to vote for the Democratic candidate; the overwhelming majorities of single and non-White female voters are going to vote for the Democratic candidate. They will rationalize their votes in whatever ways seem most plausible to them-- just as the majority of males, and the overwhelming majorities of married males and White males, will do in support of their votes for the Republican candidate. If Trump were running as the Democratic nominee, this year, the Establishment, the press, feminists, and female voters at large, would not give a [w]hit about his relationships with women, past or present-- period!

    I left the Democratic Party, at age 42, explicitly because of the fact that both the party, per se, and the vast majority of its voters, both male and female, were seemingly willing to support Bill Clinton, even after it became clear, in 1998, that the powers-that-be had been protecting him from his own personal history, by lying to the public about his pathological, and even outright criminal, behavior. I am neither a Republican (past, present, nor future) nor a conservative (paleo-, neo-, nor otherwise), and I never have voted for a Republican candidate for federal office, dating back to the 1974 Indiana primary, as a 17-year-old high-school senior.

    I am not defending Trump out of partisanship; I am defending him because he is being unfairly attacked and demonized, as no other candidate for president in my lifetime, including Barry Goldwater and George Wallace. There are copious qualities of Donald Trump, the man, and policy positions of Donald Trump, the presidential candidate, that I despise! When people attack those qualities and positions, reasonably and accurately, I do not step in to defend him or them. When Two-Minute Hates are unleashed against him or them, based on apparent lies, or at least gross distortions, I will defend him. When someone attacks Hillary Clinton, or even Bill Clinton, unfairly, I will defend her, him or them, as well. The single greatest enemy of the Clintons, however, is the unvarnished truth! They are the single most corrupt couple in the history of American public life.

    D. K. for Attorney General in the Trump Administration!

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Even if I could pass Senate scrutiny, I believe that I would be required to take and pass another Bar examination, after more than thirty years, since I formally retired from the Bar, just over fifteen years ago. "Ain't never gonna happen!" So, I would have to insist, instead, that President Trump nominate me for a seat on the Supreme Court-- which does not require a justice to be a licensed attorney, at all!
  86. @Jack D
    So you are saying it is polite for a celebrity to stick his hand up the dress of a woman he just met who is sitting next to him in a club or an a plane? Which book of etiquette can I find this in?

    I agree that that approach would certain save time and in some cases might elicit a positive response, but it might also backfire and get you arrested or at least in political trouble, which is why, as far as I know, it is NOT widely recommended, even on PUA blogs, even for celebrities and other "alphas".

    So you are saying it is polite for a celebrity to stick his hand up the dress of a woman he just met who is sitting next to him in a club or an a plane? Which book of etiquette can I find this in?

    I agree that that approach would certain save time and in some cases might elicit a positive response, but it might also backfire and get you arrested or at least in political trouble, which is why, as far as I know, it is NOT widely recommended, even on PUA blogs, even for celebrities and other “alphas”.

    If they are already making out or petting–and the evidence is consistent with that’s having been exactly what was going on–isn’t moving a hand beneath the waistline a common next step? How many men verbally ask permission when making out advances in extent of touching?

    Read More
  87. D. K. says:
    @Jack D
    So either she is a very evil and conniving person who carefully laid a trap for Trump many months ago and sprung it as an "October surprise", or else she really had no intention of going public with this until Trump publicly denied that he had ever done what he said on tape that he had done and practically dared her to come forward. So now he is in the position of saying, "I was lying when I was talking in private to my friend Billy Bush but I'm not lying to you the public now when the stakes are so high." Even if he is telling the truth now, he has, by running his big mouth, put himself in a position where few will believe him.

    How did he lie to Billy Bush? Did he claim that he had grabbed any strange women by the “pussy?” No! Did he say that he was planning to do so? No! Did he even say that he wanted to do so? No! He said that a celebrity male COULD grab strange women by the “pussy” because they were celebrities, and those women would ALLOW those celebrity males to do so, based on their celebrity. That is an hypothetical and hyperbolic claim– made in jest, in private– not an admission against one’s legal interests of having committed “sexual assault,” as all the goodthinkers now claim! As for kissing women without first getting their “express, written consent,” I cannot recall a single instance, drunk or sober, when I asked a woman’s permission to kiss her for the first time, let alone thereafter!?!

    As for Ms. Leeds, the superannuated left-wing activist, she is reported, by her own champions, never to have said anything about this alleged incident until well over thirty years after the fact. Is it really too difficult to believe that she would have concocted such a story to tell her friends and associates, with Trump, the misogynist and “new Hitler,” in the news every day, beginning sixteen months ago? Is it really too difficult to believe that she would have done ANYTHING to keep Trump from defeating feminist icon and glass-ceiling-breaker Hillary Clinton, in her quest to become the first ostensibly female President of the United States? Is it really too difficult to believe that her friends and associates, after watching Trump’s denial, a week ago, would have urged her to go public with the story that she had been telling to them privately, for well over a year? Did she really need to fear that the mainstream press would conscientiously vet her anti-Trump story, if she went with it to “The New York Times” and other Establishment propaganda outlets? When is the last time that a woman who lied about such a thing, let alone against a person hated by the press and the rest of the Establishment, was brought to heel for making up such an accusation? Ms. Mangum had to murder her own boyfriend before she was finally brought to justice….

    Read More
  88. AndrewR says:
    @D. K.
    One woman says it took place in the first-class section of a scheduled airline flight, with the people across the aisle able to see its taking place. Rather than push the button for first-class service, or yell out, or ask for assistance from another first-class passenger, she claims that she allowed it to continue for fifteen minutes, and then simply got up and went and took an empty coach seat, in the rear of the plane, never informing anyone with the airline of the attack, nor the authorities, after landing in New York, despite there being witnesses to the entire incident.

    A second woman-- a reporter-- claims that she was teamed with a photographer, doing a story on Donald and Melania Trump, down at Mar-a-Lago. She claims that Trump attacked her-- with no mention of where her photographer was, nor what he might have been doing, while Melania Trump went upstairs to change her clothes-- and that Trump's butler walked in, causing Trump to release her. The butler denies it; Melania Trump denies other claims in the reporter's new story; the unnamed photographer who accompanied her and filed pictures from her interview is never cited by the reporter, nor by reporters reporting on the reporter's uncorroborated claims, as to what he saw, heard or was contemporaneously told by the belatedly self-proclaimed victim.

    A third woman claims that Trump assaulted her during her tenure as a contestant on his reality show, "The Apprentice." No specifics that could be fact-checked have been cited, as far as I know, and her claim is wholly uncorroborated, as well as inconsistent with her subsequent actions, and what she always said to her close relatives about her experience-- and even about Trump's recent presidential campaign, until after he failed to respond to her e-mail invitation to come to her restaurant, while campaigning in California, in the spring. Her own first cousin was willing to rat her out for her two-faced duplicity, saying that this is the first time he and his family have ever heard her utter an unfavorable word about Trump!

    A fourth woman claims that Trump either "nudged" her or "grabbed" her ass, from behind, in a crowded public venue, also down at Mar-a-Lago, after a supposed Ray Charles concert, which was apparently unlisted, while she was with her then-boyfriend, and Trump was with his then-girlfriend, and current wife, Melania.

    So, at least three of the four most prominent claimants, by their own admissions, were "sexually assaulted" in the presence of witnesses-- yet the claimants did nothing about it, until many years later. The notion that they originally feared that they would not be believed is a bit much, since there were witnesses present at the time, in at least three of the four cases, each of which was reputedly a lone attack by Trump against that particular woman. Witnessing the alacrity with which much of the public is willing to accept these uncorroborated claims, now, many years later, despite their politically convenient timing for the candidate that these women doubtless support, it is very difficult to believe that Trump's reputation, pre-campaign, would have saved him from similar credulity, earlier in this millennium, or even thirty-some years ago, when the now-elderly left-wing broad claims to have been assaulted, in early middle age, by the somewhat-younger Donald Trump.

    Yeah what kind of 34 year old man could be attracted to a 38 year old woman?

    That’s like early middle age, dude. Yuck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    She might have been well-preserved. Trump is known to be an, ah, appreciator of the female form. In an alternate universe where he never ran for president you can totally see him swapping interns with Bill while Hillary spanks Huma.
    , @D. K.
    I personally have been with only one woman who was as old as 35-- which is what I consider to be the beginning of middle age-- and we broke up when she was still 36. Some women still look fine, in their late thirties; their remaining eggs, not so much...."Ad ogni il suo!
  89. Marty T says:
    @AndrewR
    Sailer I don't know why you didn't go into law, given your reflexive contrarianism.

    One vestige of my Catholic upbringing is a general reticence to talk about my sex life with people other than my sexual partners and close friends, but I suppose in this case it's germane.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I've made anything that could be construed as an "unwanted sexual advance", and not for lack of effort or opportunity. I had a high number of sex partners during my more degenerate years (none of which were strictly transactional affairs (just to preemptively shut the trolls up)).

    It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.

    And all my "unwanted" advances were arguably not that unwanted at all. All the instances involved women who were clearly sexually aroused but, for whatever reasons, did not want to sate their desires. And frankly that's never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.

    When most people talk about "unwanted sexual advances" they're talking about advances from guys like Trump with overinflated egos and underdeveloped empathy. If you don't believe the stories that these women are saying about him, you're dumb.

    I do believe that many of these women are telling the truth. And therefore, my support for Trump has only solidified. We’re not even fighting about policy anymore. We’re fighting for the right of men to be men, to take a chance, to take a risk, to be free.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Trump didn't need your support to "solidify" - he was already getting your vote anyway and that of other guys like you. A "solid" vote and a plain ordinary vote count just the same. What he needed was for some more women to change (or make up) their mind and vote for him and this didn't help.

    When Trump said, in the primaries, that he could shoot someone and still win, that might have been true, in the primaries. So he got the Republican nomination. But to become President he needs 50+% of the Electoral Votes. If he ends up with 40% of the vote consisting of really loyal guys like you it's not good enough. He needed to broaden his appeal to other voters, not deepen it with his base.
  90. D. K. says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson
    D. K. for Attorney General in the Trump Administration!

    Even if I could pass Senate scrutiny, I believe that I would be required to take and pass another Bar examination, after more than thirty years, since I formally retired from the Bar, just over fifteen years ago. “Ain’t never gonna happen!” So, I would have to insist, instead, that President Trump nominate me for a seat on the Supreme Court– which does not require a justice to be a licensed attorney, at all!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Well, okay, SC for you if forced to take my 2nd choice. But the Supreme Court is 1 of 9, and the AG implements policy. I'd prefer the latter, but would take the former given the exclusive, intolerant, narrow minded view of your qualifications imposed by the least deliberative body in the world of politics.
  91. AndrewR says:
    @gruff
    I thought AndrewR had in the past alluded to his being gay too. Must improve reading comprehension.

    I don’t recall the context but I did share that I was bi.

    It was probably along the lines of my theory that guys like me (and I think there’s a lot of us) are starting to opt out of the hetero life completely due to the current societal incentive structure. Women are largely insufferable and there are no longer any real social forces in check to make a man want to commit to a woman. The only forces now are purely biological. Strictly straight guys might be willing to put up with female drama in order to keep their willies wet, but for guys like me there is no incentive unless ome wants children (which I’m not really eager to have).

    Read More
  92. AndrewR says:
    @Forbes

    And all my “unwanted” advances were arguably not that unwanted at all.
     
    That's a mighty colossal rationalization you got there. Are we gonna rate "unwanted" on a 5-scale now? And yours all came in at 1 and 2...

    And your favorite part of sex doesn't even include sex. LOL.

    IHTG seems to have the right call.

    Why not? You don’t think there’s a difference between sexually assaulting a woman you don’t know versus trying to get to third base before your girl is ready?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    A man and woman are seated, in embrace, and making out. The man slides his hand down to the woman's thigh. She reaches down and brings his hand up above her waist. Has he sexually assaulted her?
  93. @D. K.
    Even if I could pass Senate scrutiny, I believe that I would be required to take and pass another Bar examination, after more than thirty years, since I formally retired from the Bar, just over fifteen years ago. "Ain't never gonna happen!" So, I would have to insist, instead, that President Trump nominate me for a seat on the Supreme Court-- which does not require a justice to be a licensed attorney, at all!

    Well, okay, SC for you if forced to take my 2nd choice. But the Supreme Court is 1 of 9, and the AG implements policy. I’d prefer the latter, but would take the former given the exclusive, intolerant, narrow minded view of your qualifications imposed by the least deliberative body in the world of politics.

    Read More
  94. L Woods says:
    @rienzi
    When you are a rock star, billionaire, professional athlete, tv/movie star, you don't need to make sexual advances. Women, in droves, will throw themselves at you like you are the last lifeboat off a sinking ship.

    Right. Someone of Trump’s stature essentially can’t make “unwanted advances.” They only become “unwanted” retroactively when he fails to extend commitment and/or a payout from the Clinton campaign enters the picture.

    Read More
  95. @AndrewR
    Why not? You don't think there's a difference between sexually assaulting a woman you don't know versus trying to get to third base before your girl is ready?

    A man and woman are seated, in embrace, and making out. The man slides his hand down to the woman’s thigh. She reaches down and brings his hand up above her waist. Has he sexually assaulted her?

    Read More
  96. @AndrewR
    I don't recall the context but I did share that I was bi.

    It was probably along the lines of my theory that guys like me (and I think there's a lot of us) are starting to opt out of the hetero life completely due to the current societal incentive structure. Women are largely insufferable and there are no longer any real social forces in check to make a man want to commit to a woman. The only forces now are purely biological. Strictly straight guys might be willing to put up with female drama in order to keep their willies wet, but for guys like me there is no incentive unless ome wants children (which I'm not really eager to have).

    It’s time you were eager to have children.

    Read More
  97. eah says:
    @James Kabala
    That is disgusting.

    Actually, no, that is funny (a matter of taste and opinion I suppose)– this is what is “disgusting”:

    Read More
  98. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It’s discouraging that our elites are as dumb about this simple point as they were two dozen years ago the first time a Clinton ran for President.

    I agree the elites are kind of dumb, but you’re not exactly being completely fair here.

    It’s clear that “unwanted sexual advance” here means physical, sexual contact that’s initiated either without consent or even without the opportunity of consent. That’s why the allegations involve things like Trump greeting women with tongue kisses on the mouth and reaching under a woman’s skirt and touching her genitalia through her underwear while she was talking to someone else at a nightclub.

    Read More
  99. Hail says: • Website
    @D. K.
    So, let us low-IQ defenders of Donald Trump against the recent spate of accusations of "sexual assault" take a look at what you, instead, so readily believe, Andy:

    1) You believe an old woman who claims that about half of her life ago, in the first-class section of a flight from Dallas to New York, Trump physically molested her, both feeling up her breasts and her "pussy" for about fifteen minutes, before she finally decided to give up her first-class seat, rather than to complain and have Trump sent packing to stowage. You believe this despite the fact that she uses language out of an old rock'n'roll lyric. You believe her despite the fact that she says that he raised the armrest to get at her, when it is known that first-class seats' armrests, back then, were not movable. You believe her despite the fact that a British man who claims to have been the one sitting across the aisle, as a 24-year-old, denies that any such molestation took place, and claims that she was the one coming on to Trump. You believe it despite the fact that stewardesses or stewards, in that era, would have been hovering over the first-class passengers, like waiters at a top-rated restaurant. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that if Trump had limited himself to feeling up her breasts, she might not even have minded his sexual assault. You believe her despite the fact that she is a left-wing New York activist who supposedly shares a telephone number with the Clinton Foundation. You believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and just when the Clinton campaign and its mainstream-media auxiliary are pushing the Trump-is-a-sexual-predator theme, to turn even more potential voters, especially women, against Trump, and to distract from the tidal wave of WikiLeaks releases about the true nature of Mrs. Clinton and her political circle.

    2) You believe a middle-age woman who once competed on "The Apprentice" when she now says that Trump sexually assaulted her during that period of her life. You believe that despite her e-mail from this spring, wanting to reconnect with the former reality-show host, and inviting him to visit her restaurant in California, in the lead-up to the California primary, which took place on June 7. You believe her even though one of her own first cousins wrote a letter, which he allowed the Trump campaign to publish, saying that she never said a negative word about Trump, until this belated claim, less than a month before Election Day-- and, in fact, previously had talked up Trump's presidential campaign to her cousin and his family, after her spending the years since her appearance on "The Apprentice" lauding Trump, and saying that she wished to emulate him. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her making this claim now.

    3) You believe a middle-age reporter who claims that Trump sexually molested her, in a room at his Mar-a-Lago Resort, during the brief interlude in which his pregnant wife had gone upstairs to change her outfit, for the accompanying photographer, during a joint interview for "People" magazine, until Trump's butler walked in on the scene, causing Trump to cease and desist. You believe this despite the fact that the then-butler, who no longer works for Trump, has publicly stated that it never happened. You believe it despite the fact that Melania Trump's lawyer already has sent a cease and desist letter to "People" magazine, demanding a retraction, and threatening to sue-- specifically denying the reporter's claims that she was a friend of the Trumps who broke off her friendship because of the incident, and that she had run into Melania and her infant son, Barron, just outside of Trump Tower, a couple of years later, regretting that she could no longer be a part of their lives, while Melania had asked her wistfully why Melania and her husband never saw their good friend, the reporter, anymore. And, again, you believe her despite the timing and circumstances of her belated claim.

    4) You believe a now barely middle-aged woman who claims that Trump either "nudged" her or "grabbed" her in the ass, while standing beside his own date, and future wife, after a Ray Charles concert at Mar-a-Lago, on January 24, 2003. You believe this despite the fact that she cannot distinguish between being nudged and grabbed. You believe this despite the fact that she did not see who nudged or grabbed her, and merely assumed that it was Trump, whom she saw behind her, when she turned around, but who was not looking at her, nor hovering behind her, hoping for a reaction. You believe her despite the fact that a picture alleged to be from that night is dated January 1, 2003, rather than January 24, 2003. You believe her despite the fact that a Ray Charles concert listing shows that he cancelled a Seattle concert, a few thousand miles away, the night before, and then had no concert scheduled for the next night. You believe her despite the fact that she claims that Melania was then Trump's fiancee, when he did not propose to her until about fifteen months later. And, again, you believe her despite the fact that she waited until less than a month before Election Day, and in the midst of the aforementioned Clinton tactics, to go public with her story, sixteen months after Trump announced his candidacy, nearly six months after he became his party's presumptive nominee, about two and a half months after he formally accepted the nomination in Cleveland-- and several months after "The New York Times" pathetic attempt to portray him as a misogynist, in a long, quickly rebutted article by the same two Slim Helu henchpersons. (It is a great relief for the Clinton campaign that this woman, who will turn 37 the weekend before the election, survived to tell this serviceable tale, despite being arrested, on May Day 2012, for driving under the influence-- and really looking the part!-- with her young child in the car, would you not agree, Andy?)

    Feel free and welcome to cite your most recent score from a professionally administered adult intelligence test, Andy, so that I, Steve Sailer, Ron Unz, and the rest of us low-IQ denizens of this blog might "ooh!" and "ahh!" at your otherworldly intelligence, and preternatural grasp of human relations.

    Thank ou, D.K., for this comprehensive listing of the faults with the “accusers.”

    You believe her despite the fact that she says that he raised the armrest to get at her, when it is known that first-class seats’ armrests, back then, were not movable.

    The anti-Trump point-and-click thugs have fanned out on this and are disputing it. Do we have a knockout source on this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/news/donald-trump-jessica-leeds-armrest/

    It appears that the armrests were REMOVABLE but not hinged like coach armrests.

    She also says it was a 707 but Braniff had retired its 707s by then. But 727s, which are very similar inside (3 engines vs 4 outside) were still flying.
    , @D. K.
    Prego!
  100. SFG says:
    @AndrewR
    Yeah what kind of 34 year old man could be attracted to a 38 year old woman?

    That's like early middle age, dude. Yuck.

    She might have been well-preserved. Trump is known to be an, ah, appreciator of the female form. In an alternate universe where he never ran for president you can totally see him swapping interns with Bill while Hillary spanks Huma.

    Read More
  101. Jack D says:
    @Marty T
    I do believe that many of these women are telling the truth. And therefore, my support for Trump has only solidified. We're not even fighting about policy anymore. We're fighting for the right of men to be men, to take a chance, to take a risk, to be free.

    Trump didn’t need your support to “solidify” – he was already getting your vote anyway and that of other guys like you. A “solid” vote and a plain ordinary vote count just the same. What he needed was for some more women to change (or make up) their mind and vote for him and this didn’t help.

    When Trump said, in the primaries, that he could shoot someone and still win, that might have been true, in the primaries. So he got the Republican nomination. But to become President he needs 50+% of the Electoral Votes. If he ends up with 40% of the vote consisting of really loyal guys like you it’s not good enough. He needed to broaden his appeal to other voters, not deepen it with his base.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "When Trump said, in the primaries, that he could shoot someone and still win, that might have been true, in the primaries."

    Or, as Edwin Edwards said, "caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy"
  102. Jack D says:
    @Hail
    Thank ou, D.K., for this comprehensive listing of the faults with the "accusers."

    You believe her despite the fact that she says that he raised the armrest to get at her, when it is known that first-class seats’ armrests, back then, were not movable.
     
    The anti-Trump point-and-click thugs have fanned out on this and are disputing it. Do we have a knockout source on this?

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/news/donald-trump-jessica-leeds-armrest/

    It appears that the armrests were REMOVABLE but not hinged like coach armrests.

    She also says it was a 707 but Braniff had retired its 707s by then. But 727s, which are very similar inside (3 engines vs 4 outside) were still flying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail


    Pan Am 727 First Class' Immovable Seats

    Both CNN and Gizmodo are claiming that first class Braniff seats have foldable arm rests, but the pictures they show are of coach seats that fold down if a middle seat is vacant, not of first class seats. (Gotnews.com)
     
    This is itself a minor issue, and there are multiple other problems with her story besides the very convenient timing....
    , @bored identity



    "Donald Trump's campaign has cited the immovability of arm rests between first class seats on the old Braniff Airways planes to refute an allegations of a 1979 sexual assault on a woman by the candidate.

    But the armrests did move. ........

    ...Cass said the armrests were typically removed by a flight attendant, but were also removed by knowledgeable passengers....
    "

     

    This country could use a Knowledgeable Passenger for President.
  103. Coemgen says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    Good God, gentlemen! Some of you sound like you're letting women run your lives. You are allowing yourselves to be controlled by women who have been propagandized into a sexual double standard that places the males of our species into a double bind.

    Drop this crap.

    Vote for Trump. Who cares what the girly men and women say? You have a natural right to attempt to mate, for God's sake! Clumsy passes cannot, should not, and must not be allowed to be illegal, shameful, or politically fatal.

    None of this matters in the face of the terrible problems that face us.

    Agreed!

    Read More
  104. Hail says: • Website
    @SPMoore8
    I don't know if these stories are true or not, but you have the procession backwards and that makes a lot of difference.

    This story began with the widely disseminated tape of Trump boasting of grabbing them, etc.

    From that POV, any woman who emerges posterior to the wide publicity of that claim is immediately suspect because it suggests that they were influenced by the tape, and this provides a convenient ground for publicity, fame, $$$, and just plain old support for HRC.

    The same goes for the claims against Cosby as well, the difference is that some of those claims were actually reported and/or litigated at the time of the incidents.

    What the accusers against Trump have to do -- again, assuming any of this is relevant, given the track record of Hillary's spouse, who will be occupying the White House with her -- is come up with allegations that sound true, have independent corroboration from the time of the incident, etc. Otherwise it's just political mudslinging.

    BTW, I don't know if any or some or a lot of these claims have that measure of substantiation; I haven't been paying attention. However, I do know that Joe Blanton gave up a Grand Slam yesterday.

    I don’t know if these stories are true or not, but you have the procession backwards and that makes a lot of difference. This story began with the widely disseminated tape of Trump

    These women know that “coming forward” means:

    (1) Instant fame and acclaim,
    (2) or, failing (1), at least Attention (!),
    (3) Sympathy from four-fifths of the U.S. elite media (note that a nobody launched herself onto above-the-fold front page of the NYT and WashPost overnight with a simple accusation),
    (4) Boosting the chances of Hillary Clinton,
    (5) Perhaps money for themselves, especially if they market themselves correctly (note the hiring of “celebrity attorney Gloria Allred)…

    Up to 100 million women in the USA are in the right age range. It is simply not the shock of the century that a few have made the above calculation and are okay with making false and unethical accusations.

    Read More
  105. @Zogby
    How can a man know whether a sexual advance is wanted before making one? One way is by asking, but this all goes back to wide-spread hypocrisy about the subject. How many women want to be asked first? How many women would respond positively to a verbal query even if they're interested? Are women that expect and want men to take risk less entitled to their desire than ones that would rather be asked verbally?
    Formally it has to be illegal to make a sexual advance, because women are entitled to protection, certainly minors are. But then all assault is illegal, and men still get into bar-brawls, fist fights, etc. They don't run to mama, to the press or to police every time that happens.
    There has to be some leeway where people can act on primal instincts without making a Federal case of it. People who want to cooperate have equal rights to people who don't, and they're entitled not to have their ability to cooperate foreclosed by people who don't want to cooperate.
    That's why men are afraid to publicly come out and state that some of the accusations levelled at Trump, even if true - are insignifcant. It's not behavior that should be legal - but who gives a sh*t if it happened? There are gray areas in life, and a lot more is at stake than this garbage.
    Hillary Clinton is a woman who more than likely has been sexually repressed most of her adult life. Why was her husband chasing so many other women all those years? Where was she getting her sexual needs fulfilled? This pussy-grab-gate agenda isn't about protecting women. It's about protecting sexually repressed people of both genders. Clinton assumes everybody is as sexually repressed as her and would give a da*n.

    I doubt Hillary was ever sexually repressed. She is a switch hitter who has always had as many women as she wanted and at least a few men.

    Read More
  106. @Scrivener3
    So all those old movies where the guy gets slapped in scene one and ends up with the girl at the end didn't have a shred of truth. I wonder why the female part of the audience didn't just refuse to watch such lies and propaganda.

    He’s never caught one spy I’m told
    He’s never even caught a cold
    Got his degree from Disney Land
    But he’s the last of the secret agents
    And he’s my man

    He’s an underwhelming kind of sleuth
    He thinks James Bond is some kind of suit
    He’s farther back than also ran
    But he’s the last of the secret agents
    And he’s my man

    He’d come in third in a two-horse race
    I’ve never had to slap his face
    (What a shame)
    But people try to understand
    He’s the last of the secret agents
    And he’s my man

    Read More
    • Replies: @scrivener3
    I think guys like the idea that the girl they give their heart to will not succumb to any charmer who comes along, so the slap in defense of her honor is a plus.

    Perhaps girls like the idea that their guy is effective and can take on the world despite discouragements and does not have hoverhands.
  107. Hail says: • Website
    @Jack D
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/news/donald-trump-jessica-leeds-armrest/

    It appears that the armrests were REMOVABLE but not hinged like coach armrests.

    She also says it was a 707 but Braniff had retired its 707s by then. But 727s, which are very similar inside (3 engines vs 4 outside) were still flying.

    Pan Am 727 First Class’ Immovable Seats

    Both CNN and Gizmodo are claiming that first class Braniff seats have foldable arm rests, but the pictures they show are of coach seats that fold down if a middle seat is vacant, not of first class seats. (Gotnews.com)

    This is itself a minor issue, and there are multiple other problems with her story besides the very convenient timing….

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Well, clearly these events occurred in Bizarro World when Braniff flew 707s back then and minor issues in a story improve its importance.
    , @Jack D
    I thought they were on Braniff but the picture you link to says PanAm. It show an armrest. You can't tell from the picture whether the armrest is removable or not. The Braniff manual in the CNN link that I gave says that the armrest could be completely removed. Usually by the stewardess but apparently some passengers knew the "trick" to removing them. Not folded up but unhooked and stowed away. How common it was to do this I don't know.

    You are saying this is minor, but the original Trump supporter version was that the armrest did not fold up (which is true in a sense - it doesn't fold up, it comes out) so the whole incident could not have happened as described. I'm sure that if their story had held up you wouldn't be calling this minor, you would be calling it a fatal flaw in her account. If there was really a big ass immovable armrest separating them, I concede that really would discredit her story, but apparently that's not the case.
  108. Bugg says:
    @scrivener3
    Scott Adams point is right. He said someone might try to assassinate Trump thinking that they were doing a good deed. Today I saw Trump portrayed as a combination of the worse parts of Roy Cohen and Joseph McCarthy. For months we have been told by the MSM that Trump is a fascist and like Hitler.

    If Trump is a new incarnation of Hitler, every American has a motive to stop him. After all if some patriotic German could have stopped Hitler, even by lying, it would have been a good thing. The ends justify the means. Of course in fact Trump is in no way anything like Hitler.

    Many women could well think that they would be doing the Country a service if they could somehow stop the election of DJT, given the way Trump is portraid in the MSM.

    For a time early in his business career, Roy Cohn was Trump’s lawyer.

    Women will always tell you what high end guys were attracted to them. Had a girlfriend who had 2 members of U2 early in their career hit on her during a airline flight in Europe.Wasn’t said like “oh, what beasts they were, how awful!”more like “see, I’m hot, and you’re lucky to go out with me!” if subtly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    I talked to a woman at a party 30+ years ago who went on and on about how she went out with Eddie Van Halen and the boys when they came to town. Looking back on it, I think it was a shit test, as she probably knew that most men aren't excited about pursuing a woman who's made it with men of (much) higher status than themselves. Or listening to a narrative of the event and its heroes ad infinitum.
  109. EriK says:
    @D. K.
    One woman says it took place in the first-class section of a scheduled airline flight, with the people across the aisle able to see its taking place. Rather than push the button for first-class service, or yell out, or ask for assistance from another first-class passenger, she claims that she allowed it to continue for fifteen minutes, and then simply got up and went and took an empty coach seat, in the rear of the plane, never informing anyone with the airline of the attack, nor the authorities, after landing in New York, despite there being witnesses to the entire incident.

    A second woman-- a reporter-- claims that she was teamed with a photographer, doing a story on Donald and Melania Trump, down at Mar-a-Lago. She claims that Trump attacked her-- with no mention of where her photographer was, nor what he might have been doing, while Melania Trump went upstairs to change her clothes-- and that Trump's butler walked in, causing Trump to release her. The butler denies it; Melania Trump denies other claims in the reporter's new story; the unnamed photographer who accompanied her and filed pictures from her interview is never cited by the reporter, nor by reporters reporting on the reporter's uncorroborated claims, as to what he saw, heard or was contemporaneously told by the belatedly self-proclaimed victim.

    A third woman claims that Trump assaulted her during her tenure as a contestant on his reality show, "The Apprentice." No specifics that could be fact-checked have been cited, as far as I know, and her claim is wholly uncorroborated, as well as inconsistent with her subsequent actions, and what she always said to her close relatives about her experience-- and even about Trump's recent presidential campaign, until after he failed to respond to her e-mail invitation to come to her restaurant, while campaigning in California, in the spring. Her own first cousin was willing to rat her out for her two-faced duplicity, saying that this is the first time he and his family have ever heard her utter an unfavorable word about Trump!

    A fourth woman claims that Trump either "nudged" her or "grabbed" her ass, from behind, in a crowded public venue, also down at Mar-a-Lago, after a supposed Ray Charles concert, which was apparently unlisted, while she was with her then-boyfriend, and Trump was with his then-girlfriend, and current wife, Melania.

    So, at least three of the four most prominent claimants, by their own admissions, were "sexually assaulted" in the presence of witnesses-- yet the claimants did nothing about it, until many years later. The notion that they originally feared that they would not be believed is a bit much, since there were witnesses present at the time, in at least three of the four cases, each of which was reputedly a lone attack by Trump against that particular woman. Witnessing the alacrity with which much of the public is willing to accept these uncorroborated claims, now, many years later, despite their politically convenient timing for the candidate that these women doubtless support, it is very difficult to believe that Trump's reputation, pre-campaign, would have saved him from similar credulity, earlier in this millennium, or even thirty-some years ago, when the now-elderly left-wing broad claims to have been assaulted, in early middle age, by the somewhat-younger Donald Trump.

    You’re wiping the floor with them. Well done.

    Read More
  110. FPL says:

    I think despite the “always believe women” rhetoric (not meant literally I know, but very sensitive to questioning as “shaming” and generally unconcerned with the possibility of false accusations,) and the “Bill isn’t running!” partisan deflection, the unsaid thing it comes down to it is: the perception is of Trump as a creep and Clinton as smooth, so they’re more inclined to believe Trump would do stuff like this. People’ll never admit it because they always warn that All Men ™ are capable of doing this (true,) but I really think it’s the case, moreso than there supposedly being good evidence against one but not the other.

    And fine, really — just that the liberal conceit they’re always going solely on sober, objective analysis is always lol when it comes to charged stuff like this

    Read More
    • Replies: @midwestmark
    The perception is that Bill is smart and Trump is Trump but I only disagree with you slightly. I don't recall many wild accusations regarding Clinton in 92 which is the relevant time period. I was kind of shocked reading the American Spectator article about Clinton's personnel life that came out in in 1994. In 1992, Clinton was the guy who probably wasn't always faithful but his wife stayed with him so he became President. It is possible that both Clinton and Trump are basically innocent but one wonders why Romney, Pence, Obama or Kaine haven't had to fight off similar accusations.
  111. @Hail


    Pan Am 727 First Class' Immovable Seats

    Both CNN and Gizmodo are claiming that first class Braniff seats have foldable arm rests, but the pictures they show are of coach seats that fold down if a middle seat is vacant, not of first class seats. (Gotnews.com)
     
    This is itself a minor issue, and there are multiple other problems with her story besides the very convenient timing....

    Well, clearly these events occurred in Bizarro World when Braniff flew 707s back then and minor issues in a story improve its importance.

    Read More
  112. AndrewR says:
    @Opinionator
    A man and woman are seated, in embrace, and making out. The man slides his hand down to the woman's thigh. She reaches down and brings his hand up above her waist. Has he sexually assaulted her?

    Nah

    Read More
  113. @FPL
    I think despite the "always believe women" rhetoric (not meant literally I know, but very sensitive to questioning as "shaming" and generally unconcerned with the possibility of false accusations,) and the "Bill isn't running!" partisan deflection, the unsaid thing it comes down to it is: the perception is of Trump as a creep and Clinton as smooth, so they're more inclined to believe Trump would do stuff like this. People'll never admit it because they always warn that All Men (tm) are capable of doing this (true,) but I really think it's the case, moreso than there supposedly being good evidence against one but not the other.

    And fine, really -- just that the liberal conceit they're always going solely on sober, objective analysis is always lol when it comes to charged stuff like this

    The perception is that Bill is smart and Trump is Trump but I only disagree with you slightly. I don’t recall many wild accusations regarding Clinton in 92 which is the relevant time period. I was kind of shocked reading the American Spectator article about Clinton’s personnel life that came out in in 1994. In 1992, Clinton was the guy who probably wasn’t always faithful but his wife stayed with him so he became President. It is possible that both Clinton and Trump are basically innocent but one wonders why Romney, Pence, Obama or Kaine haven’t had to fight off similar accusations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "I don’t recall many wild accusations regarding Clinton in 92 which is the relevant time period."

    The national media sat on what everybody in Arkansas knew about Gov. Clinton.

  114. D. K. says:
    @Hail
    Thank ou, D.K., for this comprehensive listing of the faults with the "accusers."

    You believe her despite the fact that she says that he raised the armrest to get at her, when it is known that first-class seats’ armrests, back then, were not movable.
     
    The anti-Trump point-and-click thugs have fanned out on this and are disputing it. Do we have a knockout source on this?

    Prego!

    Read More
  115. @midwestmark
    The perception is that Bill is smart and Trump is Trump but I only disagree with you slightly. I don't recall many wild accusations regarding Clinton in 92 which is the relevant time period. I was kind of shocked reading the American Spectator article about Clinton's personnel life that came out in in 1994. In 1992, Clinton was the guy who probably wasn't always faithful but his wife stayed with him so he became President. It is possible that both Clinton and Trump are basically innocent but one wonders why Romney, Pence, Obama or Kaine haven't had to fight off similar accusations.

    “I don’t recall many wild accusations regarding Clinton in 92 which is the relevant time period.”

    The national media sat on what everybody in Arkansas knew about Gov. Clinton.

    Read More
  116. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AndrewR
    Sailer I don't know why you didn't go into law, given your reflexive contrarianism.

    One vestige of my Catholic upbringing is a general reticence to talk about my sex life with people other than my sexual partners and close friends, but I suppose in this case it's germane.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I've made anything that could be construed as an "unwanted sexual advance", and not for lack of effort or opportunity. I had a high number of sex partners during my more degenerate years (none of which were strictly transactional affairs (just to preemptively shut the trolls up)).

    It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.

    And all my "unwanted" advances were arguably not that unwanted at all. All the instances involved women who were clearly sexually aroused but, for whatever reasons, did not want to sate their desires. And frankly that's never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.

    When most people talk about "unwanted sexual advances" they're talking about advances from guys like Trump with overinflated egos and underdeveloped empathy. If you don't believe the stories that these women are saying about him, you're dumb.

    And frankly that’s never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.

    Um, no offense or anything, but are you sure you’re heterosexual?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Ha funny.


    It's why I could never imagine renting a prostitute. I don't know how anyone could be turned on by someone if tge feeling wasn't mutual.
  117. D. K. says:
    @AndrewR
    Yeah what kind of 34 year old man could be attracted to a 38 year old woman?

    That's like early middle age, dude. Yuck.

    I personally have been with only one woman who was as old as 35– which is what I consider to be the beginning of middle age– and we broke up when she was still 36. Some women still look fine, in their late thirties; their remaining eggs, not so much….“Ad ogni il suo!

    Read More
  118. It is possible that both Clinton and Trump are basically innocent but one wonders why Romney, Pence, Obama or Kaine haven’t had to fight off similar accusations.

    Among those, only Romney was a Republican Presidential candidate, so no one else would have been a natural target for the media. Clinton got attention eventually because the accusations couldn’t be held at bay. Romney, as a straight-laced, true-believer Mormon, afforded no opportunity for such accusations.

    Trump had the Billy Bush tape. The tape was run, and, of course, the media knew it would be catnip for every borderline personality female of a plausible age. So these women lined up to announce that yes, they were indeed molested by Trump in the precise manner suggested by the tape, had failed to tell anyone at the time it occurred because of all of the trauma involved, but could no longer hold back the truth, because of their heroic commitment to civic duty. They had finally found their moment of glory — even at the age of 74.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Just to make a point that should be obvious, but never seems to be to people: Jackie of UVA isn't really a unique case. There are other females who will gladly make up stories that glorify themselves, and especially if they think that no one will ever dare call them on it.

    If an announcement is made to the nation at large that we desperately need such a female and such a story at this exact moment to save our country from ruin, that they will be showered with honor and attention, and that nobody of importance will ever question their story, these females will in unison jump on stage.

  119. @Jack D
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/news/donald-trump-jessica-leeds-armrest/

    It appears that the armrests were REMOVABLE but not hinged like coach armrests.

    She also says it was a 707 but Braniff had retired its 707s by then. But 727s, which are very similar inside (3 engines vs 4 outside) were still flying.

    “Donald Trump’s campaign has cited the immovability of arm rests between first class seats on the old Braniff Airways planes to refute an allegations of a 1979 sexual assault on a woman by the candidate.

    But the armrests did move. ……..

    …Cass said the armrests were typically removed by a flight attendant, but were also removed by knowledgeable passengers….

    This country could use a Knowledgeable Passenger for President.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    I'm no expert on this area of aircraft, but AFAIK there is not such a thing as a "707 seat" or a "727 seat." Different airlines had different seats, with different specifications, and over time a certain seat would be deployed in, usually, different aircraft among a given fleet. And over a type's lifespan the seats would have been upgraded. So one airline might have had one type of seat in their 707s and in their DC-8s, and another a different model in their 707s and 727s. During a "C check" or major teardown the interiors and seats would be replaced, so the interiors would be very sixties looking and in later refit much more modern.

    Someone with airliner interior experience-an A&P or configuration person-could be much more informative, but as an overview, unless you have access to records of the airline or were incredibly foamerish over such things the exact answer might be tough to determine. There are airline history guys that are that foamerish: perhaps one could be contacted?
  120. @candid_observer

    It is possible that both Clinton and Trump are basically innocent but one wonders why Romney, Pence, Obama or Kaine haven’t had to fight off similar accusations.
     
    Among those, only Romney was a Republican Presidential candidate, so no one else would have been a natural target for the media. Clinton got attention eventually because the accusations couldn't be held at bay. Romney, as a straight-laced, true-believer Mormon, afforded no opportunity for such accusations.

    Trump had the Billy Bush tape. The tape was run, and, of course, the media knew it would be catnip for every borderline personality female of a plausible age. So these women lined up to announce that yes, they were indeed molested by Trump in the precise manner suggested by the tape, had failed to tell anyone at the time it occurred because of all of the trauma involved, but could no longer hold back the truth, because of their heroic commitment to civic duty. They had finally found their moment of glory -- even at the age of 74.

    Just to make a point that should be obvious, but never seems to be to people: Jackie of UVA isn’t really a unique case. There are other females who will gladly make up stories that glorify themselves, and especially if they think that no one will ever dare call them on it.

    If an announcement is made to the nation at large that we desperately need such a female and such a story at this exact moment to save our country from ruin, that they will be showered with honor and attention, and that nobody of importance will ever question their story, these females will in unison jump on stage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Where is this announcement you are referring to? I don't recall seeing such an announcement. It seems to me that PLENTY of important people are questioning these women's stories, so whoever told them that was lying. I'm sure that if there is anything embarrassing in these women's background, people are searching for it now and will make it public. Lying certainly didn't work out that well for Jackie.
  121. Jack D says:
    @Hail


    Pan Am 727 First Class' Immovable Seats

    Both CNN and Gizmodo are claiming that first class Braniff seats have foldable arm rests, but the pictures they show are of coach seats that fold down if a middle seat is vacant, not of first class seats. (Gotnews.com)
     
    This is itself a minor issue, and there are multiple other problems with her story besides the very convenient timing....

    I thought they were on Braniff but the picture you link to says PanAm. It show an armrest. You can’t tell from the picture whether the armrest is removable or not. The Braniff manual in the CNN link that I gave says that the armrest could be completely removed. Usually by the stewardess but apparently some passengers knew the “trick” to removing them. Not folded up but unhooked and stowed away. How common it was to do this I don’t know.

    You are saying this is minor, but the original Trump supporter version was that the armrest did not fold up (which is true in a sense – it doesn’t fold up, it comes out) so the whole incident could not have happened as described. I’m sure that if their story had held up you wouldn’t be calling this minor, you would be calling it a fatal flaw in her account. If there was really a big ass immovable armrest separating them, I concede that really would discredit her story, but apparently that’s not the case.

    Read More
  122. @Bugg
    For a time early in his business career, Roy Cohn was Trump's lawyer.

    Women will always tell you what high end guys were attracted to them. Had a girlfriend who had 2 members of U2 early in their career hit on her during a airline flight in Europe.Wasn't said like "oh, what beasts they were, how awful!"more like "see, I'm hot, and you're lucky to go out with me!" if subtly.

    I talked to a woman at a party 30+ years ago who went on and on about how she went out with Eddie Van Halen and the boys when they came to town. Looking back on it, I think it was a shit test, as she probably knew that most men aren’t excited about pursuing a woman who’s made it with men of (much) higher status than themselves. Or listening to a narrative of the event and its heroes ad infinitum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    You mean she pulled the whole consist? Yeah, a turnoff. It's called VD.
  123. @bored identity



    "Donald Trump's campaign has cited the immovability of arm rests between first class seats on the old Braniff Airways planes to refute an allegations of a 1979 sexual assault on a woman by the candidate.

    But the armrests did move. ........

    ...Cass said the armrests were typically removed by a flight attendant, but were also removed by knowledgeable passengers....
    "

     

    This country could use a Knowledgeable Passenger for President.

    I’m no expert on this area of aircraft, but AFAIK there is not such a thing as a “707 seat” or a “727 seat.” Different airlines had different seats, with different specifications, and over time a certain seat would be deployed in, usually, different aircraft among a given fleet. And over a type’s lifespan the seats would have been upgraded. So one airline might have had one type of seat in their 707s and in their DC-8s, and another a different model in their 707s and 727s. During a “C check” or major teardown the interiors and seats would be replaced, so the interiors would be very sixties looking and in later refit much more modern.

    Someone with airliner interior experience-an A&P or configuration person-could be much more informative, but as an overview, unless you have access to records of the airline or were incredibly foamerish over such things the exact answer might be tough to determine. There are airline history guys that are that foamerish: perhaps one could be contacted?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    707s and 727s (and 737s) all have the same fuselage cross-sections so that their interiors are more or less interchangeable. Of course over the years they might be updated but chances are a 707 and a 727 of the same vintage on the same airline would have similar or identical seats.

    The only thing I remember about Braniff seats was that they touted the fact that they were made of leather.
  124. @Neil Templeton
    I talked to a woman at a party 30+ years ago who went on and on about how she went out with Eddie Van Halen and the boys when they came to town. Looking back on it, I think it was a shit test, as she probably knew that most men aren't excited about pursuing a woman who's made it with men of (much) higher status than themselves. Or listening to a narrative of the event and its heroes ad infinitum.

    You mean she pulled the whole consist? Yeah, a turnoff. It’s called VD.

    Read More
  125. Jack D says:
    @candid_observer
    Just to make a point that should be obvious, but never seems to be to people: Jackie of UVA isn't really a unique case. There are other females who will gladly make up stories that glorify themselves, and especially if they think that no one will ever dare call them on it.

    If an announcement is made to the nation at large that we desperately need such a female and such a story at this exact moment to save our country from ruin, that they will be showered with honor and attention, and that nobody of importance will ever question their story, these females will in unison jump on stage.

    Where is this announcement you are referring to? I don’t recall seeing such an announcement. It seems to me that PLENTY of important people are questioning these women’s stories, so whoever told them that was lying. I’m sure that if there is anything embarrassing in these women’s background, people are searching for it now and will make it public. Lying certainly didn’t work out that well for Jackie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    "Lying certainly didn’t work out that well for Jackie."

    Really? Jackie has suffered nothing for her lying; many others have. She should have gotten at least 30 days in jail for making a false statement to the police.
  126. Jack D says:
    @Former Darfur
    I'm no expert on this area of aircraft, but AFAIK there is not such a thing as a "707 seat" or a "727 seat." Different airlines had different seats, with different specifications, and over time a certain seat would be deployed in, usually, different aircraft among a given fleet. And over a type's lifespan the seats would have been upgraded. So one airline might have had one type of seat in their 707s and in their DC-8s, and another a different model in their 707s and 727s. During a "C check" or major teardown the interiors and seats would be replaced, so the interiors would be very sixties looking and in later refit much more modern.

    Someone with airliner interior experience-an A&P or configuration person-could be much more informative, but as an overview, unless you have access to records of the airline or were incredibly foamerish over such things the exact answer might be tough to determine. There are airline history guys that are that foamerish: perhaps one could be contacted?

    707s and 727s (and 737s) all have the same fuselage cross-sections so that their interiors are more or less interchangeable. Of course over the years they might be updated but chances are a 707 and a 727 of the same vintage on the same airline would have similar or identical seats.

    The only thing I remember about Braniff seats was that they touted the fact that they were made of leather.

    Read More
  127. Jack D says:
    @D. K.
    I personally have been with only one woman who was as old as 35-- which is what I consider to be the beginning of middle age-- and we broke up when she was still 36. Some women still look fine, in their late thirties; their remaining eggs, not so much...."Ad ogni il suo!

    A ciascuno il suo?

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Ho studiato l'Italiano all'universita per due anni-- multi, multi anni fa!
  128. @Jack D
    707s and 727s (and 737s) all have the same fuselage cross-sections so that their interiors are more or less interchangeable. Of course over the years they might be updated but chances are a 707 and a 727 of the same vintage on the same airline would have similar or identical seats.

    The only thing I remember about Braniff seats was that they touted the fact that they were made of leather.

    This discussion has become ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity
    And I'll repeat- all you need to know is that somewhere out there is a Knowledgeable Passenger waiting to get your vote in November.

    https://s9.postimg.org/mq20tw2cd/The_Knowledgeable_Passenger.jpg
  129. D. K. says:
    @Jack D
    A ciascuno il suo?

    Ho studiato l’Italiano all’universita per due anni– multi, multi anni fa!

    Read More
  130. Jack D says:
    @D. K.
    Ho studiato l'Italiano all'universita per due anni-- multi, multi anni fa!

    Yes, it must have been a long time ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Not nearly as long as the ongoing illegal occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory, but....
  131. a k says:
    @AndrewR
    Sailer I don't know why you didn't go into law, given your reflexive contrarianism.

    One vestige of my Catholic upbringing is a general reticence to talk about my sex life with people other than my sexual partners and close friends, but I suppose in this case it's germane.

    I can count on one hand the number of times I've made anything that could be construed as an "unwanted sexual advance", and not for lack of effort or opportunity. I had a high number of sex partners during my more degenerate years (none of which were strictly transactional affairs (just to preemptively shut the trolls up)).

    It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It's not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.

    And all my "unwanted" advances were arguably not that unwanted at all. All the instances involved women who were clearly sexually aroused but, for whatever reasons, did not want to sate their desires. And frankly that's never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.

    When most people talk about "unwanted sexual advances" they're talking about advances from guys like Trump with overinflated egos and underdeveloped empathy. If you don't believe the stories that these women are saying about him, you're dumb.

    It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to ask her out. It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to kiss her. It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to undress her. It’s not hard to tell when a woman wants you to engage in sexual activity.

    I presume it must be so when one’s IQ is superior to 80.

    Besides, at every height on the intelligence ladder, it’s inherent in human psychologic dynamics that their wills and wishes are seen as wishes and wills of the objects of those.

    Trump is exactly the type of man women fall for (for real, not only in comments posted by himself online).

    Read More
  132. D. K. says:
    @Jack D
    Yes, it must have been a long time ago.

    Not nearly as long as the ongoing illegal occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory, but….

    Read More
  133. @Whiskey
    The whole point of female empowerment is to exile beta males to the outer darkness and only have Tom Brady and Justin Bieber around. That's it. Women in a nutshell.

    A lot of liberal women actually do like beta males. If they wanted macho alphas they would hang around with macho alphas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    A lot of liberal women actually do like beta males. If they wanted macho alphas they would hang around with macho alphas.
     
    Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

    The PUA set says they'd rather hang with the alphas but didn't make the cut or are afraid they wouldn't.

    Most of the women I know who like betas are not particularly political. The activists despise betas.
  134. AndrewR says:
    @Anonymous

    And frankly that’s never been a big deal for me since my overwhelmingly favorite part of sex has always been the feeling of being desired.
     
    Um, no offense or anything, but are you sure you're heterosexual?

    Ha funny.

    It’s why I could never imagine renting a prostitute. I don’t know how anyone could be turned on by someone if tge feeling wasn’t mutual.

    Read More
  135. @Jack D
    Where is this announcement you are referring to? I don't recall seeing such an announcement. It seems to me that PLENTY of important people are questioning these women's stories, so whoever told them that was lying. I'm sure that if there is anything embarrassing in these women's background, people are searching for it now and will make it public. Lying certainly didn't work out that well for Jackie.

    “Lying certainly didn’t work out that well for Jackie.”

    Really? Jackie has suffered nothing for her lying; many others have. She should have gotten at least 30 days in jail for making a false statement to the police.

    Read More
  136. Olorin says:
    @iffen
    It’s discouraging

    Well, it can be described as discouraging. We could also call it catastrophic. I think that this is one of the reasons why I like your writing, Steve. You are an optimistic, glass half full type guy.

    The glass is half empty. –The pessimist

    The glass is half full. –The optimist.

    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be. –The engineer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Optimist - believes that this is the best of all possible worlds.
    Pessimist - is afraid the optimist is right.
    , @iffen
    SJW engineer - To be fair to everyone we need to reduce the size of the glass by 50%

    Social Darwinist engineer - If you are unable to completely fill the glass on your own, you forfeit your glass and have to use your cupped hands.
  137. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jack D
    Trump didn't need your support to "solidify" - he was already getting your vote anyway and that of other guys like you. A "solid" vote and a plain ordinary vote count just the same. What he needed was for some more women to change (or make up) their mind and vote for him and this didn't help.

    When Trump said, in the primaries, that he could shoot someone and still win, that might have been true, in the primaries. So he got the Republican nomination. But to become President he needs 50+% of the Electoral Votes. If he ends up with 40% of the vote consisting of really loyal guys like you it's not good enough. He needed to broaden his appeal to other voters, not deepen it with his base.

    “When Trump said, in the primaries, that he could shoot someone and still win, that might have been true, in the primaries.”

    Or, as Edwin Edwards said, “caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy”

    Read More
  138. Olorin says:
    @Whiskey
    The whole point of female empowerment is to exile beta males to the outer darkness and only have Tom Brady and Justin Bieber around. That's it. Women in a nutshell.

    You kidding? Empowered Females (TM)–females who want power for being females, rather than actually doing something worthy of higher status (as the small minority of truly excellent and exceptional women may)–adore beta males.

    They create and reward beta males. Empowered Females (TM) mate with and dump and manipulate and discard beta males all the time.

    Besides, not all alpha males are “macho” per that Hispanic term.

    These we might reasonably call alpha males:

    http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/1181962cape-canaveral-florida-this-photo-from-nasa-files-shows-the-picture-id515408202

    What about these?

    Without whom those alphas would never have flown anything anywhere.

    Men can be alpha without being macho. Men can be macho and still be devolved butt-holes (a kind of beta we don’t discuss: beta brained). The terms of the discussion are idiotic and doing little good for normal white guys.

    Also the majority of women, Empowered (TM) and otherwise, are mediocre humans who don’t know what they want and are waiting for a gentleman to guide them in discovering that.

    Hint: they really, truly, don’t all want to be astronauts. Really. That’s just what they were taught or pressured to say after saying they want to cure cancer and care about children and hunger. Many were taught this by mediocre females who stomped the few women who really did want, and were capable of, those things. The one thing that women are NOT allowed to do in the company of other women is excel or stand out in any way.

    A mediocre female who arrives at the realization that she needs a fierce gentleman as her north star is going to be slapped down and punished again and again by the Sisterhood of females with power who revel in making women into mentally, morally, physically diseased sluts. (This is why they never speak out against Islamic misogyny. It cuts too close to home, so to speak.)

    Men put this pressure on women as well. I’ve noted in the past that the love of my life thought she’d end up alone forever because she refused to “do porn stuff” on dates with guys she’d just met. The pressure on her was huge to act against her instincts, and it was hitting her at her mating prime of life. But she’s strong…and lord was she worth the wait on my end as well.

    The whole point of this bolshie culture is to seed doubt, confusion, disorder, and hatred at the most intimate levels of our lives. I say we stop succumbing to it. Throw it back in their faces. Quit letting the media be the message.

    And start playing a little more hard to get. Why do you think some of our grandparents held the ideal, and often the practice, of never “making a pass” involving physical contact till well after the banns were read?

    The cheapening of relations between the sexes is as close to “evil” as anything I can think of. If I recall my early religious propagandizing, it is the Abrahamic religions that put enmity between man and woman. Men and women pulling together in common for something higher don’t have the time for such Mediterranean/Near Eastern/African nonsense. We’ve got winter to prepare for.

    Read More
  139. @Jefferson
    The bright side of Nice White Lady Feminazis is that most of them will die childless without ever becoming mothers, so they will not pass on their poisonous ideology to future young White females. The family line ends with them, the buck stops with them.

    I don't want these types of White women breeding anyways, because I consider them an extremely undesirable demographic.

    I only encourage Non Feminazi White women to breed. It puts a huge smile on my face knowing that the likes of Sarah Silverman and Elizabeth Warren for example will never have any daughters.

    most of them will die childless without ever becoming mothers, so they will not pass on their poisonous ideology to future young White females

    Their medium of transmission is memetic, not genetic. That is their raison d’être.

    Read More
  140. @unpc downunder
    A lot of liberal women actually do like beta males. If they wanted macho alphas they would hang around with macho alphas.

    A lot of liberal women actually do like beta males. If they wanted macho alphas they would hang around with macho alphas.

    Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

    The PUA set says they’d rather hang with the alphas but didn’t make the cut or are afraid they wouldn’t.

    Most of the women I know who like betas are not particularly political. The activists despise betas.

    Read More
  141. iffen says:
    @Olorin
    The glass is half empty. --The pessimist

    The glass is half full. --The optimist.

    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be. --The engineer.

    Optimist – believes that this is the best of all possible worlds.
    Pessimist – is afraid the optimist is right.

    Read More
  142. scrivener3 says: • Website
    @Former Darfur

    He's never caught one spy I'm told
    He's never even caught a cold
    Got his degree from Disney Land
    But he's the last of the secret agents
    And he's my man

    He's an underwhelming kind of sleuth
    He thinks James Bond is some kind of suit
    He's farther back than also ran
    But he's the last of the secret agents
    And he's my man

    He'd come in third in a two-horse race
    I've never had to slap his face
    (What a shame)
    But people try to understand
    He's the last of the secret agents
    And he's my man

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7XtfIQUWe0

    I think guys like the idea that the girl they give their heart to will not succumb to any charmer who comes along, so the slap in defense of her honor is a plus.

    Perhaps girls like the idea that their guy is effective and can take on the world despite discouragements and does not have hoverhands.

    Read More
  143. @Jack D
    I realize that Trump is a busy guy who gets right to the point, but (perhaps outside of drunken frat parties) I don't think it is a customary type of sexual advance to proceed directly to third base on someone you just met without even first touching 1st and 2nd - I think that is against the rules.

    Steve's post is sort of proof of the idea that people understand what they want to understand. When Trump said that Hillary should try doing without her armed Secret Service protection, Hillary supporters completely missed that he was trying to make the point "guns for me but not for thee" and read it as "Trump is threatening Hillary with assassination". Likewise, Steve is now spinning the point that it is COMPLETELY impossible to tell whether a sexual advance is unwanted until after you have made it - ergo it is OK to stick your hand up the dress of woman you just met. And keep in mind, that we have Trump on tape SAYING that this is exactly his strategy - that is what makes these allegations so doubly damaging.

    Now, we know that Bill Clinton has probably done the same or worse (with Hillary as his enabler) and the fate of our country should not turn on such trivial issues, but you can't really explain Trump's behavior away with the idea that sexual advances can only be "unwanted" in retrospect.

    I realize that Trump is a busy guy who gets right to the point, but (perhaps outside of drunken frat parties) I don’t think it is a customary type of sexual advance to proceed directly to third base on someone you just met without even first touching 1st and 2nd – I think that is against the rules.

    Maybe he learned his approach from playing Monopoly – go directly to third base; do not pass first or second.

    Read More
  144. @Neil Templeton
    This discussion has become ridiculous.

    And I’ll repeat- all you need to know is that somewhere out there is a Knowledgeable Passenger waiting to get your vote in November.

    Read More
  145. melendwyr says: • Website

    Everyday life is becoming more and more like an Ayn Rand novel with each passing sunrise.

    Oy.

    Read More
  146. Hillary wants war with Russia. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war with Russia. People will actually vote for war with Russia rather than vote for someone who is rude. This is why I am a misanthrope.

    Read More
  147. iffen says:
    @Olorin
    The glass is half empty. --The pessimist

    The glass is half full. --The optimist.

    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be. --The engineer.

    SJW engineer – To be fair to everyone we need to reduce the size of the glass by 50%

    Social Darwinist engineer – If you are unable to completely fill the glass on your own, you forfeit your glass and have to use your cupped hands.

    Read More
  148. Rob McX says:
    @candid_observer
    I would go further and argue that the strongest evidence against the idea that Trump is an out-of-control groper is precisely the fact that, even given all his fame and riches, and incentive for contrived claims against him, has not had such rumors dogging him before running for Presidency.

    Exactly.

    Number of harassment accusations in last month: 10(?)
    Number of harassment accusations in previous 70 years: 0

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored