Trump likes waterboarding a lot

Oct 12th, 2016 7:28 am | By

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights doesn’t think much of Donald Trump.

Mr Hussein said at a news briefing in Geneva: “If Donald Trump is elected on the basis of what he has said already – and unless that changes – I think it is without any doubt that he would be dangerous from an international point of view.”

Mr Hussein said he was “not keen or intent on interfering in any political campaign within any particular country”.

But he said that when an election could result in an increase in the use of torture “or the focus on vulnerable communities in a way that suggests that they may well be deprived of their human rights, then I think it is incumbent to say so”.

That’s sweetly understated. Trump has been very clear about his contempt for human rights.

During the campaign, Mr Trump has said that “torture works” and has promised to bring back “a lot worse than waterboarding”.

Waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques previously used by US forces on terror suspects have been banned by the Obama administration.

Mr Trump said of waterboarding in June: “I like it a lot. I don’t think it’s tough enough.”

His comments on migrants, Mexicans in particular, have drawn fire from rights activists.

He has vowed to build a wall along the Mexican border and in June 2015 branded some Mexican migrants “rapists” and “murderers”.

He’s disgraced us all. It will take years to live it down.



An entire nation was wiped off the face of the earth because of it

Oct 12th, 2016 7:21 am | By

5 Pillars editor Roshan Muhammed Salih talks to “scholar” Hamza Sodagar about this whole “execute teh gays” thing. Summary: homosecks is totally evil but it’s up to the state to kill them, not free lancers.

Roshan Muhammed Salih: In a 2010 video you said that the punishment for homosexuality was burning, beheading, throwing them off a cliff, pushing a wall on them or a combination of all five. British newspapers have since labelled you a hate preacher and an extremist and have called for a ban on you entering the UK. Did you call for homosexuals to be beheaded and burned?

Shaikh Hamza Sodagar: This couldn’t be further from the truth – I even mentioned in the lecture that there could be a misunderstanding like this. I was simply explaining the Islamic penal code and if someone disagrees with this code that is their issue. The important thing to say is that it sounds like I’m telling people to go out on the street and find homosexuals somewhere and light them up and chop off their heads. But I am not preaching that, I am also saying that it is actually haraam to do that, even in an Islamic country you have no right to do that.

The penal code does not apply outside of an Islamic country and inside an Islamic country if people come to know that a male has been involved physically with another male then they have to report that to the authorities and they have to look into it. And if it is established by the authorities then they carry out the punishment, but an individual has no right to carry it out himself and if they do that’s a sin.

And he, Sodagar, is an Islamic “scholar” so he sides with the way things are “inside an Islamic country” so he considers “the punishment” (execution) to be halal and correct and good. He thinks LGB people are evil and should be judicially killed by Islamic states.

In the 1960s the gay rights movement began and they made it sound like they were an organic movement akin to the black rights movement or the women’s movement, but it’s not like that. Homosexuality is something that is unnatural, and this corruption is being forced upon us.

There is a war on religion, whether it be on Christianity, Judaism (real Judaism, not Zionism) and Islam. People of these various faiths are not even allowed to express their views, even the Pope is made to make various compromises and comments which verge on accepting homosexuality. But this is such a severe matter based on what Allah (SWT) has told us in the Quran that an entire nation was wiped off the face of the earth because of it. So if this becomes widespread it will hurt all of us; I am responsible to prevent this evil, this wrong and this corruption from spreading.

Thus he demonstrates how crappy theocratic “thinking” can be. He doesn’t offer a ghost of a reason to think that homosexuality is “corruption,” he simply says Allah says so.

That’s not scholarship.



We need the ability to use political analysis

Oct 11th, 2016 5:48 pm | By

We’re not triggered, we’re pissed off. Susan Cox at Feminist Current:

After it was revealed that Donald Trump bragged on tape in 2005 about getting away with sexually assaulting women because he’s such a big “star,” many American women said Trump’s callous dismissal of his actions as “locker room talk,” as well as Sunday night’s debate, felt “triggering.” As described in a reader letter to The Atlantic:

“Last night’s debate was a triggering event for pretty much every woman I know. That also seems to be the general reaction online amongst women I don’t know. Whether we were raped, assaulted, harassed, or in an abusive relationship, Trump last night embodied everything we have had to deal with throughout our lives.”

Women began sharing their stories of sexual harassment and assault online in order to condemn Trump’s words and actions. It’s as if we hoped that if we made our pronouncements of personal psychological suffering loud enough through collective amplification, someone would finally give a damn.

But maybe the world will just think oh the poor feeble things and then go back to business as usual.

When social reality appears as a set of individual “conditions” or dispositions, wherein each person is “born this way,” we lose the ability to use political analysis  as a means to explain social trends or patterns. For example, if BDSM is just another sexual “orientation,” feminism loses the ability to critique the sexualization of dominance and submission in the cultural maintenance of male supremacy.

Especially if the critique is accused of kink shaming.



He was just looking to expand his brand

Oct 11th, 2016 4:34 pm | By

John Scalzi on Trump as the worst ever and the inevitable result of what the Republican Party has been up to.

He’s not some weird “how did that happen??” but the natural outcome of the Republicans’ steady march to the right.

Well, surprise! Here’s Donald Trump. He is the actual and physical embodiment of every single thing the GOP has trained its base to want and to be over the last forty years — ignorant, bigoted and money-grubbing, disdainful of facts and frightened of everything because of it, an angry drunk buzzed off of wood-grain patriotism, threatening brown people and leering at women. He was planned. He was intended. He was expected. He was wanted.

Only, they wanted someone more charming about it, more telegenic, more adorable. They didn’t want an angry pumpkin who can’t string a coherent sentence together. Also they wanted a Republican, someone they could control. Trump is a Trumpist instead of a Republican.

And this is why the GOP deserves the chaos that’s happening to it now, with its appalling and parasitic standard bearer, who will never be president, driving his GOP host body toward the cliff. If it accepts the parasite, it will be driven off the cliff. If it resists, the parasite Trump will rip himself from it, leaving bloody marks as it does so, and then shove the dazed and wounded GOP from the precipice.

Trump was never about being a Republican; he was just looking to expand his brand. As it turns out, like apparently so many things Trump does, he’s done an awful job of it — the name Trump, formerly merely associated with garish ostentation and bankruptcy, is now synonymous with white nationalism, sexual battery and failure — but the point is on November 9th Trump is going to move on and leave the wreckage of the GOP in his wake, off to his next thing (everyone assumes “Trump TV,” in which Trump combines with Breitbart to make white pride propaganda for the kind of millennial racist who thinks a Pepe the Frog Twitter icon is the height of wit — and I hope he does, because the Trump touch will drive that enterprise into the ground, and little would warm my heart more than a bankrupt Breitbart).

I don’t know – I think the GOP will just dust itself off and laugh ruefully and go right back to being the home of the Tea Party.

H/t G Felis



Real costs

Oct 11th, 2016 11:45 am | By

And all this groping and copping and leering and following isn’t just a nuisance, unpleasant, irksome – it works as a kind of purdah, restricting us in ways we shouldn’t be restricted (in ways men are not restricted). Amanda Taub in the Times calls it a tax.

The leaked footage of Donald J. Trumpboasting of sexually harassing and assaulting women is just one particularly notable example of an all-too-common phenomenon: Far too many men treat women’s bodies as if they are fair game for anyone who happens to encounter them.

This kind of behavior isn’t just offensive; it also imposes real costs on women. The burden of avoiding and enduring sexual harassment and assault results, over time, in lost opportunities and less favorable outcomes for girls and women. It is effectively a sort of gender-specific tax that many women have no choice but to pay.

How do you avoid assault when it’s ubiquitous? You stay home, or you go out only if someone can go with you, or you avoid particular situations. It’s all a tax, it’s all purdah.

Dangers that common are practically impossible to ignore, and many women have had no option but to learn how to protect themselves in such an environment. As my Times colleague Amanda Hess put it, “When Trump is alone with the guys he brags about assaulting women. When women are alone together we warn each other about men like him.”

From an early age, many American women absorb the message, subtle but unmistakable, that they cannot assume others will prevent or stop men from groping, harassing or even assaulting them, so it is their job to anticipate and avoid such acts.

Schools, parents and society at large tell women to take “personal responsibility” for their safety, even if that means limiting their own freedom.

And of course it always does mean limiting their own freedom. Don’t go out alone, don’t go to this park or that area, don’t drink, don’t don’t don’t.

Whereas men can freely seize an opportunity, women must pause and weigh the costs. Here are some examples of the questions women may ask themselves:

■ Is it worth accepting a professor’s offer for one-on-one research mentorship on the assumption that his interest in me is strictly academic?

■ At a business dinner, when drinking gets heavy and the clients start to seem awfully friendly, is it worth staying in the hope that the sale will close and things won’t turn uncomfortable, or worse?

■ At a conference, when networking happens late, at a bar, and the conversation starts to turn, is it worth staying to make valuable professional connections?

And so on. Men don’t have to ask themselves those questions.

If you watch the leaked 2005 “Access Hollywood” video closely, you can see the tax in action. Mr. Trump and Billy Bush, the host of the segment, approach Arianne Zucker, an actress, and request hugs. After she stiffly complies, Mr. Bush demands, over her obvious discomfort, that she choose which man she would prefer for a date.

It’s impossible to know precisely what Ms. Zucker was thinking, but she looks far from pleased by the line of questioning.

However, despite her unease, she complies. Refusing the hugs or ignoring the question would have risked angering two powerful men, which could have had consequences for her job.

They treated her like a bimbo, and she had to go along with it.

These taxes are the broader cost of the kind of behavior Mr. Trump boasted about in the leaked footage. Sometimes that cost is the pain and humiliation felt by the women who men directly grope, kiss and harass. But it’s also the aggregate losses of all the women who stayed home, who stepped back, who didn’t take an opportunity because that would have meant risking pain or humiliation that, at the time, just didn’t seem quite worth it.

It may well not be worth it – but that’s the tax. It’s as if all men’s opportunities came with a decent chance of being bitten by a tiger. Many such opportunities would seem not quite worth it…and that would be a tax.



Trump’s words struck a particular nerve

Oct 11th, 2016 11:13 am | By

Trump’s “grab them by the pussy” has triggered another one of those social media floods, the Times reports.

It was the author Kelly Oxford, a social media powerhouse, who got things started on Friday night.

“Women: tweet me your first assaults,” she wrote on Twitter at 7:48 p.m. “They aren’t just stats. I’ll go first: Old man on city bus grabs my ‘pussy’ and smiles at me, I’m 12.”

When she first posted the message, Ms. Oxford said in an interview later, she did not expect more than a handful of replies. “It was such a personal question,” she said. “I thought, ‘No one is going to share anything on Twitter.’”

Yet by Saturday morning, she was getting as many as 50 responses per minute: often-explicit, first-person accounts of molestation. A hashtag had materialized: “#notokay.” The Twitter posts continued to pour in through the weekend. And by Monday afternoon, nearly 27 million people had responded or visited Ms. Oxford’s Twitter page.

There’s probably not a woman on the planet who hasn’t experienced it, multiple times.

Facebook pages and Twitter feeds filled with comments and multiplying threads from women who recalled being groped by doctors, by piano teachers, by photography instructors, by perfect strangers. They told stories of being flashed on the bus by masturbators, of having male colleagues rub up against them at the copy machine in their office, of dates and bosses demanding sex.

It’s a wonder more women aren’t put off sex for life. In fact…it occurs to me that this ubiquity makes it very strange – stranger than I already thought it – that libertarian feminists like to call radical feminists “sex negative.” Why wouldn’t many women be “sex negative” given this background? Why isn’t that a perfectly understandable and legitimate (however sad) response to an experience of repeated sexual assaults? It’s good that most women don’t hate sex, but it’s pretty generous of them not to.

[T]o many victims of sexual assault, Mr. Trump’s words struck a particular nerve. It was not simply that he is the Republican presidential nominee, and that a hot microphone had captured him speaking unguardedly. It was his casual tone, the manner in which he and the television personality Billy Bush appeared to be speaking a common language, many women said, that gave Mr. Trump’s boasts a special resonance.

What he said and how he said it seemed to say as much about the broader environment toward women — an environment that had kept many of these women silent for so long — as they did about the candidate. And Mr. Trump’s dismissal of his actions as “locker room talk” only underscored the point.

Exactly. Trump said what he said so confidently, and Billy Bush played up so obligingly – it’s all too obvious that it’s just normal.

“This is RAPE CULTURE — the cultural conditioning of men and boys to feel entitled to treat women as objects,” Jill Gallenstein, 40, a retail executive in Los Angeles, wrote on Facebook. “It’s women and girls questioning what they have done to provoke such behavior. It’s the dismissing of this behavior because ‘it’s the way it has always been.’ It’s justifying the behavior because other powerful men have done it too. ‘Locker room talk’ normalizes this behavior — what we say matters.”

The “locker room talk” is the cultural conditioning of men and boys to feel entitled to treat women as objects. As Deborah Cameron explained, they bond with each other by exchanging these tokens of entitlement and contempt.

Even before the release of the 2005 recording of Mr. Trump, 2016 was shaping up as something of a watershed year for awareness of sexual harassment, between the pending trial against Bill Cosby and the high-profile case of Brock Turner, the former Stanford University student who was convicted of sexual assault.

For many women watching and reacting to the weekend’s events, the surprise news conference on Facebook Live that Mr. Trump staged before Sunday night’s debate, with three women who have long accused Mr. Clinton of sexual assault or harassment, only compounded the damage he had done in the original recording. They saw him not as giving voice to victims of sexual abuse but as using the women as props.

Props in his project of bullying and degrading a woman who dares to compete with him.



All he has left is trash talk

Oct 11th, 2016 10:14 am | By

Michael Gerson says the Republicans deserve their fate. True. They spent the night in the dog’s bed and now they’re full of fleas.

What Trump actually did was ensure that hardcore conservatives stay with him until the end of his political journey, when Republicans begin the search for survivors and examine the charred black box. Trump’s performance was perfectly tuned to make a loyal Rush Limbaugh listener burst out in “Hell, yeah!” Put Juanita Broaddrick in the audience? Threaten to jail your opponent? Throw WikiLeaks in her face? Blame her for the death of Capt. Humayun Khan in Iraq? Dismiss all the fuss about sexual predation as locker-room talk? Hell, yeah!

This kind of thing has been normalized in far-right discourse for decades. To the most partisan and polarized portion of the right, these excuses and accusations were familiar and appropriate.

To many people outside the talk-radio hothouse, I can attest, Trump’s debate performance was appalling, contemptible, shameful, squalid, vile.

Exactly so. He makes mediocrities like Bush and Reagan seem stellar.

Trump and his advisers must know that the conservative talk-radio audience, and the Republican primary electorate, is different from a national electorate, which actually includes minorities, young people and women who don’t like disgusting boors. Perhaps Trump’s strategy was a recognition that even his strongest supporters were on the verge of bolting and needed to be appeased. Perhaps Trump’s knowledge of policy is so thin that it fills three or four minutes of a 90-minute debate and all he has left is trash talk. Or perhaps he is captive to his impulses, incapable of shame and nasty to the core.

Those last two. It was those. Trash talk is all he’s got, because he is trashy.

This sad Republican fate is deserved. It is the culmination, the fruition, of an absurdly simplistic anti-establishment attitude. The Trump campaign is what happens when you choose a presidential candidate without the taint of electoral experience — and all the past vetting that comes with it. It is what happens when you pick a candidate who has not engaged in serious public argument over a period in which his or her views and consistency can be tested. It is what happens when you embrace a candidate only on the basis of an outsider persona, who lacks actual political skills — like making a policy argument, empathizing with a voter or avoiding a constant stream of distracting gaffes.

The same can be said of Bush and Reagan, to name two. But compared to Trump, they’re Burke reincarnated.



Looming like a mob boss

Oct 11th, 2016 9:41 am | By

A dance critic dissects Trump’s moves in the debate.

Donald Trump, looming behind Hillary Clinton like a mob boss, only reinforced his perception as a schoolyard bully in the second presidential debate Sunday night.

The dance was grim from the start. Trump entered looking exhausted. In a break with protocol, the candidates didn’t shake hands. And then Trump began lurking behind Clinton when she spoke, with his carefully planted stance, his narrowed eyes and his frown.

More a scowl than a frown. He looked ridiculous. Intimidating, yes, but also ridiculous.

“This is exactly who Donald Trump is,” Clinton said, speaking about the tapes. Trump helpfully backed her up with his demeanor. He paced and rocked and grimaced as she spoke; he broke into her time by shouting over her. When she protested that she had not done the same to him, he shot back with all the finesse you’d hear in a middle school gym: “That’s ’cause you got nothin’ to say.”

Ignorant, vulgar, and rude – what an adornment to the office he would be.

When it was his turn to speak, Trump got angry, pointed at her, swung his arms around with alarming force. Clinton had to have been disturbed by the ill temper and aggressive gestures he directed at her, though she seemed remarkably unflappable.

But bullying was on her mind. Late in the evening she mentioned “the Trump effect” and noted that bullies in school are on the rise because of it. She was referring to a 2016 survey of K-12 teachers, titled “The Trump Effect,” that was conducted by Teaching Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. It found a recent increase in bullying, harassment and intimidation among students, along with a rise in fear and anxiety, particularly among the minority groups Trump has targeted.

I haven’t read the survey and have no idea how they determined that Trump was cause and not correlation…but it would be odd if he hadn’t had any effect at all. I suppose we could hope that his long-term effect will turn out to be revulsion and a diminution of bullying…Yeah, that will happen…



That jail threat

Oct 10th, 2016 5:57 pm | By

Then there was the part where he announced that if elected he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email setup. Josh Gerstein at Politico reports that it “provoked a sharp blowback from former U.S. prosecutors, who said Trump’s view of the Justice Department serving the whims of the president is antithetical to the American system.”

Well ok but Trump doesn’t know much about the American system. He knows about real estate profiteering, and cheating, and bankruptcy, and pretending to be a Big Boss on tv. Oh and grabbing women by the pussy whether they want him to or not.

While presidents appoint the attorney general, they do not make decisions on whom to prosecute for crimes — and were Trump to do so, prosecutors warned, he would spark a constitutional crisis similar to that of the “Saturday Night Massacre” in the Nixon administration. In that case, Nixon attempted to fire the prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal, and the top two Justice Department officials resigned on the spot.

Oh well Trump would just have them executed, or sent to Russia, or something.

He said it again at a rally in Ambridge, Pennsylvania this afternoon.

“Special prosecutor, here we come, right? If I win, we’re going to appoint a special prosecutor,” Trump declared.

However, former Republican appointees to senior Justice Department posts used words like “abhorrent,” “absurd” and “terrifying” to describe Trump’s threat to use the legal system to imprison Clinton.

“For Donald Trump to say he will have a special prosecutor appointed and to have tried and convicted her already and say she’d go to jail is wholly inappropriate and the kind of talk more befitting a Third World country than it is our democracy,” said Paul Charlton, who spent a decade as a federal prosecutor before serving as U.S. attorney for Arizona under President George W. Bush.

Just locker room talk. No big deal.



The only way the team wins games

Oct 10th, 2016 4:54 pm | By

Chris Kluwe, a football (US football) player, tells Trump that even football players don’t say the kind of thing he said. I don’t really believe that claim, but he says some good things.

Now, Donald, I’m sure you’re wondering just what it is we talk about in a professional locker room, if we don’t spend all our time regarding 50 percent of the population as mobile fuck receptacles eagerly awaiting our tiny-handed grasp on their love lapels. I shall educate you!

We talk about our families. We talk about our significant others, our children, and our parents. We talk about our fears that if a Hitler wannabe who can’t even string together a coherent statement on domestic policy becomes president, what that might mean for those of us who are married to a member of a minority community, or are a member of a minority community, or have children going to schools where hopefully nobody screams racial epithets at them or tells them to go back to [insert foreign country they couldn’t identify on a map here].

And travel, and foreign cities, and money, and paying taxes – which they actually do, unlike some.

We talk about how all of us pay taxes, every year, and wonder what a presidential candidate might have to hide if he so stubbornly refuses to release his returns, what possible foreign debts might be lurking in that finance closet he so desperately holds shut with every ounce of his contemptible mental faculties.

They talk about accountability.

In a professional sports environment, all of us are accountable to each other. We’re a team. If one of us messes up on the field, it affects everyone. Just like if a president makes a bad decision, it affects everyone. And do you know, Donald, the only way the team wins games? The only way we win is if, in the locker room, we’re willing to accept that accountability, address our mistakes, and work as hard as we possibly can to make sure those mistakes don’t happen again.

We don’t double down on a shitty play simply because a small portion of the fan base got excited by it. We don’t try to carve the team apart from the inside to appease a certain position group. We don’t blame our mistakes on something someone else did, because if we do any of those things, we lose, something you’ve become intimately familiar with on a personal, financial, and political level, and I’m not having too many difficulties reviewing how that happened to you on the game film.

So let me conclude with some advice for you, Donald. The next time you want to claim that something is “locker room talk,” take a moment to recognize the fact that were you in an actual locker room, you would be universally reviled as a cancerous, egotistical train wreck of a disgrace that no team could possibly find the time to employ and, honestly, would never even have on their draft board to begin with.

I’ve been in locker rooms, Donald, and you’re the type of narcissistic, pants-soiling fecal eruption that just doesn’t belong. Even football players are smart enough to know that.

He can play football and he can write.



You can do anything

Oct 10th, 2016 4:40 pm | By



Oh won’t you stay-ay-ay just a little bit longer?

Oct 10th, 2016 4:32 pm | By

Paul Ryan got everybody on a conference call and said he and Trump are totally not friends any more.

Mr. Ryan informed Republican lawmakers on a morning conference call that he would never again campaign alongside Mr. Trump and would dedicate himself instead to defending the party’s majority in Congress, according to five lawmakers who participated in the call and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Effectively conceding defeat for his party in the presidential race, Mr. Ryan said his most urgent task was ensuring that Hillary Clinton did not enter the White House with Democratic control of the House and Senate, two lawmakers said.

Well there’s always gerrymandering oh right they did that already.

Trump fans were furious.

Mr. Trump’s candidacy was already in a dire condition before Mr. Ryan’s announcement. A poll published Monday by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found him trailing Mrs. Clinton by a wide margin and drawing less than 40 percent of the vote. The survey was taken before Sunday night’s debate.

Representative Scott Rigell of Virginia, a Republican who has long been opposed to Mr. Trump, said there was a general sense in the House that more humiliating disclosures about Mr. Trump were likely to come before Nov. 8, Election Day.

Well, you know, when you base a party on misogyny and racism and homophobia, that’s the kind of people you attract. We did warn you.

Mr. Trump’s campaign had hoped that the debate would halt an exodus of fellow Republicans from his candidacy, and it publicly implored members of the party on Monday morning to hang with him through Election Day.

After all, he’s such a great guy.



The opportunity

Oct 10th, 2016 12:16 pm | By

The Onion has it pretty much right.

Saying he hoped the Republican nominee could clear up the matter for American voters, moderator Anderson Cooper reportedly began the second presidential debate Sunday night by giving Donald Trump the opportunity to explain exactly what the fuck is wrong with him. “I’d like to start tonight’s proceedings by asking you, Mr. Trump, to explicitly lay out to the American people what the hell is fucking wrong with you?” said Cooper, adding that it would be helpful if the business magnate would expound on the specifics of why in God’s fucking name he says what he says and behaves the way he does, and how he could even begin to think that’s okay.

He sort of almost did, by telling Trump that what he described on that tape is sexual assault and then asking “Do you understand that?”

But Trump brushed it off with the lying nonsense about lox room bantz, and that was the end of it. It would have been good to see Anderson (I call him Anderson) pursue it, but he didn’t.



Guest post: Let’s start by not being that “they”

Oct 10th, 2016 11:39 am | By

Guest post by Bruce Gorton.

“When you’re a star, they let you do it”.

This is a man who has bragged about committing sexual assault and getting away with it – because he was famous.

That is infuriating in and of itself, but do you know what is worse?

Trump was right.

People knew Bill Cosby was a date rapist for years before finally the scandal exploded, and you can’t say nobody knew about Jimmy Saville, but “when you’re a star, they let you do it”.

Within atheism there is a tendency by some to defend sleazy actions by big names. There is an urge to forgive things in one that we would condemn in another, to keep this big ol’ tent open to harassers, abusers and other scuzzballs because they’re popular.

Well Trump just pulled the rug right out from under all of that. His words to me resonate beyond him, beyond his campaign.

His words weren’t simply the words of a man who should never be president, they were the words of a man who felt, by virtue of his celebrity, that he could get away with it.

And he was right.

Not being president is no punishment, I’m not president, chances are you’re not president, no, Trump got away with it, he made money as a reality TV star, still gets to claim to be super-rich, because “when you’re a star, they let you do it”.

Something needs to change, let’s start by not being that “they”.



Those who participate in this “banter” are rewarded

Oct 10th, 2016 11:32 am | By

Shaun Harper at the Washington Post says what we all know: that a lot of men do talk the way Trump talked on that tape.

At several moments throughout the campaign, I have felt that something about Trump was disturbingly familiar, but I couldn’t quite pinpoint it. After seeing the video of this presidential candidate and married man talking about kissing women, grabbing their vaginas and using his celebrity to get them to do whatever he wants, I now fully recognize the guy I have known since I was a teenage boy. The Trump on that video is a sexist, misogynistic, womanizing cheater who degrades and sometimes sexually assaults women. I know this man and so many like him. I wish I didn’t, yet I do, and I have for a long time.

Truth is, many men objectify women and say outrageously offensive things about their breasts, butts and other body parts in spaces we occupy with each other.

Of course they do. We know this. If we hadn’t  known it before we would know it now thanks to Reddit and Twitter and 4chan and all the rest of the shitbrew.

In his response to the video’s release, Trump explained that his comments were “locker room banter.”

Which we already knew. We know it’s a thing; the point is that it’s a bad thing. Racist banter around the ol’ burning cross is a bad thing, and sexist banter in the locker room is also a bad thing. “Banter” isn’t a certification of non-toxicity.

And such talk is not confined to gyms and country club showers, but occurs too often in other spaces where men are among other men — in fraternity houses, on golf courses, in barbershops, at bars. I have even seen men stand aside and engage in this kind of talk about moms at kids’ birthday parties. Unfortunately, the kinds of words we heard from Trump are commonly spoken when men are with other men. Those who participate in this “banter” are rewarded. Those who choose not to engage, and especially guys who critique such statements, have their masculinities questioned and risk being placed on the outskirts of social acceptance.

And there’s no magic mechanism that makes that harmless or benign. If men have a lot of practice talking that way about women, they don’t stay magically untouched by it when they’ve left the locker room. Contempt for women is pervasive, and lately we’ve been making negative progress – it’s been getting worse instead of better. This is a bad thing.

I have spent much of my career studying men and their masculinities. My research has put me in conversation with thousands of young men, mostly high school and college students. Many have told me that they learned to be Trumps in middle school, sometimes earlier. Media, parents, family members and peers shape how boys are taught to think and talk about women from a young age. While I am quite [a lot] older than they are, I still understand and relate to what my research participants tell me. The horrifying things Trump said in that video are comments I’ve heard from male friends of mine since I was a teenager. As a young boy, I witnessed older men appraise women’s bodies and heard them say what they would do sexually (for example, “Look at the ass on that one” and “I would bang her all night long”). Truth is, I have known Trumps most of my life.

It’s common, he says. Men encourage it, he says. Men rarely challenge it, he says.

And because bragging of this kind is common, men in my research confess that they don’t always recognize that they and their peers talk about women in deplorable ways. Hiding it behind the guise of “banter” or jokes only makes the problem worse by making it seemingly acceptable. It is unacceptable.

Note the way Trump attempted to do exactly that when Anderson Cooper asked him about it last night – he said no it was just locker room banter. That “no” is meaningless. “Locker room banter” is not a magic passport. We already know it was “banter”‘; we heard the laughter. We heard the loud, knowing, sniggering laughter, and we saw the men get out of the bus seconds later and greet the woman they’d been sniggering about as if she were pretty much human. We saw the transition between dudeworld and the real world, where it wouldn’t quite do for Trump to grab a woman between the legs when she said hello to him. We know what “banter” excuses: not one god damn thing.

Now Harper gets to the difficult part.

When men fail to challenge other men on troubling things they say about and do to women, we contribute to cultures that excuse sexual harassment, assault and other forms of gender violence. I know from my research that confronting male peers is difficult for a 14-year-old high school student-athlete who desperately wants his teammates to like and accept him. He needs his coach to step up and disrupt locker room banter.

But what if the coach is just another Trump, or Billy Bush? And what are the chances that he isn’t?

But too many adult men fall short of this ourselves, especially when we are in “men’s only” spaces with guys whom we need to affirm our masculinities.

I am fairly certain that hearing the vulgar words Trump spoke over a decade ago will compel many more women to vote against him next month. Electing the first female president will not end sexism, though, any more than electing Barack Obama ended racism. To make progress, men need to do more than vote against Trump. We must stand up to him and call out others who say things similar to what we heard him say on the video. We have to stop excusing the disgusting degradation of girls and women as “locker room banter.” Feminists and courageous others have done much to contest exchanges like the one between Trump and Bush. But it takes men like me to hold our friends accountable for things they say and do to objectify women. We must challenge their values, language and actions.

It takes men to do it not because men are better at it or because women are too weak to do it, but because men are the people allowed into men-only spaces.

I have known Trumps far too long — they are my friends, my fraternity brothers and so many other men with whom I routinely interact. I understand now, more than ever before, that letting them talk this way about women makes me just as sexist. By excusing their words and actions, I share some responsibility for rape, marital infidelity and other awful things that men do. I want other men to recognize this, too — not only because they have mothers, wives, sisters, aunts or daughters – but because sexism hurts all women and men in our society.

It’s poisonous. We need it to stop.



Grab

Oct 10th, 2016 10:56 am | By

Crude but fitting.



Also? His head, it is empty.

Oct 10th, 2016 9:47 am | By

Matt Yglesias points out the obvious but important fact that Trump is entirely unqualified to do the job he’s campaigning for.

Trump, it turns out, doesn’t really understand anything about how the American government or American public policy works. That the former host of The Apprentice isn’t really up to speed when it comes to the details of managing public affairs is a bit dull and unsurprising. But it deserves to be front and center in a campaign in 2016.

Above and beyond the wilder and more outrageous sides of Donald Trump’s history and persona is the simple fact that he has no idea what he’s talking about. You wouldn’t ask Barack Obama to pilot a submarine — he has no idea how — and Donald Trump has no more business piloting the ship of state.

He doesn’t even know how to do something as basic to the job as talk coherently. He exclaims and interjects and bounces from one thought to the next within a single sentence. He talks like a toddler on a sugar high. He’s a hot mess.

Policy issues were not really central to the second debate any more than they were to the first debate or, really, the entire 2016 campaign. Once again, we sat through an entire 90-minute debate in which nobody was asked about climate change. Once again, Clinton’s main argument was about Trump’s character and temperament and Trump’s main argument was about Clinton’s honesty and insider status.

But the presidency is important largely because the president is an important policymaker. And Trump has no grasp of any policy issues — he can’t describe his own tax plan, and in an answer about judicial nominations he didn’t seem to know the names of any of the people on his own short list.

That’s what servants are for.

Nobody — even the best presidents — is conversant in every policy issue under the sun. But Trump appears not to be conversant in any of them. And he doesn’t care. When his ignorance is revealed, he doesn’t study up and do better next time. He figures it doesn’t matter and he moves on.

But try to picture a man serving as president who has no idea what he’s doing. A man who doesn’t understand why a junior senator can’t unilaterally change the tax code, or that Russia has had nuclear weapons for a long time, or who regulates health care, or what a safe zone is, or where Syrians come from. It’s alarming. And even while people strive to stay shocked by the most outlandish of Trump’s behaviors, it’s also worth stayed focused on his most banal failings — he’s a rich kid and reality television star who seems somewhat talented at bilking people out of money, who for some reason wants to be president.

Wants to be, and is not at all abashed at the fact that he knows nothing whatsoever about it.



Trump’s lies

Oct 10th, 2016 9:09 am | By

David Leonhardt at the Times gives us a long list of Trump’s lies in the debate, each with its corroborating link.

He lied about a sex tape.

He lied about his lies about ‘birtherism.’

He lied about the growth rate of the American economy.

He lied about the state of the job market.

[many more]

He lied about her email deletion.

He lied about Obamacare, more than once.

He lied about the rape of a 12-year-old girl.

He lied about his history of groping women without their consent.

Finally, he broke with basic democratic norms and called on his political opponent to be jailed — because, in large part, of what he described as her dishonesty.

That was a moment that caused a physical jolt of shock in me, and I’m confident I’m not the only one. That snarled, “Because you’d be in jail” – that was a bucket of ice water.

This is the second time I’ve summarized a presidential debate by listing Donald Trump’s untruths, and there’s a reason. The country has never had a presidential candidate who lies the way that he does – relentlessly.

Yes, virtually every politician, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush, strays from the truth at times. To be fair, virtually every human being does. But Trump is fundamentally different.

His gamble is plain enough: He believes he can fool a lot of the American people a lot of the time. He has decided that lying pays.

It was making me squirm with fury, and again I know I’m not the only one. It made me squirm with fury because in the moment he basically gets away with it – Raddatz and Cooper only rarely pointed out the lies, and Clinton was forced to point them out as a group rather than individually – because there were so damn many. He gets away with it because neither the moderators nor Clinton can be saying “That’s not true!” every ten seconds. He gets away with it by doing so much of it. It’s a disgusting spectacle.

He’s going to lose, but the damage he’s done and will continue to do is not going anywhere. He’s our Hitler and we’re stuck with him.



Told you

Oct 10th, 2016 8:16 am | By

Because we have to laugh if we want to avoid putting our fists through windows.

Michael Koh on Twitter:

 



Monday morning nausea

Oct 10th, 2016 7:58 am | By

This isn’t a political campaign, it’s a Playboy article from the 70s. It’s heads he wins tails she loses. It’s one greedy man’s sexual assaults up against a woman who is blamed for another greedy man’s sexual predations. Two men are greedy sexual predators, yet somehow one of them gets away with blaming a woman for the other one. Trump is a pig, Bill Clinton is a pig, but Trump is attacking Hillary Clinton because Bill Clinton is a pig. How does that work?? How is Hillary Clinton responsible for Bill Clinton’s piggery?

Ok in the bigger picture you can make a case that she helped enable him by not leaving him yadda yadda – but the fact remains that it’s Trump who’s the rapey wife-dumping pig, and it makes me want to resign from the human species to watch all these piggy men using Bill Clinton’s fucking around as a weapon against Hillary Clinton.

Grown men on Trump’s team tried hard to get Bill Clinton’s victims seated in Trump’s family box at the debate. Trump is a rapey pig, so they tried to deflect attention to his opponent’s spouse.

Donald Trump’s campaign sought to intimidate Hillary Clinton and embarrass her husband by seating women who have accused former president Bill Clinton of sexual abuse in the Trump family’s box at the presidential debate here Sunday night, according to four people involved in the discussions.

The campaign’s plan, which was closely held and unknown to several of Trump’s top aides, was thwarted just minutes before it could be executed when officials with the Commission on Presidential Debates intervened. The commission officials warned that, if the Trump campaign tried to seat the accusers in the elevated family box, security officers would remove the women, according to the people involved, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential.

Bill Clinton is not the candidate. Hillary Clinton is not the one who abused those women.

“We were going to put the four women in the VIP box,” said former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who represents Trump in debate negotiations. “We had it all set. We wanted to have them shake hands with Bill, to see if Bill would shake hands with them.”

He’s another one of these sexually greedy pig-bros. They’ve got each other’s backs.

Giuliani said [Trump campaign chief executive Stephen] Bannon kept pushing to have the women come out until three minutes before the debate began.

“But we pulled it because we were going to have a big incident on national TV,” Giuliani said. “Frank Fahrenkopf stopped us, and we weren’t going to have a fight on national TV with the commission to start the debate.”

Bannon declined to comment late Sunday, but his role in coming up with the idea was confirmed by multiple Trump campaign advisers.

Men. Men attacking a woman by throwing her husband’s prey at her.

It’s a god damn frat party, not an election.