Not everyone does, but I've met people from all walks of life that do make those sorts of comments. It's not just certain circles; it's a wide swath of wildly different people. Some people have a very dark and morbid sense of humor and can find it within themselves to laugh at such things because they understand it's intended to be morally shocking and not representative of how you treat real people. Sure, there are probably a lot of people who morally refuse to engage in that sort of humor for whatever reason. It's not something that perhaps everyone is comfortable admitting in public, but I think you are drastically underestimating how many people do engage in it.
Again, I do not have your life experiences, and so I take you at your word when you say that most people you interact with brag about sexually assaulting people. (As a joke, to improve social standing, whatever). Are you open to the idea that this is actually not the norm in the United States, though?
If a majority of Republicans hear what Trump said, and aren't bothered by it, is it maybe time to stop "hoping" and start accepting the reality that a wide swathe of Americans are completely blasé about sexual assault?
I get that we'd all feel better if we believed this were a Trump problem and not an America problem, but that's just not the reality we live in.
It's tricky to infer from Republican support for their candidate that they're all running around talking about how many genitals they get away with grabbing. For example, I imagine that there's a ton of Utah Mormons and Sunshine Belt Baptists who are horrified at those comments but are downplaying it or ignoring it because they're more scared of Hillary Clinton.
It'd be nice to do a straight up scientific poll on how many people actually talk the way Trump did in their daily life.
AAccording to recent polls per the Washington Post…
Trump still leads with White voters, 50 to 40 percent.
Trump is tied with Hillary among men, 45 to 45 percent.
Percentages in the high 60’s disapprove of his comments on women, Muslims, and other groups, and believe that they show an unfair bias.
Specifically in the individual results, voter percentages in the double digits say that they both disapprove of his positions there, but still plan on voting for him.
What an utter disgrace.
I mean, I get that 14 year old boys will talk like that about women. Same thing about minority groups, in a lot of majority-white areas. And, some men never grow up. This is exactly the kind of thing that you would expect out of a spoiled rotten man-child. It was of precisely zero surprise to me to hear Trump say the things he did about women, not after he said the things he did about other people.
But how can a voter think that how a President feels about his people is of no issue whatsoever in the election? Maybe most voters don’t understand about cap in trade, carried interest, public health care options, so on. But if you don’t grasp the issues, what else is there to go on besides how Trump says he feels about people? It seems like the number one thing for most people should be a gut feeling for someone’s motives and temperament, but instead, there is this block of voters for who these things are of no importance whatsoever, as long as the groups he seems to hate aren’t them.
I've been around plenty of people who said ***** like that. It's just BS, pretend boasting among peers. I think that most men in the US have probably said something similar while among friends at some point in their lives, and next to none of them were serious when they said it. Yeah, at face value it's a despicable thing to say, but it's not all that different in nature for threatening to kill your friend for taking the last cold soda. It's like real life ***** posting and it's something that I'd suspect most people engage in in some form or another. This is probably why something like 75% of Republicans want the party to continue backing him despite the comments. I think Trump did the right thing by immediately apologizing and handled it fairly well at the debate.
There have been plenty of times in my life when I've been lewd. Hell, there are recordings of me both making and laughing at lewd jokes with my roommate on YouTube. That's on the internet, so it's basically forever at this point.
But I have never expressed anything like the casual sexual harassment Trump did. And, while I have encountered people who have talked like that in my life, it is far from the norm, and I disassociate myself from such individuals quickly.
If a majority of Republicans hear what Trump said, and aren't bothered by it, is it maybe time to stop "hoping" and start accepting the reality that a wide swathe of Americans are completely blasé about sexual assault?
I think that's a bit of an overinterpretation of a single morning-after poll. Just for starters, I would technically be in the 36 percent of voters for whom the video didn't affect their opinion of Trump -- because my opinion of him was already that he was a grotesque sexist and probable rapist.
But let's assume you're right. What does "accepting the reality" accomplish? Am I going to be able to condemn statements like Trump's even harder than I already am? Not really. Is there some proposed anti-"rape culture" public policy that I'd change my stance on? No. As far as I can tell, the only thing that accepting your premise does is let me make sweeping generalizations about the moral inferiority of a wide swathe of Americans, and thereby feel better about myself. And if, as you propose, I select what to believe for feel-good reasons, I'd much rather those reasons be prosocial than elitist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's tricky to infer from Republican support for their candidate that they're all running around talking about how many genitals they get away with grabbing. For example, I imagine that there's a ton of Utah Mormons and Sunshine Belt Baptists who are horrified at those comments but are downplaying it or ignoring it because they're more scared of Hillary Clinton.
It'd be nice to do a straight up scientific poll on how many people actually talk the way Trump did in their daily life.
They show the voters the video, and then ask them if it impacts their view of Trump. Only 48% of republican voters say it makes them feel less favorably towards him - that's where your Mormons and Baptists are. They're voting for him anyway, but they at least recognize the wrongness of it. The remainder (who constitute a majority of republicans, as I said) are apparently not bothered by sexual assault. Not only does it fail to convince them not to vote for him, it fails to even make a dent in their impression of him.
So regardless of what percentage of people actually talk like that, we at least know what percentage are bothered by it, and it's not nearly as a high as we might "hope".
Tiax, that's possible, but you need to bear in mind what Blinking Spirit said. If you already thought Trump was a scumbag, then it's entirely possible you voted "didn't make my opinion worse" because it was already in the dumpster. "Didn't make my opinion worse" doesn't necessarily mean "I'm totally fine with braggin' about grabbin'."
Also, the same page notes:
A 74-percent majority of all voters had a negative reaction to the video — including 47 percent who said their feelings were a zero (very negative)
There have been plenty of times in my life when I've been lewd. Hell, there are recordings of me both making and laughing at lewd jokes with my roommate on YouTube. That's on the internet, so it's basically forever at this point.
This is a point that, from what I can tell, totally separates the Pro-Trump Op-eds from the negative or neutral ones. The Pro-Trump crowd want to make the comments about being crude or lewd. As Lithl points out that, misses the point: these comments are not just crude, they're bragging about how he has gotten away with sexual assault.
P.S. Sorry about the internet, brah. We Gen-Xers grew up along side it, but it wasn't powerful enough to play Big Brother until we were old enough to know better. I am really interested in how the younger generation will deal with having their whole life (practically) stripped naked in public online forever.
I think that's a bit of an overinterpretation of a single morning-after poll. Just for starters, I would technically be in the 36 percent of voters for whom the video didn't affect their opinion of Trump -- because my opinion of him was already that he was a grotesque sexist and probable rapist.
Oh come on. People who already thought very poorly of Trump are still going to answer "lower" for that question. If that's your "for starters" excuse, I'd love to hear what the rest of your hand-waving denials must be.
But let's assume you're right. What does "accepting the reality" accomplish? Am I going to be able to condemn statements like Trump's even harder than I already am? Not really. Is there some proposed anti-"rape culture" public policy that I'd change my stance on? No. As far as I can tell, the only thing that accepting your premise does is let me make sweeping generalizations about the moral inferiority of a wide swathe of Americans, and thereby feel better about myself. And if, as you propose, I select what to believe for feel-good reasons, I'd much rather those reasons be prosocial than elitist.
I simply have no response to the question "What does accepting reality accomplish". Absolutely stunned.
Tiax, that's possible, but you need to bear in mind what Blinking Spirit said. If you already thought Trump was a scumbag, then it's entirely possible you voted "didn't make my opinion worse" because it was already in the dumpster. "Didn't make my opinion worse" doesn't necessarily mean "I'm totally fine with braggin' about grabbin'."
Also, the same page notes:
A 74-percent majority of all voters had a negative reaction to the video — including 47 percent who said their feelings were a zero (very negative)
So, that's hope for the future, aint it?
So luckily we can just check the cross tabs on that question, and see exactly what republicans rated it, without considering it's impact on their opinion of Trump. The numbers are basically unchanged. 53% of Republicans rated the video negatively (0-3), 38% rated it neutrally (4-6), and the rest positively (7-10), with 1% having no opinion.
The numbers are even worse for GOP men - only 45% rate it negatively.
If by "hope for the future" you mean "democrats and independents", then yes, their rejection of the video does make the numbers look better.
Everyone has said vulgar things in their life when they are in private or among friends, anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Maybe this makes me a prude, but I've never engaged in "Locker Room Banter". I was a nerd outcast in highschool, so maybe that makes me abnormal, but it's just something I'm not interested in or comfortable with. Yes, I've had conversations about sex or even preference; but, no, it's never really been vulgar.
It's not normal in my life. I can't speak for others. But there exists a world where this isn't normal or acceptable, and I prefer to live in that world.
I've been around plenty of people who said ***** like that. It's just BS, pretend boasting among peers. I think that most men in the US have probably said something similar while among friends at some point in their lives, and next to none of them were serious when they said it. Yeah, at face value it's a despicable thing to say, but it's not all that different in nature for threatening to kill your friend for taking the last cold soda. It's like real life ***** posting and it's something that I'd suspect most people engage in in some form or another. This is probably why something like 75% of Republicans want the party to continue backing him despite the comments. I think Trump did the right thing by immediately apologizing and handled it fairly well at the debate.
What Trump said was not joking about hypothetically doing something despicable. That I wouldn't really care about, because that I do think can be done respectably when it's done in the right way. But Trump wasn't joking about hypothetically doing these things, we was talking about things he actually does, things he has actually done. That is VERY different.
Joking about doing sexual assault vs joking about how you actually do sexually assault people.
Because that's what we are talking about here, and that's to me what makes the comments truly deplorable. He isn't just recounting how he has sexually assaulted people, he's making light of it. He acts like he knows society disapproves, but he just doesn't care and doesn't even take it seriously.
Maybe we all have more faith in humanity than you do? Heck, even if 36% of Republicans have a certain opinion, only 23% of Americans register as Republicans.* So we're talking about 36% of 23%, or a measly 8% of the population who potentially thinks it's okay to brag about sexual assaults. tops. That doesn't sound THAT bad. Heck, that's about the same percentage of Americans that identify as either atheist or agnostic, to put it in perspective.
I think that's a bit of an overinterpretation of a single morning-after poll. Just for starters, I would technically be in the 36 percent of voters for whom the video didn't affect their opinion of Trump -- because my opinion of him was already that he was a grotesque sexist and probable rapist.
Oh come on. People who already thought very poorly of Trump are still going to answer "lower" for that question. If that's your "for starters" excuse, I'd love to hear what the rest of your hand-waving denials must be.
He's not making an excuse. The survey was not conducted in a way to correlate exiting low opinions of Trump with a reduction in opinion. Your assumption that "people who already thought very poorly of Trump are still going to answer "lower" for that question" is reasonable, but that's not the same thing as being FACT.
What Trump said was not joking about hypothetically doing something despicable. That I wouldn't really care about, because that I do think can be done respectably when it's done in the right way. But Trump wasn't joking about hypothetically doing these things, we was talking about things he actually does, things he has actually done. That is VERY different.
Thank you! This!
Not to mention this is a man who has been accused of rape and sexual assault.
To the jab in #4: yes there are some wacky criticisms of her but then there are some who earnestly compare Trump to Hitler, so whatever.
There is a huge difference between pointing out the parallels between two politicians riding a wave of discontent of the current government while running on a platform of racism and bigotry, and claiming that someone is actually Satan.
Maybe we all have more faith in humanity than you do?
Yes, what you have is faith - it is contradicted by the facts at hand, and yet you still cling to it.
Heck, even if 36% of Republicans have a certain opinion, only 23% of Americans register as Republicans.* So we're talking about 36% of 23%, or a measly 8% of the population who potentially thinks it's okay to brag about sexual assaults. tops. That doesn't sound THAT bad. Heck, that's about the same percentage of Americans that identify as either atheist or agnostic, to put it in perspective.
But it's not ONLY republicans who have that view. I don't even understand what this calculation is supposed to prove, since you can just look at the actual topline results and see what percentage of the population thinks that.
He's not making an excuse. The survey was not conducted in a way to correlate exiting low opinions of Trump with a reduction in opinion. Your assumption that "people who already thought very poorly of Trump are still going to answer "lower" for that question" is reasonable, but that's not the same thing as being FACT.
My assumption is not only reasonable, it's backed up by the actual data of the survey. They didn't just ask "did your opinion of Trump drop?" they also asked "How do you feel about the video". If Blinking Spirit suspected that the "did your opinion of Trump drop?" question was not reflective of the way people felt about the video, it would have taken him all of 30 seconds to check. Instead, he threw the theory out there without even doing the most cursory of checks. Not surprising, since he apparently doesn't see the value in discovering the truth here.
Trump represents rugged individualism, the height of the American Dream. He raised his kids "right" and people are looking at their success. Trump had an older brother die as an alcoholic. There is a part of his American story that is correct and great to emulate.
I... what? The American Dream is to be born rich but be smart enough to avoid dying of alcoholism? That's a pretty weird and low bar to clear.
I'm not gonna bash someone for being born rich, that's just luck. Still, last time I checked, the American Dream was about coming here as a penniless immigrant and, through hard work, pushing your way up through the meritocracy. The promise on the Statute of Liberty combined with being able to move to the frontier. "Rugged Americans" were people who live hard lives with hard labor and tame the wilderness. Trump Tower's Vegas-Style Genital-Grabbing Emporium isn't exactly the Little House on the Prairie.
He was a part of the lucky sperm club.
He's not a nice man, he has very mean and nasty sides of him.
He was bankrupt several times, uses the tax laws to his advantage.
He is arrogant, a braggart.
He is also a husband and a father. He is a brother. He does have good interpersonal and communication skills that draw people to him. He has raised his children right.
I'm not going to play devil's advocate, he is a very flawed man. I would not want to become his friend, nor work for him, nor will I more than likely not vote for him as president.
In the humility of understanding either candidate is to understand what they do well, and acknowledge that he has been a good father to his own children. None of them have turned out similar to say Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears. Neither has his children suffered the problems that Kesha Serbert had such as alleged rape as well as a stay in drug rehab. Instead, they have remained out of the headlines and steady as young professional getting married and so forth. They are successful.
While he's not a great man, look no farther than his one daughter and eldest son. They're not Paris Hilton in youth, rather they are young professionals. As he has learned and found his own way in life, he has managed his business better and rebuilt his wealth.
He is not perfect, but he is a good man in some respects. To deny that would be to deny the success he did earn, such as his children being raised right. Breaking a family problem with alcoholism, and learning from his brother that he'd better be industrious. He is a part of the American Dream, in a generational sense. He stopped a curse, increased his wealth and taught his children his own mistakes and those of his older brother. That's what the healthy side of individualism of Donald Trump.
Look around you, we all know people like him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Trump represents rugged individualism, the height of the American Dream. He raised his kids "right" and people are looking at their success. Trump had an older brother die as an alcoholic. There is a part of his American story that is correct and great to emulate.
I... what? The American Dream is to be born rich but be smart enough to avoid dying of alcoholism? That's a pretty weird and low bar to clear.
I'm not gonna bash someone for being born rich, that's just luck. Still, last time I checked, the American Dream was about coming here as a penniless immigrant and, through hard work, pushing your way up through the meritocracy. The promise on the Statute of Liberty combined with being able to move to the frontier. "Rugged Americans" were people who live hard lives with hard labor and tame the wilderness. Trump Tower's Vegas-Style Genital-Grabbing Emporium isn't exactly the Little House on the Prairie.
He was a part of the lucky sperm club.
He's not a nice man, he has very mean and nasty sides of him.
He was bankrupt several times, uses the tax laws to his advantage.
He is arrogant, a braggart.
He is also a husband and a father. He is a brother. He does have good interpersonal and communication skills that draw people to him. He has raised his children right.
I'm not going to play devil's advocate, he is a very flawed man. I would not want to become his friend, nor work for him, nor will I more than likely not vote for him as president.
In the humility of understanding either candidate is to understand what they do well, and acknowledge that he has been a good father to his own children. None of them have turned out similar to say Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears. Neither has his children suffered the problems that Kesha Serbert had such as alleged rape as well as a stay in drug rehab. Instead, they have remained out of the headlines and steady as young professional getting married and so forth. They are successful.
While he's not a great man, look no farther than his one daughter and eldest son. They're not Paris Hilton in youth, rather they are young professionals. As he has learned and found his own way in life, he has managed his business better and rebuilt his wealth.
He is not perfect, but he is a good man in some respects. To deny that would be to deny the success he did earn, such as his children being raised right. Breaking a family problem with alcoholism, and learning from his brother that he'd better be industrious. He is a part of the American Dream, in a generational sense. He stopped a curse, increased his wealth and taught his children his own mistakes and those of his older brother. That's what the healthy side of individualism of Donald Trump.
Never thought I'd say this... But I agree with Glenn Beck.
It's a weird election.
Needless to say, the second debate hasn't been the turn-around that the Trump campaign was hoping for, and Trump continues to pander to his base and no one else.
So new thought experiment: what would result in Trump actually getting 270 electoral votes?
I'm still trying to figure out what Beck means by repeatedly pairing "moral and ethical" as if those were two different things.
But yes. If nothing else, the Trump candidacy has been an excellent litmus test for which conservatives have the courage of their convictions. Especially those who are in office. I like my own Senator Ben Sasse a lot more than I used to.
EDIT @ GumOnShoe: If you're referring to Beck, he's been vocally opposed to Trump for months. It's not this "ninth bridge" that did it for him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Based on your comments the last year Highroller, I don't think you really agree with the argument Glenn Beck is making, except that you probably don't like Hillary much either and view her as someone the government can manage.
Well, yeah, pretty much. Obviously I don't agree with Glenn Beck's political views. He's still a nutjob. Still, I thought it was at least a fairly reasonable position on his part, which surprised me.
The point is, Trump is just about as textbook of an example of a person who is not only a terrible candidate for president, but also an outright threat to our system of government, as a person can be. In school, you talk about why the Founding Fathers crafted the government with so many checks and balances and so forth. I imagine a lot of High School history and social studies teachers are answering, "Why'd they put that restriction in there?" not with a hypothetical, but with a finger pointing and the news and going, "Because of that guy."
Trump is about as obvious of an incorrect answer as can be. If people are STILL backing him, that means they are putting something else above the country, and that means they are putting something over their duty as citizens to this country and their ethical duty as human beings.
A useful rule of thumb this election is: if Mormon, then consistently opposes Trump.
The Utah congressional delegation (all Mormons) is:
Senator Hatch - endorsed Trump, refused to rescind endorsement.
Senator Lee - opposes Trump. This is the guy Beck is talking about.
Representative Stewart - Opposed Trump in the primary, but said we should unite behind him to defeat Clinton once he won the nomination.
Representative Chaffetz - Endorsed Trump, rescinded endorsement after the tape.
Representative Love - Did not endorse Trump, but would not rule him out after the tape.
Representative Bishop - Supports Trump
At the state level we have:
Governor Herbert - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
House Speaker Hughes - enthusiastic trump supporter, did not rescind.
Senate President Niederhauser - difficult to find, seems to support Trump, but I can't find an exact statement.
There are also a few other Mormons at the national level:
AZ Senator Flake - opposes Trump
ID Senator Crapo - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
NV Senator Heller - opposes Trump
(also Reid and Udall, who are Dems and obviously oppose Trump)
NV Rep Hardy - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
ID Rep Simpson - opposes Trump
ID Rep Labrador - endorses Trump, did not rescind.
AZ Rep Salmon - endorsed Trump - can't find anything after the tape.
FL Rep Clawson - endorsed Trump - can't find anything after the tape.
(the last two are retiring, and so maybe haven't been pressured by voters to answer one way or the other)
So, among Republican Mormons in the US House and Senate, the score is:
4 (Lee, Flake, Heller, Simpson) opposed Trump consistently.
3 (Chaffetz, Crapo, Hardy) endorsed Trump but rescinded in the past few days.
3 (Hatch, Bishop, Labrador) endorsed Trump and explicitly did not rescind.
2 (Salmon, Clawson) endorsed Trump, have not been asked about rescinding.
1 (Love) seems to be on the fence.
So 4/13 consistently opposed Trump. If we add in the high-level Utah state level politicians, we have 4/16 consistently opposed Trump. This doesn't seem like a good rule of thumb to me. Even if we count the two Dems, the number isn't much better.
Yes, Mormon Republican politicians are more likely than the average Republican politician to have consistently opposed Trump. But not by as much as you might think.
Based on your comments the last year Highroller, I don't think you really agree with the argument Glenn Beck is making, except that you probably don't like Hillary much either and view her as someone the government can manage.
Well, yeah, pretty much. Obviously I don't agree with Glenn Beck's political views. He's still a nutjob. Still, I thought it was at least a fairly reasonable position on his part, which surprised me.
The point is, Trump is just about as textbook of an example of a person who is not only a terrible candidate for president, but also an outright threat to our system of government, as a person can be. In school, you talk about why the Founding Fathers crafted the government with so many checks and balances and so forth. I imagine a lot of High School history and social studies teachers are answering, "Why'd they put that restriction in there?" not with a hypothetical, but with a finger pointing and the news and going, "Because of that guy."
Trump is about as obvious of an incorrect answer as can be. If people are STILL backing him, that means they are putting something else above the country, and that means they are putting something over their duty as citizens to this country and their ethical duty as human beings.
Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.
Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.
As long as we're throwing around straight-up conspiracy theories like the Huma Abedin Muslim Brotherhood lie, you might as well include that Hillary's a lizard person.
Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.
As long as we're throwing around straight-up conspiracy theories like the Huma Abedin Muslim Brotherhood lie, you might as well include that Hillary's a lizard person.
If Clinton is so bad, why do you feel the need to pad your list with outright falsehoods? Or do you not bother to check?
As long as we're cherry-picking ridiculous things might I point you to all of the Neo-Nazi elements within the Trump campaign such as: support from David Duke that they were unaware of, retweeting an image of Hillary with a Star of David on it (other than it not being a Star of David and Hillary not being Jewish, it was totally anti-semitic) or, say, Laura Ingraham's Heil Hitler salute for der Fuhrer Drumpf?
We both agree that Trump is a problem. Why not judge Crooked Hillary by the same standards, then?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Again, I do not have your life experiences, and so I take you at your word when you say that most people you interact with brag about sexually assaulting people. (As a joke, to improve social standing, whatever). Are you open to the idea that this is actually not the norm in the United States, though?
It's tricky to infer from Republican support for their candidate that they're all running around talking about how many genitals they get away with grabbing. For example, I imagine that there's a ton of Utah Mormons and Sunshine Belt Baptists who are horrified at those comments but are downplaying it or ignoring it because they're more scared of Hillary Clinton.
It'd be nice to do a straight up scientific poll on how many people actually talk the way Trump did in their daily life.
Trump still leads with White voters, 50 to 40 percent.
Trump is tied with Hillary among men, 45 to 45 percent.
Percentages in the high 60’s disapprove of his comments on women, Muslims, and other groups, and believe that they show an unfair bias.
Specifically in the individual results, voter percentages in the double digits say that they both disapprove of his positions there, but still plan on voting for him.
What an utter disgrace.
I mean, I get that 14 year old boys will talk like that about women. Same thing about minority groups, in a lot of majority-white areas. And, some men never grow up. This is exactly the kind of thing that you would expect out of a spoiled rotten man-child. It was of precisely zero surprise to me to hear Trump say the things he did about women, not after he said the things he did about other people.
But how can a voter think that how a President feels about his people is of no issue whatsoever in the election? Maybe most voters don’t understand about cap in trade, carried interest, public health care options, so on. But if you don’t grasp the issues, what else is there to go on besides how Trump says he feels about people? It seems like the number one thing for most people should be a gut feeling for someone’s motives and temperament, but instead, there is this block of voters for who these things are of no importance whatsoever, as long as the groups he seems to hate aren’t them.
What an utter disgrace.
But I have never expressed anything like the casual sexual harassment Trump did. And, while I have encountered people who have talked like that in my life, it is far from the norm, and I disassociate myself from such individuals quickly.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
But let's assume you're right. What does "accepting the reality" accomplish? Am I going to be able to condemn statements like Trump's even harder than I already am? Not really. Is there some proposed anti-"rape culture" public policy that I'd change my stance on? No. As far as I can tell, the only thing that accepting your premise does is let me make sweeping generalizations about the moral inferiority of a wide swathe of Americans, and thereby feel better about myself. And if, as you propose, I select what to believe for feel-good reasons, I'd much rather those reasons be prosocial than elitist.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In this poll I posted on the previous page:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/politico-morning-consult-poll-229394
They show the voters the video, and then ask them if it impacts their view of Trump. Only 48% of republican voters say it makes them feel less favorably towards him - that's where your Mormons and Baptists are. They're voting for him anyway, but they at least recognize the wrongness of it. The remainder (who constitute a majority of republicans, as I said) are apparently not bothered by sexual assault. Not only does it fail to convince them not to vote for him, it fails to even make a dent in their impression of him.
So regardless of what percentage of people actually talk like that, we at least know what percentage are bothered by it, and it's not nearly as a high as we might "hope".
Also, the same page notes:
So, that's hope for the future, aint it?
This is a point that, from what I can tell, totally separates the Pro-Trump Op-eds from the negative or neutral ones. The Pro-Trump crowd want to make the comments about being crude or lewd. As Lithl points out that, misses the point: these comments are not just crude, they're bragging about how he has gotten away with sexual assault.
P.S. Sorry about the internet, brah. We Gen-Xers grew up along side it, but it wasn't powerful enough to play Big Brother until we were old enough to know better. I am really interested in how the younger generation will deal with having their whole life (practically) stripped naked in public online forever.
Oh come on. People who already thought very poorly of Trump are still going to answer "lower" for that question. If that's your "for starters" excuse, I'd love to hear what the rest of your hand-waving denials must be.
I simply have no response to the question "What does accepting reality accomplish". Absolutely stunned.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There can be no constructive discussion if one side sees no value in reality over fantasy.
So luckily we can just check the cross tabs on that question, and see exactly what republicans rated it, without considering it's impact on their opinion of Trump. The numbers are basically unchanged. 53% of Republicans rated the video negatively (0-3), 38% rated it neutrally (4-6), and the rest positively (7-10), with 1% having no opinion.
The numbers are even worse for GOP men - only 45% rate it negatively.
If by "hope for the future" you mean "democrats and independents", then yes, their rejection of the video does make the numbers look better.
What Trump said was not joking about hypothetically doing something despicable. That I wouldn't really care about, because that I do think can be done respectably when it's done in the right way. But Trump wasn't joking about hypothetically doing these things, we was talking about things he actually does, things he has actually done. That is VERY different.
Joking about doing sexual assault vs joking about how you actually do sexually assault people.
Because that's what we are talking about here, and that's to me what makes the comments truly deplorable. He isn't just recounting how he has sexually assaulted people, he's making light of it. He acts like he knows society disapproves, but he just doesn't care and doesn't even take it seriously.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
* Citation = https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjUpuuns9HPAhVK_mMKHXv1B88QFggeMAE&url=http://www.people-press.org/topics/political-party-affiliation/&usg=AFQjCNEIcKIHjlDBSL8dp3_O1qSmyarnWQ&sig2=E4zKOrKiG8JZ6WK1Ix8Qhg&bvm=bv.135475266,d.cGc
He's not making an excuse. The survey was not conducted in a way to correlate exiting low opinions of Trump with a reduction in opinion. Your assumption that "people who already thought very poorly of Trump are still going to answer "lower" for that question" is reasonable, but that's not the same thing as being FACT.
Not to mention this is a man who has been accused of rape and sexual assault.
There is a huge difference between pointing out the parallels between two politicians riding a wave of discontent of the current government while running on a platform of racism and bigotry, and claiming that someone is actually Satan.
Yes, what you have is faith - it is contradicted by the facts at hand, and yet you still cling to it.
But it's not ONLY republicans who have that view. I don't even understand what this calculation is supposed to prove, since you can just look at the actual topline results and see what percentage of the population thinks that.
My assumption is not only reasonable, it's backed up by the actual data of the survey. They didn't just ask "did your opinion of Trump drop?" they also asked "How do you feel about the video". If Blinking Spirit suspected that the "did your opinion of Trump drop?" question was not reflective of the way people felt about the video, it would have taken him all of 30 seconds to check. Instead, he threw the theory out there without even doing the most cursory of checks. Not surprising, since he apparently doesn't see the value in discovering the truth here.
He was a part of the lucky sperm club.
He's not a nice man, he has very mean and nasty sides of him.
He was bankrupt several times, uses the tax laws to his advantage.
He is arrogant, a braggart.
He is also a husband and a father. He is a brother. He does have good interpersonal and communication skills that draw people to him. He has raised his children right.
I'm not going to play devil's advocate, he is a very flawed man. I would not want to become his friend, nor work for him, nor will I more than likely not vote for him as president.
In the humility of understanding either candidate is to understand what they do well, and acknowledge that he has been a good father to his own children. None of them have turned out similar to say Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears. Neither has his children suffered the problems that Kesha Serbert had such as alleged rape as well as a stay in drug rehab. Instead, they have remained out of the headlines and steady as young professional getting married and so forth. They are successful.
While he's not a great man, look no farther than his one daughter and eldest son. They're not Paris Hilton in youth, rather they are young professionals. As he has learned and found his own way in life, he has managed his business better and rebuilt his wealth.
He is not perfect, but he is a good man in some respects. To deny that would be to deny the success he did earn, such as his children being raised right. Breaking a family problem with alcoholism, and learning from his brother that he'd better be industrious. He is a part of the American Dream, in a generational sense. He stopped a curse, increased his wealth and taught his children his own mistakes and those of his older brother. That's what the healthy side of individualism of Donald Trump.
Look around you, we all know people like him.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/ivana-trump-says-she-raised-kids-with-donald-single-handedly-w443909
I'm not sure how you figure Donald deserves credit for kids he didn't help raise.
Never thought I'd say this... But I agree with Glenn Beck.
It's a weird election.
Needless to say, the second debate hasn't been the turn-around that the Trump campaign was hoping for, and Trump continues to pander to his base and no one else.
So new thought experiment: what would result in Trump actually getting 270 electoral votes?
But yes. If nothing else, the Trump candidacy has been an excellent litmus test for which conservatives have the courage of their convictions. Especially those who are in office. I like my own Senator Ben Sasse a lot more than I used to.
EDIT @ GumOnShoe: If you're referring to Beck, he's been vocally opposed to Trump for months. It's not this "ninth bridge" that did it for him.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The point is, Trump is just about as textbook of an example of a person who is not only a terrible candidate for president, but also an outright threat to our system of government, as a person can be. In school, you talk about why the Founding Fathers crafted the government with so many checks and balances and so forth. I imagine a lot of High School history and social studies teachers are answering, "Why'd they put that restriction in there?" not with a hypothetical, but with a finger pointing and the news and going, "Because of that guy."
Trump is about as obvious of an incorrect answer as can be. If people are STILL backing him, that means they are putting something else above the country, and that means they are putting something over their duty as citizens to this country and their ethical duty as human beings.
The Utah congressional delegation (all Mormons) is:
Senator Hatch - endorsed Trump, refused to rescind endorsement.
Senator Lee - opposes Trump. This is the guy Beck is talking about.
Representative Stewart - Opposed Trump in the primary, but said we should unite behind him to defeat Clinton once he won the nomination.
Representative Chaffetz - Endorsed Trump, rescinded endorsement after the tape.
Representative Love - Did not endorse Trump, but would not rule him out after the tape.
Representative Bishop - Supports Trump
At the state level we have:
Governor Herbert - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
House Speaker Hughes - enthusiastic trump supporter, did not rescind.
Senate President Niederhauser - difficult to find, seems to support Trump, but I can't find an exact statement.
There are also a few other Mormons at the national level:
AZ Senator Flake - opposes Trump
ID Senator Crapo - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
NV Senator Heller - opposes Trump
(also Reid and Udall, who are Dems and obviously oppose Trump)
NV Rep Hardy - endorsed Trump, rescinded after the tape.
ID Rep Simpson - opposes Trump
ID Rep Labrador - endorses Trump, did not rescind.
AZ Rep Salmon - endorsed Trump - can't find anything after the tape.
FL Rep Clawson - endorsed Trump - can't find anything after the tape.
(the last two are retiring, and so maybe haven't been pressured by voters to answer one way or the other)
So, among Republican Mormons in the US House and Senate, the score is:
4 (Lee, Flake, Heller, Simpson) opposed Trump consistently.
3 (Chaffetz, Crapo, Hardy) endorsed Trump but rescinded in the past few days.
3 (Hatch, Bishop, Labrador) endorsed Trump and explicitly did not rescind.
2 (Salmon, Clawson) endorsed Trump, have not been asked about rescinding.
1 (Love) seems to be on the fence.
So 4/13 consistently opposed Trump. If we add in the high-level Utah state level politicians, we have 4/16 consistently opposed Trump. This doesn't seem like a good rule of thumb to me. Even if we count the two Dems, the number isn't much better.
Yes, Mormon Republican politicians are more likely than the average Republican politician to have consistently opposed Trump. But not by as much as you might think.
Trump is surely a threat to our way of life. But again, I feel the need to remind you that he is running against the 2nd most hated Presidential candidate in modern history. We all know what Trump has/continues to do. But Crooked Hillary is also an egomaniac, has endangered American security and refuses to apologize, has also made disturbing remarks about a large portion of the American population (blacks, jews, etc.), her high level staff has insulted Catholics and Evangelicals, she's got a key advisor with Muslim Brotherhood ties, she's put women in the spotlight because their sons tried to kill cops, others in the spotlight because they're undocumented... the list goes on and on. It's a pick your poison kind of thing at this point.
As long as we're throwing around straight-up conspiracy theories like the Huma Abedin Muslim Brotherhood lie, you might as well include that Hillary's a lizard person.
WaPo gives that lie four Pinocchios:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/25/does-huma-abedin-have-ties-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/
If Clinton is so bad, why do you feel the need to pad your list with outright falsehoods? Or do you not bother to check?
As long as we're cherry-picking ridiculous things might I point you to all of the Neo-Nazi elements within the Trump campaign such as: support from David Duke that they were unaware of, retweeting an image of Hillary with a Star of David on it (other than it not being a Star of David and Hillary not being Jewish, it was totally anti-semitic) or, say, Laura Ingraham's Heil Hitler salute for der Fuhrer Drumpf?
We both agree that Trump is a problem. Why not judge Crooked Hillary by the same standards, then?