Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Brainwashing the Nation, According to Scott Adams

As H. Allen Smith used to say, good goddle mighty! The networks have seized on the truly important issues at stake in this election — exactly what Trump said in a locker room about sex a few decades ago. Never mind all the Hillary scandals. It's not fair to hit girls, evidently. But more important than the scandals are the policies, and I don't think we've had such diametrically opposed policies since Goldwater versus Johnson. Actually, since both Goldwater and Johnson explicitly wanted the country to hold together, more or less, and Trump and Hillary disagree on that, with Hillary being an advocate of the country falling apart, I'd say maybe the policies are the most diametrically opposed since 1860. And you know what that resulted in.

Their policy differences: Trump wants Obamacare repealed, Hillary wants more of the same. Trump wants a sane immigration policy, Hillary wants open borders, especially for the Third World. Trump wants to work with Russia to solve the ISIS problem, Hillary wants war with Russia (See previous post). Trump is supportive of cops and law enforcement in general, Hillary seems to hate cops and law enforcement, just like Obama does. Trump thinks the government should negotiate trade deals that benefit America in general and American workers in particular, Hillary likes trade deals that favor Wall Street and her donors. Trump calls race riots "race riots," Hillary calls them "protests" and thinks White people are guilty of causing them. Trump wants to drain the damn swamp, Hillary wants to wallow around in it.

Have you fallen for the "Trump is a racist, sexist, etc. monster" refrain? Remember that they said all the same things about Mitt Romney, even if with somewhat less vehemence? They say that about all Republicans, and certainly all Republican presidential nominees, because that's what Democrats do. Their policies and performance are impossible to defend, so they use their energy smearing Republicans instead.

Somebody who hasn't fallen for that refrain is Scott Adams, who does the comic strip "Dilbert."
This is from Scott's blog here [link]:

I Wake You Up for the Presidential Debate

Here’s a little thought experiment for you:
If a friend said he could see a pink elephant in the room, standing right in front of you, but you don’t see it, which one of you is hallucinating?
Answer: The one who sees the pink elephant is hallucinating.
Let’s try another one.
If a friend tells you that you were both abducted by aliens last night but for some reason only he remembers it, which one of you hallucinated?
Answer: The one who saw the aliens is hallucinating.
Now let’s add some participants and try another one.
If a crowd of people are pointing to a stain on the wall, and telling you it is talking to them, with a message from God, and you don’t see anything but a stain, who is hallucinating? Is it the majority who see the stain talking or the one person who does not?
Answer: The people who see the stain talking are experiencing a group hallucination, which is more common than you think.
In nearly every scenario you can imagine, the person experiencing an unlikely addition to their reality is the one hallucinating. If all observers see the same addition to their reality, it might be real. But if even one participant can’t see the phenomenon – no matter how many can – it is almost certainly not real. 
Read the rest here, where Scott relates all this to the election:
Quibcag: The brainwashed girls are from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!).

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war." — John Adams

As I've said before, never mind all the other issues — when you vote in a few days you'll be deciding whether you want war or peace.

And no, this isn't about Trump insulting Pakistan or some damn place and war resulting. That really isn't how wars get started these days. Trump actually sends the message that he's willing to hold negotiations about our relationships with all countries, because our strength is obvious, and threats aren't necessary.

As for insults, Trump didn't say these things about Vladimir Putin, who runs Russia, the second most capable nuclear power on Earth.

"I think (Putin) is at heart, a bully ... you have to stand up, and you have to encircle, and you have to try to choke off his ability to be so aggressive.”
"I see a very cold-blooded, calculating former KGB agent who is determined to ... enrich himself and his closest colleagues..."
"Aside (from) his personality, ... his agenda is one that threatens American interests." [link]
Hillary Clinton did. Trump insults illegal aliens, maybe, but Hillary insults somebody with nuclear stockpiles. Smart. Nothing new about that. During the Clinton administration, she egged Bill on to attack Serbia, which in effect amounted to a big insult to Russia, and all that resulted in a new Islamic state in Europe, Kosovo. And as Secretary of State, she was instrumental in the overthrow and murder of Qadafi, leaving Libya without a coherent government, creating chaos there, and also making Libya into a departure point for Africans moving into Europe, which Qadafi had prevented.

And now she wants to do pretty much the same thing to Syria. With the same results. When you remove a strong man like Assad, or Saddam Hussein, you get chaos and untold human suffering. Most Middle East countries are better off with a strong man, because without one, they have civil wars and chaos until another one takes over.

So your peace vote goes to Trump, definitely not to Clinton. Lest you doubt me, here's Stefan Molyneux on the subject:

Pat Buchanan wrote years ago that there was an understanding between Russia and the US that if Russia permitted Germany to reunite, NATO would not expand to the east. We broke that agreement, obviously. It's almost like we, or our rulers, are angry with Russia for not being communist any more, because we were never this belligerent towards the USSR.

And here's Buchanan on our current pointless standoff with Russia, from Townhall [link].

Trolling for War with Russia

by Pat Buchanan

Some 50 State Department officials have signed a memo calling on President Obama to launch air and missile strikes on the Damascus regime of Bashar Assad.

A "judicious use of stand-off and air weapons," they claim, "would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."

In brief, to strengthen the hand of our diplomats and show we mean business, we should start bombing and killing Syrian soldiers.

Yet Syria has not attacked us. And Congress has not declared war on Syria, or authorized an attack. Where do these State hawks think President Obama gets the authority to launch a war on Syria?

Does State consider the Constitution to be purely advisory when it grants Congress the sole power to declare war? Was not waging aggressive war the principal charge against the Nazis at Nuremberg?

If U.S. bombs and missiles rain down on Damascus, to the cheers of the C-Street Pattons, what do we do if Bashar Assad's allies Iran and Hezbollah retaliate with Benghazi-type attacks on U.S. diplomats across the Middle East? What do we do if Syrian missiles and Russian planes starting shooting down U.S. planes?

Go to war with Hezbollah, Iran and Russia?

Assume U.S. strikes break Syria's regime and Assad falls and flees. Who fills the power vacuum in Damascus, if not the most ruthless of the terrorist forces in that country, al-Nusra and ISIS?

Should ISIS reach Damascus first, and a slaughter of Alawites and Christians ensue, would we send an American army to save them?
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Illustration found at Gary Johnson was invited to comment also, but he wasn't sure where Syria is.

Open Borders, Open Pandora's Box

Some time back because I referred to open-borders libertarians as useful idiots for the establishment. Well, I should be clearer about that. Some are indeed useful idiots, some are just idiots, because their behavior otherwise makes them useless to the establishment, and some are liars, because they know very well that open borders would wipe the very idea of libertarianism out in about six months.

Do I really have to explain this obvious fact? Right now we have a feeble version of open borders, i. e., the government is being sneaky about it and just letting in Latin Americans and Middle Easterners with as little fanfare as possible. This is because the American people would revolt if it declared an official policy of open borders, and tried to establish it all at once instead of incrementally. This is a "boiled frog" phenomenon [link].

But if the American people would hold still for it, and the government officially declared the borders open, China would send several million colonists here toot sweet (yes, I know it's supposed to be tout de suite) to loot the country by political and industrial espionage. And other, lesser nations would do the same according to their population numbers.
And, of course, countries with altogether too many poor people would do their best to send all the poor people here where they will demand freebies and make it even more impossible to do away with the welfare state. And the Chinese who decide to stay here will help them with their demands, because all immigrants except for a few from Europe align themselves with the left, the left being the Democratic party.

And what will you do when new immigrants from, say, Uganda defecate on your lawn? Use your Second Amendment rights to shoot them? Or just shrug and put up with the new order, lest the other libertarians call you a racist?

Libertarians didn't use to be so uniformly idiotic. I'm not sure what happened, except that I suspect a bunch of ex-hippies have joined the movement and brought all their idiocy with them. It wasn't ages ago that Murray Rothbard said:

The “nation,” of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians and classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well.

...And the quote continues up there in the quibcag.

Still not convinced? Read this from Alternative Right [link]:


On the anniversary of 9/11, President Obama called for the US to embrace diversity. 

The reason multiculturalism makes my blood boil is, whilst I am a libertarian, I am also strongly nationalistic. Many libertarians confuse nationalism with collectivism, statism, and racism; the implication being, if you’re an alt-righter and share nationalistic sentiments, you’re no libertarian. They assume we are delusionally taking personal pride in the historical achievements of long-dead, successful European people. That is, we forget our individualistic selves and imagine a racial collective which can take credit for the achievements of others who share certain genes. But, that’s not why I’m nationalistic at all.

Of course, I am proud of Western civilization for developing modern capitalism and an overwhelming number of other great innovations, just as I am proud of the association I have with my beautiful, bright daughter or the successes of a close friend. These things are a social benefit, however remote, to me and so I feel a natural desire to celebrate them.

However, my nationalism is based purely on my subjective values, derived from simple, socio-biological facts; not some superficial notion of ‘white pride’ – you know, Aristotle and John Locke were white etc.

First, nationality does not necessarily refer to the legal citizenship of a nation-state. 

Read the rest here:
Quibcag: The various nation-symbols are from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).

Monday, October 17, 2016

Trex Sex

I've always watched all the Star Trek stuff, except for Voyager, which was just too unbearable, so I guess I'm not fully qualified to be a Trekkie. But it's always been a very interesting franchise of shows, both for its internal content and for its sociological significance, and it has plenty of the latter. The original series is outrageously reflective of its time, what with its hippies and smarmy civil rights messages, and as the franchise proceeded it took on more and more didactic scripts, teaching us to accept all sorts of trendy ideas, many of which were in support of sexual deviancy, either directly, or by analogy. I remember an episode of Enterprise where the Vulcans (This was several years before the time of the original series.) considered mind-melding a perversion. This was intended, I'm sure, to be an analogy to homosexuality. And since mind-melding later becomes a beneficial practice, we're supposed to glean from that a sympathy for homosexuality.

An aside before we get to the main story here: Despite the Next Gen episode that shows that all these humanoid races actually descend from an ancient humanoid race (Actually, all of life seems to have, which confuses the issue, because if Earth bacteria are from the ancients, I guess we're to believe that the universal human-like bipedalism, etc., is programmed deep into all of Earth's DNA.) Anyhow, despite all that, it's hard to believe that humans and Klingons and Vulcans and evidently other such species can interbreed, when humans and chimps can't, although the latter are many millions of years more closely related. Indeed, you can only suspend your disbelief for such things because you've been watching the show for years, and are used to suspending your disbelief in order to accept the fact that all these Vulcans and Klingons, etc., only differ from one another slightly anyway.

Over at Alternative Right [link], Falco Baumgartner examines the pro-miscegnation aspect of Star Trek:


Star Trek has always been a vehicle of the do-gooders, even before the term was known, but the themes of peace, respect, and friendship of the peoples, which have been running through its universe like a red thread, have resonated well with the audience in the time of the superpower conflict and Mutually Assured Destruction (fittingly abbreviated to MAD). After the cold war, cultural Marxism and political correctness fully took over the Enterprise, but the series still holds some value for those viewers who have been more intrigued by the looks of the latest starships, photon cannons, and intergalactic beauties.

Wait, did I just say that? Am I sexually attracted to female aliens? Yes, I am.

How perverted is that? Not much actually, because multiculturalism has given me a free pass. Multiculturalism actively promotes interracial sex and the mixing of the human races. This is supposed to be good. And sexual intercourse with alien species is nothing but pursuing the same mating behaviour on a higher, interplanetary level. So why should this suddenly be bad? If anything, it makes intergalactic philanderers more cosmopolitan, because their game is genetically more diverse. And diversity, we know, is always good even if we never learn the reason why.

Who would argue that the female aliens in Star Trek Beyond are not somehow physically attractive? Alright, you might mind these strange excrescences on their heads for which you would need to pull up a nightstand (hence "one-night-stand"), but it should not have escaped your attention that their faces always retain fine, feminine features. Apparently, the makers of Star Trek are sexist enough to believe that beauty even matters in alien females. Be honest, with whom would you rather be stranded on a desolate outpost planet, Jaylah or Trigly Puff?

After our liberal media has been doing its best to introduce us to the absolute normalcy of interracial relationships and race-mixed children, Hollywood is again one step ahead on the progressive curve and is exploring the possibilities of enriching our sexual life by encouraging us to date alien eye candy. And there is some logic to it. You cannot have the Enterprise hopping from star to star in the name of intergalactic peace, understanding, and all that brother-in-arms sentimentality, while its multiplanetary crew is night-by-night staying clear from one another like scared chickens. This is implausible.

So someone sharp on the production team finally figured out: 'Boss, we need to let them bang onboard.' Not just the visible minorities with the White women, as elderly Hebraic investors have long demanded from their productions, but now everybody with everything else. And why not? Most people, matching statistics tell us, meet their partner at the workplace. No study has ever maintained that this does not apply to other galaxies. If that partner happens to be an extraterrestrial with something under her hot pants which no human biology book has covered yet, who would be so narrow-minded not to be curious on a long space voyage?

So, after initially being baffled I was kinda warming up to the idea of watching crass alien bestiality on loveship Enterprise, but quickly noticed that something does not really add up onboard.

Read the rest here:
Quibcag: provenance unknown for the drawings in both.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

The Left, the Right, and Donald Trump

It's an old observation that when the right moves further right, and the left moves further left, eventually they meet. That implies that the far right and the far left have things in common, and actually agree on some issues. That may have some truth to it, but I prefer to think that as one moves further in one direction or the other, one moves away from the established authorities of leftism or rightism, and tends to be less lock-step with them, and to be more realistic and less ideological, paradoxically enough.

This is supported by this essay by Paul Street at Counterpunch [link].

Mr. Street says the usual knee-jerk thing about Trump being racist and sexist etc., so he clearly hasn't liberated himself from leftist ideology to any great extent, but he's objective enough to see that Trump supporters are indeed a populist bunch whose support grows out of patriotism and that the establishment is viciously opposed to Trump and everything he stands for, including that annoying patriotism.

All this stuff about racism and the other -ism's, plus the dubious announcement of sexual harassment by women who seem to have timed their revelations rather late, and obviously just in time to influence the election, is nothing but propaganda designed to induce voters to support Hillary, and has nothing to do with the reasons the establishment hates Trump. They hate him because, as used to be said about FDR, he's a 'traitor to his class.' Hillary, on the other hand, is a willing tool of the establishment. Street's essay includes this list of Trump positions that the responsible, rational left agrees with. Interestingly, I consider all of these positions right-wing

At the same time, Trump has earned equal if not greater disdain from the richly bipartisan ruling class and power elite for saying some curiously accurate and even sensible things that left progressives have reasons to agree with. Here are some of the statements for which Trump cannot be forgiven by a financial and imperial super-class that has never really accepted him as a fellow member despite his wealth:
+ “Free trade” (really untrammeled global investor rights) ala Bill Clinton’s North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Barack Obama’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has cost untold masses of “forgotten” working class Americans their livelihoods.
+ The American political system is “broken” by big money special interests that undermine and distort democracy – something Trump says he knows all about because of his own history as a deep pockets funder of politicians, including the Clintons.
+ The nation is in horrific shape under the rule of corrupt, dollar-drenched “free trade” Democrats and Republicans. Much of the country’s infrastructure is crumbling, for example. Urban Black America is in a terrible state whatever the skin color of the current U.S. and U.S.-born president.
+ Hillary’s done nothing, or close to it, across thirty years of not-so “public service” to protect ordinary U.S. citizens against hard times – quite the opposite in fact.
+ “Crooked Hillary” Clinton is backed by super-wealthy financial elites who reasonably expect her do their bidding even as she deceptively claims to want to serve the people against the wealthy Few.
+ Hillary talks like a friend of working class folks on the campaign trail but tells elite backers behind closed doors that her actual and “private” positions on policy are often quite different and more Establishment-friendly than her (vote-seeking) “public” positions.
+ Hillary holds much of the nation’s white working and middle class populace in sheer aristocratic contempt, calling many such people “deplorable” and “irredeemable.”
+ The corrupt Goldman Sachs-backed Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee used dirty tricks to undermine and defeat Bernie Sanders.
+ Hillary ran a corrupt “pay nfor play” game with foreign and multinational nations and investors through the Clinton Foundation during her time atop the U.S. State Department.
+ Hillary “Queen of Chaos” Clinton (she of the leading U.S. ruling class think-tank The Council on Foreign Relations) has been a recklessly imperial foreign policy disaster, from her support for the disastrous regime-changing invasion of Iraq, her leading of the charge for calamitous regime change in Libya, her determined advance of blood, regime-changing (she hopes) madness in Syria, her (and Obama’s) advance of the Islamic State, and her heedless upping of the ante of geopolitical confrontation with nuclear Russia in Eastern Europe and Syria.
+ S. policymakers who were serious about wanting to defeat the Islamic State and other barbarian, radical-Islamist jihadists in the Middle East would step back from their saber-rattling against Russia and Syria, both of whom are dedicated to “crushing ISIS.”

That is, they're positions favored by the Real Right, the alt-right, the traditional right, or whatever you want to call it. The patriotic groups who think that the government of a nation should put the interests of that nation and its citizens first. This is in sharp contrast to the neocons who support Hillary, who are not patriotic, supporting as they do stupid self-defeating wars around the world and especially in the Middle East, and open borders and unlimited immigration from the Third World.

So maybe there's some truth to the notion that far left and far right are somewhat congruent, tho maybe it has more to do with defining left and right. Mr. Street, of course, calls neocons rightists while I consider them leftists. He thinks of international mercantile globalism as some sort of rightist phenomenon, while to me, it's just the latest stage of leftism/Marxism, which was never about liberating anybody, but, as in Animal Farm, replacing one set of pigs with another.

There are lots of reasons for all of us, left and right and middle, to support Trump over Hillary, but to me the most important reason is a simple one: Hillary seems determined to stir up as much trouble as possible with Russia, which could lead to war. She, of course, has no sons or anybody else she cares about who might be called up for such a war, and Lord knows she doesn't care about run of the mill military personnel. Nothing but contempt for them. She is reputed to have talked Bill into our intervention in Serbia, which helped produce a new Islamic state in Europe (Kosovo) [link]. Just what Europe needs, eh? And of course the Libyan catastrophe was her idea, completely destablizing that country and result in multitudes of refugees pouring out of it into Europe — not into Kosovo, of course, but into Christian nations.

In short, Hillary is a warmonger. She'll get a lot of people killed.

Trump, on the other hand, said:

"I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example. But I don’t know Putin."


“I don't like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS and Iran is killing ISIS,”

In other words, let's keep our noses out of it and let some other countries wipe ISIS out for us, because it's in their interest to do so.

Hillary wants war, Trump doesn't. That's enough to make me vote for Trump.
Quibcag: Again, the net is full of anime girls in Trump hats.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

The Paleo-Populist

This is to introduce you to the latest addition to my blogroll, The Paleo-Populist. I've read through several posts there, and haven't found anything I disagree with yet. For example, the quibcag quote comes from the first post below, which is all about truths that the kid don't learn in school, and many oldsters have forgotten.

Despite blather from Hillary and her enthusiastic media supporters, the facts are that she is a dangerous warmonger, with all her threatening rhetoric towards Russia and Putin, while Trump has a cool, measured attitude, and thinks in terms of how to cooperate with Russia to destroy ISIS, a much more desirable goal that a thermonuclear war with Moscow, wouldn't you say. Anyhow, here is the post:

In what may seem an odd role-reversal, in this election the Democrat is the war hawk and the Republican is the peace candidate. Donald Trump has laid out his vision for a non-interventionist foreign policy, while Hillary Clinton believes in “humanitarian intervention”, i.e., making war for peace. Trump has rightly called George W. Bush’s Iraq war a disaster, while Clinton still defends the intervention in Libya that destroyed the Libyan state.
In fact, this represents a return to historic patterns. There is an old saying, forgotten in recent decades, that goes, “Vote for a Republican and you get a depression, vote for a Democrat and you get a war.” America’s worst president ever, the Democrat Woodrow Wilson, won re-election in 1916 with the slogan, “He kept us out of war,” then took us into World War I within a month of his second inauguration. He thereby gave the world the Versailles Diktat, Hitler, Stalin, and World War II.
Read the rest here:

Another post on the same general subject:

The View From Olympus: Syria Again

The pathetic performance of the U.S. State Department with regard to Syria makes America appear an international naif. Secretary Kerry bleats about starving women and children, Russia agrees to another ceasefire, and events go on as before. So disconnected from reality is the American Establishment that it seems to have lost even the most basic understanding of how wars are fought. The front page of the September 26 New York Times offers an example. It began a story on Syria saying,
Make life intolerable and death likely. Open an escape route, or offer a deal to those who leave or surrender. Let people trickle out. Kill whoever stays. Repeat until a deserted cityscape is yours.
That sounds to me like a normal description of how sieges work. But the Times is horrified. We have become the equivalent of the sort of stringy-haired, horse-faced, post-menopausal woman who goes to peace marches.
Read the rest here:
And a perceptive post about the way the left is playing the election:

The Election: The Left’s Secret Weapon

When the Frankfurt School created cultural Marxism, a.k.a. “political correctness”, it did so by crossing Marx with Freud. From psychology it took the tool it relies on to promote its ideology, psychological conditioning. By repeating something over and over, conditioning works it into the public’s minds in a way that bypasses reason. Often even people who intellectually disagree with the Left feel they must parrot its words or feel uncomfortable. They have been conditioned.
The political Establishment, both its Democratic and its Republican wings, is now using psychological conditioning in its efforts to defeat Donald Trump. In part, it does so by playing the cultural Marxists’ usual game of crying “the horror, the horror” whenever Trump says something politically incorrect. Many people have already been conditioned to see themselves as “another Hitler” if they dare defy the rules cultural Marxism has laid down. Now, the conditioning mechanisms tell them that if they vote for Trump, the next morning they will look in the mirror and see the Fuhrer looking back.
Read the rest here:
If you don't know the term "Frankfurt School," you'd do well to follow the Paleo-Populist as well as my own blog.
Quibcag: One of the girls from Lucky Star (らき☆すた RakiSuta) is dreaming.

Sunday, October 9, 2016

John Craig on how men talk when there are no women present

Again he does it. John Craig [link] very frequently says things I've been trying to say, but he's more succinct and clearer about it. This is one of those times. This nonsense about something Trump said rather pales in comparison to what the saintly JFK actually did, never mind the outrageous behavior of LBJ and Clinton. And should we bring up Hillary and Huma Abedin? You know, her long-time BFF and intimate colleague who is married to Anthony Wiener for crying out loud and you people are looking at Trump to find sexual misbehavior? That was something Trump said over a decade ago, which may have been totally made-up for posturing in the locker room anyway. It's typical BS from guys like Trump, which, as John Craig asserts, make up maybe 75% of the male population. They don't know what the fuss is all about. They'd much rather vote for a guy who talks about p*ssy than for a crazy old lady who calls them "deplorable."

Many people have pointed this fact out: Where men gather without women present, they talk differently, and discuss different subjects.

As far as I know, women talk differently too, when there aren't any men around. Anybody know for sure about that? What do they talk about?

Well, here's John Craig to explain it as only he can:

Newsflash: that's how most guys talk

You've undoubtedly heard of the recording from eleven years ago where Donald Trump talked about how he tried to have sex with a married woman.

Trump said:

"She was down in Palm Beach and I moved on her. I moved on her and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married....You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women, I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything....."

Now, all sorts of politicians are claiming to be shocked and appalled by Trump's vulgarity. According to the Washington Post:

After the video appeared online Friday afternoon, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wrote on Twitter: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.” 

[No one could ever accuse Hillary of being self-serving.]

Her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), told reporters, “It makes me sick to my stomach,” while campaigning in Las Vegas.

[Funny, he himself evoked that same reaction from much of the audience during the VP debate.]

Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which has endorsed Clinton, issued a statement from Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens saying: “What Trump described in these tapes amounts to sexual assault.”

[But there's a big difference between merely describing it and actually doing it, as Bill Clinton did.]

Trump was also criticized by members of his own party. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who said he is “sickened” by Trump’s comments, said the Republican presidential candidate will no longer appear with him at a campaign event in Wisconsin on Saturday. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”

Ryan's holier-than-thou posturing is particularly sickening, given that he's obviously lusting after the 2020 nomination, and is hoping that Trump does not get elected -- and Hillary does -- which will clear the path for him.

It's hard to believe that any of the people who've claimed to be so shocked at Donald Trump's words are actually all that shocked, since this is the way most men talk when they're with their buddies. In fact, the only guys who never talk like this are stiffs (~20% of the male population), true gentlemen (~1%), gay men (~4 or 5%), and self-righteous, hypocritical politicians (<1 description="" fits="" of="" population="" that="" the="" though=""> 90% of politicians).

I'm guessing Paul Ryan falls into at least two of those categories, and "true gentlemen" is not one of them. 

And what did that tape tell us that we didn't already know? That Trump is an egotistical boor? We already knew that.

So what? Hillary is a corrupt, traitorous sociopath.

A couple things from that tape. First, note that Trump admitted to failing his seduction attempt. His honesty puts him a level above many men, who simply lie about their manly pursuits. (For instance, Paul Ryan, who ran a marathon in 4:01:25 and then claimed to have broken three hours.)

Second, I doubt that Trump ever once made a pass at a woman by grabbing her by the pussy. Whatever his other failings, Trump is undoubtedly a man of the world. As such, he had undoubtedly learned by age 59 that starting off an attempted seduction that way is not the most effective method of landing a woman in bed.

Trump was obviously just trying to make a point by exaggerating what he could get away with as a celeb. There was a certain schoolyard bravado to his words; if you want to say that's pathetic for a 59-year-old, I won't argue.

But better empty boasting than what Bill Clinton did, which was to actually did grope -- and in some cases, rape -- women against their will.

If Hillary brings up the recent video in the debate tonight, Trump should respond, "Hillary, I just talked about it -- which I regret. Your husband has actually done those things, and worse. You've said I shouldn't be President because of my words. Do you feel your husband should never have been President because of his actions? And while we're at it, you were in charge of the war room dealing with all the so-called bimbo eruptions around Bill. You savaged all of those poor women who were Bill's victims. Does this mean you shouldn't be President?"
The original is at
Quibcag: These are the girls of K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) As you can see, they're not talking like Trump, but like Japanese schoolgirls. Very chaste and decent.  They never talk about  膣.