I'm rather famous for being a bottom spanker, if I do say so myself. And, as dedicated non-readers may note, I do say so myself. So, what do I as a bottom-spanker think of Donald Trump and his pussy grabbing?
I think he's doing it wrong.
The media and public are making it too much about semantics and not enough about Trumps physical actions. It's one bad thing to say he's grabbing pussy and it's another- worse- thing to admit he does this. It's a YUUUUUGE difference, you might say. This Ferrerman does not go about spanking random women's bottoms because I'm famous. That would be rude and ignorant. Definitely illegal too. Offering a woman whom you are acquainted with a spanking (in the right circumstances) isn't a bad thing either. It's something that's on the menu, subject to substitution. They may decline and go for the tongue lashing and the schtupping. It's a full service operation here. No tipping!
What isn't on the menu, any day of the week, is going up to a woman and grabbing her pussy. Nor breasts or bottom. I've never been that way. No point in starting now. That's sexual assault. It is illegal whether you are rich and powerful or poor and charming. This is what so many people are missing in all this trumpery. He was wrong to do this as a famous millionaire and he was wrong to do this as a candidate. Wealth and fame do not entitle anyone to crime.
It's also disingenuous to drag President Bill Clinton's affairs into this. Receiving a blowjob from a consenting adult intern is not a proper thing for a president to do but, the operative word here is "consenting". She wasn't raped. She knows that. Affairs are not rape. Only rape is rape.
And grabbing a woman's pussy is sexual assault (a precursor to rape) without consent. If that is Trump's foreplay, he's doing it wrong. It's not an acceptable way of saying "hello" or showing interest. He is a sexual predator. No two ways about it.
Let's be civil out there and let's keep things in perspective and our hands off the genitalia of strangers. It's just the right thing to do, no matter who you are.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Monday, October 10, 2016
Life In And Above The Gutter
In last night's debate, we saw Hillary Clinton go up against a walking, stalking, sniveling, live version of the internet comments section. I feel her pain...
Been there, done that. Didn't get the t-shirt.
Ever argue with a drunk? You know how futile it is. Empowered by alcohol,they are invincible. They are devoid of logic. They'll whip your ass! Call the cops! They'll whip them too! That was last night's debate.
I've said for months now that Donald Trump is the comments of several hundred sites on the internet- not just Breitbart or any of the obvious, usual suspects. Kinda Topixy, really, like if Denny Crain were running for president. For the uninitiated, Crain is an imaginary person on Topix who is well known for his gullibility and regurgitation of reichwing talking points and *info* as fact. So too is Donald Trump.
The absolute low-light of the debate might have been Trump's assertion that, as president, he would jail her. There were so many to choose from but, that third world threat was the pick of the trash pile. Jailing Hillary is a common wet dream on the 'net. I don't think any politician has been as thoroughly investigated as her and, of course, she has never been indicted for anything. Of course, no indictments means she is guilty to the internet brain trust of deplorables. They might acquiesce to a special prosecutor for bread and circuses but, they just want her taken out back by the Emperor...and then buried under the jail. A legislative lynching.
I thought Hillary did well. She did her best to not get dragged into the gutter by this idiot. I know the drill all too well. Dedicated non-readers know the assholes I've been up against. You can be brilliant, charming and witty as a Ferreman but some piece of shit will counter with a slur or an obscure song. That's all they've got. It's their arsenal.
You can beat them up and down the threads (or debate stage) but they keep coming back with comments saturated with cum and gerbils. Pathetic. Sure it is. It isn't even close to being effective. It plays to Jerry Springer's audience rather than Springer himself or any kind of historical record. How do you respond to that? You don't. I don't, not on Topix. At least not in the manner they expect.
You are expected to respond in kind- unkind really. Hegel and I are feared and loathed on Topix because we refuse to play by the Troll Rules. This deeply offends and frustrates them. We know that. We are better than these people whether we post or not because we simply are, and because we don't play by their rules.
They love posters like Harley Honey because she is the mirror image of them. She is at home in the gutter with Carla, Bex, Beth and Jane. They need her for that purpose. Hegel and I don't do that. We are both IP-banned from Topix because of that.Try linking this blog on Topix. It cannot be done. It's someone at Topix' way of shutting us down as a way of punishing us for not playing by the rules made via them by the trolls. Obviously we have ways around that. Rebels always find a way.
One of the myriad of things that irks me about this election is that the media keeps hyping the sameness of despicability of the two candidates. They have a bad habit of- allegedly in the interest of fairness- of painting each candidate with the same brush. That's why when Trump gets caught admitting to grabbing pussies, Bill Clinton's affairs with grown, consenting women are equated. They aren't equitable. One is sexual assault and the other is sex. The first was committed by a candidate, the latter a matter of lust by a candidate's spouse. It's apples and pumpkins. How can anyone possibly equate her "basket of deplorables" comment as the same as his horrible comments about women? And then extrapolate his comments about women as equal to her condemnation of her husband's past liaisons? It boggles thinking minds.
It's what Hillary is up against though. They go low, she goes high. She stays out of the gutter but, because her opponent is in the gutter, slow-witted people believe her to be there too. A greedy media perpetuates that for fun and profit. The takeaway tends to be that she is awful because her detractors are awful. Same with me. Ferrerman must be awful because- just look at the awful people who hate him!
Yep. A small basket of deplorables there. A specimen cups worth maybe. But, Ferrerman didn't create the sample. It was like that when I got there.
Been there, done that. Didn't get the t-shirt.
Ever argue with a drunk? You know how futile it is. Empowered by alcohol,they are invincible. They are devoid of logic. They'll whip your ass! Call the cops! They'll whip them too! That was last night's debate.
I've said for months now that Donald Trump is the comments of several hundred sites on the internet- not just Breitbart or any of the obvious, usual suspects. Kinda Topixy, really, like if Denny Crain were running for president. For the uninitiated, Crain is an imaginary person on Topix who is well known for his gullibility and regurgitation of reichwing talking points and *info* as fact. So too is Donald Trump.
The absolute low-light of the debate might have been Trump's assertion that, as president, he would jail her. There were so many to choose from but, that third world threat was the pick of the trash pile. Jailing Hillary is a common wet dream on the 'net. I don't think any politician has been as thoroughly investigated as her and, of course, she has never been indicted for anything. Of course, no indictments means she is guilty to the internet brain trust of deplorables. They might acquiesce to a special prosecutor for bread and circuses but, they just want her taken out back by the Emperor...and then buried under the jail. A legislative lynching.
I thought Hillary did well. She did her best to not get dragged into the gutter by this idiot. I know the drill all too well. Dedicated non-readers know the assholes I've been up against. You can be brilliant, charming and witty as a Ferreman but some piece of shit will counter with a slur or an obscure song. That's all they've got. It's their arsenal.
You can beat them up and down the threads (or debate stage) but they keep coming back with comments saturated with cum and gerbils. Pathetic. Sure it is. It isn't even close to being effective. It plays to Jerry Springer's audience rather than Springer himself or any kind of historical record. How do you respond to that? You don't. I don't, not on Topix. At least not in the manner they expect.
You are expected to respond in kind- unkind really. Hegel and I are feared and loathed on Topix because we refuse to play by the Troll Rules. This deeply offends and frustrates them. We know that. We are better than these people whether we post or not because we simply are, and because we don't play by their rules.
They love posters like Harley Honey because she is the mirror image of them. She is at home in the gutter with Carla, Bex, Beth and Jane. They need her for that purpose. Hegel and I don't do that. We are both IP-banned from Topix because of that.Try linking this blog on Topix. It cannot be done. It's someone at Topix' way of shutting us down as a way of punishing us for not playing by the rules made via them by the trolls. Obviously we have ways around that. Rebels always find a way.
One of the myriad of things that irks me about this election is that the media keeps hyping the sameness of despicability of the two candidates. They have a bad habit of- allegedly in the interest of fairness- of painting each candidate with the same brush. That's why when Trump gets caught admitting to grabbing pussies, Bill Clinton's affairs with grown, consenting women are equated. They aren't equitable. One is sexual assault and the other is sex. The first was committed by a candidate, the latter a matter of lust by a candidate's spouse. It's apples and pumpkins. How can anyone possibly equate her "basket of deplorables" comment as the same as his horrible comments about women? And then extrapolate his comments about women as equal to her condemnation of her husband's past liaisons? It boggles thinking minds.
It's what Hillary is up against though. They go low, she goes high. She stays out of the gutter but, because her opponent is in the gutter, slow-witted people believe her to be there too. A greedy media perpetuates that for fun and profit. The takeaway tends to be that she is awful because her detractors are awful. Same with me. Ferrerman must be awful because- just look at the awful people who hate him!
Yep. A small basket of deplorables there. A specimen cups worth maybe. But, Ferrerman didn't create the sample. It was like that when I got there.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Wild Cards
For the most part I watched the debate between the Baltimore Orioles and the Toronto Blue Jays. There was more at stake in that contest than the VP debate. The beauty of baseball is that you never know what will happen next. Politics is mostly about what happened and about denying what happened than what will happen. Baseball is about anticipation. Politics is regret.
What I did see of the debate was the bench players, Kaine and Pence, speaking for the starters. Well, Kaine did anyway. He did his best to promote Hillary Clinton while Pence did his best to distance himself from Trump. Does he even know the guy? Has he paid any attention to the crazy things Trump says? Evidently not. He acted like he was hearing this stuff for the first time.
Some pundits think Pence was laying the groundwork for his own run for the presidency in 2020. I don't think he's that smart. That's certainly a long shot this early in that season. He may be smart enough to know they'll likely lose and that that would be better for him. If Pence were to break from Trump in the next election after having been his VP, he'd be out before you could say "Tim Pawlenty". I mean, that's assuming we still have a country after a Trump presidency. What republican could hope to win after a Trump presidency? Look how hopeless it was for McCain after eight years of GW. Four years of Obama didn't help Romney.
By all rights of past being prologue, after a pretty good two term fix by a democrat, the nation could be saying that it was safe enough to let a republican in The White House. However, the nation learned a harsh lesson about that in 2000. No one knew how awful Bush/Cheney would be but, people had a suspicion and Bush did not get the popular vote of the people. As you might recall, he was appointed by the Supreme's. Obama did great but he did not republican-proof the WH. Well, we thought Bill Clinton did but, look what happened. Those people get more incorrigible by the day. They don't draft well after they lose, as most teams do in baseball.
Bush taught us too that Vice Presidents do count. They used to be throwaways until Cheney happened. There is a school of thought that Mike Pence would handle the nuts and bolts of the presidency like Cheney did, while Trump would handle the Twitter. I say this because Trump's kids offered that very circumstance to John Kasich but, he turned them down. If you know anything about Trump, you must know that he doesn't want to be bothered with the commitment that is the presidency. He just wants to win so he can say he won. People in the basket of deplorables don't get that.
You pick a decent VP who can step in should you die or become incapacitated in office. Or, as in Trump's case, you get indicted. (I'm not a member of the media so I don't have to perfunctorily say that the same could be the case for HRC. These fuckheads have been trying to make a case against Hillary for 30+ years. It's not gonna happen while she's in the White House.)
Pence might just be the guy the GOP wanted but was too afraid to run. I'd watch what I eat if I were a President Trump. Pence would do as he's told. Trump won't. I think that's quite evident to the republicans. You just never know what mischief those people have in mind.
Blue Jays won, by the way. Who knows why the Orioles didn't use Zach Britton?Still a long way to go.
What I did see of the debate was the bench players, Kaine and Pence, speaking for the starters. Well, Kaine did anyway. He did his best to promote Hillary Clinton while Pence did his best to distance himself from Trump. Does he even know the guy? Has he paid any attention to the crazy things Trump says? Evidently not. He acted like he was hearing this stuff for the first time.
Some pundits think Pence was laying the groundwork for his own run for the presidency in 2020. I don't think he's that smart. That's certainly a long shot this early in that season. He may be smart enough to know they'll likely lose and that that would be better for him. If Pence were to break from Trump in the next election after having been his VP, he'd be out before you could say "Tim Pawlenty". I mean, that's assuming we still have a country after a Trump presidency. What republican could hope to win after a Trump presidency? Look how hopeless it was for McCain after eight years of GW. Four years of Obama didn't help Romney.
By all rights of past being prologue, after a pretty good two term fix by a democrat, the nation could be saying that it was safe enough to let a republican in The White House. However, the nation learned a harsh lesson about that in 2000. No one knew how awful Bush/Cheney would be but, people had a suspicion and Bush did not get the popular vote of the people. As you might recall, he was appointed by the Supreme's. Obama did great but he did not republican-proof the WH. Well, we thought Bill Clinton did but, look what happened. Those people get more incorrigible by the day. They don't draft well after they lose, as most teams do in baseball.
Bush taught us too that Vice Presidents do count. They used to be throwaways until Cheney happened. There is a school of thought that Mike Pence would handle the nuts and bolts of the presidency like Cheney did, while Trump would handle the Twitter. I say this because Trump's kids offered that very circumstance to John Kasich but, he turned them down. If you know anything about Trump, you must know that he doesn't want to be bothered with the commitment that is the presidency. He just wants to win so he can say he won. People in the basket of deplorables don't get that.
You pick a decent VP who can step in should you die or become incapacitated in office. Or, as in Trump's case, you get indicted. (I'm not a member of the media so I don't have to perfunctorily say that the same could be the case for HRC. These fuckheads have been trying to make a case against Hillary for 30+ years. It's not gonna happen while she's in the White House.)
Pence might just be the guy the GOP wanted but was too afraid to run. I'd watch what I eat if I were a President Trump. Pence would do as he's told. Trump won't. I think that's quite evident to the republicans. You just never know what mischief those people have in mind.
Blue Jays won, by the way. Who knows why the Orioles didn't use Zach Britton?Still a long way to go.
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
In Defense Of Adultery
Marital Arts experts, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, are all over television talking about how wrong it was for Hillary Clinton to have had an adulterous husband. Yeah... what was she thinking? Add in their candidate, Donald Trump- who feels the same way- and you've got three adulterous husbands with nine marriages between them. That's three apiece, if you're scoring at home, which all of these guys were apparently doing, by the way. Say what you will about Bill and Hillary, they have been married- to each other- for 42 years. For the other three, the art of marriage is quite a bit more abstract. Art is soooo subjective.
Each one of the three committed adultery multiple times. This should preclude them from criticizing anyone but, their own indiscretions have been overlooked by them. Rudy says he's Roman Catholic and has been forgiven for his sins via confession to a priest and besides "everyone cheats". Oh. If only that cleared that up. It doesn't.
Newt served a cancer-ridden wife with divorce papers while she lay on a hospital bed. Trump has auditioned two wives for the unreality show that is his life while married to others. Rudy had one move into his house, I guess to encourage the then-wife to leave. These guys have no shame in their game.
Nor are they the least bit ashamed to publicly stone Hillary for her treatment of the women who transgressed with her husband. They cite her contempt for those tramps as being her contempt for all women. She's been a champion of women all her life. Just not a handful of women who slept with her husband. Go and figure!
Well, that is what those three Marital Arts champions have done. Forget Trump's affairs. Forget his long, public feud with Rosie O'Donnell. Forget his fat-shaming of Miss Universe 1996, Alicia Machado and thousands of random comments about random women over the years for being "fat" or "ugly" or "not a ten (because they are flat-chested)". Turns out it is Hillary who is bad for negatively portraying her husband's willing conquests! There's no word on whether the terrible trio's wives had anything but praise for the women their men cheated with. Maybe they thanked them?
It's hard to see what the bottom line is in this ridiculous election because every time you think the republicans have bottomed out, they find a way to go lower.
Adultery is as old as the hills in politics but divorce used to be an eliminator for anyone seeking the presidency. Only Ronald Reagan comes to mind as a president/candidate who had a divorce on his marital record. Today, evangelical Christians overlook Trump's marriages just like fiscal conservatives overlook his bankruptcies. It's a cost of doing business, I guess. It's rare to have success without some failure and, if you're going to win big, you're risking losing big. I guess that is what they are thinking. The evangelicals are not really saying much about it at all. That's why we get the Marital Triad of Newt, Rudy and the Trump himself condemning Hillary and Bill for- I don't know- staying together? My God- who does that?!
Divorces and multiple marriages would seem to be a *good thing* in the Family Values Party, at least for now. Evidently working things out is not an option with them. Just repeal and replace.
Each one of the three committed adultery multiple times. This should preclude them from criticizing anyone but, their own indiscretions have been overlooked by them. Rudy says he's Roman Catholic and has been forgiven for his sins via confession to a priest and besides "everyone cheats". Oh. If only that cleared that up. It doesn't.
Newt served a cancer-ridden wife with divorce papers while she lay on a hospital bed. Trump has auditioned two wives for the unreality show that is his life while married to others. Rudy had one move into his house, I guess to encourage the then-wife to leave. These guys have no shame in their game.
Nor are they the least bit ashamed to publicly stone Hillary for her treatment of the women who transgressed with her husband. They cite her contempt for those tramps as being her contempt for all women. She's been a champion of women all her life. Just not a handful of women who slept with her husband. Go and figure!
Well, that is what those three Marital Arts champions have done. Forget Trump's affairs. Forget his long, public feud with Rosie O'Donnell. Forget his fat-shaming of Miss Universe 1996, Alicia Machado and thousands of random comments about random women over the years for being "fat" or "ugly" or "not a ten (because they are flat-chested)". Turns out it is Hillary who is bad for negatively portraying her husband's willing conquests! There's no word on whether the terrible trio's wives had anything but praise for the women their men cheated with. Maybe they thanked them?
It's hard to see what the bottom line is in this ridiculous election because every time you think the republicans have bottomed out, they find a way to go lower.
Adultery is as old as the hills in politics but divorce used to be an eliminator for anyone seeking the presidency. Only Ronald Reagan comes to mind as a president/candidate who had a divorce on his marital record. Today, evangelical Christians overlook Trump's marriages just like fiscal conservatives overlook his bankruptcies. It's a cost of doing business, I guess. It's rare to have success without some failure and, if you're going to win big, you're risking losing big. I guess that is what they are thinking. The evangelicals are not really saying much about it at all. That's why we get the Marital Triad of Newt, Rudy and the Trump himself condemning Hillary and Bill for- I don't know- staying together? My God- who does that?!
Divorces and multiple marriages would seem to be a *good thing* in the Family Values Party, at least for now. Evidently working things out is not an option with them. Just repeal and replace.
Monday, October 3, 2016
GENIUS!
The NY Times reports that Donald Trump likely paid zero taxes for as long as eighteen years. No cheating- he was able to pull this off because he was smart enough (I gather...) to lose more than $900 million dollars in a single year. He took advantage of the rules. Who does that?
Welfare recipients, that's who. Welfare is perfectly legal and millions of Americans ingeniously take advantage of it every year. Who could find fault in anyone who so wisely takes legal advantage of the system?
Republicans, that's who. It's genius for an alleged billionaire to game the system and pay no taxes but, criminal when poor people take advantage a pittance of money, just to survive.
We do love people who steal big. Finance your lifestyle with a bogus charity or play legal hardball with people who do work for you but you don't want to pay- as Trump does- and you are a genius. Steal a loaf of bread to feed your family- you go to jail! You can steal more with a pen than you can with a gun. America respects that. So many of us root for the gangsters. Bonnie and Clyde cinematic-ally at least, were heroes for robbing banks. In reality though, they mostly robbed the mom and pop grocery stores of the day. Their press got better in later years.
Trump complains about our crumbling infrastructure. Well, our race to the bottom of infrastructure begins with a congress unwilling to spend money on roads, bridges and the like because it does them no personal good and, in the case of the last eight years, could make a certain black, democrat president look good. Who the hell thinks like that?
Republicans, that's who. Not doing stuff is perfectly understood by many in the electorate. You cut welfare because that's how your team wins. You don't fix roads and bridges to win too. Same goes for USSC justices. You don't allow him to pick one because he'll pick a winner that won't overturn Roe v. Wade, the ACA and the 14th Amendment.
Politics is a team sport and your team has to take advantage of everything they can to win. But, just as important, is the other team losing. It no longer matters what is best for the country and that is so clear this season. People actually believe that a candidate who refuses to release his tax returns- likely because he paid no taxes for close to two decades- is a genius for not doing that, especially if it's true.
Taxes paid by an (alleged) billionaire like Trump could have prevented that bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007. It could have repaved untold miles of streets and highways or levees in New Orleans. But, no. Trump is like a bizarro Oskar Schindler putting on an expensive watch, marveling at the tragedy that enabled him to buy it. And that makes him a "genius"?
Welfare recipients, that's who. Welfare is perfectly legal and millions of Americans ingeniously take advantage of it every year. Who could find fault in anyone who so wisely takes legal advantage of the system?
Republicans, that's who. It's genius for an alleged billionaire to game the system and pay no taxes but, criminal when poor people take advantage a pittance of money, just to survive.
We do love people who steal big. Finance your lifestyle with a bogus charity or play legal hardball with people who do work for you but you don't want to pay- as Trump does- and you are a genius. Steal a loaf of bread to feed your family- you go to jail! You can steal more with a pen than you can with a gun. America respects that. So many of us root for the gangsters. Bonnie and Clyde cinematic-ally at least, were heroes for robbing banks. In reality though, they mostly robbed the mom and pop grocery stores of the day. Their press got better in later years.
Trump complains about our crumbling infrastructure. Well, our race to the bottom of infrastructure begins with a congress unwilling to spend money on roads, bridges and the like because it does them no personal good and, in the case of the last eight years, could make a certain black, democrat president look good. Who the hell thinks like that?
Republicans, that's who. Not doing stuff is perfectly understood by many in the electorate. You cut welfare because that's how your team wins. You don't fix roads and bridges to win too. Same goes for USSC justices. You don't allow him to pick one because he'll pick a winner that won't overturn Roe v. Wade, the ACA and the 14th Amendment.
Politics is a team sport and your team has to take advantage of everything they can to win. But, just as important, is the other team losing. It no longer matters what is best for the country and that is so clear this season. People actually believe that a candidate who refuses to release his tax returns- likely because he paid no taxes for close to two decades- is a genius for not doing that, especially if it's true.
Taxes paid by an (alleged) billionaire like Trump could have prevented that bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007. It could have repaved untold miles of streets and highways or levees in New Orleans. But, no. Trump is like a bizarro Oskar Schindler putting on an expensive watch, marveling at the tragedy that enabled him to buy it. And that makes him a "genius"?
NO FAT CHICKS!
"No fat chicks!"
~ Homer J. Trump
Of all the insanity of this election, Trump doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on his ill treatment of former Miss Universe, Alicia Machado is perhaps the most puzzling. It strikes me as more of Trump's (perceived) "tell it like it is/blunt *honesty*" persona that idiots admire so much.
Republicans have long been leading up to this though. What is condemnation of political correctness but a backlash by assholes against common decency? They are once again trying normalize their assholiness.
Yet Hillary's assertion that half of his supporters belong in a "basket of deplorables" is seen by them as "offensive"? That was extremely tame (but honest!) on her part. Anyone offended by that, basks in the basket of deplorability.
But, what about spankability? More precisely, the once upon a time, robust spankability of a former Miss Universe? Alicia Machado is lovely by any tip of the scale.
It's interesting that one of the angles of the oh-so-republican attack is from the oh-so-republican angle of business because, as pedestrians have noted, there was a weight clause in her contract. There you go. It was legal. I've seen the same defense with slavery before. Forget morality. Forget right or wrong. It was "legal". You gotta read that fine print when you sign.
True. But, have you fully read your iTunes agreement or anything else you have signed off on internet-wise? Whether you did read or not, you owe iTunes your first born child. Look it up! You signed it!
That aside, she signed nothing saying Trump could drag her body through the mud, years later. The asshole chose that tact himself. Hillary helped by mentioning it in the debate but Trump and his apologists opted to bring their supply of shovels. It was a brilliant move on Hillary's part. She baited him but it either takes off like this or it's ignored. It worked. It dovetailed nicely with her current commercial of all the other horrible things Trump has said about women and (as per the commercial) and how it pertains to women of all ages. The guy is a fucking pig. There's no doubt about it. They counter that Hillary is worse but, the only bad things she has to say about women were about the tramps who slept with her husband. What would you expect from a spurned wife- sisterhood?!
Beauty is subjective. I can assure you that millions of men prefer full-figured women. But, this isn't really about that. As all things in life these days, it's all about Trump and how he feels picked on because Hillary and the media won't stop him from digging all these holes for himself.
Trump isn't funny anymore. He hasn't been funny for awhile. I personally do not know anyone who supports him. The closest you get is people who are just so anti-Hillary that they seem to be supporting Trump. When pressed though, they won't commit to voting for Trump. That basket of deplorables might be bigger than polls suggest. You toss in people who know Trump is a deplorable, incompetent candidate but they hate Hillary for generic, unsubstantiated reasons, and that certainly is a recipe for political catastrophe, right here in the United States.
Frightening. A major party candidate spends part of a debate and then five days attacking a woman who was Miss Universe twenty years ago, for her past weight gain. A nation that is already dangerously obese supports that. Incredible! And, on top of that, he and they want to take away health care from millions of Americans and replace it with nothing. That's not healthy for America.
~ Homer J. Trump
Of all the insanity of this election, Trump doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on his ill treatment of former Miss Universe, Alicia Machado is perhaps the most puzzling. It strikes me as more of Trump's (perceived) "tell it like it is/blunt *honesty*" persona that idiots admire so much.
Republicans have long been leading up to this though. What is condemnation of political correctness but a backlash by assholes against common decency? They are once again trying normalize their assholiness.
Yet Hillary's assertion that half of his supporters belong in a "basket of deplorables" is seen by them as "offensive"? That was extremely tame (but honest!) on her part. Anyone offended by that, basks in the basket of deplorability.
But, what about spankability? More precisely, the once upon a time, robust spankability of a former Miss Universe? Alicia Machado is lovely by any tip of the scale.
It's interesting that one of the angles of the oh-so-republican attack is from the oh-so-republican angle of business because, as pedestrians have noted, there was a weight clause in her contract. There you go. It was legal. I've seen the same defense with slavery before. Forget morality. Forget right or wrong. It was "legal". You gotta read that fine print when you sign.
True. But, have you fully read your iTunes agreement or anything else you have signed off on internet-wise? Whether you did read or not, you owe iTunes your first born child. Look it up! You signed it!
That aside, she signed nothing saying Trump could drag her body through the mud, years later. The asshole chose that tact himself. Hillary helped by mentioning it in the debate but Trump and his apologists opted to bring their supply of shovels. It was a brilliant move on Hillary's part. She baited him but it either takes off like this or it's ignored. It worked. It dovetailed nicely with her current commercial of all the other horrible things Trump has said about women and (as per the commercial) and how it pertains to women of all ages. The guy is a fucking pig. There's no doubt about it. They counter that Hillary is worse but, the only bad things she has to say about women were about the tramps who slept with her husband. What would you expect from a spurned wife- sisterhood?!
Beauty is subjective. I can assure you that millions of men prefer full-figured women. But, this isn't really about that. As all things in life these days, it's all about Trump and how he feels picked on because Hillary and the media won't stop him from digging all these holes for himself.
Trump isn't funny anymore. He hasn't been funny for awhile. I personally do not know anyone who supports him. The closest you get is people who are just so anti-Hillary that they seem to be supporting Trump. When pressed though, they won't commit to voting for Trump. That basket of deplorables might be bigger than polls suggest. You toss in people who know Trump is a deplorable, incompetent candidate but they hate Hillary for generic, unsubstantiated reasons, and that certainly is a recipe for political catastrophe, right here in the United States.
Frightening. A major party candidate spends part of a debate and then five days attacking a woman who was Miss Universe twenty years ago, for her past weight gain. A nation that is already dangerously obese supports that. Incredible! And, on top of that, he and they want to take away health care from millions of Americans and replace it with nothing. That's not healthy for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)