A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[Seriati]

I despise weather reporting.  Anything that sensationalizes something that should be purely informative is gross.  My wife on the other hand loves it, so we "compromise" and watch it all day whenever a storm is coming.  At least at this point, I've worn off enough on her that she enjoys mocking it.

I find it totally despicable that they rush to the path of the storm to get "award winning" shots, which often as not are faked.  I mean standing in a pothole in waders?  Holding yourself upright against storm force winds while kids in shorts cross the screen calmly behind you.

But the worst, is the abject disappointment on their faces and in their coverage when they get there too soon and the storm stalls.  It's clear they want it to hit, and want it to kill and destroy, and that's just such a warped thing that it should be criminal.

In any event, I hope we already have plans in place to send help down to the Bahamas, can't imagine what it's really like to have a Cat 3-5 park itself on top of you for days.

[Grant]

I despise weather reporting. 

2/24/15

A STATEMENT FROM DONALD TRUMP, CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT OF TRUMP ORGANIZATION

The evening news broadcasts must stop talking about weather—boring and too many other topics.

[D.W.]

^  Primary reason the Area 51 raid sounds super lame.

I thought the reason it was super lame was getting shot and dying for no reason in the Nevada desert.

That's what I mean.    The "no reason" part.

[Wayward Son]

"In addition to Florida - South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever. Already category 5. BE CAREFUL! GOD BLESS EVERYONE!"

And this is how pathetic Trump is in defending his tweets.

He spent time on Wednesday to make a video to show how the National Hurricane Center predicted hurricane Dorian might affect Alabama.  And how did he do it?  He took one of their maps of the hurricane's possible path and extended the forecast with a sharpie pen. 

"The President of the United States altered a National Hurricane Center map with a sharpie to falsely extend the official forecast toward Alabama so he didn't have to admit he was wrong in a tweet," noted weather writer Dennis Mersereau, who captured the screenshot of Trump's alteration.

With all the troubles in the world, with him cancelling his trip to Poland to oversee hurricane Dorian's progress, this is what he wastes his time on.  He has people set up video equipment, print out a map, and mark it up so it says something it didn't, just to avoid having to say, "Sorry, I misinterpreted what the forecasts were saying and how likely it was for Alabama to be affected."  This is how petty the President of the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, is.

This is the current face of the Republican Party.

[TheDrake]

1. The media is making a big deal over nothing, it really doesn't matter if he said Alabama or not.
2. The map was digitally altered by the corrupt main stream media propaganda.
3. The map was altered by Obama appointees to make Trump look bad.
4. We should really be worried about more important things like illegal immigration.

[rightleft22]

Don't forget
5. It doesn't matter what he says only what he does... (Hate that one – begs to many question of ethics, morals, character… for  both the supporter and leader)

[scifibum]

It would be really easy to avoid the media circus on this kind of gaffe if Trump was able to admit error. He's not, and he keeps it alive by making it too ridiculous to ignore.

[TheDrake]

But it does divide the attention away from the redirection of military construction funds, at least a little.

[rightleft22]

he keeps it alive by making it too ridiculous to ignore.

All part of the game. I've been much happier seeing it for what it is and not playing.

His followers will eventually see him for what he is and represents or they won't... or maybe I'll see him differently someday, or won't... probably not. Its a philosophical character issue for me and I don't see who he is as a person changing.

[DJQuag]

he keeps it alive by making it too ridiculous to ignore.

All part of the game. I've been much happier seeing it for what it is and not playing.

His followers will eventually see him for what he is and represents or they won't... or maybe I'll see him differently someday, or won't... probably not. Its a philosophical character issue for me and I don't see who he is as a person changing.

Lol. We have a fine example of the most intelligent and educated Trumptards posting right here on this board. They've made it clear they'll never admit he can do wrong, you think the average person is going to?

DJQuag: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[JoshuaD]

At a minimum, for those of us who refuse to engage with twitter, its an informative read.

How so?

I understand Grant's postings to be a criticism and I trust that he's not doctoring the messages.  He's also not surrounding the posts with noisy commentary. 

Given those things, I'm relatively confident that Grant is compiling a list of the most offensive, inarticulate, or stupid things Trump has said on twitter. 

It's informative to me because it provides me with a "bottom floor" for the things Trump said on Twitter. After reading this thread, I can be relatively confident that Trump hasn't said anything worse on that platform than what Grant highlighted.

[rightleft22]

you think the average person is going to?

I don't think anyone that participates in the social media quagmire will change.
I am reassured though that their is a growing number people dropping the labels right or left and who see social media 'dialog' for what it is.

[Seriati]

I understand Grant's postings to be a criticism and I trust that he's not doctoring the messages.  He's also not surrounding the posts with noisy commentary. 

Given those things, I'm relatively confident that Grant is compiling a list of the most offensive, inarticulate, or stupid things Trump has said on twitter.

To be fair to Grant, I'm guessing you have no conception of the volume of Trump tweets involved.  I doubt he's really grabbing the "most" offensive or stupid things.  I think at this point we all understand that Trump's going to post things that have phone correction errors, and that they're posted will little to no reflection.  Some are just stupid, some are reactions to an instant event or report that shouldn't have been reacted, and some are just mean to or about people in ways that violate our social norms.

And while I think everyone would be happier if his tweets weren't that way, to my view that would just leave the media uncontested when they pass along nonsense and decide to misinform. 

It's informative to me because it provides me with a "bottom floor" for the things Trump said on Twitter. After reading this thread, I can be relatively confident that Trump hasn't said anything worse on that platform than what Grant highlighted.

I seriously doubt that.  But what's interesting to me about Trump is how unfiltered he is.  Do you honestly believe that the politicians who you don't hear from have never said anything questionable?  I don't one person - in the whole world - hard left or right, that I've talked to in depth who hasn't said something that's cringeworthy or intolerant.

And to the Mod, while I'd prefer that DJQuag didn't include the insults, the sentiment he's expressing doesn't bother me, at least.  Lot's of people have strong feelings and thoughts, to the point that they skip over things that contradict them (like the idea I've never criticized Trump or said he's wrong about something).

[rightleft22]

Do you honestly believe that the politicians who you don't hear from have never said anything questionable?

Of course not. However I don't think that is a argument for accepting or disregarding such unfiltered comments.
 

[yossarian22c]

Looks like Trump may have tweeted out a classified image from a spy satellite. Whoops.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/02/756673481/amateurs-identify-u-s-spy-satellite-behind-president-trumps-tweet

Do people care that Trump revealed the capabilities of our spy satellites simply to troll the Iranians? Just curious, seems like a poor choice. Or is it so far down on the list of Trump twitter mistakes that no one really cares.

[D.W.]

The only extent that I care about that is the thoughtlessness it demonstrates.  While we do suffer from an excess of bureaucracy and over-classification, SOME of those rules exist for a reason.  A lower or mid level official making those mistakes is one thing but as you get higher up the chain of command, one would hope, the care one shows for those procedures would increase.  (But as we saw with H.C. on the other side, that obviously is not the case.)

It, appears (likely only bias), that because it wasn't important to him, the rules didn't apply. 

Beyond that, showing off how good our imagery imaging? is I think is fine or even a good thing.  We ARE watching.  Paranoia costs them more resources. 

[JoshuaD]

It's informative to me because it provides me with a "bottom floor" for the things Trump said on Twitter. After reading this thread, I can be relatively confident that Trump hasn't said anything worse on that platform than what Grant highlighted.

I seriously doubt that.  But what's interesting to me about Trump is how unfiltered he is.  Do you honestly believe that the politicians who you don't hear from have never said anything questionable?  I don't one person - in the whole world - hard left or right, that I've talked to in depth who hasn't said something that's cringeworthy or intolerant.

Sure, there's an error bar. That's fine. This list of naked tweets is probably a lot more informative than whatever news site's 20 paragraph article on Trump or Trump's latest tweets.

But what's interesting to me about Trump is how unfiltered he is.

I don't tend to see this as a virtue. I think it's good that our Presidents have historically been relatively careful with their public speech.

Our level of dialog has dropped off the face of the earth. Between Trump, the news networks, the clickbait news headlines, the advent of social media, and whatever else, things are particularly ugly right now.  I don't put all of that on Trump, but Trump is contributing to it.  We can and should demand better from all of them.

[rightleft22]

To be balanced I'm also disappointed the Biden does not take ownership of his gaffs
IMO it should be fine to admit you messed up details but the defense that the its intent of the statement is that matters is troubling especially if your going up against a man like Trump.

If your going to use a story to make a point make sure you know your details and if you don't don't use the story.
And if you mess it up, admit it and move on.

[JoshuaD]

There is something very admirable in the way that Trump was able to power through the media trying to take him down, and they definitely did try to take him down.

I look at Romney in 2012 with the completely fabricated "binders full of women" gaff and I wish that Romney would have had a little bit of that teflon in him. 

It's weird. It's hard to see how to do that while at the same time having some sense of decency and restraint.  Trump's unfiltered approach was pretty key to him being able to power through those attacks.

---

I watched a video recently where someone talked about how Nazi Germany was a cooperative effort between Hitler and the crowd, and how he would say things in his speeches and then adjust his rhetoric based on the reactions.  Putting aside the genocidal results of what Hitler and Germany did -- I am not comparing Trump to Hitler in that way -- it does seem that Trump uses his political rallies and twitter in that way. He is testing out ideas, measuring the popular support for idea, probably getting some ideas from the crowd, and seeing what messaging works.

If you're a believer in the value of democracy, our leaders could do worse.

[JoshuaD]

I'm a big fan of Leonard Cohen. His 1992 album -- The Future -- is proving to be more and more prophetic as time goes on. Here are some lyrics from his song "Democracy".

Youtube link.
Full lyrics link.

It's coming to America first
The cradle of the best and of the worst
It's here they got the range
And the machinery for change
And it's here they got the spiritual thirst
It's here the family's broken
And it's here the lonely say
That the heart has got to open
In a fundamental way
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A

The origin of these verses, as I understand it, is that Cohen heard someone comment "Democracy is coming" soon after the Berlin wall fell.  He got stuck on that idea and came to the conclusion that democracy was coming to the world, but it was going to come to America first, because it hadn't really arrived yet. 

I think he was basically right. The stuff we're seeing with the breakdown of the traditional media, the rise of Obama and then Trump, social media, and all of it seems to be the rise of democracy in a way.

[JoshuaD]

Another excerpt from a different song from that album.  Similarly insightful, IMO.

Youtube link.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said repent
I wonder what they meant

There'll be the breaking of the ancient
western code
Your private life will suddenly explode
There'll be phantoms
There'll be fires on the road
and the white man dancing
You'll see a woman
hanging upside down
her features covered by her fallen gown
and all the lousy little poets
coming round
tryin' to sound like Charlie Manson
and the white man dancin'

Give me back the Berlin wall
Give me Stalin and St Paul
Give me Christ
or give me Hiroshima
Destroy another fetus now
We don't like children anyhow
I've seen the future, baby:
it is murder

[rightleft22]

It's weird. It's hard to see how to do that while at the same time having some sense of decency and restraint.  Trump's unfiltered approach was pretty key to him being able to power through those attacks.

No one else in american politics would get away with what Trump gets away with. Through out history there has been only a few that carry off some type of narcissistic rhetoric that have people asking for it.

In general they don't end well...

[Seriati]

I seriously doubt that.  But what's interesting to me about Trump is how unfiltered he is.  Do you honestly believe that the politicians who you don't hear from have never said anything questionable?  I don't one person - in the whole world - hard left or right, that I've talked to in depth who hasn't said something that's cringeworthy or intolerant.

Sure, there's an error bar. That's fine. This list of naked tweets is probably a lot more informative than whatever news site's 20 paragraph article on Trump or Trump's latest tweets.

My twitter account has been off for a while, but I was following Trump before, you really can't understand just how much he tweets if you don't follow him.  Try it for a week, it's beyond stunning.  You also really can't understand how maliciously what he tweets gets covered in the media if you don't see the raw feed and then the coverage. 

I think you may have missed my point, everyone has beliefs that are repugnant to other people, I'd be willing to be that it's hard to find any two people where they don't have a directly conflicting belief about something that the other would find repugnant.  I can remember two guys I worked with (in my blue collar days), who were the best of friends for years, until the day one of them let us know that he deliberately runs over animals on occasion.  We all found that repugnant and this is in group where everyone but me is a hunter, and we all fish - which means we've engaged in certain cruelities (like cutting worms) for our own ultimate enjoyment, but that was seriously a sick comment.  For most of the group, it pretty much cut our view of the guy and caused us to challenge him on it repeatedly, but for this one guy it was like a death sentence.  He refused to work with on any site ever again and tried to get him fired.
 
That's an obviously loaded example.  But you can see hidden and horribly beliefs anytime you follow a local zoning fight, particularly over low income development, or a NIMBY fight.  Like I said before, the people in my town won't even allow a public pool cause  the un-desirables in the next town (which is heavily of a different race) would come to use it, even though they're hard left "anti-racists" if you look at their social media feeds and hate Trump's "clear" racism.

But what's interesting to me about Trump is how unfiltered he is.

I don't tend to see this as a virtue. I think it's good that our Presidents have historically been relatively careful with their public speech.

I don't see it as a virtue, I see it in the same way I see Real Politik, it's a despicable practice but it may actually be the only answer.   Only his level of transparency and tweets has let him combat a hostile media with a much larger platform.  Only his absolutely unfiltered approach, repeatedly demonstrated and with repeated gaffes and statements that one would expect to destroy a politician, provides him with protection against the consequences of those gaffes.  By that I mean specifically, Howard Dean destroyed his candidacy for President with a single scream on stage, Trump can openly say things that offend a majority of Americans and continue on. 

It's not that we don't care, it's not that we agree, it's just that its so open and there's so much of it, you can actually see a bigger picture.  When he makes a statement about criminals coming across the Southern Border, you can put that in the context of hundreds of other things he's said on the Southern Border, you can put it in the context that the media deliberately leaves out (e.g., the media claiming he said it about all border crossers, when you can see that he specifically did not, or that he called all brown people animimals when it was a direct statement about MS-13).  And you can see WHY they are misrepresenting it in the context of a policy debate.  The media has for years labelled Republicans as a "racist" or some other blacklisted person and ignored the bigger policy point, but Trump's the first time you see someone fighting back.

Our level of dialog has dropped off the face of the earth. Between Trump, the news networks, the clickbait news headlines, the advent of social media, and whatever else, things are particularly ugly right now.  I don't put all of that on Trump, but Trump is contributing to it.  We can and should demand better from all of them.

It has dropped.  Ask yourself the last time you saw the left explain a position on a complicated position, that didn't drop down to Trump bad or Republicans are "-ists".

[ScottF]

The media has for years labelled Republicans as a "racist" or some other blacklisted person and ignored the bigger policy point, but Trump's the first time you see someone fighting back.

And he fights back in a way that is hyper-triggering to most of the media. It's so irregular and unprecedented that they can't process form from function on virtually everything he says. So to your point, Seriati, they're incapable of deciphering the tripe he posts (which is voluminous) from truly consequential and impactful things.

I'm certain the reflex from some hearing this would be "he's never posted anything consequential or impactful".

[D.W.]

It's far more simple than that.  We have a national shared image of what is "Presidential".  Or we did until recently.  I don't know if his immediate predecessor being a black man broke that for many or not, but Trump is counter to the imaginary / hypothetical picture we (as a country) have in our head of what a president should be.  How they should speak, how they should be a calming influence when needed.  How they should voice the collective outrage of our nation when required.  How they should embody the very best of us.  They are more than one person, they embody the country they represent FOR us. 

They may fall short at times, but their job, is to represent the nation.   

We complain a lot, A LOT about career diplomats and politicians, but we do have this stereotypical vision in our heads of what that person is. 

Donald Trump does not fit that mold.  Not in any possible way.  Now maybe the desire to break that mold is powerful enough that many enjoy that fact.  For others that factor makes everything he says and does more than just a political / policy disagreement. 

He doesn't even WANT to fit that ideal.  Therefore he is unhinged, broken, maybe mentally ill.  He MUST be a narcissistic sociopath because he refuses to adapt to being "presidential".  Both sides have tolerated presidents who push partisan policy a lot more than the last two presidents, but it seems when something strains our internal template of what a president should look like and how they should act, something in us just... breaks.

[Fenring]

And he fights back in a way that is hyper-triggering to most of the media. It's so irregular and unprecedented that they can't process form from function on virtually everything he says. So to your point, Seriati, they're incapable of deciphering the tripe he posts (which is voluminous) from truly consequential and impactful things.

Hard to say what they're capable of deciphering when they have a direct interest in not deciphering them; even instructions to that effect.

[D.W.]

It's interesting that at this point in history we have both an overwhelming conspiracy of the media to make a sitting president look bad, paired with the most unfiltered president ever.  What a coincidence! 

[ScottF]

Doesn't conspiracy imply secrecy? I don't see anything covert around the media's Trump filter.

[D.W.]

In general, ya. 

I don't know if there is an equivalent term for open coordination that has the same slanderous punch.  Collusion also implies secrecy so can't even use that.  Sad!

[Seriati]

It's far more simple than that.  We have a national shared image of what is "Presidential".  Or we did until recently.

Do we though?  Look at the media, when you have a President character that's portrayed as the hero of a tale (e.g., The American President, Dave) they're almost almost portrayed as liberal/progressive/Democrat by implication and when they are taking on the nefarious/conspiracy aspect they're almost always portrayed as Republican by implication).

Do you really thing that the characterization of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt is the same as the characterization of Trump, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon?

You have to go back to Eisenhower in the 50's before you get to a Republican the media hasn't characterized as addled/incompetent (Trump, Bush Jr., Reagan, Ford), a criminal (Trump, Bush Jr., Reagan, Nixon) or just plain evil (Trump, Bush and Bush, Reagan and Nixon).  Meanwhile, all of Obama, Clinton, Kennedy and Roosevelt have been characterized as close to the second coming (don't know enough about Truman  to say), only Carter has been labeled incompetent, only Clinton a "criminal" and most of the media coverage excused it, and Evil?  Not a one, no matter what they did in foreign or domestic policy.

So with a straight face, tell me you really think we have a single standard of "President" without regard to party, or is this one where there's an idea in your head that actually doesn't match reality?

As far as gravitas, Carter?  Not close to it at the time.  Clinton?  It was okay, but he was the one jogging around in sweats, eating at hamburger joints and talking in a manner to "commonalize" the Presidency, in many ways that was a huge break from the image of the serious President.   

I don't know if his immediate predecessor being a black man broke that for many or not,...

You "don't know" and yet you thought it worth mentioning?  Just to virtue signal?

Obama is quite literally the most gifted speaker that we've had as a President that I can remember.  That's going to be a tough act for anyone to follow.

but Trump is counter to the imaginary / hypothetical picture we (as a country) have in our head of what a president should be.  How they should speak, how they should be a calming influence when needed.  How they should voice the collective outrage of our nation when required.  How they should embody the very best of us.  They are more than one person, they embody the country they represent FOR us.

Like the way Kennedy was the "best" of us, when he was openly cheating on his wife?  Or Nixon when he was spying on his opponents?  (oddly, total pass on Obama doing it far more effectively).  Or Ford?  When he was routinely labeled as a bumbler?  Or Carter?  Pretty much the same?  Or Reagan when he was derisively labeled as deep into Alzemiers?  Or Clinton with his serial cheating, sexual abuse and behavior with a certain intern?  Or Bush, the CiA mastermind of evil who lied about raising taxes?  Or Bush the incompetent party boy turned "Hitler" war criminal?

Again, Trump is in fact doing a lot of things that the majority of the country has claimed it wants.  He's actively not ignoring issues like the border, and unfair trade that the politicians have been lying about for decades.  He's signed off on multiple compromises, something his sainted predecessor found impossible because he wouldn't concede anything.

They may fall short at times, but their job, is to represent the nation.

There job is to lead the nation, sometimes that means being a cheerleader/representative, sometimes it means doing unpopular things that need to be done.  Clinton did that with Welfare Reform, Trump seems to do it a great majority of the time.   

We complain a lot, A LOT about career diplomats and politicians, but we do have this stereotypical vision in our heads of what that person is.

Convince me that you believe that without regard to party. 

I find it hard to believe that Jerry Nadler, and his petty and mean ways, fit the stereotype, but you rarely see him called out.  Are you as hard on AOC as on Palin?  Does Sanders remotely fit a mold?  Sure there a bunch of politicians that could play a politician on tv, but there a bunch that couldn't as well.

Donald Trump does not fit that mold.  Not in any possible way.  Now maybe the desire to break that mold is powerful enough that many enjoy that fact.  For others that factor makes everything he says and does more than just a political / policy disagreement. 

He doesn't even WANT to fit that ideal.

I agree with this, he doesn't fit any mold on this.  On the other hand, the "mold conforming politicians" have for decades just lied to us about what they wanted to do and then not done it.  He's not in that mold for sure.

Therefore he is unhinged, broken, maybe mentally ill.  He MUST be a narcissistic sociopath because he refuses to adapt to being "presidential".

Not clear to me if you're making this as a substantive claim, or as an attribution to others.  It's just wrong as a substantive claim to define doing what you say and carrying out your promises as unhinged, broken and mentally ill.  I don't think there's any question he's a narcissist, nor any question that he's not a sociopath.

Both sides have tolerated presidents who push partisan policy a lot more than the last two presidents, but it seems when something strains our internal template of what a president should look like and how they should act, something in us just... breaks.

I've said it before, the age of rabid partisan ship can be traced back to the Contract with America.  We had a one party congress (effectively) controlled by the Democrats for over 50 years, when the Republicans took control by promising a serious packet of reforms the Dems had ignored it pushed the Dems out of power.  Once they realized it wasn't a fluke they took to heart the wrong lesson.  They decided that party loyalty was the only thing that mattered, and we've an extreme partisan divide ever since (and if you think it was both parties you're really forgetting the battle between the contractors and the old guard, and later the Tea Party and everyone else, it's a facade for the Dems that's only started to crack since the last election and import of the radical younglings on the left).  Only when one party is in enough control that it's internal differences rise to the top would I expect that to end.

You should remember that before Bush Jr, the last Republican President to have had a Republican Congress was Eisenhower (for 2 years in the early 50's).  Meanwhile, beginning in the 30's Roosevelt had a Democratic Congress for all of his terms, Truman for 6 out of 8 years, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter for their entire term.

Of the more modern guys?  Best Reagan got was a split Congress, Bush Sr - D controlled Congress, Clinton 2 years D controlled, 6 years R controlled, Bush Jr? 6 years R and 2 years D, Obama 2 years D, 6 R; Trump?  2 yrs R, 2 years split.

I think what that has reflected more than anything is that country as a whole has not wanted Congress to push radical democratic policies, and has expected the Courts to constrain Republican abuses.  That's pretty much how it's played out.  How's that going to work if they only Democratic options in the election are to go all in on extreme policies?

[D.W.]

Do you really thing that the characterization of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt is the same as the characterization of Trump, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon?

My whole point was Trump cannot be included there.  But even with him being omitted from the list, you do make a good point.  There is a difference.  It has been amazingly exaggerated with Trump however.  It makes the snipes at Bush Jr. look trivial in comparison. 

Bush Jr. may not have been what a lot of the country wanted in a president, but he seemed to understand what was expected of the office and at least wanted to live up to that standard. 

Pop culture and even the press, when taken as a whole, do treat the parties differently.  I don't argue that.  But both parties (until recently) understood that the office of the president was a position that should be treated with respect.  And filled in a respectful manner. 

You "don't know" and yet you thought it worth mentioning?  Just to virtue signal?

I cannot KNOW what all people who opposed Obama believe.  I thought it worth mentioning because I believe it explains a lot of what I observed.  The two party system is cause for a lot of friction and it explains a lot about how we treat "the other side's" president when "our side" is out of office.  But it doesn't explain it all. 

There is opposition and even disrespect out of a difference of political beliefs.  Then there's hatred of the president as a person.  I brought it up because there IS a similarity going on here as I see it.  Both the last two presidents we see opposition far beyond simple matters of a disagreement with policy.

Again, Trump is in fact doing a lot of things that the majority of the country has claimed it wants.  He's actively not ignoring issues like the border, and unfair trade that the politicians have been lying about for decades.  He's signed off on multiple compromises, something his sainted predecessor found impossible because he wouldn't concede anything.

Agreed.  I may be in stark disagreement with HOW he's handling these things, but if he better fit the image of 'someone presidential' instead of someone on the next season of some parody White House reality TV show, I'd probably not find him as repellent as I do. 

But combine that with someone who's 'style' is to sow chaos and bombard with distractions and intentionally outrage people as strategy, and I'm so tied in knots with wanting a return to normalcy that he can do no good in my eyes.  This 'strategy' cannot be rewarded.  We cannot fracture this country for shot term political gains, even if some of those issues did need to be addressed.  HOW we reach national goals is as important as seeing them addressed to me.  Some costs are too high, and I'm not talking about new-found belief by the GOP that the deficit is irreverent.

We complain a lot, A LOT about career diplomats and politicians, but we do have this stereotypical vision in our heads of what that person is.

Convince me that you believe that without regard to party.

I didn't even get into if I agreed it was a good thing all the time.  I get the desire for spoilers and mold breakers.  I was just commenting that we DO have expectations.  When they are broken it's going to be a binary reaction.  Either it 'was necessary' and is a good thing, or it is entirely repellent to us and is a catastrophic thing.

I agree with this, he doesn't fit any mold on this.  On the other hand, the "mold conforming politicians" have for decades just lied to us about what they wanted to do and then not done it.  He's not in that mold for sure.

Interesting turn of phrase, without context one would probably infer you were calling him honest.  Well spun. 

Not clear to me if you're making this as a substantive claim, or as an attribution to others.

I was explaining the knee jerk reaction.  There are many sources out there of people looking at this seriously and supporting or refuting these points.  I was just saying that when faced with a mold breaker who is not perusing 'our goals', the rush to judgement will see that 'abnormality' in the worst possible light, first. 

This is why "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is so snappy and sticks around.  I think even many of us on the left know there is some truth to it.  He gets under our skin in ways that a 'normal' GOP President should not.  Policy wise he's not the end of the world/nation.  Dangerous IMO sure, but the perception is just worse.  The only thing that makes me justify that reaction is I believe the perception is having an impact far beyond just politics.  It's impacting the character of our whole country as people attempt to merge his behavior and views, and unfiltered constantly on the offence, always the target from malevolent outside forces, into their own world view.  I see a whole party distort their own talking points and principles falling into a siege mentality where they believe their survival is tied to this man and I fear they are casting a new mold, one distressingly Trump shaped in appearance.

[ScottF]

Dangerous IMO sure, but the perception is just worse.

Not sure if you meant it in this context but I like the idea of foreign nations believing that our leadership is potentially dangerous. It can bring people to the table as no statesmanship could.

[Fenring]

It has been amazingly exaggerated with Trump however.  It makes the snipes at Bush Jr. look trivial in comparison. 

Bush Jr. may not have been what a lot of the country wanted in a president, but he seemed to understand what was expected of the office and at least wanted to live up to that standard.

Do you remember how much of a laughingstock Bush Jr was? The common attribution at the time was that he was embarassing the entire country on a regular basis (is our children learning). I suppose you can argue that Trump is even worse, but at the time people saw Bush Jr as plenty worse already. One thing to remember when comparing them: in 2002 the only people in media relentlessly going after Bush were comedians and talk show hosts during their comedy bits. Major news networks and cable channels weren't quite yet in the business of doing hit pieces as their regular form of business. So when analyzing who's worse remember that the current environment didn't exist when Bush was in office.

This is why "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is so snappy and sticks around.  I think even many of us on the left know there is some truth to it.  He gets under our skin in ways that a 'normal' GOP President should not.  Policy wise he's not the end of the world/nation.  Dangerous IMO sure, but the perception is just worse.  The only thing that makes me justify that reaction is I believe the perception is having an impact far beyond just politics.  It's impacting the character of our whole country as people attempt to merge his behavior and views, and unfiltered constantly on the offence, always the target from malevolent outside forces, into their own world view.  I see a whole party distort their own talking points and principles falling into a siege mentality where they believe their survival is tied to this man and I fear they are casting a new mold, one distressingly Trump shaped in appearance.

I would be careful to distinguish between what 'people' are taking from Trump versus what they're being told. Imagine for a moment what it would be like if there was no news reporting beyond "there was a storm today" type stuff, and other than that the only conclusions people might draw from the President would be their own. I have no doubt that many people would be upset or irritated by his tweets, and that his manner of speaking would aggravate people as well, but would there be the firestorm that there's been since he's been in office? How much of it is people making their own conclusions, and how much is being fed by interested parties stirring the pot?

I sometimes bring up Magick (with a k), which is used in some circles to denote the type of activity where you actively alter the world by altering people's perceptions of the world. If you can convince someone that the world is a dangerous place then - poof - you have transformed the world into a dangerous place like a wizard (from the perspective of that person). The extent to which perception of reality shapes how we interpret it is determined largely by what sorts of forces are doing the shaping. In a quiet forest a person is likely going to form their own opinion over time based on what they see; in an industrialized area rife with media it will come from all sides and there will be no way to easily parse which ideas came to you from where. Managing perception is a key element in both business and politics, and I'm calling it Magick insofar as the connection between those perceptions and any reality 'in the real world' may often be loose at best. If something is said enough people *will* believe it, and even to the extent that they'll believe it's something they directly observed and came to their own conclusion. So I suppose you can blame Trump (rightly to some extent) for creating a sort of atmosphere, but really that's just a subset of the broader fight over mental narratives. It can be very hard to separate out "he's making us crazy" from "we're being told that he's making us crazy", but these are soooo different. Make a headline like "Trump is now out to get elementary school children" and you'll have people read it and go "Great, now he's after kids," as if that is now reality. We could talk about evidence and verifying what you read until we're blue in the face and it just doesn't matter, because the power of narrative (especially when it feeds an established self-image) or story will defeat nuanced research most of the time. It actually has to, what's why media manipulation is such a problem.

[D.W.]

Dangerous IMO sure, but the perception is just worse.

Not sure if you meant it in this context but I like the idea of foreign nations believing that our leadership is potentially dangerous. It can bring people to the table as no statesmanship could.

I've given this one a lot of thought.  If only one could KNOW it was strategy, and not just folly.  But, if you could, the strategy wouldn't work.  Thus far, I'm unimpressed with the results.  It has made for some... interesting 'opportunities' that may never have occurred otherwise.   

[D.W.]

Do you remember how much of a laughingstock Bush Jr was?

I do.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the best option is to lash out like a petulent child when attacked as Trump prefers?  I don't recall Bush Jr doing so.  Was his lack of... fight? a misscalculation?

So when analyzing who's worse remember that the current environment didn't exist when Bush was in office.

Chicken or egg issue here. /shrug

How much of it is people making their own conclusions, and how much is being fed by interested parties stirring the pot?

Not sure how this could be answered.  I tend to avoid a lot of the 'telling you what to think' type media and go digging for facts.  I know for a fact nobody else in my family is inclined to this.  And I'm sure that if I had someone counter to my political beliefs reviewing my media consumption they could be convinced I'm doing nothing but consuming biased anti-Trump garbage.  And to some extent, I'm sure they'd be correct, just as I believe I do 'better than average' at avoiding just that.  I'm sure we're all terrible judges at determining to what extent our opinions are influenced by others.

Your point about headlines only is a huge one.  This is a big pet peve of mine.  Sensationalist distorting garbage infuriates me.  HOWEVER, I run out of fingers counting the times I've clicked on such links SURE that they were distorting garbage, only to find out, no, he honestly DID say/do what the headline implied.  Maybe they are still guilty of click-bait, but the meat of the issue was actually true.  I think a large part of why I hate him is he's broken my radar on what is satire/parody/or just nutso slander...

[Seriati]

Do you remember how much of a laughingstock Bush Jr was?

I do.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the best option is to lash out like a petulent child when attacked as Trump prefers?  I don't recall Bush Jr doing so.  Was his lack of... fight? a misscalculation?

And if your only options are to lash out like Trump or let the media (95% hostile and deliberately manipulative) define you?

Bush Jr - to this day - has people believing he was Hitler, and other's only not doing so because "Trump is so much worse," but Cheney of course is still the devil.  Cheney pretty much let the media define him, can you find anyone on the left - anywhere - that'll defend him?  If you've ever accepted the "media version" of a politician left or right, then you've answered your own question about the choices that Trump has.

Trump definitely breaks the satire radar, even I've been caught up on that, which is part of what makes intentional media manipulation about his so effective and believable.

Fen, liked your post above, but not sure why you need to call propaganda Magick.  That's why we have the word propaganda.

[Fenring]

Maybe the best option is to lash out like a petulent child when attacked as Trump prefers?  I don't recall Bush Jr doing so.  Was his lack of... fight? a misscalculation?

Hard to say, but when it's mostly comedians you don't really have to answer. But maybe more importantly that was before social media made it easy, and now normal, for direct communications to happen on twitter and elsewhere. Even as far as social media goes it's fairly recent that Hollywood celebrities go on Reddit and interact with users on a regular basis, through AMA's or other posts. Schwartzenegger was on just the other day when he posted a pic from an upcoming film, and was basically chatting with folks. That could *never* have happened 15 years ago, when celebrities were only people you saw in films and in interviews. It was only a matter of time before politicians got involved and went directly to the public. Well, I guess FDR did it too in his own way, but not interactively. Now it's becoming normal, and not just for the President. The only thing weird about Trump is how he tweets, not that he does it. So yeah, in the past Presidents, along with many other famous people, did not engage in public interactions other than at sanctioned events (like comicons and whatnot).

HOWEVER, I run out of fingers counting the times I've clicked on such links SURE that they were distorting garbage, only to find out, no, he honestly DID say/do what the headline implied.  Maybe they are still guilty of click-bait, but the meat of the issue was actually true.  I think a large part of why I hate him is he's broken my radar on what is satire/parody/or just nutso slander...

A lot of times it isn't strictly a true/false issue regarding what someone said, but rather about context, or intended meaning. The most famous case is probably Trump's 'grab 'em by the etc' comment, which is typically quoted correctly (technically) and which surely was a crude comment. However it's not enough that the headline may truthfully report that he said such a thing, when the spin is everything. Did it mean that he feels entitled to do that? Did it mean that he in fact does do that thing? Did it mean that he could if he wanted to, which is a hypothetical statement and not necessarily a reflection on his desires? Or could it mean that celebrity culture is so F-ed up that a famous person could actually do this and get away with it? All of these are plausible reads on what it could have meant, but they paint very different pictures. My biggest problem with the headline thing isn't that it's confusing whether to believe them or not, but much worse - it's generally murky about what subtle reality the headline is trying to get you to accept. It's not just a fact-delivery system, it's a story delivery system. If the story is "Trump cynical about celebrity power" that is worlds apart from "Trump a rapist." And the wording, tone, and style of the headline (and 1st paragraph of the article) will likely feed some specific narrative without actually mentioning any narrative. So you "form your own conclusion" about it even though the conclusion has already been packaged for you and coded into the 'news'. That is hard to see, even if you're looking!

[D.W.]

And if your only options are to lash out like Trump or let the media (95% hostile and deliberately manipulative) define you?

Are you asking?  Ignore it or address it calmly and refute the outrageous claims and explain your position.  If they continue to portray you unfairly I do genuinely believe you will sway some people to seeing that and potentially even siding with you.

Compare that to the current strategy and the only direction you go is down.  He convinces nobody.  He is fortunate to hold onto as many supporters as he has at any given moment with his 'allies' doing up to the minute calculations on if THIS is the straw that broke the camel's back and they should abandon ship now, or still fear a backlash from HIS supporters should they turn against POTUS.

Interesting with the Bush Jr. being Hitler.  I don't think I've ever encountered that.  Useful idiot meme still persists.  Cheney as a monster?  Ya.  That one I've seen.  But I think a lot of the beef against Jr. was... That descriptor.  Junior.  The same thing that made me instinctively reject Hillary is what made me dislike Jr.  Nepotism/dynastic aspiration.  I got no clue where it came from.  Did something in my grade school social studies stick and make me reject hereditary empires?  I wouldn't have thought so, but the idea of anyone married to a former president or the child of a past president leading the country is awful.  I'd shout "NO" at my computer screen / car radio when someone would suggest Michelle Obama should consider running. 

Now, there is a lot about HRC I disliked besides her last name, but she did have some good qualifications.  I did grudgingly vote for her over Trump but... ick!  Jr. was easier to avoid because I didn't like his politics and wasn't inclined to vote against his opponent.  I start from the belief that cashing in on the name recognition of a past president is a strike against you. 

[D.W.]

My biggest problem with the headline thing isn't that it's confusing whether to believe them or not, but much worse - it's generally murky about what subtle reality the headline is trying to get you to accept.

That's the example you went with?  Yikes...

We were talking about objective morality in another thread. 

[Fenring]

Fen, liked your post above, but not sure why you need to call propaganda Magick.  That's why we have the word propaganda.

Good question, there's a specific reason for that. It's because propaganda is, I suppose by definition, always about promoting a message that will advantage some interested party. It's largely social in nature and must be widespread in order to function. So propaganda only works if many people believe it, and in a strict sense is therefore a subset of Magick. The latter is more about individual perception and how that can change attitudes and behavior. It's very useful, for instance, to be able to 'program' oneself or others for helpful reasons in order to promote change. If a person is despairing it can be very good to try to paint a hopeful picture of the world, because if they can accept the positive view they will be able to start interpreting individual events using that lens. If a person is trying to quit smoking it may not enough to just say it's bad for you a lot of the time, so one might choose to engage in the reality-change game to try to have them imagine what it might be like when they quit, or to imagine their kids taking up smoking, or to summon up some other set of imagery whose narrative quality will color their perceptions of what they're doing. So Magick is not strictly about lies, but rather about using the power of narrative and how one views the world in order to change the person's perceptions. We do this everyday when trying to show people our point of view, or convince them they're missing something. It's not just about information, as I think the power of information on people might be lacking much of the time; rather it's about ideas about life and stories about how things work. You want medieval peasants to mind their place, you don't tell them about power structures and the economic system's needs, you tell them a story about how heaven and Earth fit together and their place in this magical diagram. Or maybe you tell them about the divine right of noblity, or the honor of serving your king, or whatever else; anything but technical details about what the actual effects of their compliance will achieve, because that's not how you convince people.

Does that make sense? I use the term Magick playfully a bit because I don't really know of another word that so specifically refers to reality/perception alteration as a basis for behavior modification. I guess you could say that cognitive/behavioral therapy might engage in those types of things to an extent, but then again so does cinema, politics, chatting with your friends, and even looking at imagery on product labels. But it doesn't have to be a state thing or even a widespread thing, and can be confined to a single individual, and for any purpose (good, nefarious, etc). I don't know if I could accept that propaganda could be used to help people, personally, although maybe a realpolitik case could be made there.

[Fenring]

That's the example you went with?  Yikes...

Hah! I picked it specifically because it's an example that is "so easy" to know what the event is describing, when in reality it's not easy at all. And if the "so easy" one is still murky then good luck with the rest. Your response here sort of proves that!

[D.W.]

I'm shocked you find that one murky is all.   Though Trump the philosopher, discussing the moral decay of celebrity culture, gave me a chuckle.

[Fenring]

I'm shocked you find that one murky is all.

Based on context and to whom he was speaking, my best read on it was that he was saying "wow isn't it crazy that we could get away with basically anything we like, and women even seem to like it?" It's chauvinistic to be sure, but I didn't understand it to mean either that he actually does this (it's hyperbole) or that he's glad that he can do this. Maybe he is, but I don't think that data is contained in the statement itself. It sounded to me more like boasting about being such a famous man, and that famous men like him can do stuff ordinary mortals can't. That's the version that best accords with his character that I've seen, and is not the interpretation mostly put across by the media. So yeah, I really do think even this "easy" one is hard to parse precisely.

[D.W.]

I guess the mistake I think you are making is the assumption that your interpretation is not what outrages (most?) people. 

It doesn't have to be a literal confession of sexual assault to be so outrageous as to have derailed most mere mortal's campaigns.   

[Fenring]

I guess the mistake I think you are making is the assumption that your interpretation is not what outrages (most?) people. 

It doesn't have to be a literal confession of sexual assault to be so outrageous as to have derailed most mere mortal's campaigns.   

I dunno, I've literally heard it said umpteen times (online and IRL) that Trump brags about raping women, which then translates to the claim, that I've also heard quite a lot, that he has in fact been a serial rapist. It's akin to the time that he bragged about being able to spin a murder on Madison Ave (or whatever the detail was) into the claim that he's abandoned all rule of law.

[D.W.]

Well, I suppose to be fair I do believe he has sexually assaulted young women.  I find that entirely plausible and consistent with his public persona.  Now maybe he hasn't.  It could be he's so pathetic that this type of bragging is his way of compensating for his failing masculinity.

The context we are constantly being told to take into consideration, makes me lean towards the former rather than the latter probability. 

Is it the same as him saying he COULD shoot someone and get away with it?  Without context?  I suppose I could see that.  It could just be another fantasy of an inadequate man.  Hell, he may have enough money that he could have been speaking the literal truth on that one.   A supposition bolsters by my suspicion (I'd say "the fact that", but I'll leave that argument alone for now) he's gotten away with some heinous activities already. 

All that said, he's AFAIK not admitted to criminal assault.  Anyone who views that statement as such is dumb.  It is an indication that he believes he could do so and get away with it, that he may have done so, or that he wishes he had; and that it would make him appear more macho to his perceived audience when making such a statement.  Any of that makes him disgusting.

He most certainly bragged about his means/opportunity/desire to sexually assault women.  Anyone who sees it as an admission of guilt is reaching though.  He is, objectively, without morals when it comes to his treatment of women.  No coordinated media attack needed.  A large part of the country knew he was a cretin and excused it.  Maybe thousands and thousands were cheering as he did so. 

[Seriati]

It doesn't have to be a literal confession of sexual assault to be so outrageous as to have derailed most mere mortal's campaigns.   

Doesn't it though?  If the statement is, it's terrible that Harvey Weinstein can assault women and get away with it, does that end a mortal's campaign?  If it's pointing out that fame and a casting couch culture go together?

It has to be a literal confession that Trump, not only can do it (which pre-Weinstein was probably a factual truth, and may even still be a truth for a lot of celebrities), but does do it, or believes it's his right to do it.  I think Fen's point is that there's not enough context to demonstrate he does do it, it's in the context of criticizing/bragging about celebrity culture - which almost requires for the context that it's being acknowledged as as exceptional or not right. 

There's no question its bad, and if you look at the transcript, I read it as Trump admitting he kisses women as an opening move (which is bad), but using the example - not because he does it, but because a celebrity could do it.  But it's capable of one than one reading.

And if your only options are to lash out like Trump or let the media (95% hostile and deliberately manipulative) define you?

Are you asking?  Ignore it or address it calmly and refute the outrageous claims and explain your position.  If they continue to portray you unfairly I do genuinely believe you will sway some people to seeing that and potentially even siding with you.

So if you're options are A or B, go with C?  Inherent in what I was asking is the unstated assertion that what you are suggesting was never going to work.  Cheney didn't respond at all, and was (and still is) painted as some sort of primordial evil.

Bush pretty much did respond as you are suggesting and the media fairly successfully convinced people that he was next to Hitler, and even on untruths ("Bush lied, people died") that grossly mischaracterised fairly complicated events.

Not seeing how what you suggest would do anything other than it always does for Republicans, in other words, get them labelled in the public mind as extrimists, racists, sexists or some other undesirable.  We know it works, Trump is - according to the media - somehow an anti-Semite, despite his Jewish family members and open support for Israel, supporting white nationalism and racist goals by actively creating the lowest African American unemployment rate in history (and the lowest gap between white and black unemployment in history), prison reform and real wage increases, a proven liar (even if a heck of a lot of the "proof" is actually just lies and disagreements); murdering children at the border - largely by trying to actually enforce US law regarding illegal immigration; violating the Rule of Law - by honoring nationwide injunctions that themselves are of questionable legality; colluding with the Russians, despite every single investigation failing to actually show it; obstructing justice - by not firing the special counsel, even though he was absolutely entitled to do so, and talking about it with his advisers.

Heck of lot of effort, virtually all of it successful vis a vis the left, to paint the man as a specific untouchable a lot of which is little more than naked assertions that are contrary to actual reality.

Interesting with the Bush Jr. being Hitler.  I don't think I've ever encountered that.

Really?  Thought you'd be on this board for a while, you can find it on the old threads.

I wouldn't have thought so, but the idea of anyone married to a former president or the child of a past president leading the country is awful.  I'd shout "NO" at my computer screen / car radio when someone would suggest Michelle Obama should consider running.

I'm with you on this, I reject the idea that any family really has the two people who are so clearly the best for the job that they both need to be President.  Of course, I think that about most political offices as well (hello to the Kennedy's).

Now, there is a lot about HRC I disliked besides her last name, but she did have some good qualifications.

I might have voted for her way earlier in the process, but I found how she acted in the Obama admin to be disqualifying.  Honestly, to me, for someone with her background and the amount of baggage she carried the fact of her private servers was absolutely disqualifying.  It confirmed for me everything that I had ever suspected about who she was in the election to represent (herself) and how far she was willing to go to avoid the transparency and oversight that should be part of the soul of a politician in a Republic.  She is not a person that should ever have access to the levers of power.

[D.W.]

It has to be a literal confession that Trump, not only can do it (which pre-Weinstein was probably a factual truth, and may even still be a truth for a lot of celebrities), but does do it, or believes it's his right to do it.  I think Fen's point is that there's not enough context to demonstrate he does do it, it's in the context of criticizing/bragging about celebrity culture - which almost requires for the context that it's being acknowledged as as exceptional or not right.

Thanks I guess to both of you for demonstraiting the thought process that allows some to excuse this.  I didn't ever really understand it before.  That you can convince yourselfs that this was social comentary or criticisim of a sub-culture BY Trump is eye opening.  I had incorrectly assumed this was a head in the sand issue, not one there was a mental "out" available for anyone.  So, thanks for that.

It's the kinda answer I got into heated exchange with Pete way back when the SSM issue was constantly in the news where I got scolded for insisting a line of reasoning was BS / disingeuous.  So I'll just take it at face value.  It makes a lot more sense then the sheer volume of America that would choose to ignore/excuse the behavior.

So if you're options are A or B, go with C?  Inherent in what I was asking is the unstated assertion that what you are suggesting was never going to work.  Cheney didn't respond at all, and was (and still is) painted as some sort of primordial evil.

Maybe it wouldn't work.  But the retort I would have is, do you gain anything by attempting to fight back?  I would suggest he's only digging the whole deeper and ignoring it would be the better play.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe Bush Jr. and Cheney were wrong.  I suppose you could operate under the theory that "well THAT didn't work, let's try something else!"  /shrug

My grandma use to, on rare ocasion, say something "obviously" racist.  Not with any mallice really but just one of those, "Jesus grandma, you cannot say that!"  99.9% of the time, no issues.  I think Trump does the same thing, maybe a different percentage.    It's not concious.  He just kinda soaks in some awful things and ocasionally lets some of it loose.  Does he hate ALL Jews or African Americans or Mexicans?  No (Well, maybe on the last one...)  But he does say some terrible *censored* that consensus has decided is no longer acceptable (if it ever was in "polite society") 

I get that a lot of people sling the Hitler thing around, but I don't recall Bush Jr. being painted with that brush.  Then again, maybe I just found the comparison stupid and dismissed it.  Possible. 

Honestly, to me, for someone with her background and the amount of baggage she carried the fact of her private servers was absolutely disqualifying.

  Between that and the DNC leaks coming out, let's just say I was pretty ashamed of the Democratic team last election. 

I still believe that Hillary is the only candidate who could have lost to Trump, and Trump the only candidate who could have lost to Hillary.

[Seriati]

I agree with a lot of what you said D.W. and appreciate the tone.  To be clear, I don't excuse what Trump said, how he treats/treated women or the implications of his comment, I just found it non-persuasive that he was saying in the context of his personal conduct.  I don't think it would have shocked anyone, if any celebrity - any one at all male or female - had made a statement that celebrities can get away with doing that. 

Heck if you watch any movie about a band you flat our see even worse treatment of groupies and, at least in the Presidential context, there were literal stories of Clinton using his police escorts to bring him women and multiple stories of assaults.  My assumption on those is that a lot of good people who supported him took the mental view that they were lies, rather than a mental view that they in fact occurred and they were okay/excusable or somehow a  cost of doing business to keep him in office.  That didn't seem any more reasonable to me than I suspect Trump's comment seemed to you.

On the second point, I do think you get something by fighting back.  We've had a long time where the media has colluded to paint one party as the good guys and one as the bad guys and it's caused a lot of harm in my view.  By fighting back, Trump's more squarely put that bias in focus and in the open than it's ever been before.  Reasonable people can look at it and call for a plague on both houses, rather than seeing it without question as a wicked person being taken down.  it's something that I think an awful lot of Republicans carried around for a long time, the constant media propaganda that their ideas are evil by implication, and this sort of frees them up to fight back.

[D.W.]

there were literal stories of Clinton using his police escorts to bring him women and multiple stories of assaults.

I don't really care if a president cannot keep it in their pants as long as it's consensual and not assault.  What Trump was describing was assault. 

Arranging to have sex with groupies is unseemly and, unpresidential (at least the being obvious about it part) but it's not assault...  My views on sex is pretty wide open.  My views on being openly disrespectful to your family however is another thing and I do hold that against people.  Another very non-PC of me strike I held against Hillary.  Smacks of victim blaming on my part but letting your husband disrespect you like that irked me.  Accepting it, probably(?) out of political calculation for her own aspirations though makes me shiver a bit. 

That this president cheated on wives with new lovers, and later married one of them, (or was it 2?), I find tacky and a character flaw, but it's probably worth being compared against Bill.  Assault allegations or joking that you are able to (implying you just may have done so) is different.  At least to me.

But if one were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt (I'm admittedly not) I could see someone coming away with the understanding that because he's rich/famous these women WANT him to do these things.  I heard it as, "I can do this and get away with it."  But I guess (if strain myself to the point of hurting something) I get how someone may take away that he's just describing them as his groupies.   If you see it that way, I guess there would be a double standard with Bill, for the most part, getting a pass.  It's probably a lot more superficial as well.  Bill was portrayed as charming / attractive.  Trump as a buffoon / gross.  That shouldn't matter, but probably did/does, quite a lot.

Granted, I think he would not have been president had a similar tape been released before his election.  Trump's 'brand' was an outrageous egomaniac.  Him saying this 'shocking thing' was... on brand.  It's simply not for anyone else who's perused the highest office before.  If we are fortunate it won't ever happen again.