WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2023
Philip Bump says maybe it was: When journalism becomes thoroughly tribal—when it's thoroughly segregated by viewpoint—you can be completely sure of one thing:
You can be sure that we'll constantly hear the claims which make us tribally happy. Within our tribe, we'll hear "songs sung blue"—stories which enhance our tribe's preferred preconceptions.
(All other songs must die.)
In the past few days, one such song has been the song about Donald J. Trump and the photo he clownishly bungled during his deposition. In a May 5 piece for the Washington Post, Philip Bump starts to call the play-by-play of the clownish incident:
BUMP (5/5/23): Carroll’s attorneys had handed Trump a black-and-white photograph showing Trump at a social event at some point generally contemporaneous to the time of the alleged rape. Trump considered it for a moment, identifying one man as former television anchor John Johnson. Then he pointed at a woman on the left side of the photo.
“It’s Marla,” he said, referring to his former wife Marla Maples.
There was a pause. Then the attorneys for Carroll prompted him: “You’re saying Marla is in this photo?”
“That’s Marla, yeah,” Trump replied. “That’s my wife.”
Uh-oh! As it turned out—as everyone but Trump already knew—the woman he was pointing to, on the left of the widely publicized photo, was actually E. Jean Carroll! It wasn't Trump's former wife at all!
Some background:
At the time the photograph had been taken, Trump was still married to his first wife, Ivana Trump. She was visible on the right side of the photo, but Trump was now mistakenly identifying Carroll herself as Matla Maples, his (second) wife, and it seemed he couldn't quite identify that other woman at all!
As Bump mentions at the start of his piece, our tribe had special fun with this remarkable blunder because of a remarkably stupid and clueless thing Trump had already said. He had said that Carroll "wasn't his type," seeming to say that that explained why he wouldn't have assaulted her.
Now, it began to seem that Carroll really was "his type"—so much so that Trump couldn't seem to tell her apart from his actual second wife!
In the past few days, everyone and his or her blue tribe aunt or uncle mocked Trump for this ludicrous error. Blue pundits have constantly said that this clownish error destroyed his "not my type" claim.
We've enjoyed a good solid laugh at Trump's spectacular dumbness. Pundits have said that this clownish error surely helped the jury decide.
Having said that, hold on! Bump's analysis piece carries the headline shown below—and we think it may well explain Trump's clownish mistake:
Did Trump’s anti-glasses vanity doom his E. Jean Carroll defense?
Uh-oh! In his analysis piece for the Post, Bump recalls a situation which was widely discussed a few years back. He started with an event in 2014—an event in which, inevitably, Trump was being sued:
BUMP: Trump both needs glasses and generally refuses to wear them. In the deposition video, he isn’t, perhaps understanding that the video of the deposition would eventually be made public.
The situation was reminiscent of a situation in 2014. That year, Trump was being sued by people who’d purchased properties from Trump in Florida. Sitting in the witness box, he was presented with a document to consider.
In that earlier situation, Trump had to borrow the judge's glasses before he could read the document. According to the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, “Trump quipped that he should wear them all the time, but he’s ‘too vain.’ ”
By itself, that incident doesn't prove a thing—but at this point, we jump ahead to August 2019. At that point, Ashley Feinberg got a fair amount of attention by suggesting in Slate that various reading errors Trump had made in public, along with some curious behaviors, may have been the result of his need for glasses.
We won't run you through all the examples Feinberg offered. Included was the giant font Trump required on his teleprompter, as well as a curious incident where he thought he saw his third wife in a window, even though no one was there.
For the record, Feinberg was no fan of Donald J. Trump. Her Slate piece ended like this:
FEINBERG (8/6/19): If you spent your days unable to see, constantly unsure of what you were doing and to whom you were speaking, wouldn’t you be agitated too? Wouldn’t you also probably resent being asked about details? And wouldn’t all of this result in a general state of surliness and short-temperedness?
There’s no question that our president’s brain is broken, and that his mental acuity isn’t anywhere near what it once was. But perhaps it all isn’t quite as bad as we thought. Perhaps Donald Trump just needs to wear his goddamn glasses.
Is that what happened when Donald J. Trump bungled that recent photo? Once he realized that he had bungled, he said the photo was blurry.
Is it possible that, for him, the photograph actually was? Prophetically, Feinberg also said this at one point:
FEINBERG: Based on the available evidence, and by Donald Trump’s own admission, it’s safe to assume that, like me, our president also walks around in a world made almost entirely of blurs and soft-edged shapes. And in fact, it would explain quite a lot.
Just this once, we'll be honest:
We've watched that part of the deposition tape about a million times by now. We'd be willing to bet even money that Bump's piece does explain The Case of the Clownishly Bungled Photo.
After watching that tape again and again, we'll guess, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Bump's piece probably does explain what actually happened. But at this point, according to experts, hard tribal law steps in:
You see, that explanation of Trump's clownish mistake would be a tribal buzzkill. For that reason, it must be replaced by a song sung blue. Philip Bump's piece must die.
As an anthropological matter, the key takeaways are these:
At times of tribal polarization, our blue tribe will hear a long string of songs sung blue. (On Fox, they'll hear songs sung red.)
We blues won't surrender our songs sung blue. Philip Bump's unwanted piece in the Post must never be mentioned again!
Nothing but Trump, Trump, Trump over here.
ReplyDeleteGive it a rest.
How about the TV people doing so?
DeletePlease name some names. I see a variety of topics on TV, including on the transcript of Wallace that Somerby discussed a few days ago.
DeleteName names?
DeleteDid you not want the Carroll vs Trump matter mentioned?
Anonymous 7:50am is me.
DeleteHow I got signed out, I don’t know.
The second amendment is evil.
ReplyDeleteA guy who needs glasses but won’t wear them shouldn’t be president.
ReplyDeleteTrump had seen the photo prior to his deposition. He also recognized Carroll’s husband, John Johnson, in the photo, despite Trump not wearing his “glasses”:
ReplyDeleteKAPLAN: And do you recall when you first saw this photo?
TRUMP: At some point during the process, I saw it. That's I guess her husband, John Johnson, who was an anchor for ABC, nice guy, I thought, I mean, I don't know him but I thought he was pretty good at what he did. I don't even know who the woman. Let's see, I don't know who -- it's Marla.
I guess Tacopina should have asked Trump about his glasses. Oh, well.
Buzzkill! ($5,000,000 judgment!)
Also Trump may need glasses to read small text, but that wouldn’t necessarily be the same for a blown up photograph.
DeleteIn the deposition, he fumbles around a bit and asks which woman is being discussed (there are two). Carroll does resemble Maples, but there is also the possibility that Trump thought it would be clever to misidentify Carroll that way, given that he had previously claimed that he had never met and never seen Carroll. If he identifies Carroll correctly, then he may think that undermines the truth of his claim to not know who she is.
DeleteOf course, he can simply say he's seen her picture in the news, but Trump doesn't think like a normal person. Here is the picture:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mistook-photo-accuser-e-jean-carroll-ex-marla-maples-2023-1
Surely Trump must know that Carroll not Maples was married to Johnson? The defense was perhaps only hoping to establish that Trump had met Carroll before and got a bonus when he tried to be too cute.
Carroll was an attractive woman about town, highly successful; when she playfully and innocently interacted with Trump at the store, she had no idea she was dealing with a predator, who had likely had her on his radar for some time, weirdly aware of her former husband.
Delete"Carroll was an attractive woman about town, highly successful; when she playfully and innocently interacted with Trump at the store, she had no idea she was dealing with a predator, who had likely had her on his radar for some time, weirdly aware of her former husband."
DeleteYou have no idea that this is the case.
You guys all sound like Tucker Carlson here -- and I think that's Bob's point.
According to Carroll, Trump was fully aware of who she was when she bumped into him outside the store. His stupid pretense that he had never met her and didn't know who she was is part of his demeaning of her, given her celebrity. He may have thought that if he just kept saying he didn't know her and she was crazy, then no one would believe her and he would get away with his assault on her. Trump is stupid enough to think such a thing.
DeleteI don't think this is far-fetched. But notice how Carroll's version of events makes more sense than Trump's. That kind of evaluation is part of the evidence the jury considered.
Bob's point is always that ho's be lyin' and men are innocent victims of women who cannot be trusted. If a woman gets raped, she brought it on herself. He thinks of every man accused of rape as a falsely accused innocent victim of a scheming woman, often out to con a man out of money (like that grifter Stormy).
DeleteIt is easy to find Somerby's past essays on this topic.
5:20 spot on.
DeleteTrump has a history of predation, particularly with taken women (he openly admitted to this), and he expressed a lot of obscure knowledge about Carroll’s former husband, which makes it pretty obvious that Trump had researched him - it’s possible that Trump is bisexual and had an interest in her husband, but it’s more likely that he was interested in Carroll and gathering intel.
Somerby was a fan of Carlson until recently, when Carlson was revealed to detest Trump. Commenters don’t sound like Tucker, because, regardless of his true feelings about Trump and Republican voters, he did little other than repeat right wing talking points about Christian fundamentalism and white supremacy.
Somerby’s explanation is the least likely: the photo was large, 8x10, and Trump brought it close to his face, and furthermore had no trouble identifying Carroll’s husband.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it is true that Carroll at that time looked similar to Maples, see link.
Sorry Somerby, but there’s no “uh-oh” here, just another embarrassingly bad post from a Trump simp.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mistook-photo-accuser-e-jean-carroll-ex-marla-maples-2023-1?op=1
You know btw that the photo was also taken about a dozen years before the event in question. It was not contemporaneous -- which might factor into the mix about the "my type" part.
DeleteIf you're fair.
The point of showing Trump the photo was not to get him to say "she's not my type" but to ask him how he could swear that he'd never met Carroll when he is shown in a photo talking to her and her husband (who Trump says he does know).
DeleteCarroll is obviously attractive in that photo. For Trump to assert that "she's not my type" not only implies that he thinks rape is about sexual attraction, but that he is going out of his way to disparage her (thus clearly he recognizes her) instead of just honestly identifying her in the photo. He gains nothing by pretending not to recognize her.
At the time of this deposition, Trump is no longer married to Maples but to Melania. He may have negative feelings toward Maples and may get some perverse satisfaction from labeling Carroll's photo (which he perhaps hates) with Marla's name. Or it could just be freudian, confusing the two because of his hostility toward them both.
I don’t think it speaks much for our anthropology that this is Bob’s big take away from the trail.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is is interesting to note that one of MSNBC’s commentators (Oxney (sp)?) said it was a big blunder for Carroll’s lawyer to help him and She should have just let his sorry butt flounder. Also, isn’t Maples the wife who said (and later downplayed) in their divorce proceedings that Trump raped her? Bob has the strangest friends.
It was Trump’s own lawyer that pointed out it was Carroll, and it was Trump’s first wife Ivanka that he raped.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOf course, his wife Ivana is in that picture, very prominently in the foreground. Why would Marla and Ivana both be in that picture?
DeleteWhen you rape your wife because she dared to be slightly critical of your hair plugs, you probably prefer to blot her out.
DeleteThanks for the correction.
DeleteThis post by Somerby seals it, no one can any longer deny that he is a right winger and a Trump apologist.
ReplyDeleteConsidering how Somerby’s earlier recognition was from liberal/progressive readers, it’s a startling turn of events, granted it happened over a decade ago.
Alas, it may have happened around the time Bob didn’t have to ask readers for donations anymore.
DeleteI think you’re on to something.
DeleteGood. That invalidates any criticisms he has leveled at us. Phew!
Delete"This post by Somerby seals it, no one can any longer deny that he is a right winger and a Trump apologist."
DeleteThat's ridiculous.
Man, some of you people here are really clueless, if not dishonestly weird. All Bob is saying is that there just MIGHT be more to the story than what you hear on the hysteria networks?
Somerby is trying to say that Trump's problems during the trial are because of low vision, not being a sexual abuser and liar.
DeleteHe was perhaps groping around in a dressing room at Bergdorf's and ran into Carroll in the most embarrassing way. Then he was flustered because he couldn't recognize her due to his poor eyesight and mistakenly said he'd never met her. See, it's all a big misunderstanding.
These stories are religious dogma to a lot of people these days. People who gave up on religion found a substitute in politics. As unfortunate and crazy as that is, not knowing any better, they still did it. Like this fool here. That is why questioning any dogma that comes from their Masters on high is met with zealous opposition and repetitions of statements of opinion and faith as statements of fact.
DeleteIt's annoying. But they are just people doing the best they can.
Somerby’s “shift” to right wing is nothing new. Even in contemporary times, it’s a well worn path for grifters: Dave Rubin, Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Bill Maher, Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, Russell Brand, on and on…
DeleteSomerby and his right wing cohort’s views on women are consistent with their actions - Trump’s sexual assaults, Steven Crowders abuse of his pregnant wife, etc.
DeleteI think mao was Bob's alter ego. The reason mao has disappeared is bob is letting his mao out on the front page. Or Russia can't afford to pay mao anymore, or mao is dead long live mao.
DeletePerhaps Bob is correct. There MIGHT be more to the story. We know Trump is dying to fuck his daughter. Perhaps, Trump has raped her as well. You never know what MIGHT be true.
DeleteHis daughter is too old for him now. You gotta admit she was way hotter when she was 12.
DeleteAnd why didn’t Trump have his glasses, if he really needs them to read? Often times in a deposition or in a court room, you’re asked to look at photos or evidence or read aloud from a document to read it into the record.
ReplyDelete"...was actually E. Jeanne Carroll"
ReplyDeleteNow that Carroll has been vindicated, I think it is time for Somerby to start spelling her name correctly. It is E. Jean. Deliberately misspelling or mispronouncing people's names is a longstanding form of disrespect.
She was only partially vindicated.
Delete"I say I was raped!"
Well, the jury didn't think so.
It's a big problem for the case in its entirety.
No, it isn't. Why do you guys keep coming back with this crap no matter what anyone says to you? I'm beginning to think you are insincere in your confusions and only here to promote your ignorant talking point.
DeleteDo you think Trump will win his appeal if you create the impression with the general public that Carroll didn't win? It doesn't work that way. Judges will decide any appeal based on procedure. Trump has been shown to be a sexual abuser and liar. End of story.
5:00, make no mistake, these are Trump supporters.
Delete"5:00, make no mistake, these are Trump supporters."
DeleteWrong again. Just like you guys are wrong that Bob is a Trump supporter or apologist. (That's actually insane btw.)
Maybe some of us just want things to make sense, and really, really resent all of this sententious, high-and-mighty overstatement going on?
And maybe also think that it hurts the cause with other people?
Which -- I hate to break it to you guys -- it does indeed.
"Do you think Trump will win his appeal if you create the impression with the general public that Carroll didn't win?"
DeleteWho's saying she didn't win?
She won, but the jury's verdict was a very odd and confused decision. It also wasn't what she wanted to have them say that they didn't think there was evidence of a rape -- no matter her words right now.
She cried on the stand that she was raped. So now maybe not...? What else was she wrong about then?
I'll tell you one thing that you Bob-haters are all wrong about -- the meaning of that Access Hollywood video. Trump in no way says what you all think he is saying there. He never "admits" to anything.
Bob starts to broach that topic and you all go ballistic.
Of course you’re Trump supporters. Look at you here spporting Trump — all saying the same things because you have no independent thoughts.
DeleteFailure to prove rape doesn’t mean there was no rape. It means they were short on evidence to convince the jury unanimously.
Delete"Failure to prove rape doesn’t mean there was no rape. It means they were short on evidence to convince the jury unanimously."
DeleteBut she proved rape just as much as she proved sexual battery. That's the point. Her lawyer presented it as a rape case and sufficiently established with her evidentiary statements that it was indeed rape under the law. There was penetration which she thought was his d*ck, but digital penetration is also rape.
So why did the jury not agree unanimously? If the evidence she presented was not all credible and reliable, why and how was some of it? Why not all of it? It was all the same evidence.
No, this is a very flaky decision. There was either evidence to get Trump on rape or there was not enough evidence to get him on anything. I wish the case had been stronger but it wasn't. Until the jury gets interviewed (if ever) we won't know if there were any holdouts on this bigger issue of rape.
But that still makes it flaky.
You are just ignorant of life.
DeleteThis is actual a common decision for juries.
Cases based on circumstantial evidence routinely get lesser verdicts then cases based on physical evidence.
Your conflating your idiocy with normalcy, it’s the logical fallacy you keep repeating.
*You’re
DeleteTrump obviously raped Carroll. And I say that as someone who thinks Trump seems like Abraham Lincoln, next to most Republicans.
DeleteIt is ridiculous to think that a wealthy man of business surrounded by handlers, with a loving wife, wouldn't see the eye doctor and have his vision fixed.
ReplyDeleteWho would prefer to bumble around like Mr. Magoo if he had corrective lenses? My husband was legally blind for 10 years, so I know what it is like around someone who sees only vague shapes and colors. I doubt that is Trump's vision level without glasses. But the larger question is why anyone would live that way if they had a choice.
And if this is how Trump truly thinks and behaves, he is not fit to be president. How would he have functioned before politics with an aversion to assistive devices. Next Somerby will suggest that this is why there is so much fraud around Trump -- his associates have been using his blindness to bilk him all along, and blaming it on Trump.
"We've watched that part of the deposition tape about a million times by now. We'd be willing to bet even money that Bump's piece does explain The Case of the Clownishly Bungled Photo. "
ReplyDeleteMaybe Somerby can produce ad hoc explanations for Trump's other clownishly bungled statements, like the one about stars grabbing p***ies? Maybe he was trying to feel the facial features of a woman using his hands and misjudged her height? He meant to say, "When you're blind they let you do it" but was temporarily seeing stars and blurted that out instead. Yeah, that's the ticket!
I think Bob has said many times that Trump was being clownishly dumb on that tape.
DeleteHe was also being disrespectful and rude to the attorneys, snotty and arrogant, obstructive, sarcastic. He thought his time was being wasted and he was too big a man to have to go through the mechanics of the deposition. It was an imposition on him. Someone else in such circumstances would have been coached to be cooperative, polite, serious. I'm sure someone may have suggested that to Trump, but he doesn't take advice well, even from people who are trying to save his skin. Watch the part where Trump lashes out at Kaplan (Carroll's attorney) and threatens to sue her many times and calls her "not his type" (too ugly to rape). That is Trump at his most charming.
DeleteClownishly dumb are not the words I would use. It strikes me as odd that Somerby would choose them. Is obnoxious, boorish, infantile, not in his vocabulary?
Surely Somerby is upset with the verdict in that a disgusting sexual predator like Trump yet again got away with rape.
ReplyDeleteRight?
"Surely Somerby is upset with the verdict in that a disgusting sexual predator like Trump yet again got away with rape.
ReplyDeleteRight?"
Wrong.
And the reason why he "got away with rape" is because the jury baffingly didn't see that part of the case as being credible.
The part you are missing is that it is ALWAYS hard to convict a rapist, no matter what the evidence.
DeleteThat's not true at all.
DeleteThis jury had the same evidence for rape as assault. Her evidence proved rape. Everything about it established rape under the law if you think she was credible.
So why did the jury not think she was credible or assured on that point? Why was she ok on the other part?
It makes no sense. Her statements were her statements and if you believe one then you have to believe them all. And they all pointed to RAPE.
It is not that unusual in a case with multiple charges for a jury to split the difference. Had Trump only used his hand, as supported by “Grab them by the pussy” then they might have felt better sticking to sexual assault. Five million dollars, though it might not be a lot to Trump, assigns a pretty hefty dollop of guilt. Now on to the criminal cases…..
DeleteWith all due respect 4:58, taking your comment at face value, if it “makes no sense” to you, it’s because, frankly, you are dumb as shit. It’s been reasonably and coherently explained to you numerous times.
DeleteObviously in reality you are just a right wing troll, which makes you more of a wounded lost soul.
Either way, you’ll get no satisfaction here, as we don’t buy your bullshit, and no one here has the mental health training to properly deal with your disorder.
I understand you’re lonely and looking for attention, but at some point us adults have to say “bedtime”. Now here’s your bottle, ‘night baby.
"With all due respect 4:58, taking your comment at face value, if it “makes no sense” to you, it’s because, frankly, you are dumb as shit. It’s been reasonably and coherently explained to you numerous times."
DeleteIt hasn't been coherently explained at all. The jury had the same evidence for rape as assault, and they only chose assault. They hesitated on rape. Why is that?
They weren't convinced? That's the only "coherent" answer. But if they weren't convinced that it went as far as rape, how did they arrive at assault? It was the same evidence, the same witness, the same video.
And even more to the point, she said it was rape. She INSISTED that it was rape. So why didn't the jury arrive at rape?
Because there wasn’t enough evidence of rape, but plenty for sexual abuse. Now don’t say the evidence was the same, because it wasn’t. This decision shows what happens when a man thinks “let” means consent.
DeleteThere was plenty of evidence for rape if the jury thought she was credible. Everything she said pointed to rape under the law. So why wasn't it rape?
DeleteThere's no good or rational reason for this distinction on their part. She was either credible and reliable oir she wasn't.
And by the way, let does mean consent. If someone lets you do something they have agreed to you doing it. That was Trump's point -- they've agreed to if not actually welcomed the behavior.
Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue. If someone lets you touch them it is not assault. Even if they don't like it.
And by the way too, that doesn't mean I do this personally. Just like it doesn't mean that Trump said he did it. He just said they "let you do it."
Big difference.
This has all already been explained to you ten ways to Timbuktu, your claim to otherwise is unsubstantiated.
DeleteRepeating your incoherent claims does not give them any validity, it’s like what the person above said, it just makes you a complete moron.
1:16,
DeleteLet's just agree that Hillary Clinton is the least corrupt politician of all time.
"It is not that unusual in a case with multiple charges for a jury to split the difference. Had Trump only used his hand, as supported by “Grab them by the pussy” then they might have felt better sticking to sexual assault. Five million dollars, though it might not be a lot to Trump, assigns a pretty hefty dollop of guilt. Now on to the criminal cases….."
ReplyDeletePossibly, but there was no more or less evidence for battery than rape. If they were comfortable with the one, why not the other?
She said it was rape. Why didn't they go all the way with the evidence? This split difference sounds a bit flaky and improper. You're probably right, but that doesn't make THEM right!
"Possibly, but there was no more or less evidence for battery than rape."
DeleteThis is not true. Trump confessed to sexual abuse when he said he grabbed women by the p***y and they let him do it. He didn't confess to rape. By the way, sexual abuse, rape and forced touching are all three forms of battery, so this isn't about battery vs rape.
It must be obvious that Carroll saying she was raped is not the same as Trump saying he raped her. Carroll did say he grabbed her, but so did Trump when he was talking about what he could do to women with Billy Bush. Beyond this one statement, there was more evidence in Trump's own deposition supporting sexual abuse than rape. And the two other accusers of Trump testified to sexual abuse, not Rape. If one of them had claimed Rape, the jury might have been swayed more that direction.
"Trump confessed to sexual abuse when he said he grabbed women by the p***y and they let him do it. He didn't confess to rape. By the way, sexual abuse, rape and forced touching are all three forms of battery, so this isn't about battery vs rape."
DeleteShe said it was rape!
Trump also never confessed to anything on that tape or deposition. He said they let you do it. He also never "admitted" that HE did it, nor did he admit that it was "assault." He said they let you do it. That means they agree to it. That is what "let" means whether you agree with him or not. Or whether the women like it or not.
It's NOT assault when they let you. Sorry, but it's not.
Look. The case was a rape case. A rape trial. Everyone said it was a rape trial. CARROLL said it was rape. But, the jury didn't go for rape. They went for a lesser charge.
Why is that? There was no more logical reason for battery than rape -- no less evidence. It was all her say. And she said RAPE!
So what was the jury's hesitation here. The evidence? And if so, why was the lesser evidence more credible or reliable?
It either all was or it wasn't !
"If one of them had claimed Rape, the jury might have been swayed more that direction."
DeleteWell that would have been highly improper legally because he wasn't on trial for those charges. He was on trial for Carroll, and she said she was raped. What she described was rape under the law.
So she wasn't raped when she said she was? That was the jury's thinking? Then what else was she possibly wrong about? Why didn't they agree with CARROLL that she was raped?
That was the evidence they had and what they were supposed to be dealing with. Also, the evidence that she presented clearly established rape if she was credible and reliable. The jury then was dealing with another case, or ruling on the video instead?
Their verdict makes no sense given the evidence at hand.
Repetition doesn’t make you right. You haven’t addressed a single thing others said. Try that assault a woman and se if she lets you tactic and you WILL wind up in jail. It took longer with Trump but he is rich and famous. Are you? No? Don’t hire Tacopina to defend you. I’ll say it again for the congenitally stupid — let is not consent. You can go away for a long time using that theory. Didn’t they teach you that in high school?
DeleteIf they let you do it then it's not assault. They have agreed to the behavior -- they have validated it.
DeleteWhy else do they "let" you do it?
They might even do it back to the famous guy in question, a suggestion that I'm sure might make some brains melt down around here pretty quickly.
And all Trump said is that when you're a *big star* they let you do it -- which i suspect is true and that he would know from experience. You'd think there'd be a lot more old complaints about him if "let" means assault.
Not just three or four from the recent past. LOTS more.
Trump may think they let you do it, but that doesn’t make the claim valid.
DeleteYour argument presumes Trump’s action are inherently and objectively moral.
Having said that, you’re obtusely being excessively literal with Trump’s words; Trump is aware women aren’t consenting to it, he is saying they are powerless to stop it.
Provide evidence that Trump acquires consent from these women before assaulting them, without that, your claim is incoherent and nonsensical.
You are a total moron.
I'll rape Trump.
DeleteTrump's joke about grabbing women by the pu***, is way funnier than any joke Bob told during his stand-up career. And I say that, even though I think Trump was being as serious as a heart attack when he said it.
DeleteDefund the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a giant spiral galaxy.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Dr Bandy Lee we live in a death spiral, due to Republicans.
DeleteThen we’ll die in this giant spiral galaxy.
DeleteThe point is, we’d survive without Republicans.
DeleteRepublicans are evil.
DeleteWhat’s next? Somerby examines the Proud Boy trials to find the troubling aspects?
ReplyDeleteMaybe there are some? Could be.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't make them innocent. But don't you want things to be kosher?
Somerby has spent a lot of time reminding liberals that Zimmerman was acquitted, and they shouldn’t question the verdict. Shoe is on the other foot now, is it?
Delete7:24,
DeleteAccording to Florida law, Martin couldn't have been "standing his ground", because Martin is black.
Now that Ivana dropped a dime on the old man, in regards to the stolen classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, it's going to make it even harder for Donald to fuck her.
ReplyDelete