The US election daily discussion post 21/10/16

Written By: - Date published: 5:55 am, October 21st, 2016 - 114 comments
Categories: us politics, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: , ,

white_non-white-vote

From #lionhouse, made using 538′s swing the election interactive and 270 to win

This week we are trialling something new. In order to free up Open Mike and Daily Review for other conversations we are asking that all discussion, posting of links etc on the US election goes in the daily dedicated thread rather than OM or DR.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

There will continue to be author-written posts on the US election as well, usual rules apply there too.

114 comments on “The US election daily discussion post 21/10/16 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  3. TheExtremist 3
    21 October 2016 at 8:43 am

    Sigh. Should have been Bernie.

  4. Tory 4
    21 October 2016 at 9:19 am

    Only 3 comments?, have a few peckers dropped after the performance last night?

      • Manuka AOR 4.1.1
        21 October 2016 at 8:51 pm

        From that link:

        These are the last desperate throes of a campaign in shambles. Denial, deflection, defeat. — George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) October 20, 2016

        He loved the media when it gave him millions in free air time. Now that he’s losing, it’s a conspiracy against him. — George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) October 20, 2016

        One of these candidates knows the facts, the stakes and the plans. The other is your uninformed, drunk relative who never, ever shuts up. — George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) October 20, 2016

        His personal invective is appalling in the extreme. He doesn’t belong on that stage. — George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) October 20, 2016

  5. ianmac 5
    21 October 2016 at 9:27 am

    Interesting that anyone who expresses a contrary view on this site, on the behaviours of Trump or Clinton is likely to get walloped. Pity really.
    For example a politician would say yes to the question re accepting the decision of the vote for President.
    A non politician might say he would wait and see.
    That is interesting as is the outrage expressed over there and on here.
    Just thinking of the slings and arrows flung at CV for his/her difference of view.

    • TheExtremist 5.1
      21 October 2016 at 9:38 am

      “Just thinking of the slings and arrows flung at CV for his/her difference of view.”

      I think it was more about defending Trumps history of sexual assault than merely having a different POV.

      • joe90 5.1.1
        21 October 2016 at 9:55 am

        That, and his recycling of vile RWNJ talking points and the boy blunder video stings, culminating in yesterdays Hitler nonsense and admission that he thinks Alex Jones gets what is going on in the modern world.

      • mikesh 5.1.2
        21 October 2016 at 2:17 pm

        In the 3rd debate, when Trump suggested that the allegations of the nine “molested” women were calumnies, Clinton went into a long diatribe about what a shocking thing it was for women to be molested. This seemed to be an attempt to distract the audience from contemplating the possibility that the whole thing was a smear campaign orchestrated by the Clinton team.

        She seems to be very good at these sorts of diversionary tactics, and used such tactics on a number of occasions during the debate.

        • McFlock 5.1.2.1
          21 October 2016 at 2:25 pm

          Nice use of quotation marks – makes you look completely “impartial” and “open-minded”.

          • mikesh 5.1.2.1.1
            21 October 2016 at 8:06 pm

            I’m sure it does. So what. We don’t know one way or the other whether those allegations were legit. The point of my comment however was Clinton’s attempt at diversion. She obviously would not want anybody dwelling on the possibility that the allegations were phony, particularly since we know that there were persons paid $1,500 apiece to cause trouble at Trump’s rallies.

            • McFlock 5.1.2.1.1.1
              21 October 2016 at 9:55 pm

              Apart from the fact that the claims involve things trump himself claimed to have done.

              Was he lying, too, in your opinion?

              • mikesh …
                22 October 2016 at 9:43 am

                Actually he denied the allegations. I don’t know whether he was lying, or whether the nine women (now ten) were lying, and I don’t particularly care. I was commenting mainly on Clinton’s debating tactics, which of course you would have noticed had you not been concerned with pushing your own particular (anti Trump) barrow.

                As a matter of fact, were I an American, I would vote for Jill Stein.

                • weka …
                  22 October 2016 at 10:07 am

                  Reread McFlock’s comment. He’s not saying Trump hasn’t denied the specific allegations from specific people. He’s saying that Trump is on record as saying it’s ok and good to sexually assault women. Plus he’s had multiple accusations of sexual assault over a long period of time, not just the ones that came out recently. We can’t understand Clinton’s actions outside of that context.

                  • RedLogix …
                    22 October 2016 at 8:56 pm

                    Given that Trump is a wealthy, powerful, confident and reasonably attractive man, would you care to estimate how many women he’s had some sexual interaction with … from social flirting to sex?

                    I’d guess it’s in the many hundreds.

                    Alpha-male types like him are always taking the initiative. And they get a LOT of positive enthusiastic consent. With time they tend to become cynical and over-entitled. They’ve had so many women say ‘yes’ to them, they go from a little risk taking … to stepping over the boundaries .. discounting the possibility that some will say no.

                    And given how poorly most people are at clearly communicating about sex and consent, it’s not at all surprising that of those many, many women, at least ten believe Trump went too far with them.

                    Years ago I worked with one of these types. The sheer number of partners he had sex with was bewildering to me. One day he took pity on me and explained, “I just ask every woman I meet. It’s a numbers game, about 1 in 7 says yes.”

                    It’s pretty much how I’d expect a man with Trump’s background and personality to behave. Nor can we overlook the agency of all the women who happily obliged him. Of course these days this kind of male sexuality is considered predatory and toxic. The prime consideration now is the overarching right of women to select who they partner with, where and when; to control what they do with their bodies.

                    Does all this make Trump a serial rapist? I’d leave that to a Court to determine. But the tide has absolutely turned on men like him, his brand of aggressive entitlement is no longer tolerated or desired. Once the stories came out he was never going to be President.

                    • Macro …
                      22 October 2016 at 10:33 pm

                      We already know that he is a rapist – after his first wife sued for divorce over his mistreatment of her. (she lost handfuls of hair on one occasion).http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-ivana-trump-divorce-papers-battle-lawsuit-rape-allegation-marriage-settlement-private-a7294071.html It’s not just the fact of his abuse of women – it’s also his misplaced sense of entitlement – walking in unannounced into the dressing rooms knowing that they would be in a state of undress. You just don’t do that. And then we have the creepy comments about 10 year old girls!
                      I don’t think we have to wait for a Court to know this man is a sexual predator.

                    • RedLogix …
                      22 October 2016 at 10:53 pm

                      @Macro

                      Clearly on the basis of what we know about Trump he should already be serving at least several life sentences, but a lack of concrete proof prevents justice from being done. Not good enough.

                      This is why I argue that everything everyone does should be recorded 24/7/365 and automatically placed in the public domain. The story you linked to about the media fighting to gaining access to Trump’s divorce records that had no business being private in the first place.

                      This way all the rapists and predators can be exposed early before they go on to damage untold others.

                    • McFlock …
                      23 October 2016 at 6:50 pm

                      I don’t care how many women he’s had consensual sex with, the topic is how many women have come forward, over years if not decades, with allegations that the sexual acts he performed on them were not consensual.

    • Andre 5.2
      21 October 2016 at 9:54 am

      Personally I’m grateful for a week without CV diverting just about every single subthread with some irrelevant piece of Hillary-hate sourced from Alex Jones or Breitbart.

      • Groundhog 5.2.1
        21 October 2016 at 12:15 pm

        The problem is that Hillary is so corrupt, she has left a huge wake of material to use against her. The MSM are sadly in her pocket (apart from Fox), so at least give CV credit for providing some balance.

        • Andre 5.2.1.1
          21 October 2016 at 12:28 pm

          This is the kind of thing I’m talking about.

          https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06102016/#comment-1240629

          Which is why I had come round to viewing CV as just some kind of unhinged Hillary-hate troll, not to be fed. Except when looking for lolz.

          • Groundhog 5.2.1.1.1
            22 October 2016 at 8:28 pm

            Fair enough. I’m not particularly hating on Hillary. She’s corrupt, but will still likely be less dangerous than Trump.

        • weka 5.2.1.2
          21 October 2016 at 12:54 pm


          The problem is that Hillary is so corrupt, she has left a huge wake of material to use against her. The MSM are sadly in her pocket (apart from Fox), so at least give CV credit for providing some balance.

          It’s not a problem, because The Standard is full of authors and commenters who are critical of Clinton, including many of the good critical thinkers here, and who can criticise her without resorting to what CV was doing.

          It’s utter bullshit to imply that CV was holding some kind of ground against swathes of people who were either pro-Clinton or had some motive for suppressing criticism of Clinton. Two things I have observed: one, that there has been a meme on ts that anyone criticising CV, his politics, or his behaviour is somehow pro-Clinton. The other is that anyone criticising Trump is somehow pro-Clinton. Of course people are going to react against that, not least because it is dishonest as fuck.

          • Groundhog 5.2.1.2.1
            22 October 2016 at 8:15 pm

            “It’s not a problem, because The Standard is full of authors and commenters who are critical of Clinton…”

            I agree. Apologies of my comment was interpreted as a dig at TS. It wasn’t.

            “It’s utter bullshit to imply that CV was holding some kind of ground against swathes of people who were either pro-Clinton or had some motive for suppressing criticism of Clinton. ”

            I didn’t.

    • weka 5.3
      21 October 2016 at 10:14 am


      Interesting that anyone who expresses a contrary view on this site, on the behaviours of Trump or Clinton is likely to get walloped. Pity really.
      For example a politician would say yes to the question re accepting the decision of the vote for President.
      A non politician might say he would wait and see.
      That is interesting as is the outrage expressed over there and on here.
      Just thinking of the slings and arrows flung at CV for his/her difference of view.

      I guess with CV having a week off we’ll get to see whether the issue was contrary views or CV in particular. There are enough people here who have contrary views that them getting walloped should be noticeable.

      • Curious George 5.3.1
        21 October 2016 at 12:45 pm

        I can only speak for myself, but I will no longer be posting here, or viewing,

        feel free to place whatever confirmation bias you like on this statement, understand I will not be viewing any replies,

        goodbye forever.

    • tom 5.4
      21 October 2016 at 1:38 pm

      Ian Mac at 5
      Absolutely agree RE: CV
      pretty distasteful really
      he is not lying, or attacking people personally (that i have read), he is incessant though and that could be frustrating people, but is not the reason he has been banned, and needs to be tolerated, as we all tolerate others opinions we do not agree with 100%, discuss on points not on feelings.
      and the hitler thing is quite extraordinary in that what he said is absolutely true, just because you do not like Trump or Hitler (no one does) does not mean you can negate history or facts about them, and to cutoff any discussion seems to be the very problem with the modern world, just ignore what you do not like or understand, that is the main issue with MSM (corporate media) so why follow that horrid lead, it plays to the propaganda models of the last 70 yrs to do so.

      also from below as one of the many many examples in these threads
      ‘defending Trumps history of sexual assault ‘
      Trump is not guilty of that crime, you really have to state ‘allegations’ to have any credibility, this is an example of the kind of rhetoric flung against CV while criticising him for doing exactly what you then go and do, it is not good enough.

      Moderators should have a re think here about their role and their personal feelings and not mix the 2.
      re read the threads if need be and think about the consistency.
      I don’t want Lefties, who i have always considered more willing to discuss facts than Righties, to become like them and ignore stuff because you do not like it, which IMO is happening here to varying degrees by some

      • ianmac 5.4.1
        21 October 2016 at 2:23 pm

        Thanks tom. You said it much better than I:
        “…just because you do not like Trump or Hitler (no one does) does not mean you can negate history or facts about them, and to cutoff any discussion seems to be the very problem with the modern world, just ignore what you do not like or understand…”
        I am not trying to defend Trump or CV. Just their right to explore contrary views without the severe thumping from others.
        (Trump would be an awful President by the way!)

        • keepcalmcarryon 5.4.1.1
          21 October 2016 at 9:41 pm

          Have been reading this site for a while, only contributed recently, but I absolutely agree ian , and Tom. I see a lot more objectivity and a lot less personal attack coming from CV than i do from his/her detractors. Read what you have written people.
          The left of politics is struggling for relevance, people thinking outside the box need to be at the very least listened to rationally.
          There is a certain self righteous moral hysteria directed at views outside those of some regular posters here which does a massive disservice to us all.
          Dont become a “whaleoil” for the left where a small bunch of smallminded people spew hatred at anyone not agreeing with them.
          Some of the “moderators” should have a read through their own posts over the last weeks its not pretty.
          I dont really care if Im flamed for this but it would be a shame if this place ends up an echochamber.

          • Manuka AOR 5.4.1.1.1
            22 October 2016 at 5:09 am

            I see a lot more objectivity and a lot less personal attack coming from CV

            Introducing CV’s mentor. Please watch and listen:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z25H-jHVT8s

            Hillary is “an abject psychopathic demon from hell” ….?

            If that is not self righteous moral hysteria directed at views outside their own, then I am not sure what is.

        • Manuka AOR 5.4.1.2
          22 October 2016 at 4:43 am

          I am not trying to defend Trump or CV. Just their right to explore contrary views without the severe thumping from others.

          If Trump wishes to “explore contrary views”, why has he been calling for violence against Hillary, and for her imprisonment? How would imprisoning or assassinating Hillary facilitate “exploring contrary views”?

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-supporter-assassinate-hillary-clinton-video-watch-us-election-2016-a7366301.html

      • McFlock 5.4.2
        21 October 2016 at 2:43 pm

        Which bit was “absolutely true”? The bit where he said H made Germany great again (albeit briefly), or the bit where he claimed that H could have invaded half of Poland with Stalin without starting WW2?

        Those aren’t facts. They’re matters of extremely doubtful opinion.

        Because “great” only counts if you consider “having a society predicated and economically dependant on eventual war with (and conquest of) the rest of Europe as well as mass detention and murder of political opponents, disliked ethnicities, and the disabled” as being largely synonymous with “great”.

        Trump is not guilty of that crime, you really have to state ‘allegations’ to have any credibility,

        Many, many allegations have been explicitly stated. A couple of lawsuits started well before 2016. I’m not saying he’s guilty of any or all, but there’s enough there to uninvite him from dinner. Especially as on at least two recorded conversations he’s boasted about doing exactly what was alleged – walking in on women who were getting changed (Howard Stern), and groping women (“bushy”).

        • tom 5.4.2.1
          21 October 2016 at 3:40 pm

          You may need to re read your history books, i am not going to do it for you. Hitler is horrid no doubt, but that does not change other elements of history, i hate discussing him personally as it ends up only sounding like you are somehow supporting him but facts are facts, maybe read widely on german history after WW1 in lead up to WW2. It was a pretty remarkable recovery especially considering the reparations they were forced to pay, and that is in no way is supporting hitler, is just a very basic fact.

          ‘defending Trumps history of sexual assault’
          that is a quote from this thread, and it does not mention that is an allegation in any measure, it flat out says Trump has sexually assauted, which is BS, i am not supporting Trump, but it is a common thing to put ‘alleged’ in these cases to be fair and not presume guilt, as presumption is the mother of all F..ups, so not me being precious, just a basic standard that needs to be adhered to.

          • te reo putake 5.4.2.1.1
            21 October 2016 at 3:48 pm

            Trump claims to have committed sexual assault, Tom, so there is no need for the qualifier ‘alleged’. Of course, he doesn’t identify it as sexual assault himself. He prefers to think of it as a rich man’s privilege.

          • McFlock 5.4.2.1.2
            21 October 2016 at 4:22 pm

            Reparations were paid just before H came to power. The bulk of H’s economic efforts involved inflating the armed forces and spending on the arms industry to massive and completely unsustainable levels, which were eventually offset by looting occupied countries.

            By just before WW2, the mark was beginning to be in the shit in a way that price controls and fixed forex rates couldn’t hide. For a country reliant on imports for some significant food and fuel sectors at the time, that was going to be a pretty serious problem.

        • mikesh 5.4.2.2
          21 October 2016 at 8:09 pm

          I thought Neville Chamberlain started WWII when he declared war on Germany.

      • TheExtremist 5.4.3
        21 October 2016 at 3:08 pm

        “he is not lying, or attacking people personally (that i have read)”

        Actually he frequently lied and did so to the point where mods were asking him to withdraw and apologise.

        • Anne 5.4.3.1
          21 October 2016 at 4:25 pm

          Not so much lying TE but misquoting the words of a commenter so that it looks like the commenter has said something else. CV did it to me a week or two ago and while it was no biggie… it was still annoying.

          As for the the sexual harassment claims against Trump. I’ll guarantee the women who have publicly claimed he sexually harrassed them only represent the tip of the iceberg – and a very big iceberg at that. The man is so up himself with personal entitlement, he probably believes nubile young women were placed on this planet for the sole purpose of providing him with all the carnal pleasures he can physically accommodate…

          • TheExtremist 5.4.3.1.1
            21 October 2016 at 4:36 pm

            Well I did tell him frequently “No I don’t support Clinton” only to have him continually claim I was a Clinton supporter. Then one day I said “No I don’t support intervention in the Philippines” then less than 24 hours later he said something along the lines of “Still supporting intervention in the Philippines I see”.

            I’d call that lying.

            (EDIT: But it doesn’t matter any more. I would like to move on from CV)

            • Anne 5.4.3.1.1.1
              21 October 2016 at 6:43 pm

              Fair enough. Unless we see the CV of old again, I think many Standardistas feel the same way.

  6. joe90 6
    21 October 2016 at 9:38 am

    As announced yesterday, another woman comes forward.

    (auto-play video inside)

    Karena Virginia, a yoga instructor an empowerment coach, said at a news conference Thursday that Trump harassed and groped her during a chance encounter at the U.S Open in 1998. As she was waiting for a car to take her home, Virginia said she overheard Trump appraising her body. “I was surprised when I overheard him talking to the other men about me,” Virginia told reporters in New York. “He said ‘hey, look at this one, we haven’t seen her before, look at those legs,’ as though I was an object rather than a person.”

    Virginia said Trump, a total stranger, then grabbed her arm and touched her breast.

    “I was in shock,” Virginia said. “I flinched. He said, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’ I felt intimidated and powerless. I said ‘yes.’”

    She was 27 at the time. Trump would have been in his early 50’s.

    When she got into the car, Virginia said, “my shock turned to shame.” She said it made her “disinclined to wear short dresses or high heels.”

    Virginia said she ran into Trump again about five years ago, and he “looked me up and down in a lecherous manner.” After this encounter, Virginia said she finally realized that, “I was the victim and he had violated me when he groped me years earlier.”

    http://time.com/4538729/donald-trump-accuser-karena-virginia/

    • Groundhog 6.1
      21 October 2016 at 12:17 pm

      Why haven’t these women published these claims before? It seems to me Trump is a sexual predator. How come he assaulted so many women and none said anything until now?

      • rhinocrates 6.1.1
        21 October 2016 at 12:29 pm

        Oh God, not again.

        Why don’t women come forward about rape and sexual assault? I won’t even bother linking. You can read a study. Generally, the most common reasons given by victims are: intimidation by perpetrator and others, belief that the police won’t do anything, belief that complaint will be ineffectual or even harmful, slut-shaming…

        And so on.

        Now think of penguins on the edge of an ice floe. There’s a leopard seal in the water. One finally leaps into the water and the water doesn’t suddenly turn red and foamy, so then the rest know it’s safe to swim.

        • Groundhog 6.1.1.1
          22 October 2016 at 8:21 pm

          …and yet they come forward just before an election. They forget the intimidation, ignore the potential inaction of police, set aside the ineffectual complaint. Becasue there is an election. Pull the other one.

          • fender 6.1.1.1.1
            22 October 2016 at 8:30 pm

            More likely they felt empowered due to the perp being exposed as a criminal creep when admitting sexual assault in a recording.

            • Groundhog 6.1.1.1.1.1
              23 October 2016 at 2:53 pm

              So why weren’t they ’empowered’ earlier? Why just a few weeks before an election?

              • joe90 …
                23 October 2016 at 3:01 pm

                You do realise they’re [the Clinton campaign] rat fucking Trump.

                Ok. Trump is horrible. But I want to talk a little bit about the oppo dump that’s happening in real time. This is world class work folks. 1/— Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) October 12, 2016

                This is a brilliantly coordinated drop, with staggered embargoes. First, notice the mix of local outlets and national outlets. 2/— Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) October 12, 2016

                There’s a great mix of print and broadcast as well. Start with the NYT to get eyeballs on the web and TV. CNN picks it up immediately 3/— Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) October 12, 2016

                Ok. Now you’ve got a story rolling. Within an hour, you start to get multiple waves coming out of local outlets. These get picked up. 4/— Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) October 12, 2016

                Within ninety minutes you’ve got reporters reporting on existing reporting. The cycle is locked in. Nobody’s assessing the stories. 5/— Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) October 12, 2016

                And here’s the kicker: the victims live in FL, OH, even UT. THEY’RE ALL SWING STATES! It’s masterful to be honest. Take a bow. /fin— Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) October 12, 2016

                This isn’t the bottom. We’re not even close.— Luke Thompson (@ltthompso) October 13, 2016

      • Andre 6.1.2
        21 October 2016 at 12:36 pm

        Just one of the many articles that explains this.

        http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/10/13/13264902/trump-sexual-assault-allegations-election-victims-wait

        Some women have spoken up about it before, for instance Jill Harth. Look it up your self if you need to.

      • TheExtremist 6.1.3
        21 October 2016 at 12:39 pm

        Why did none come forward about Cosby until they did? How come no one came out about Jimmy Saville?

        It isn’t up to us to question when these woman feel comfortable to come forward but I think it was probably when they realised they weren’t alone and Trump openly said he had never sexually assaulted anyone.

        • Groundhog 6.1.3.1
          22 October 2016 at 8:25 pm

          “It isn’t up to us to question when these woman feel comfortable to come forward…”

          Actually it is. Unless you believe the timing is coincidence and people are guilty until proven innocent.

          • Manuka AOR 6.1.3.1.2
            22 October 2016 at 8:48 pm

            Why not do just a modicum of research before displaying your ignorance?

            • Groundhog 6.1.3.1.2.1
              23 October 2016 at 2:42 pm

              You aren’t willing to discuss THIS case are you? No, I thought not. Address the specifics of THIS case. Why did it take an election for these women to come forward?

              • Manuka AOR …
                23 October 2016 at 3:38 pm

                You aren’t willing to discuss THIS case are you?

                Yes, definitely THIS case! If you read the page at the link I provided, – the same principles apply.

                There are many reasons that women don’t report sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and rape. Some of those reasons are listed on that page, eg:

                – Fear of reprisal
                (would that apply with Mr Trump? Hmm, he wouldn’t try to ‘get back’ at anyone who reported him would he? Not the vengeful sort is he?
                Richard Branson says otherwise: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/richard-branson-on-meeting-donald-trump-2016-10?r=US&IR=T
                He says, “Donald Trump told me he wanted to spend ‘the rest of his life’ getting revenge.
                Don’t believe him? What did Mr Trump say he would do in his First 100 Days in office? Why, he’s going to sue them, for “lying”: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/22/trump-vows-to-sue-all-female-accusers-as-11th-woman-steps-forward.html
                Now he has the money to do that — The women may not have have the money to defend themselves.

                That is just ONE reason, out of 16 or so that are listed there.

                • Groundhog …
                  23 October 2016 at 4:19 pm

                  And none of them wash. Why have they only come forward NOW? Days before an election, when there is no opportunity for him to defend himself in court?

                  • Manuka AOR …
                    24 October 2016 at 12:29 am

                    Days before an election, when there is no opportunity for him to defend himself in court?

                    Um… Are you aware that one of “these women” was a 13 year old girl at the time? And that her claim is that Trump tied her to a bed and violently raped her?

                    Oh how inconsiderate of her to choose such bad timing to try and get justice (sarc/ )

                    But wait – she filed her case many months ago. It will be heard in December.

                    • Groundhog …
                      24 October 2016 at 9:57 am

                      ” Are you aware that one of “these women” was a 13 year old girl at the time?”

                      One of them.

              • Manuka AOR …
                23 October 2016 at 3:55 pm

                Why did it take an election for these women to come forward?

                The trigger for some of them was when, during the first of the three debates, Trump was asked, ‘Did you do any of this?” – in relation to the boasts he had made about doing just that.
                He denied it, – said it was just “locker room talk”, and then, “No. I did not”.
                One of the first of the women to come forward (I don’t know who was who) said at the time that his public denial of doing that caused a gut reaction in her, so that she threw something at the TV. She couldn’t take it, and spoke out.

                I know other women who have similar reactions, years after having been raped or assaulted. Something unexpectedly reminds them of it and they snap. If you read up on it at all you would see that many women have a kind of PTSD that lasts for a long time and that can re-surface with certain triggers. Trump’s denials would certainly be such a trigger.

                • Groundhog …
                  23 October 2016 at 4:10 pm

                  How can something “unexpectedly remind them of it” after such an event? Surely if they remember the incident so well they have been dealing with it all that time.

                  Besides that, you’re wrong. Allegations against Trump have been around for years. The first I can recall is from 1993. Trump is a well known womaniser. That these women did not feel empowered to out him until just before an election stretches credibility to breaking point.

                  • weka …
                    23 October 2016 at 4:16 pm

                    “How can something “unexpectedly remind them of it” after such an event?”

                    Seriously, you need to go and educate yourself about what the impacts of sexual assault are. You’ve had a number of explanations and instead of using those to learn something you’re just coming back with your ignorance. Starting to look intentional.

                    • Groundhog …
                      23 October 2016 at 4:22 pm

                      I have had no explanations relevant to this case. None. Your latest rant doesn’t even address my point, which is the wording ‘unexpectedly remind them’. You cannot argue that on one hand this has been a traumatic event, and on the other that something unexpectedly reminded them of it. It’s bs. You also haven’t addressed my rebuttal to the point about the timing…that it coincided with the denial. Perhaps you could try debating the points rather than pretending you know something I don’t.

                    • weka …
                      23 October 2016 at 4:46 pm


                      I have had no explanations relevant to this case. None.

                      Um, Manuka just gave you an explanation in the comment you just replied to.

                      Your latest rant doesn’t even address my point, which is the wording ‘unexpectedly remind them’.

                      Rant? Really?

                      You cannot argue that on one hand this has been a traumatic event, and on the other that something unexpectedly reminded them of it.

                      Actually, we can. It’s well established trauma theory and treatment practice. Like I said, you need to go educate yourself. You can start with PTSD from other situations e.g. war, because sexual assault if obviously not something you are getting your head around.

                      You also haven’t addressed my rebuttal to the point about the timing…that it coincided with the denial.

                      Probably because I find these conversations tedious when we’ve had them a million times before and someone like you shows up and demands answers and when they get them they attack the messenger.

                      People have been accusing Trump of sexual assault for years. The accusations that came out recently were in response to the video of him saying that it’s ok and good to sexually assault women. That makes perfect sense, and there have been many explanations posted as to why that timing makes sense.

                      Perhaps you could try debating the points rather than pretending you know something I don’t.

                      Lol, I’m pretty confident I know how to debate thanks. Having watched you demand an explanation, then refuse to engage with those explanations, then demand some more, and now have a go at me for pointing out that you need to educate yourself and telling me to debate the points… gee, you appear to be a bit hypocritical there.

                      Yes, that was me being rude. I’d be really happy to debate the points if I though you were being genuine and were interested in learning something.

                    • Groundhog …
                      24 October 2016 at 10:01 am

                      “Um, Manuka just gave you an explanation in the comment you just replied to.”

                      No, he didn’t. He spoke about a ‘trigger’. He not only got the timing wrong, he failed to explain why the numerous historic cases against Trump were also not ‘triggers’. Until an election.

                      “The accusations that came out recently were in response to the video of him saying that it’s ok and good to sexually assault women.”

                      And there you go, making exactly the same mistake. http://fusion.net/story/328522/donald-trump-accused-rape-sexual-assault/

                      You’re commenting on stuff you know nothing about.

                    • weka …
                      24 October 2016 at 10:39 am


                      No, he didn’t. He spoke about a ‘trigger’. He not only got the timing wrong, he failed to explain why the numerous historic cases against Trump were also not ‘triggers’. Until an election.

                      Actually I already knew about the previous allegations, and have commented as such recently on TS. You are making no sense, and as far as I can tell shifting goal posts.

                      To summarise then,

                      Trump has a long history of allegations of sexual assault.

                      Some of those allegations have been resolved via legal means e.g. his wife.

                      Others are ongoing via legal means.

                      A few weeks ago a video emerged showing Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women and basically supporting this as an ok and good thing to do.

                      Other women have now spoken out about him as having sexually assaulted them.

                      Men without a fucking clue about rape or rape culture are now on the internets saying that the women who have come forward in recent times are a set up because of the timing.

                      People who do have a fucking clue about rape and rape culture have explained many times other reasons for the timing.

                      Now, I’m done with this conversation because I think you are basically trolling.

                      I’m suggesting strongly that if you disagree with someone here that you put up an actual argument. Demanding that people explain things to you, or asserting they are wrong because, is not sufficient if you are going to keep attacking them for what they are saying.

                    • Groundhog …
                      24 October 2016 at 12:44 pm

                      So now you start on with this rape culture bollocks.

                      “I’m suggesting strongly that if you disagree with someone here that you put up an actual argument.”

                      I have, but for the slow of mind, I will repeat.

                      Trump is surrounded by accusations of sexual harrassment, and has been for years. I asked why some of these women are only coming forward so close to an election.

                      Manuka tried to use some of the ‘text-book’ explanations, all of which are potentially valid, none of which explain the current timing.

                      Manuka then argued that there was a ‘trigger’ in the denials during the first of the three debates. The article I posted demonstrated that claim to be false. There have been allegations against Trump from well before that.

                      That’s all there is.

                      Also, when I said “You’re commenting on stuff you know nothing about” I meant the issue of THIS CASE, not debating points.

                      [No idea what you are talking about. There are multiple instances in this subthread alone of people addressing the timing issue. You also keep talking about THIS CASE without specifying which one, when the rest of us are talking about multiple cases. And you say that you provided a link that demonstrates a specific claim by Manuka to be false, and yet that link is in direct response to my comment AND you don’t explain where or what in the article supports your assertion or even what your assertion is other than other people are wrong. Like I said, I’m done with this conversation now, and am now in moderator mode. If you want to keep refuting people’s points, then you need to explain your thinking, not just keep saying “you’re wrong” and expecting people to read links and mindread what you got out of them. At the moment you look like you are trolling. – weka]

                  • Manuka AOR …
                    23 October 2016 at 4:46 pm

                    I’ll try one more time, on the off chance that you are genuinely wondering. After that, I’ve done wasting my time.

                    Imagine that you are out somewhere with your five year old daughter, at a fun park or Macdonalds or somewhere.

                    Some big dude bumps into her. He picks her up and gives her an overly fond couple of pats on the backside. He hitches her tights, gives another overly affectionate, feely-cuddle, then goes off.

                    Your initial reaction is to go after him and say, “What the hell are you doing!” and possibly belt him one. Then you recognise him – he’s a well-known celebrity, wealthy and powerful. He doesn’t know you from any other face in the crowd, and he seems to have not even an iota of awareness of having done anything remotely questionable.

                    Afterwards you stew about it for a while, then realise there is not really anything you can do about it.

                    Years go by and you’ve more or less forgotten about it. Then this same dude stands for some powerful public position where he will have influence over children and others. One or two other parents speak out and say, “Hold on. He has done xyz…”

                    That’s your chance, and now you find the courage and speak out.

                    Capiche?

                    • Groundhog …
                      24 October 2016 at 10:05 am

                      No, doesn’t wash with me. If someone touches my daughter inappropriately, they will feel the brunt of my response. I don’t care who they are. If you would act otherwise, you are a pathetic piece of work.

                      In all of this, you still haven’t answered the simple question of why it has taken an election to bring these charges out in the open.

                    • Manuka AOR …
                      24 October 2016 at 10:09 am

                      If someone touches my daughter inappropriately, they will feel the brunt of my response. If you would act otherwise, you are a pathetic piece of work.

                      Actually I totally agree with you on that one. I realised that it was in inadequate example after I wrote it.

                    • Manuka AOR …
                      24 October 2016 at 10:11 am

                      In all of this, you still haven’t answered the simple question of why it has taken an election to bring these charges out in the open.

                      Not true. It has been answered many times in many ways. End of story.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    24 October 2016 at 12:52 pm

                    The article I posted demonstrated that claim to be false.

                    No, it didn’t. The fact that you think it did suggests that you don’t understand the claim.

                    • Groundhog …
                      24 October 2016 at 1:12 pm

                      “No, it didn’t. ”

                      Hint:

                      1. Read the article.
                      2. Check the comment at the foot about when it was written.
                      3. Engage brain.

                      Back in your box.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 October 2016 at 1:25 pm

                      1. check the note at the top that states it has been “updated”.

                      2. Using Google cache, or some other appropriate set of tools, check the previous versions and see if you missed something.

                      3. Until you do that your cite demonstrates nothing.

                    • weka …
                      24 October 2016 at 2:07 pm

                      Groundhog, see my moderation note above.

  7. Andre 7
    21 October 2016 at 9:57 am

    Surprise! Guess who is one of the funders of James O’Keefe/Project Veritas?

    https://thinkprogress.org/trump-funded-james-okeefe-53015c2f44b6#.e9usddv96

    • The New Student 7.1
      21 October 2016 at 3:08 pm

      Heh, wise investment

    • McFlock 7.2
      21 October 2016 at 3:13 pm

      shocked and stunned, lol

    • Groundhog 7.3
      22 October 2016 at 8:26 pm

      So? Do you deny the content of the latest videos? Do you approve of Clinton operatives deploying people to engage in acts of violence to disrupt the Trump rally’s?

      • Manuka AOR 7.3.1
        22 October 2016 at 8:43 pm

        That has been answered here: https://thestandard.org.nz/us-election-discussion-post-weekend-edition-221016/
        Comment #7 by Andre and #7.1 by Joe90.
        Context. Is. Everything.

        • Groundhog 7.3.1.1
          23 October 2016 at 2:52 pm

          Context? Like Clinton operatives discussing creating violence at Trump rallys? Perhaps we should be asking what was the context of Trumps touching up young women. Your obfuscation is sick.

      • Andre 7.3.2
        22 October 2016 at 8:46 pm

        To be honest I only watched a few minutes of it, until it seemed obvious that context was being edited out of it. I got a definite “Planned Parenthood sells baby parts” kind of vibe from it. So I’m watching with mild interest how it all shakes out.

        Do I approve of Clinton operatives deploying people to disrupt a rival’s rally? Absolutely not. If that gets shown to have actually happened, there should be consequences. But I find that O’Keefe effort somewhat unconvincing on its own, without credible corroboration. And the issue needs to be considered in the context of Trump himself inciting violence at his own rallies.

        • Andre 7.3.2.1
          22 October 2016 at 8:55 pm

          Oh, and as for the “So?”, nothing more than mild amusement at how the circles go round and round. The donation was May 2015, well before any kind of cunning plan could have been formed.

          • Groundhog 7.3.2.1.1
            23 October 2016 at 2:46 pm

            Irrelevant. DId the incitement happen? Yes. Were Clinton operatives involved? Yes.

        • Groundhog 7.3.2.2
          23 October 2016 at 2:45 pm

          It happened.

          And btw PP did try to sell body parts. You might not want to believe it, but they are as corrupt as Clinton.

  8. joe90 8
    21 October 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Joe puts the needle in.

    WATCH LIVE: Joe Biden says Trump may be too "stupid" to "know the damage he's doing" https://t.co/H9n7JJUntx pic.twitter.com/CGdT1vtibG— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 20, 2016

  9. Macro 9
    21 October 2016 at 12:56 pm

    My favourite quote of the day:

    ‘The losing candidate mattered more than the candidate who actually won’

    Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University and editor of Dissent

    Barring some catastrophic new revelations about her conduct as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton essentially won the election after the Democratic convention this past summer. Nothing she or Donald Trump said during Wednesday night’s debate changed that fact. But this will be remembered as one of the very few presidential elections in which the losing candidate mattered more than the candidate who actually won. Trump’s 18-month performance in a self-written piece he should have called “Make America Hate Again” repelled far more Americans than it attracted. Yet even before the final curtain goes down, we are wondering—no we are shuddering to find out—what crazy, destructive things he and his adoring followers will say and do next.

  10. rhinocrates 10
    21 October 2016 at 1:09 pm

    The Atlantic on the troubled state of the Republican Party.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/debate-william-f-buckley/504620/

    The focus is on the figure of William F. Buckley. I prefer Gibson or Burroughs when it comes to Williams, but anyway…

    Many people might know him from this film, about a series of TV debates with Gore Vidal that mark a turning point in American political discourse:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_Enemies_(film)

    While I’m not a fan of the Republican Party in general, I’d have nicer things to say about Nixon than Trump and a party in the mould of Buckley rather than one shaped by the line that runs from Gingrich through the Tea Party to Trump is certainly the lesser of two evils.

    The closing paragraph:

    Buckley may have been eminently smug and often wrong, but at least he was willing to spar. Occasionally, he even changed his mind. That’s what good discourse looks like. Maybe one day, that’s what good television can look like again.

  11. joe90 11
    21 October 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Promises.

    We have a suprise in store for @TimKaine and @DonnaBrazile.— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 20, 2016

  12. Cemetery Jones 12
    21 October 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Debate was useful for me; Hillary confirmed she will push for the no fly zone in Syria, and I added another 15l of water to my basement stash. Enjoy the EMP vibez folks.

  13. Mrs Brillo 13
    21 October 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Whenever we see a photo of Melania Trump, we can’t stop whistling this fine old South African song about the compromises a poor woman makes:

  14. Andre 14
    21 October 2016 at 4:14 pm

    For anyone that’s not yet thoroughly sick or weirded out watching Clinton and Trump make strange noises at each other, they both attended the same charity dinner to “roast” each other the day after the debate.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-al-smith-dinner_us_58097764e4b0cdea3d869d9b

    • Manuka AOR 16.1
      21 October 2016 at 8:11 pm

      Eww… “just a cold, hard death stare” indeed.
      He looks like Colonel Klink from Hogans Heroes.
      The hero of 911 … seems a long time ago.

  17. Manuka AOR 17
    21 October 2016 at 8:22 pm

    Celebs on Twitter during the debate:

    Well, there you have it. A highly intelligent, experienced woman just debated a giant orange Twitter egg. Your move, America. #debate — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) October 20, 2016

    Her closing statement was positive. His was blaming, shaming, fear and paranoia. That’s why #imwithher — Mayim Bialik (@missmayim) October 20, 2016

    “We have the greatest people in our military.”
    But you know more about ISIS.#GeneralTrump#ImDone#Debate
    — Retta (@unfoRETTAble) October 20, 2016

    Are you a bad hombre or a nasty woman? #Debate
    — Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) October 20, 2016

    Literally, Chris Wallace just asked, “You’re going to lose, Donald. We all know it — can you be cool about it?” #debates — Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) October 20, 2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/these-celebs-killed-it-on-twitter-during-the-third-presidential-debate_us_58082f8de4b0180a36e8eaed

  19. pat 19
    21 October 2016 at 9:05 pm

    deja vu ?…..had almost forgotten about this character…but then he was hardly memorable

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/20/donald-trump-silvio-berlusconi-italy-prime-minister

  20. Draco T Bastard 20
    21 October 2016 at 10:57 pm

    Donald Trump is America
    What the US was doing to the world at large is what Americans now fear Trump might do to the US.

    Decent Americans

    There are decent Americans who insist Trump is “the worst of America”.

    But for the world at large and at the receiving end of American military might, Trump is the very quintessence of America because Trump is what America does to the world, and now it has come dangerously close to do unto itself what it has habitually done unto others.

    But this very “western civilization” has been a threat to world peace for a very long time, and Trump is now its defining moment, as were Hitler, Mussolini, King Leopold II, and the entire spectrum of British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and Belgian imperialism wreaking havoc on every corner of this earth.

    “He might be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch.”

    Now who said that? Somebody said that about Donald Trump, or was it President Franklin D Roosevelt reportedly saying it about the dictator of Nicaragua, Anastasio Somoza Garcia? History has a sweet sense of humour. The sentence has now come back to haunt the country of its origin.

    “Donald Trump might be a son of a bitch” the world is now echoing in kind, “but he is your son of a bitch.”

  21. Jenny 21
    23 October 2016 at 5:41 pm

    If climate change is not made an election issue, if climate change is not discussed in the media, If the parties aren’t forced to say where they stand on thr issues related to climate like deep sea oil drilling, new coal mines, public transport vs more motorways, solar taxes, fossil fuel subsidies, and other climate related issues, it doesn’t matter really who wins the elections, because they won’t have a mandate to take any meaningful action to address any of these issues.

    Failure to ask climate questions equals climate change denial

    Hotter, stormier, deadlier

    http://www.climatevoter.org.nz/

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.