NYT Reporter Falls: Where is the Investigation of Trump?

Glenn Thrush has been suspended from the New York Times and will be entering an in-patient alcohol treatment program, following a Vox expose of his conduct with young female reporters. The report has copies of text messages between Glenn and one of the women.

I'd like to see the reporters focus on the allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment against Donald Trump over the years. Trump, like the carnival barker he is at heart, just yells "Clinton" when the topic is raised, knowing it will deflect attention. Clinton is not sitting in the Oval Office or any public office. What he did or didn't do 25 years ago is a public record, was examined in depth at a House and Senate impeachment trial, in the Paula Jones lawsuit and more. Trump (and his Clinton-hating supporters) conveniently fail to mention that Monica Lewinsky, according to her public statements, engaged in a consensual relationship.

Glenn Thrush allegedly made unwanted sexual advances -- several women have made the same allegations against Trump. Thrush's accusers believed he was in a position to help their careers, and therefore his unwanted overtures were sexual harassment. Trump's accusers claim he used his position of power and wealth to make unwanted advances against them. Clinton is different, he used his position of power to engage in a consensual relationship. [More...]

Monica Lewinsky was over 18. She has always acknowledged she consented to her affair with Clinton, and has insisted it was the media and the internet who abused her. I lost the link to the article with an interview of Lewinsky with this quote, but I'm sure you can google it.

I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath.. Lewinsky explains. She goes on to say that the abuse she suffered actually stemmed from the “global humiliation” that was driven by the persistent coverage of the affair on the internet.

End of story. Clinton took advantage of a naive intern. Did he assault her, stalk her, subject her to unwanted physical touching or verbal abuse? No.

Al Franken is enduring his public shaming punishment, and as of now, not resigning. Liberals and progressive women should be careful not to fall for the conservatives' sleight of hand in asking for Franken's resignation. He's one of the few liberal voices in the Senate. It's absurd to suggest that his one peccadillo more than 10 years ago, prior to becoming a Senator, when he tried to kiss a cast-mate during a skit rehearsal and grabbed her breasts while she was sleeping, is more important than the good work he has done and will continue to in the Senate, particularly during a time when Republicans pose such a threat to progressive policies.

I recognize that sexual harassment of women is not one of the issues I give much thought to (I am far more likely view it through the lens of the accused than accuser) but if it were, I would focus on the man who sits in the Oval office and the marginalized and largely voiceless women who are sexually abused by police officers. (I have a post written on some of the more egregious recent cases involving police officers who sexually assault suspects and arrestees, but that's not the topic of this post.

During the 2016 election campaign, more than 10 women came forward and with claims of inappropriate sexual conduct. Donald said they are all lying. Newsweek says Trump has been accused of rape or attempted rape 3 times, and that 16 women have made accusations of inappropriate sexual contact by Trump.

Considering that media publication of these transgressions ends up destroying careers (not just in a public shaming) I have to ask, why aren't journalists digging into the accusations against Trump? The character of the man who gets to represent the United States America in international affairs has an effect of how our nation is viewed by others around the globe. Thus, the allegations against Trump affect all Americans. They are far more significant to the country at large than accusations against actors and journalists, 99.9% of whom none of us will come into contact with.

Now that America has reverted to the Scarlet Letter days of Hester Prynn and the politics of shaming, Donald Trump should be at the top of every investigative journalist's list.

< Sen. Al Franken Gets A Groping Allegation of His Own | Thanksgiving (End of Year) Site News >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 03:42:30 PM EST
    I too have the same thoughts Jeralyn. Why is Trump not getting beat over the head with all this?

    Ironic that Thrush was accused of harassment because he sure did use his voice at the NYT to harass Hillary. Have you noticed that the journalists who threw the most misogyny at Hillary are being found to be harassers?

    CNN (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:03:58 PM EST
    did run a serious recounting of the multiple allegations against tRump after he attacked Franken on on twitter, for a couple of cycles. They actually called out the hypocrisy but by the Sunday shows Moore's and Franken's problems and  what about Clinton (CDS is uncurable) ate up a lot of the oxygen. Today it's back to Moore with a side of Franken. tRump has been hit over the head with it both before and after the election in a way it was ligated by the election and afterwards there was a lot of what-ya-gonna do. Really what exactly are you going to do?

    That being said, right now everybody is holding their breath waiting for Alabama, after that there  may be a reckoning. Except by then tRump may have bigger problems.



    Frankly (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:40:04 PM EST
    I'm not expecting the woman thing to do anything to Trump. I am however expecting the Russia thing to do a lot of damage and it seems to already have done a lot of damage.

    You have to wonder how many men with (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:10:31 PM EST
    public profiles and/or name recognition are literally shaking in their boots waiting to be exposed for their own harassment/abuse/misconduct...

    Now, it's Charlie Rose:

    Eight women have told The Washington Post that longtime television host Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances toward them, including lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.

    The women were employees or aspired to work for Rose at the "Charlie Rose" show from the late 1990s to as recently as 2011. They ranged in age from 21 to 37 at the time of the alleged encounters. Rose, 75, whose show airs on PBS, also co-hosts "CBS This Morning" and is a contributing correspondent for "60 Minutes."

    There are striking commonalities in the accounts of the women, each of whom described their interactions with Rose in multiple interviews with The Post. For all of the women, reporters interviewed friends, colleagues or family members who said the women had confided in them about aspects of the incidents. Three of the eight spoke on the record.

    Since no one could reasonably or credibly claim that this kind of behavior is in any way appropriate or acceptable, ever, one has to wonder why these men (1) do it and why (2) they get away with it.

    If I am the mother, wife, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, of any of these men who have chosen to act this way toward girls/women, I am not just ashamed and upset and heartsick, I am disgusted and angry because when they do these things, they are saying they don't care about me, they don't respect me, that as a woman, I don't matter.

    It's time for the Equal Rights Amendment, it's time to elect more women to public office, it's time to put more women in boardrooms and management positions.

    We are not objects, we are not playthings, we are not property.  It's time men got that message.

    fwiw, I've had my butt and/or "package" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:25:26 PM EST
    grabbed by random women on several occasions, back when I was in my prime. Cue "Glory Days"...

    So have I (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:28:47 PM EST
    You can't possibly be saying there is any real comparison.

    Which is not to say (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:32:26 PM EST
    It is impossible for a woman to engage in an abuse of power relationship.

    But it's sort of like gun violence.  Always, before any facts are known, the shooter is
     referred to as a gunMAN.  There is a very good reason they do that.


    The patriarchy? j/k (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:48:05 PM EST
    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:50:41 PM EST
    Last week on Maher they were discussing this very thing.  It was noted that women never do this and Sara Silverman brought down the house with one word.



    Hetero-normy speaking... (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    Guys dig it because it's so rare hence new and exciting, gals hate it because it's so commonplace hence degrading and tiresome.

    It's also less likely to be a possible (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 04:53:16 PM EST
    precurser to violent assault or rape when men experience it.

    Most men are going to less stressed about it for the simple fact that they know they could physically fend off a woman if things ever "got out of hand."


    Kdog (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:03:22 PM EST
    Because you aren't a man who gets off on the power of harassment, it's hard to imagine you being a harasser that we could then harass back. You just don't know how that $hit $how goes. You give off zero harasser vibes online and in person.

    Rare (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 06:31:39 PM EST
    yeah, I'd say so.   Where is all this guy grabbing going on?

    Too much testosterone (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 05:46:08 PM EST
    and not enough effin' brains.

    Which also explains why there are so many rapes committed by (some) soldiers in wartime.


    Which is not to say (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:50:20 PM EST
    Which is not to say It is impossible for a woman to engage in an abuse of power relationship.

    Thank you.


    I have personally (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    Known powerful women, one of whom is one of by best friends, who is very sexually predatory.
    I love her and the first time we met she hit on  me.  I said sorry I never make it with anyone who has a bigger d!ck than me.  She cracked up and we have been friends ever since.
    She brought a lot of tension to the workplace for a lot of guys.  Some who had girlfriends some who were just not into it.  The interesting thing is, and I know this, she was completely unaware of the unwelcomeness of it.  The tension.  She honestly thought they would and should be flattered.

    I've thought about her a few time during this.

    I wonder how many men feel the same way.  Don't misunderstand I'm not talking about the Roy Moore's or the pu$$y grabbers.  But the bosses.  The supervisors.  The former presidents.



    Yeah man. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:09:21 PM EST
    Saw Melissa Etheridge in concert a while back, and her intro to a song was that it was her way of apologizing to a girl who she took sexual advantage of due to her fame.

    I think that is "An Unexpected Rain." (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 09:07:38 PM EST
    This particular song is about a casual relationship Ms. Etheridge had back in the days when she was an unknown entertainer from the Midwest, and was trying to catch a break in the L.A. music scene. As you noted, she eventually ditched her lover as her career started to really take off and apparently wound up hurting the young woman very badly, far more than she initially realized.

    "As I recall back in 1982,
    I never said goodbye or why.
    I just left a note for you.
    Then one night I saw you
    Across the road, across the dark;
    A shameful spear into my heart.
    Your look was haunting, an unexpected pain.
    I am so sorry for the unexpected rain,
    The sadness that you kissed,
    The fresh scars on your wrist;
    I can't make it go away."

    It's a very touching and painful recollection. Lots of personal angst and regret went into that composition.

    "And I tried to do my best;
    I never meant to hurt no one.
    I was waiting for my break
    That I knew one day would come.
    And I'd plug in my guitar
    And I'd look out across the room,
    And I'd dig into my heart
    And I'd try to sing the truth.
    And I know I did my best;
    I never meant to hurt no one.
    Goodnight, ladies. goodnight,
    I'm going to leave you now."

    It's found on her 2007 album "The Awakening."


    Though it was a song of regret (and this concert was a couple or more years ago) I don't remember the song being so "on the nose" w/regard to the story she told.

    iirc, it was a one night stand and she drove the canyons afterward (presumably from the valley over the hill to LA) to her home (guessing WeHo).

    Saw her at the Greek, straight up one of the best entertainers I've ever seen in LA.


    nevamind, just watched the song on youtube (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 09:59:26 PM EST
    you got it right

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:03:58 PM EST
    It's rarer but they are out there

    Just curious, as a good friend, did you (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:11:28 PM EST
    ever feel the need to enlighten her about her behavior?  

    Asking because we keep hearing with a lot of these most recent accusations that the behavior was well-known, that some women brought the behavior to the attention of those who possibly could have said or done something, and so on.

    It just seems that unless the confrontation is initiated by someone with even more power, these things just go nowhere.  In your case, you weren't in that position.

    Argh, it's all so ugly and messy and what worries me is that after all this flailing around, eventually, the energy to do something will just be replaced by some new outrage, and things will just go back where they've always been.


    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:15:04 PM EST
    I would not use the word enlighten.

    But we talked about it.  Several times.  Especially when her husband left her for it.  I do think she has dialed it back.

    They are back together.


    I think both (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:20:36 PM EST
    1&2 have the same answer.

    Because they can.  Or could.


    It's (none / 0) (#23)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    practically time for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and I am only half kidding.

    I'd have to agree with you. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 09:16:15 PM EST
    Such a commission might be the only way to remove the politics from a mutual and inherently non-partisan problem. Get everyone to take a deep breath, and consider carefully what they're saying and what's being said in return.

    I believe that it's only going to be so long before all these accusations start getting weaponized politically. At that point, everyone will retreat to their partisan corners and start gleefully lobbing brickbats at one another. And as Anne rightly fears, an opportunity for some real conversation and meaningful change will have been duly squandered.



    Charlie Rose has been suspended (none / 0) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:07:32 PM EST
    by CBS. PBS has halted production and distribution of The Charlie Rose show.

    From what I have read Rose is an out of control a$$hole.


    In addition to being a horrible (none / 0) (#29)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:16:09 PM EST
    interviewer. He never asks tough questions of his guests.

    I can't stand Rose (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    And for some reason, although I never thought about it, I find it unsurprising.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:21:43 PM EST
    A terrible interviewer. (none / 0) (#34)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:41:34 PM EST
    He talks too much when interviewing instead of letting his guest talk. And, yes, he never asks the tough questions.

    This is (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:47:16 PM EST
    generally a problem with the media. Charlie Rose is just a symptom of the problem. They only seemed like marginal interviews to me. He acted more like a talk show host. I've seen Oprah ask harder questions.

    Yeah, Charlie Rose interviewing someone else... (none / 0) (#70)
    by unitron on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 11:35:32 PM EST
    ...has always been a great way to find out what Charlie has to say about the matter at hand.

    Maybe 15 or 20 years ago he was out for a long while for medical reasons and had guest hosts and those were the best Charlie Rose shows I'd ever seen.


    LOL! (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 09:23:06 PM EST
    "What did the moment fell like?" I've always thought Charlie Rose was nothing but a pile of meringue in an empty pie tin.

    Jamie Dimon (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 05:18:15 PM EST
    is one of his best friends..

    Maybe I'm a little twisted, but for some reason the masked party in Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut keeps popping into my head when I think of the antics of some of these erstwhile decadent Roman senators..


    David E. Kendall, (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:39:39 PM EST
    Clinton lawyer, responds (NYTimes, Nov 20,2017) to Peter Baker (WaPo) on Bill Clinton:  "It is true that all victims matter, but facts matter as well.  The 'emerging revisionism' that Mr. Baker notes leads to an obscuring of the historical record.  The matter involving Kathleen Wiley was covered at length during the impeachment proceedings of 1998-99.

    As to Paula Jones, her claim that her case was 'not taken seriously' is simply not true.  It was vigorously litigated over a period of four years, including an appeal to the Supreme Court.  Full civil discovery was conducted, including a pretrial deposition of Mr. Clinton.

    The trial judge then granted the president's motion for summary judgment before trial and dismissed Ms. Jones's case with prejudice, meaning that it could not be filed again.   The judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to present to a jury.  While the case was settled on appeal, there was no admission of wrongdoing.

    As to Juanita Broaddrick, in 1998, she three times denied under oath that the president had assaulted her in an affidavit, in sworn deposition testimony reaffirming her affidavit.   She apparently tried to recant her affidavit when interviewed by the independent counsel, Ken Starr.   The independent counsel investigated the matter but did not bring charges.  Ms. Broaddrick gave an interview on network TV in Feb. 1999 stating her views at length.

    Listening to victims is important, but so, out of simple fairness, is taking into account the available facts."

    i agree about Bubba (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 03:19:07 PM EST
    not only was it with a consenting adult, he paid for it.  he was impeached and disgraced.  when is it Cheetos time in the barrel to be impeached and disgraced?

    beyond that, the reason the public was so supportive of Clinton was not so much a different climate, although that is definitely true, it was that the entire Clinton thing stank of politics.   it was a political setup from the getgo and everyone knew it.

    no serius person can say all those Trump voters are going after Moore for political reasons.

    The one person who didn't consent - (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:00:17 PM EST
    at least as far as we know - was Bill Clinton's wife, Hillary Clinton.  

    And apparently, falling under the spell of a nubile and infatuated and star-stuck young woman took precedence over his marriage vows, his respect for his wife as a person, and his responsibility as someone with considerable power not to indulge his need for ego- and other kinds of - stroking.

    Yeah, there were lawyers and all kinds of legal cha-cha-cha, but Clinton took the Roy Moore strategy - he did not have sexual relations with that woman - until he couldn't deny it.  When your defense depends of the definition of "is," you don't have much, do you?

    Paying a price - and whatever price he paid, he did get to keep his job, and go on to reap untold hundreds of millions of dollars dazzling people with his wit and brilliance - doesn't wipe the slate clean.  It doesn't change that his personal character was pig-like.  Meaning no disrespect to pigs, of course.

    It will always inform how I think of him - not that he cares, but for the life of me, I don't know why he is considered to be some kind of folk hero deserving of respect and admiration.


    Of course it will inform (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:12:11 PM EST
    How you and everyone else will look at.  Forever.

    And for the record I never said he was a hero or deserving of particularly anything.

    I think he was a pretty good president.  I also think he was a cad.  And like Roy Moore and Trump he was famous for it long before he came into the national stage.

    Simply saying all sins are not the same.  If adultery is a disqualified for public office we are in big trouble


    Please (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 05:37:42 PM EST
    don't compare that to Roy Moore. By comparing the two you are attempting to raise up what Moore did with underage girls to what Bill did with a mature adult woman. There is a difference.

    And yes, he was a bad husband to Hillary. Yes, for some reason Hillary still gets blamed. I guess it's still the fault of the woman with some even though she did nothing wrong.

    No one is a hero. That's the problem with our politics. We elevate presidents to some sort of hero status. Looking for Jesus? His name is Reagan. Every president we have ever had has been greatly flawed in one way or another. Every candidate has been greatly flawed. They are all human.


    Read more carefully. Didn't compare (none / 0) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 07:17:17 PM EST
    what they did, just how they handled it: denial.  Could have said "the Donald Trump strategy," and it would have meant the same thing.

    I certainly don't blame Hillary for the actions of her husband; I feel pretty terrible for her having to be so in the public eye facing every person who knows her husband is a serial cheater.  

    I'm not interested in making heroes out of politicians.  And I don't have a problem with once and future presidents being human, but it wasn't Bill's humanity I had a problem with.  I wish I knew why the choices we keep being presented with are pretty damaged - and all that damage plays out in decisions and actions that have taken this country in some pretty bad directions.

    When people start saying things like "Oh, that's just Charlie being Charlie," or "hey, [fill in name here] is human like everyone else," I feel like they are excusing and enabling the behavior - and I think we have to stop doing that.  


    Okay. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 07:28:10 PM EST
    Well, I'm not saying Charlie is just being Charlie for sure. Good lord. Though this explains a lot of the journalistic attitudes toward a woman candidate. Misogyny was worse in their profession than I ever imagined and I already thought it was pretty darn bad.

    Reading the WaPo article was (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    disturbing - that "charlie's just being Charlie" is from his long-time producer - a woman - to whom Rose's weird, creepy and predatory behavior was reported by numerous women.

    And that's something I just don't understand.  We saw it in the Weinstein reports, as well - women protecting and enabling - if not sort of pimping - and turning a blind eye to the sexual predation of their bosses.

    What is the mindset there, do you think?  That it's all about doing what they think they have to to keep their jobs and climb the ladder?  I just don't know how they sleep at night, how they don't hate themselves on some level, knowing they are putting other women in harm's way.

    Never cared for Charlie Rose - always felt there was something oily and smarmy and smug about him; now, though, the mental picture of him finding all kinds of ways to be naked or nearly so with so many women is one I may never be able to un-see.


    I don't (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 04:29:18 AM EST
    know why someone would protect someone like Charlie other than money. Charlie was making money for her I guess and she did not want to lose that even at the cost of other women being harassed.

    I know conservative women do it for the preservation of patriarchy. The other women who do it in the business world money is the only guess I can come up with.


    Money (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 05:22:15 AM EST
    or power or maybe she actually enjoyed it or was incapable of having empathy for the victims. History is littered with examples of people turning on their own "kind". I still find it baffling that people of color or LGBT are Republicans. Are they all just in its for tax cuts?

    That's the thing though... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 03:29:02 PM EST
    in some circles, there's no such thing as a consensual relationship between executive/boss and intern/underling.  I don't believe that myself, any two can fall in love/lust imo, but do acknowledge the line can be kinda fuzzy when there are power dynamics at play between otherwise consenting adults.  Is the intern/underling consenting as an enthusiastic partner or because they fear repercussions if they do not?  Even on a subconscious level?  And does that even matter once consent is granted?

    It's a brave new world as far as sex and consent in concerned...buckle up, it's gonna be a very bumpy ride while society refigures this sh*t out.


    Oh, yes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 03:40:27 PM EST
    there is a consensual relationship between a boss and an underling. Really you are not that naive are you? I've seen it plenty of times in the business world both wanted and unwanted by women. Some women even initiate it because they think sleeping with the boss will help their career sadly. I wish there were not women like that out there but there is.

    The consent thing can easily be solved by asking. Using words should make everything pretty clear.


    Not me you need to convince... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:46:08 PM EST
    but some new age feminists.

    Words doesn't seem to be enough though...Louis C.K. allegedly asked first. And other cases where she relented because he in a position of power persisted, but without overt threat, using words.

    The criminal standard is one thing, I'm more interested in the moral standard and fitness to hold public office, finance a film, throw a ball, tell a joke, drive a truck question that has come to the fore. It feels like we're in a "don't know whether to sh;t or go blind" phase of sorts.


    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 07:33:41 PM EST
    what you mean by new age feminists but I do know that I saw a lot of denial that misogyny even exists with a lot of younger women. Boy are they learning the hard way now. I think like a lot of young people in general they think it can't ever happen to them.

    A lot of this is going to be solved when people start to do nuance again and realize that everything is not black and white. There are a lot of gray areas that are not so easily put in one category or the other.


    all i can say is we better (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 03:46:01 PM EST
    drop Bubba and go after Kennedy.  he made Bubba look like a piker frat boy.

    power is, as someone once said, the ultimate aphrodisiac.

    also the age difference between Clinton and Monica are pretty similar to the age difference between Mr and Ms Cheeto.


    That's the difference... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 20, 2017 at 04:53:13 PM EST
    Trump was a public disgrace out the gate, and by gate I mean the birth canal..it's a dead horse with no carcass left to beat.

    tRump (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 04:04:27 PM EST
    tacitly endorses Moore Washington (CNN)
    President Donald Trump on Tuesday defended embattled Alabama Republican Roy Moore, all but endorsing the Senate candidate who has been accused of sexual assault.

    "He denies it. Look, he denies it," Trump said of Moore. "If you look at all the things that have happened over the last 48 hours. He totally denies it. He says it didn't happen. And look, you have to look at him


     The President also expressed vehement opposition to Doug Jones, the Democrat in the race and Moore's only major opponent."We don't need a liberal person in there, a Democrat, Jones. I've looked at his record. It's terrible on crime. It's terrible on the border. It's terrible on military," Trump said. "I can tell you for a fact we do not need somebody who's going to be bad on crime, bad on borders, bad for the military, bad for the Second Amendment."
    But Trump on Tuesday left the door open to campaigning with Moore.
    "I'll be letting you know next week," he said, when asked whether he will campaign with Moore.
    Trump repeatedly emphasized that Moore has denied the allegations brought against him.
    Trump declined to say whether he believed Moore's denials, but when asked he again pointed to the denials.
    "Well, he denies. I mean, he denies. I mean, Roy Moore denies it. And by the way, it is a total denial. And I do have to say 40 years is a long time. He's run eight races and this has never come up. Forty years is a long time," Trump said, pointing to the amount of time that has passed since the alleged behavior.
    ... birds of a feather.

    I'd say they deserve each other, except that (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 05:27:12 PM EST
    we're the ones who have to suffer for their presence in government.

    And as far as Moore's "total" denials, maybe Trump is reading different quotes than I am, because Moore has really left the door open by saying "if he did" it was with the permission of the child's mother.  He's never denied trying to "date" teenagers.  He's been telling a disturbingly folksy story about how and when he first met his wife: he saw her at a high school dance recital.

    I guess Trump isn't at all curious about why a single man in his 30's is going to high school dance recitals, and trolling the local mall flirting with teenage girls, but then I remember some of those icky photos of Trump in suggestive photos with his daughter, and that makes me think maybe he doesn't see anything wrong with what Moore was apparently doing.

    And this whole thing about Moore's denials being good enough for Trump could not be more political, or personal; I mean, it's not like he ever took the word of anyone named Clinton or Obama, is it?


    this is all (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 05:34:06 PM EST
    fertilizer for the midterms.  win or lose.

    it sucks.  totally.  it does.  we might as well try to see the upside.


    please (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 05:53:21 PM EST
    manure is useful, this is toxic radioactive sludge.

    I hope tRump does campaign for him and he gets whupped although a narrow Jones victory would help point out the cravenness of the Republicans, a victory by Moore...dear god, the ugly beast that tRump rode to office is still slouching towards Bethlehem


    offensive to toxic sludge (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 06:05:52 PM EST
    your version would be good.

    otoh if he wins this is going to sh!t really fast.  

    the campaign ads write themselves.


    also (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 06:09:44 PM EST
    gotta say i am absolutely loving the mask of respectability and morality being ripped off the face of fundamentalism.

    they showed some leg with Trump.  this is the full monty.  they will never be taken seriously again.


    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 07:12:29 PM EST
    I am loving it too. I'm so tired of these self righteous authoritarians claiming that they know better than everybody else and should get to rule over everybody because they are "holy".

    My denomination was one of the ones that were included in the ministers letters that Moore was unfit for office. The letter said Moore was actually unfit for office even before the sexual assault accusations became public. What I can't believe is that someone in Alabama did not report any of this before. It seems like his behavior was public knowledge around his hometown.


    I find it entirely understandsble (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 09:16:25 PM EST
    (If a sad commentsry on locsl journalism) that thias was not reported before in Alabama. I am reminded of Wisconsin governors Tommy Thompson and Scott Walker and their bids for bigger things, We always said that they coukd not withstand the scrutiny of national media, which would not -- like our local media -- look the other way at their snenaigans here.

    Heck, I said that Tommy woukdn't make it past Chicago media, with his affiars here, and I was correct.

    So, as happened here, it was the hubris of Roy Moore wanting to go to Washington that brought thenWashington Post to Alabama -- a newspaper that had no local boosterism, and/or no friendships of local  publishers and politicians, to hold it back from reporting what media in Alabama already knew.

    Sadly, it has happened beforemin Local journalism, and it will happen again. In my years in journalism, I was blessed to work for a publisher who truly curried no fear nor favor, who was the scion of a leading family in town for well more than a century ( itmstsrted as an abolitionist paper) but did not let that stop him -- or us -- from reporting the hard stories. He and his family took a lot of grief for it, too. But his like -- and hiers, as his wife endured a lot, without the occasional praise from his brethren ofmthe  press -- are all too few and far between.


    And then there's the latest explanation (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 07:02:16 PM EST
    that about made my eyes permanently roll back in my head:

    "Judge Roy Moore graduated from West Point and then went on into the service, served in Vietnam and then came back and was in law school. All of the ladies, or many of the ladies that he possibly could have married were not available then, they were already married, maybe, somewhere. So he looked in a different direction and always with the [permission of the] parents of younger ladies. By the way, the lady he's married to now, Ms. Kayla, was a younger woman," Benham said on WAPI 99.5 FM Monday evening. "He did that because there is something about a purity of a young woman, there is something that is good, that's true, that's straight and he looked for that."


    But while Moore said he didn't "generally" date teen girls when he was in his early 30s during an interview with right-wing host Sean Hannity shortly after the first accuser came forward, he suggested he may have done so after asking their parents' permission.

    And while he didn't start dating his wife Kayla until she was in her early 20s, he's said that he first spotted her at a dance recital when she was a teen.

    Benham, a controversial anti-gay pastor who Moore had onstage to defend him at a campaign rally less than a week ago, seemed to suggest there was nothing wrong with Moore dating teen girls.

    And he went on to argue there was nothing wrong with Moore dating a girl as young as 14 with her parents' permission -- though he balked when the radio hosts asked him if he felt the same way about a 10-year-old.

    It was like "Where have all the flowers gone?" transformed into "where have all the women my age gone?"

    And the answer for Moore was..."there aren't any, so I'd best look for some pure flowers of womanhood at the mall????"

    But I'm glad to know that "dating" a 10 yr old is a bridge too far [eyes rolling, skin crawling again].

    These people are certifiably nuts.  Nuts.  As the mother of 2 daughters, I can't ever see any situation in which my husband and I would ever have agreed to let someone our age date our 14 yr old daughter.  

    But I notice that it was always about Moore getting the mothers' permission - does that mean he targeted girls living in single-parent homes?  That he played on the father-figure thing?  That was Leigh Corfman's situation - and nowhere among all of the accusers has any woman's dad spoken out.  Not once.  

    When I realize that Leigh Corfman's mother was Roy Moore's contemporary, being only a year older than Roy Moore when they met on that bench outside the courthouse, it makes my skin crawl.

    Oh, and just fyi: that younger woman he ended up marrying when he was 38 and she was 24?  She was divorced.  So, maybe not so much about the purity thing, eh?


    And the b.s. about this (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 09:22:47 PM EST
    that really gets me is that this pastor is condoning older men robbin girls of their "purity." What was done to the 14-year-old was not a "date," nor with her mother's permission -- or why did he have her sneak out of the house to meet him a block away? And have her twke off her clothes for fondling anf worse?

    Next questions that needed to be asked of this fool minister were wouldn't thse actions have thn made her, uh, "impure"? So how can a minister condone a man tsking her "purity"?


    Have you seen (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 07:07:18 PM EST
    The Moore interview where he explains he first "met" his wife when she was 15?

    At a dance recital.  A dance recital of young girls he attended alone.


    You know (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 07:17:45 PM EST
    I know these evangelicals and truthfully many of them do have their teenage daughters date older men like Roy. My son when he was 20 was dating a 15 year old and when I found out the age I put the kabosh on that and her mother called me begging me to let my son date her daughter and I said absolutely not.

    So while I do believe Moore was a creepy troller a lot of these evangelicals in Alabama are probably not going to have much of a problem with Moore dating teenagers when he was in his 30th. What actually happened to those girls though is probably going to bother SOME of them but not as many as it should.


    Big difference between 20 and 30, or (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 07:28:59 PM EST
    even older.  Huge difference.

    All I can say is these so-called evangelicals sure have a rather selective notion of what matters and what doesn't.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 07:51:37 PM EST
    it is not the same but the mother made the comment to me that she and her husband were 10 years apart. She married her husband when she was in her 30's though and I'm thinking you would let your 15 year old daughter date a 25 year old is what you are saying? They have really strange beliefs surrounding all this stuff.

    Well (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 08:03:14 PM EST
    It's not the south or fundies only.  I have mentioned my best friends little sister married Peter Marshall.  Not absolutely sure of Lauries age.  She is at at least 10 years younger that me.
    Peters is 91.
    Now, first, Laurie is nobody's victim.  And I know her well enough, from the time she was a child, to have had the conversation "is this about money".

    It absolutely is not.  She is crazy about him.  She swears, well swore, they have a rich and spicy sex life (euuu)

    So shorter version, we can all have our opinions but a tiny bit less judgementalism might be good.

    Also, I am happy to admit I always dated young men.  I dated 19-20ish men well into my 50s and I would still be doing it if I was rich enough.



    Yeah (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 08:12:08 PM EST
    but none of them are under 18 are they? I have an aunt who married a man 38 years older than she was. She was in her 20's at the time. I never understood it but it seemed to work for them. The only thing the family said was that she was going to spend a lot of her younger years pushing him around in a wheelchair and she did end up doing that.

    True (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 08:16:01 PM EST
    I liked young men.  Not children.

    Is it now easier (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 08:52:24 PM EST
    To understand my unconscious lecherous leering at the game company?



    Oh, sweet Jesus, Mary and Joseph! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 09:13:21 PM EST
    Now I'm certain that we're all trapped inside a Coen Brothers' remake of a Fellini film, and we can't get out.