Trying to defend the indefensible

Here's  businessman, media personality and all around douchenozzle Wayne Allyn Root explaining why Drumpf didn't actually do the thing he totally does all the time and brags about doing:

“If you’re a Christian, you just can’t spend your life worrying about the words of Donald Trump from 11 years ago, or what women he groped 30 years ago. I don’t believe any of it anyway. I believe Donald Trump is one of the handsomest billionaires that’s [sic] ever lived; I don’t think he ever had to grope a single woman ever. I think they threw themselves at him, so it’s all a lie.”

You know, I used to think that about Bill Clinton. Of course, this was back in the 90's when I was still relatively young and naive, not a 55-year-old man of the world, so I had some excuse. When rape allegations began to surface against Bill Clinton, I thought "this guy is rich, famous, charismatic, and I'm told a lot of women think he's dreamy. Why would he have to force himself on anyone? He would have no trouble finding women to have sex with him."  I used to be equally perplexed when I heard stories about professional or college athletes being charged with sexual assault. "These guys must have their pick of women. Why would they need to attack the one girl who isn't willing?"

Now, of course I'm older and less stupid, and I realize that men in that position, men who generally have no trouble finding eager, willing sex partners due at least in part to their status, are probably more likely to commit this type of horrible crime. Instead of saying "oh, you don't want to do it? That's okay, there's plenty who do!" a lot of these men are apt to say "oh, you don't want to do it? Who the hell do you think you are? Do you know who I am? You don't say 'no' to ME!"

Leaving that aside, I do find it interesting to see that within three sentences, Wayne goes from "who cares how many women he groped?" to "Ah, he didn't grope any women!" Also, I'm no theologian, but I'm pretty sure that Christianity doesn't include a statute of limitations on groping strange women. You don't get to go to the Pearly Gates and say "ah, c'mon! That was like thirty years ago!" and get ushered in to Heaven. I'm pretty sure that however long ago you committed sexual assault, you have to repent and seek forgiveness. You don't get to just blow it off because of a time lapse.






Former Governor of Arizona and current wackadoo Jan Brewer decided to go with the lunatic babble approach to defending Trump.

"He's been waterboarded by these issues," Brewer replied. "It seems like it's been somewhat of a put-up impression on Donald Trump from all these people lining up. It's just unbelievable. And anybody that's been under those kinds of assaults, I think would want to defend themselves."
"Donald Trump is authentic and he tells it like it is," she added. "And he went out and told the public exactly what he's going to deliver when he become president of the United States."

WATERBOARDED? I don't even know what to say. How does one respond to such an offensive and yet nonsensical claim? I got nothing.





Trump Junior, proof positive that the turd doesn't fall far from the asshole, decided to go with the "hey, c'mon. Everyone brags about sexual assault" approach.

“Obviously he’s not happy about that, but I think we probably all know guys who have had conversations with other guys that go a little bit in that direction, that’s a fact of life,” Trump Jr. said.
“I think he’s able to relate to ordinary Americans because in many cases he is still very much like that. He does do that. He hasn’t spent his whole life sitting there polishing every statement he’s ever made, every conversation he’s ever had,” he added.

I mean, for Pete's sake, you're not gonna sit there and act like you've never committed a sex crime and then bragged about it, are you? I mean, if he had planned on running for president, he never would have admitted to these crimes. So you can't hold it against him 'cuz he didn't know he'd be running for president some day. Right? I rest my case!

2016 continues to suck the joy out of life

Yesterday 2016, the never-ending year of shit, claimed another great.
One of the funniest - and by all accounts one of the nicest- people in the world, Kevin Meaney died at the age of 59. I saw Kevin Meaney years ago at Cobb's in San Francisco and he was just amazing. He could be hilarious just singing with a cardboard cutout of Frank Sinatra, or doing impressions of his mom. He will be sorely missed.












And as if that weren't bad enough, I just heard that jean Shepard died last week.






I have fucking had it with this dick year.
Someone better go keep an eye on Tom Waits and Jeff Tweedy.

This election gets even stupider somehow

You know how you can tell that you've said something stupid?
When this hot mess says you're "WISE."



Here's what word-salad Sarah had to say about Trump's performance in the most recent debate:

Sarah Palin added 5 new photos.

It was great to witness UNLV's Presidential debate tonight. Great running in to many friends!


Wow. Gotta stop you already. One sentence in! You ran INTO many friends. You did not run IN to many friends. That wouldn't even make sense. Well, I guess if you ran inside the building in order to meet your friends, then maybe? I don't know. Ir doesn't matter. Proceed, Governor.


Trump ran the table and clearly explained his vision for making America safe and strong again.

Ran the table? Do you even know what that means? It would mean that Hillary never even got a shot. It would mean. . . oh, forget it. The bigger problem here is that Trump has NEVER clearly explained anything in his life. He makes you sound coherent.

What a gamble it would be to vote for status quo failed government... more of the same of what dug us into the mess we're in today.


 Okay, so let's vote out the Teapublicans that have dominated the House and Senate the last several years and are gleefully preventing anything from being improved.


 Thank you to superb law enforcement personnel for keeping everyone safe tonight. Incredible job; incredibly tough task they accomplish - with a smile, no less!

 A smile? Oh, right, everyone there was white! Also, what threat was there to your safety? If you were a Hiullary supporter, you might have to fear some violence from Trumpers, but other than that. . . I mean the debate wasn't being held on a street corner in Southside Chicago or something.

Seems silly media sheep are all chomping down on one issue after this debate, at least according to all the reporters who hollered out this same question to me: "What about Trump not accepting the election results?”


 Right, because a major candidate being unwilling to "accept" the results of an election, a major candidate who commands an army of knuckle-draggers with assault weapons who are just itching for an excuse to 2nd-Amendment someone, that's such a minor issue! Silly sheep!

More power to Trump for explaining how vitally important the legitimacy of every election is to our democracy within our Republic. 

Um, he explained nothing? He said "I'll keep you in suspense?"
Also, if the losing candidate (and Trump is going to lose. Hard.) refuses to accept the results of the voting, that's not really adding to the legitimacy of the electoral process.

 

What reasonable person would preemptively accept any and all hypothetical questions and conditions of any hypothetical election? Trump's answer was RIGHT.


See, that's how you know you're wrong. When someone like Palin thinks you're "RIGHT!"
And I don't believe he was asked to accept "any and all hypothetical questions and conditions of any hypothetical election." I believe he was asked about this one particular election which is about a month away and isn't hypothetical at all. And no one expects that if a candidate is sane and says "yes, I will accept the results" that he would then be somehow bound to that word if, say, there was actual evidence of fraud, or if , say both candidates are revealed to be hideous space reptiles or whatever.

Every American's sacred vote MUST be respected and legitimized in today's elections - but they must be FAIR elections.


 Yeah, that's the same thing. Everyone's vote being respected and elections being fair, that's the same thing. (Not actually sure what everyone's vote being "legitimized" is.)


Also, if you're really concerned about every American's sacred vote being respected, I'd think you'd be a bit more bothered by these recent headlines:

BREAKING: State Level Republicans BUSTED Hiding Absentee Ballots To Steal Election (DETAILS)

By Georgia Bristow -

October 17, 2016

District Judge Assails Florida GOP’s “Election-Rigging” War on Voting

By Rmuse on Wed, Oct 19th, 2016 at 9:57 am

 hahaha, just kidding! I know you don't really care about that! I know you think that it is better that a thousand legitimate voters be disenfranchised than that one ineligible vote be cast. As long as it's dark-skinned people being turned away at the polls.
I know it's never about protecting the right to vote. It's always about keeping the mythical fraudulent voter from somehow tipping the balance with his one illegal vote.

We're in the midst of proof of voter fraud and questionable - even violent - participatory elements in campaigns.


No. No, there is no voter fraud.  there certainly isn't any "proof" of which we could be "in the midst." How would one be in the midst of proof, by the way?
Also, the only violent elements in the process are Trump supporters.

That's why state legislators are now cracking down on voter fraud via tighter laws ensuring the security of our elections. 

Yeah, no. Honestly, it's not even worth the time to debunk this complete b.s.

 When Trump is pressed on this, it harkens back to all the GOP primary candidates who screamed at Trump to support the Republican nominee - no matter what - and Trump initially responded that he could, depending on fair treatment. That is WISE and INSIGHTFUL!



And as we all know, when Sarah Palin says you're WISE! and INSIGHTFUL! you know you've said something extra stupid.

Also, why wouldn't he just use that same "wise" "insightful" answer at the debate? Why not just say "yes, of course I will accept the results, assuming there isn't compelling evidence of fraud?"

Trump got screwed in that deal when he eventually pledged to support the nominee and then some of his fellow candidates turned tail and refused to reciprocate when Trump won. 

Whaaat?? The man who knows how to make the best deals? The king of the deal-makers? He got screwed on this deal? No! I don't believe it.



Trump learned - why give opponents permission and incentive to act unfairly and cheat? It's shortsighted to commit to accepting the outcome of a race REGARDLESS of unscrupulous cheaters. How totally unfair that would be to the American voter!

Well, the good news is, you're not going to have to worry about it. Hillary and the Dems are not going to need to cheat. Your boy is circling the drain. He's in such a downward spiral, he might pop up in Chyyy-nah before it's over.


Trump gave potential cheaters fair warning that we'll not give them any quarter. We'll hold them accountable. They'd better be on their toes. Cheaters will not win.

Oh, uh. . .yeah! Right! heh heh!

Of course Trump will accept the legitimate outcome of a legitimate election! What the heck is so hard to understand about that?


Um, I guess the part where he refuses to actually just come out and say that? I guess that's kinda what's throwing people off? Especially when he comes out the next day and says

“I would to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win,”

See? Nothing about "legitimate" outcomes. Nothing about legitimacy at all. Just "If I win." And, Sarah, believe me when I tell you that if he does win, that would be proof positive that the election was "rigged."

What the hell is Limbaugh talking about?

I'll make this quick since my computer is being very uncooperative today.


I saw this a few days ago, and I'm still not sure what the hell he was trying to say. I mean, I've been turning it over in my head trying to find a way that this makes any sense. Even factoring in that Limbaugh has zero human decency, I still can't figure what his point is supposed to be.

“You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.”

What????


Okay, I only see two possible ways he could have meant this. First, and most horrific, is that in his fevered brain, the idea of consent, that you shouldn't fuck anyone who doesn't want you to fuck them, is some sort of hippy-dippy lefty-loosey notion that is just really out there. Which doesn't really make sense because, yeah, that's exactly how it works and everyone knows that. Consent is what differentiates between a fun evening and a horrible crime. It's the same difference between a withdrawal and a bank robbery. It's the difference between a road trip and a kidnapping, between a boxing match and assault & battery. It's not a liberal/lefty/progressive thing, it's just the definition of the word.


The other possibility I can see is less horrifying, but still awful in its own way. He may be saying that sex, at least non-marital sex, is always wrong whether it is consensual or not and that the left seems to think it's okay as long as all parties are willing participants. If sao, that's pretty rich coming from this thrice-married pill-popper who may or may not frequent the fleshpots of the third world armed with a forged prescription for Viagara. ( http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/rush-limbaughs-dominican-stag-party )



And I really don't know what to make of the line:  But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.

Ah, yes. The "rape police." Or, as they're more commonly referred to, the "POLICE."

Usually if you toss another word in front of the word "police," it's because you're making a joke about someone who is not actually a police. Like the "grammar police" or the "fashion police." But the rape police are the actual police. I mean, he must know that, right?

I don't know. And I don't know why I care. I just have this compulsion to try to make sense out of things. But this? This has me stumped.

Happy Birthday, Chuck Berry!

Ninety years ago today, one of the all-time greats in the history of American pop music was born.



Chuck Berry will always be remembered for the "duck walk" and the signature riff, but he never does get enough credit as one of the all-time great songwriters.

That's why EVERYONE covers Chuck Berry:






















“If you had to give rock’n’roll another name, you might call it Chuck Berry” -John Lennon

“Why should I write songs when Chuck Berry wrote them all?” -George Thorogood