Donald Trump Really Must Not Be President

We have to come up with a way around this, because of course Hillary Clinton also really must not be President -- she is deeply corrupt, and unrestrained by either law or custom. Neither of these figures is even a little bit fit for the office.

Still, these remarks (h/t: Hot Air) remind me of why I turned against Trump back in September. While I am very much not a feminist, I am a gentleman and I cannot abide men who do not respect women. I think it ought to be disqualifying for an office as powerful and important as the Presidency. Of course, I think the Presidency should become much less powerful and important, in which case it would not matter so much. But for now it is, and it does.

May God open a road for us, I pray this Pentecost, and may we be again a nation worthy of such providence.


Joel Leggett said...


raven said...

Do you trust the source? I do not.
Here is a response from the lady who was interviewed and how the Times spun the story.

Grim said...

Yeah, I don't trust the source especially. But on the other hand, it's plausible chiefly because of other things we've seen with our own eyes.

raven said...

I am probably the least "informed" of any person in the hall about D.Trump, due a a nearly complete lack of television or media input.
I simply never gave a hoot about him and never watched or read anything about him.
I am aware however of the lengths to which the opposition will go. The attacks on Sarah Palin showed me that there is no lie, no smear so vile they will not attempt it.

Mr.Trump's candidacy has three possibilities.
1-He is there to diffuse the vote and insure another Clinton win, using the same strategy that worked before.
2-He is a genuine candidate, but lying about what he believes and wants to do.
3-he is a genuine candidate and does believe in what he says.

In my opinion, his single most credible asset is the fact that the establishment of both political parties and the MSM are vehemently against him.
Rabidly. Like he was garlanded with wolfsbane and garlic.

Thus, what I trust on the reporting side is going to be slim. Nothing by a mainstream reporter or newspaper is worthy of trust- they are a cabal, bought ,indoctrinated, and servile.
For those who have never produced a thing,journolists (sp intended) and politicians alike, to minutely criticize someone ,because he did not live up to some mythical moral standard of perfection,is hypocritical in the extreme.

Interestingly, this was my exact approach with Obama- I had never heard of him, all the media were gushing nectar, and the only place that a different opinion was to be found was in the alt media on the web- then little trickles came out about his background, his associates, his actions. All these things were studiously ignored by the MSM. Will I grow to dislike Trump as much? I don't know- I do know that I like what he has said most of the time, and if he is sincere, it would be a welcome break from the politically correct suicidal nightmare we are drifting through. Remember, this guy is not a pro politician- although he has good instincts- thus, his first reaction to a question is not the universal politicians softly chewed pap to cover his ass- when you have an view, and limited time to say it, and it is being edited then reported, it is not often going to be complementary. It is obvious he has outflanked the MSM, precisely because what the MSM emphases as a fault, at least half the country sees as a positive. So the damage control is pumping gas instead of water.

This is the type of report on a man's character I am more likely to trust, than some agenda piece from the MSM-

On a tangent, If you want a really interesting view on the press, Forsythe's autobiography "The Outsider" has some amazing info on the BBC, the Brit Gov, and the Biafran war- his comment was, "they have stained the honor of my country forever, and I shall never forgive them."

Eric Blair said...

What Raven said. The entire anti-Trump media blitz is nothing but a Democratic party operation.

douglas said...

Okay, so I find myself agreeing that it's a hit piece, and I think it's appropriate to call out Esquire on that.

At the same time logic informs me that while that may be true, it does not negate the possibility that Trump is indeed a boor when it comes to women.

I'm sure he isn't that way all the time, and that at times he's quite charming and some women like him- he appears to be in the habit of doing what is best for Donald Trump, and you can be sure that plenty of times that means being nice to women and treating them well. The problem is that he has made many a public statement that demonstrates a crass and ungentlemanly character including his treatment of women. Given the sorts of things he's willing to say publicly about women in particular and about anything else, I find it reasonable to assess him as something less than a gentleman, to the point that I can't really support him even as a politician (a class for whom I have quite low expectations).

I'm still hoping that by some miracle, we get a third path that can lead us out of this apparent nightmare.