Election 2016

Electoral Politics Is a Horrible Context In Which to Talk About Sexual Consent

People excited to see sexual-consent issues dominating cable news probably won't like where this is going.

|

John Rudoff/Polaris/Newscom

With less than a month left until the 2016 presidential election, the focus has shifted from immigration, foreign affairs, free trade, and other (nominal) questions of policy to whether the Republican nominee is a sexual predator and how much room his opponent has to criticize him for it, given her own husband's history with women. In the wake of the release of Trump's now-infamous 2005 boasts about grabbing women "by the pussy" and kissing them "without waiting," questions surrounding sexual consent are dominating the news, with Donald Trump's defenders expected to answer for not just the candidate's own treatment of women but the lifetimes of unwanted advances many modern women have faced.

At first the spectacle felt at least a little novel, and not just because of the political stakes. Most instances in which these issues penetrate the public consciousness are pre-packaged for picking a side. A woman—or multiple women, as in recent high-profile cases such as the one with Bill Cosby—comes out with a story of sexual harassment, assault, or rape; her alleged assailant denies it; and everyone falls in line to either insist we "believe women" about these things no matter what or that ladies be batshit insane attention-seekers who lie about rape all the time. But with Trump's taped comments, the same old script didn't work.

For one, there was no accusatory woman to center the counter-attack on. For another, there was direct and indisputable evidence of the bad behavior in question; reasonable people can argue over how literally to take Trump's assertions, but there's no denying he said what he said. So here we all were, having a more meta conversation about consent, crossing boundaries, why women might not report things like unwanted groping to the police but still don't want (and shouldn't have) to put up with it, and what responsibility men have to call out other men for bad behavior. Here we were with prominent Republicans who heretofore been at least nominally OK with Trump now calling for his head.

And here were conservative women, too, coming forward with their own tales of being manhandled, sexually harassed, or raped, and disbelieved or told it was no big deal. For a minute, many conservative women were speaking in unison with left-leaning counterparts about these issues (a phenomenon also seen, if briefly, after Trump went after Megyn Kelly and when Gretchen Carlson and other women came out against former Fox News boss Roger Ailes). People across the political spectrum could be found expressing both contempt for the fact that this was what the presidential race had come to and cautious optimism that it would, somehow, be a force for good.

But that didn't last long. Within eight (long) days of the Trump pussy-grabbing comments coming out, Trump and his surrogates were trotting out women who've accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct, a bevy of new allegations against Trump were aired, and before long it was back to business as usual. Republicans, including those with no love for Trump, demand that people assign more weight to the allegations against Bill, and liberals shrug. Women accuse Trump of molesting them, his detractors demand these claims be taken seriously, and conservatives shrug. Both assume the other side is simply trying to score political points, and of course both are. The women, whatever they have or have not suffered at the hands of either Donald Trump or Bill Clinton, have quickly been reduced to mere props in this familiar partisan (and ratings/clicks driven) play.

The Trump campaign's decision to defend their man by deflecting blame to Bill is understandable—after all, Trump was initially being pilloried mostly for things he said (and what they implied), but Bill stood accused of actually doing despicable things toward women. But this, along with Trump's outright denial that he ever treated women badly in real life, inspired a quicky new cottage industry of claims from women who say they were victimized by Trump.

An organic response from ladies who finally felt angry enough to come forward, or felt for the first time—in the wake of the leaked tape—that their allegations against Trump would be believed? A coordinated attack from Clinton supporters? Or can we blame the press, as reporters rushed to contact and listen to anyone with an anti-Trump story in the hopes of breaking the next big scoop or winning that day's ratings cycle? I'm prone to think it's some of all three.

I'm also prone to think any of the women's claims could be true, even if they originated in opposition research—but I'd probably be more skeptical of those that did. And it's certainly not the realm of Trumpkin conspiracy-theory that pro-Hillary forces may have enticed some of these women to come forward. That's politics. We're in the final stretches of the race for the most powerful position in the country. Democrats would be idiots not to try and stoke these flames.

And Republicans, at least those who still find a Trump presidency worth fighting for, would be idiots not to paint Trump's accusers as liars who are politically motivated.

It's a good reminder why campaign politics is a horrible context in which to have a productive national conversation about sexual consent (if such a thing is even at all possible). The stakes here are just too high. It's he-said/she-said with not just one person's reputation, freedom, or justice on the line but the reputations, hopes, and livelihoods of all those personally invested in the outcome of this election and, to some extent, the future of the Republican Party. If anything, it's only going to get uglier from here.

As more women come out with horror stories about Trump—and this seems absolutely inevitable, if only because you have sectors of several different industries (tabloid media, political media, the Democratic political machine, etc.) devoted, with varying degrees of scruples, to finding these stories—Trump's surrogates on TV and the campaign trail, his social-media militia, and Trump himself are going to have to spend more time discrediting these women, which (if the Michelle Fields fiasco and other incidents provide any blueprint) will likely mean going after them individually, going after the credibility of women who accuse men of sex-crimes more generally, and portraying the media as complicit in a plot to elect Hillary Clinton. The latter will, of course, be bolstered by the fact that media is insanely fixated on stories involving Trump's treatment of women, because these are the stories audiences actually click on/share/watch.

For Trump fans, this fixation will serve to bolster beliefs about liberal bias in the media and the need for a guy like the GOP candidate. For liberals (and to some degree anti-Trump Republicans), it will serve as more evidence that Trump is uniquely terrible, a monster of near-mythic proportions who must be stopped at all costs. For the rest of us, it will serve to block out any hope of seeing substantive discussions of policy, an abatement of hysterical negativity on both sides—or anything resembling a fair, nuanced, or productive focus on sex, power, and consent.

During the late 1990s, audiences routinely said there was too much focus in the media on Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But the coverage also yielded high ratings for the cable news networks that covered it all the time. Meanwhile, most people's core response to any of the issues it raised was cemented early, along partisan lines. "The fact that public opinion became polarized along party lines very early, even before many facts about the affair had been disclosed, goes a long way toward clarifying why people did not become increasingly indignant as the scandal played out," wrote former University of Iowa poli-sci professor Arthur H. Miller in a Political Science and Politics journal paper on the coverage.

I think we may have already reached peak indignation here, and are snowballing toward the point where it all becomes bias-confirmation or background noise to most people. Partisan activists and media will keep milking it as much and as long as they can, but the end result among general public will just be to further politicize issues like rape and women's rights.

NEXT: Don't Blame AirBnb For New York City's High Rents

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s no less horrible a context for any other conversation, so really it’s the best context for every conversation.

    1. You mean an “equally good” context for any conversation, not “the best”. But I laughed. +1

      1. I’m making over $16k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life…Go to this web site and click tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/j4onneg

  2. Grab its motherfucking pussy

    1. I think you meant to say “cloaca.”

    2. Can pussies f their mothers?

  3. All this hullabaloo reminds me of an Amy Schumer joke:

    “I used to date Hispanic guys, but now I prefer consensual.”

    She was forced into apologizing for that joke two years after she wrote it.

    I don’t think our outraged moral scolds are going away anytime soon.

    1. For the most part, I find her ho-hum as she seems to only go for shock value, but that joke was truly funny.

      1. She was funny, and she can be funny, but she has apparently decided she wants to become an important person driving agenda, and agenda-driven comedy is never any good.

        1. It’s what happened to Sarah Silverman. Yes, she was funny once upon a time (well, to me). She had lots of raunchy and ridiculous jokes that would catch you off guard and make you laugh (ok, me). But then eventually she started injecting preaching into her act and it went downhill fast. Now she’s just another smug un-self-aware idiot.

    2. Every time Amy Schumer talks about her vagina, I lose my shit. Women are funny. Get over it.

      1. Maybe you just have as shitty taste in comedy as you seem to in everything else.

        1. As FoE implies below, check out the current season of South Park

      2. South Park does a better job than anyone else parodying this stuff.

        1. South Park is awesome this season.

    3. You mean: She was forced into apologizing two years after she stole it.

        1. Carlos Mencia

    4. No, in fact soon they’ll have an even tighter death grip on political power in this country.

      Thanks Donald. Thanks a fuckin lot. That guy is like manna from heaven for feminists.

  4. ENB: “… but the end result among general public will just be to further politicize issues like rape and women’s rights.”

    “The personal is political.”

    Impressively balanced article.

    1. Also: the scientific is political.

    2. “The personal is political.”

      Whoever said that has a lot to answer for. Pretty much sums up what’s wrong with everything.

  5. After eight years of a prez more despised by non-libtards than WJC and Carter combined, and the retards nominate Uncle Dolan Trump, who is very likely going to losr to some non-progs HATE EVEN MORE THAN BARACK OBAMA.

    Fuck this stupid election. This shit should happen in Europe, not here.

    1. At least in Europe, they would get into a fist fight or at least a slap fest. We’re boring.

      1. Also, snatch-grabbing is expected behavior.

      2. I thought that was in the UK? Though, one thing we need here in the US is something like the Prime Minister’s Questions. Where Parliament can ask questions to PM directly, and much witty banter is exchanged.

        1. How many times to you think the PM says “I just don’t recall?”

        2. Apparently, it’s not always the UK:

          Slap Happy

          I would normally frown on this, but she’s a commie, so I frown on him not hitting her more than 3 times.

        3. Um, the UK is in Europe.

      3. What about what happens outside those Trump rallies? There’ve been a few punches thrown here and there.

    2. Goddam stupid phone keyboard. *begins ritualistic OCD behavior*

    3. Well Europe is what they’re gunning for here.

      1. Exactly this, all the while Europe is starting to run away from what Europe has become. You know, because it’s a fucking disaster.

        Gay Paree!

  6. Listen: the stakes are too great in this election to let partisan politics and fake scandals get in our way.

    [Insert Team here] is trying to speak for the people and take back our democracy from the people who have wrecked it. Meanwhile, [Iinsert Other Team here] is just the same old politics as usual, beholden to special interests, and trapped in the mistake of the past.

    [Insert Other Team here] is sinking as low as it can go, to distract us with politically motivated, false accusations, in an attempt to distract you from the actual policy concerns that matter for most Americans, such that [Insert Team Here] is focused on real issues, but attacked on every side by [Insert one of {media, wingnut conspiracy, Russian government}].

    This, despite the fact that [Insert Other Team here] is clearly morally and politically bankrupt, as evidenced by their complete lack of likability, and their constant embroilment in seedy, illegal dealings, which only their influence and power allows them to escape responsibility for.

    This November, [Insert Team here] must unite and defeat [insert Other Team here], or else this country is probably over.

    Also, a vote for third parties is a vote for [Insert Other Team here].

    1. The politics of failure have failed. We must make them work again.

      1. The only way they will work is if we select the right Top men & women in fancy suits and pantsuits!!!!!!!

    2. Yes but if the Republicans win they’re too fucking incompetent to truly ruin our lives. The Dems however have been perfecting their life fucking strategies for years….

    3. So true Brian.

    4. I think you mean: “Meanwhile, [Insert Other Team here] is not just utterly corrupt, but also authoritarian in a totally unprecedented way, and its candidate, if elected, will destroy this country and its institutions so thoroughly that we will never ever be able to recover from it.”

  7. The proper place to talk about consent is in court.

    1. No you big silly goose, it is best to speculate wildly on the Internet.

      1. The court of public opinion is final.

  8. great article. a voice of reason at Reason.

    1. “glug glug glug glug”

      1. You shouldn’t chug paint thinner like that.

        1. Paint thinner?

          GO PACK GO!!!

          1. I’ll buy the extended warranty and read another one of those intellectually rigorous articles by Dalmia or Chapman.

  9. “Women accuse Trump of molesting them, his detractors demand these claims be taken seriously, and conservatives shrug. Both assume the other side is simply trying to score political points, and of course both are. The women, whatever they have or have not suffered at the hands of either Donald Trump or Bill Clinton, have quickly been reduced to mere props in this familiar partisan (and ratings/clicks driven) play.”

    There are a couple of big factors that aren’t getting enough attention.

    1) Being anti-PC is a big part of Trump’s appeal.

    Trump didn’t just do well in the primaries in spite of being outrageous–Trump did well in the primaries because he was being outrageous.

    For a lot of people on Trump’s side of the equation, supporting Trump despite this is yet another opportunity to tweak the noses of overly sensitive social justice warriors everywhere.

    For a lot of people on Hillary’s side of the equation, they don’t have any reason to support her other Trump’s obnoxiousness. It’s all they got, so they’re piling it on.

    1. “1) Being anti-PC is a big part of Trump’s appeal.”

      That and him NOT being Hillary Clinton is all of it.

      1. Anti-illegal immigration is what got him started, and that along with anti-Muslim refugee is a huge part of his appeal.

        1. Anti- Bush, anti-War, anti-cronyism, anti-rent seeking, anti-Wall Street, anti-Washington…

          1. Anti-cronyism? Are you fucking shitting me?

            1. SIV is capable of lying all day long for TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP.
              Right, SIV?

            2. Yeah, I’m not buying that one. Anti-war, at least in comparison to the BushClintons, maybe that is legit.

            3. Compared to the world-class establishment cronyism of the Clintons, yes, Trump is anti-cronyist.

              1. It’s yet to be seen. Trump admits that he takes advantage of the cronyism that is already established because the competition does it and you have to compete. That doesn’t bother me. It’s yet to be seen what he would do as an elected leader. It’s an unknown. But has he spoken out against it? If he has, I haven’t heard it.

              2. “Compared to the world-class establishment cronyism of the Clintons, yes, Trump is anti-cronyist.”
                ———————-
                Yeah, that’ll fly:

                “Vera Coking was a retired homeowner in Atlantic City, New Jersey whose home was the focus of a prominent eminent domain case involving Donald Trump.”
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking

                Compare to Stalin, Hitler didn’t kill many people, too.

                1. Sorry, one house in one eminent domain case barely registers for me, compared to the Clinton cronyism machine.

          2. Do you think Trump’s advisors would actually work to combat contracting & procurement abuses that plague the DOD? Trump seems cobcerned with increasing the DOD budget, thereby rewarding such wasteful behavior.

            So I wouldn’t call him anti-cronyism, especially when he attempted to Hode behind gov’t and force someone from their home.

            1. “Hode”
              Fucking miniature phone keyboards, amirite?

    2. “For a lot of people…supporting Trump despite this is yet another opportunity to tweak the noses of overly sensitive social justice warriors everywhere.”

      Agree, but I think it’s even more than that. The SJWs have become a legitimately scary lot. They’ve made too much headway, too quickly. A lot of otherwise decent & harmless people (e.g. Don Imus) are having careers & lives ruined over nothing.

      A Trump win might slow these people down a little. An idea I find personally appealing even tho I’m not convinced I’ll be voting.

    3. The revelations of how Clinton colluded with the dnc and nyt is almost enough to get me to vote Donald.

  10. 2) Hillary Clinton accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

    I know it’s hard for some people to imagine that there might some other factor in this election that’s more important to honest people than whether Trump is a heel, but the fact is that Hillary Clinton abused her office to enrich herself and her family and betrayed the security interests of the United States and the trust of the American people.

    Believe it or not, there are some things that are more important to honest people than whether Donald Trump claimed to have grabbed someone by the pussy.

    No really.

    1. You can tell Hillary is a supporter of women’s rights because she takes tens of millions of dollars from Middle Eastern sheiks.

      1. I am convinced that there are people who still don’t know about this.

        “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

        —-Mother Jones

        http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..arms-deals

        I prefer to assume that people are just completely ignorant about this–and that’s giving them the benefit of the doubt.

        Because if I thought they knew about it and just thought it was no big deal, I might lose all respect for them.

        I wouldn’t have someone who thought that was no big deal working for me, and I’d feel sorry for their friends and family. Can you imagine being married to someone like that? Having parents like that?

        1. Mother Jones?

          Right wing rag.

        2. And she plans a lot more of the same. Anyone who votes for her has lots of blood on their hands. I know, I know, Trump said mean stuff.

          1. What bothers me is that the American people aren’t up in arms over the Secretary of State taking money from foreign governments.

            It shouldn’t even matter whether it’s illegal.

            When you’re the Secretary of State, you don’t take money from foreign governments.

            I just keep telling myself that people don’t know about it. It helps me sleep at night.

            1. Leftists have no ethics or morals, or principles. Once you accept the idea that it’s a good thing for someone to take things from your neighbors by force and give to you, it’s all out the window and you’ll accept any manner of evil.

              1. Yep, so after weakening the US internationally, they’ll just sell us out to our enemies to enrich themselves.

                And we’ll wonder how it was allowed to happen….. when it was right in front of our faces all the time.

            2. “When you’re the Secretary of State, you don’t take money from foreign governments.”

              Ken, she didn’t “take” money, she peddled political access. I’m sure she offered Blue-Light Specials if you caught her during slow times.

        3. I think the defense is that, since the money was for charity, it wasn’t really unethical. This of course is false. A cop taking bribes from criminals isn’t unethical because of what he spends the money on. It’s unethical because it perverts the rule of law, the enforcement of which is his responsibility. It’s no less unethical to take a bribe and donate it to UNICEF than to spend the money on a new TV.

        4. “”””In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.””””

          If this were important, Reason would have written more articles about it than Trumps pussy-grabbing bluster.

          Ergo, it’s not important

        5. Ken, thanks for posting that article before. (and the NYT one about uranium sales)

          Last time I was on FB, a prog friend was talking about how awful Trump is.

          Me: “Clinton took money from foreign governments”
          Him: “She never took money from governments.”
          Me: “Are Mother Jones and the NYT now part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?”
          and I linked those articles.

          I have no idea what his reply was. I’m staying off FB until at least Inauguration Day.

    2. You cant say that too much Ken. You are right. It is naked corruption which would have anyone else in prison. She sold the office.

    3. The thing that disturbs me the most about Hillary is that she has probably profited handsomely from getting weapons into the hands of some shady factions in Syria and was heavily involved in destabilizing both there and Libya, which has resulted in the death and displacement of 100s of thousands of innocent people. She deserves the worst that can happen to her.

      1. I’m hoping that the Republicans in Congress start impeachment hearings the day after the election. They won’t, of course, because they’re pussies. And, even if they did, the media would paint it as purely partisan and the Republicans just being sore losers. But they should do it anyway. And, even if Obama pardons her, they can still impeach her, I’m pretty sure.

        1. It’s gonna be hard to do without control of the Senate.

          Without control of the Senate, the Republicans will have a hard time blocking Hillary’s Supreme Court nominees, too.

          1. Yeah. I’m not sure they lose control of the Senate even if Hillary wins. It’s more likely, but not fer sure.

          2. They’re not going to block Hillary’s nominations, because that would be sexist and probably racist. She’ll get at least one nominee in, maybe 2. That’s some terrifying shit.

        2. They won’t do it. There is a group of Republicans who actually love Hillary because she’s a neocon and crony.

          Also, remember how we got Trump. Because GOP voters got out and voted and got the GOP a majority in both houses, believing they would do something. They not only did nothing, but actually allowed Obama to pretty much run wild. And they will do the same with Hillary.

    4. Trump abused power in his own sphere of operations.

      True, he never abused power as Secretary of State, but he never had the opportunity. Given his low character, it seems likely that he would do it given the opportunity.

      1. Hillary DID when given the opportunity, meaning it is dead certain she would do so again. That’s a bit more than “seems likely” on the character scale.

  11. All men talk like that in private with other men. If you’ve never done that and you’re a guy, you’re either a saint or a fucking pussy. And news flash, women do this too. Been around plenty of them who talk like this and they can actually be a lot more crude than guys. And they don’t mind talking like this in front of guys because they realize that most guys will not freak the fuck out over it.

    Don’t we have anything serious to talk about as a nation, like how we probably shouldn’t be lurching more towards Venezuela economically? But no, it’s locker room talk and scary clowns, that’s the important shit We passed up Idiocracy already on our journey to peak derp.

    1. I joined the college radio station, and was a newsreader. (I was on duty the morning President HW Bush threw up in the Japanese PM’s lap.) One term, I was the only guy in the news department. Every week, all the departments would have meetings to determine timeslots and talk about other things. After meetings that term, all the women in the news department would talk about men and sex. It didn’t bother me because I realized that as bad as women like to claim men are, women were just as bad.

      1. @Ted

        Women* share personal things more than men do. (In part to make themselves vulnerable and keep their relationships egalitarian. One downside: co-rumination.) Naturally that extends to sex, and the dark sides of it. – Would anyone here try to analyse Sex and the City for instances?

        *”As a group”/”on average”. A tired gesture, b/c ENB was so balanced.

        1. I know this is just an individual anecdote, but:

          When I was about 35, I would occasionally hand out at a coffee shop to relax and read after work. An 18-year old girl latched on to me as a big-brother figure. Some of the conversations her and her friends had about sex would make me turn crimson with embarrassment.

          When it comes to dirty talk, us guys are amateurs.

          1. ‘hand out’ = hang out

            Hey guys, when are you gonna start working on that edit function?

            1. Give it up man, they’re journalist, IT is not their forte to say the least. Although, they might try hiring a coder who could put some makeup on this pig.

      2. I won’t lean too heavily on saying that women can be even more crude than men while talking about sex, but one thing I will stress is that they do this even more often than men do. Maybe by default because they never stop talking.

        1. Q: What are the three fastest forms of mass communication?
          A: Telephone, television, tell a woman.

          1. An oldie, but classic.

    2. Not quite. I dislike that kind of talk, because I find empty bragging pathetic, and amost of the content idiotic. There’s also an element of chivalry, an appreciation of femininity. However, it’s rather likely that I’ve said something similarly pathetic and/or offensive, at some point. I am “fallible”, and I reasonably endorse that.

      What annoys me are the (implicit) assumptions/pretensions that

      a) “They let you do it.” “I just kiss every beautiful woman” and the rest can only be interpreted as meaning assault
      b) normal men/women do not say/think bad things

      Of particular concern is that these things set precedents: rules for intepretation, and assumptions of human nature and social reality. In (net) effect they may not be harmful in this isolated encounter; they may even do good. But they likely won’t in the long run. Principles (of interpretation, morality, law, etc.) should be solid, unchangeable, and applicable in every case. Things should be kept absolutely true, because people are somewhat bad at keeping track of what is true and what was merely pretended to be (and under what exact conditions).

      1. “b) normal men/women do not say/think bad things”

        Depends on what you consider bad.

        Men talking with other men about their sexual escapades and women doing the same is absolutely what normal people do. And there’s nothing inherently bad about that.

        1. b) Take the present context, though this extends to the general. Stuff akin to Trump’s repertoire.

          I agree that many do. The rest depends on what one considers “inherently bad”, and what kind(s) of badness matter(s). As it provides an occasion to edit: “Not quite. I dislike that kind of talk, because I find empty bragging pathetic, and []most of the content idiotic. There’s also an element of chivalry, an appreciation of femininity.” Simplified, I find measured gentlemanliness good.

          1. “There’s also an element of chivalry, an appreciation of femininity.” Simplified, I find measured gentlemanliness good.”

            We’re talking about two completely different things here. Appreciating femininity, which I very much do, and not being like a guy when talking to friends about females, are in no way at all related.

            1. They are. Naturally, it depends on what one appreciates about femininity. If it’s elegance, sensitivity and emotional depth, chances are one would show corresponding respect, rather than baseness. There presumably are exceptions, but the “being/talking like a guy” you apparently have in mind is more of a sign of weakness; a need for external validation.

              1. Dude, you’re way fucking deeper than me. Honestly, how people can give so much shit about how other people act is foreign to me. Live & let live, man.

                Make as many crude jokes about overweight 45 year old white dudes around me as you want. I couldn’t give 2 shits.

                /where r my FEELZZ??

        2. More often than not, *imagined* sexual escapades.

    3. Yep. A bunch of chicks were going to town at work yesterday. Highly-educated, professional women. They sounded every bit as crude as I do when I’m drinking beer with friends.

      I guess the biggest difference is thatvIbwould never talk like that at work, because HR would flay me living. Nobody ever reports women, though.

  12. I find it somewhat hard to believe that after decades in the public eye, and being around thousands of beautiful women, that it is only now, a month before the election, that they are coming forward. I distinctly remember the bullshit charges Anita Hill brought against Clarence Thomas, which was clearly a political hatchet job. (The early, saner David Brock pretty thoroughly explained what happened: Hill had been sexually harassed by a boss who was not Thomas. A friend remembered that, and thorough a series of misunderstandings and then lies, the finger was pointed at Thomas.)

    We know that false rape accusations are not unknown. Isn’t a false “he groped me 25 years ago” story even easier to lie about? Some of these stories are already being debunked, or at least heavily questioned. None of them seem to have the level of validity of most of Bill Clinton’s accusers.

    Interestingly, much of the polling doesn’t seem to see much of a hit on Trump.

    Scott Adams has retracted his prediction of a Trump landslide, which always seemed unlikely to me, but I still don’t see this as in the bag for Hillary. All this Wikileaks stuff is hurting her, despite MSM efforts to talk about anything else. I still see almost no Hillary signs in San Francisco, and low enthusiasm, in a deep blue area, for the Democratic nominee seems like a bad sign for her.

    1. I believe those accusations about as much as I did the Rolling Stone rape debacle.

      1. They are actually laughable.

      2. Yet you believe Juanita Broderick’s accusations against Bill Clinton? Why?

        1. Because it is very credible and she has witnesses who corroborate elements of her story. And it also fits a known pattern of behavior by Bill that has been corroborated, and was not suspiciously timed to try to spike an election. Not really too hard to figure out.

    2. I find it somewhat hard to believe that after decades in the public eye, and being around thousands of beautiful women, that it is only now, a month before the election, that they are coming forward.

      And yet you believe Broderick’s story about being raped by Bill Clinton, which she only came out with after he was president, 20 years after the alleged incident.

      And Paula Jones, who only sued Clinton for sex harassment when he became president.

      1. Bill Clinton had a long and well-known reputation long before he was president. Trump did not. Clinton’s accusers can point to contemporary witnesses to support their claims, i.e. people they told about it at the time, even if they didn’t go public. I have not seen that with Trump’s accusers.

        1. Hell, they even ended up paying out a settlement to Paula Jones. Maybe Rick Stands is too young to remember all of Bill’s shenanigans.

  13. I like that photo. I always get the notion that those women just assume the say is all theirs because men just naturally want to fuck any and every woman they just happen to run across.

    Actually lady, I have a say in it too and it probably isnt what you think.

    I had a woman become insanely angry at me once for just that. I never gave her so much as a sideways glance so I was a bit surprised when she announced to me that I shouldn’t bother asking. I responded with a very dispassionate “Well, you shouldn’t worry about that even for one more second.”

    She came unglued. I don’t think we ever spoke again after that, much to my relief.

    1. “At least in the morning I’ll be sober.”

    2. That woman’s sign says much more about her than it says about any guy who might try and hit on her. Funny how she is dressed like a slut.

      1. Also, any woman who tells me “no” is obviously a lesbian.

        1. You know the difference between a slut and a bitch?
          A slut will fuck anyone. A bitch will fuck anyone except you.

    3. Interesting aspect. Trump said he’d “automatically” kiss “beautiful” women. Critics take the “automatically” very literal (to the exclusion of much else), yet get angry (and deny this “defense”) when Trump says he didn’t do things with/to accuser X, because she is not beautiful.

  14. It’s a good reminder why campaign politics is a horrible context in which to have a productive national conversation about sexual consent anything.

    FIFY

  15. I find it interesting that the groping stories came out when they did. Seems too early for a good October Surprise, because Trump has time to respond. I see three options:

    1) The Hillary camp is panicking, both over the fact that she isn’t leading by 50 points, and due to Wikileaks. They rolled this out early to prevent the press from covering Wikileaks.

    2) The Hillary camp has even more like this lined up. This is just the opening salvo.

    3) A combination of both.

    1. “They rolled this out early to prevent the press from covering Wikileaks.”

      Seems to be working.

      1. Hillary didn’t need to do this to keep the press from covering Wikileaks.

        1. good point

      2. I should have said: “To give the press an excuse to not cover Wikileaks.”

        1. I think you are right. It is exactly why they rolled this out now. The delusional worship I see of the Obamas by some prog types is bizarre. If they were being reminded every hour on the news that it was Hillary’s campaign in 2008 that started the birther bs, and the “potential Muslim” narrative, they would shun her and either not vote or vote third party. Instead they get Trump 24/7

    2. The Wikileaks stuff is an October surprise too. It’s the game both sides play. Stop whining about it.

      And yeah, you don’t think the DNC emails coming out a couple of days before the Dem convention was timed?

      1. Oh hi, it’s Tulpa again.

  16. Hey guys, you know what would make the awful election between the corrupt, incompetent borderline sociopath and the loud mouthed insecure buffoon even better?

    Let’s make sexual assault a partisan issue!

    1. Let’s make sexual assault a partisan issue!

      No shit!

      Well, it worked for racism, so why the fuck not?

      1. “Well, it worked for racism, so why the fuck not?”

        Rape worked well against Romney, too. Only 4 years ago.

  17. The most important sex question here is: women, why are some of you jumping in bed with the likes of the Trumps and the Clintons?

    Geesh, have some self respect, women.

  18. We have two New York Democrats calling each other sleazy, crooked and sexually predatory (directly or by proxy).

    They’re both telling the truth.

    The heck with them.

    In states which allow this, Republican electors need to promise that if the voters defeat Hillary, they – the electors – will be “faithless” and won’t vote for Trump. They’ll vote Pence for VP so the country will in any case end up with a Republican chief executive, but on the top of the ticket they’ll split their votes among various palatable Republicans.

    Then the Republican-dominated House (since the House votes by delegation, not by Congressperson) will be able to choose a palatable non-Trump Republican.

    1. “split their votes among various palatable Republicans.”

      So Massie, Amash, or Paul? I can’t think of a single other ‘palatable’ Republican.

        1. Bill Weld…just kidding.

        2. He’s running as a Libertarian, so I think that rules him out as being elected as a Republican. And if congress gets to decide, guess who you’re getting? Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush, take your pick.

          1. If it’s between Ryan and Trump, which would you prefer?

            What if the voters simply wouldn’t go for Trump, but might for Ryan? So it’s between Ryan and Hillary?

            1. “If it’s between Ryan and Trump, which would you prefer?”

              There’s no difference. I’d prefer neither because they are both the Establishment guy and so will do exactly the same things, none of which I will approve of.

              But on the good side, them doing this might be the final straw in which the voters hang them all from lamp posts.

              1. OK, but the *voters* may be more open to Ryan than to Trump.

                But who am I kidding, my scenario is simply a fever dream.

                But then, so is this whole election.

                1. If the voters would have been open to any other Republican than Trump, then he wouldn’t have bitch stomped all of them in the primaries. Facts are facts, no matter how misguided they might be.

    2. Pretty sure they can only choose between the top two vote getters.

      1. “The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding *three* on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President….The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the *two* highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President…” [emphasis added]

          1. Congress is constrained to top three electoral vote getters. Electoral college isn’t constrained in that way.

      2. I thought it was the top three. Not sure.

        What is the word on the other side of the hill about this ColoradoCare fiasco? Is that horrid idea going to pass?

        1. I always forget the refresh thing.

        2. I honestly haven’t been following state politics since I got back. But, I doubt it.

          1. I sure hope it doesn’t. From what I can take from it it will destroy small businesses. Especially sole proprietors.

          2. I don’t think the minimum wage rate hike is going to pass, either. Nor the tobacco tax.

      3. Top three. And I believe it’s votes in the electoral college. So if Evan McMuffin or whatever his name is can win Utah, he’s eligible.

  19. The fact that the left can support war mongering monster Hillary, I mean I can look past them for voting for Obama, but the biggest war monger around? Shut the fuck up about Bush, you hypocrites.

  20. “penetrate the public consciousness”

    I see what you did there, and I didn’t consent.

  21. These tales just keep getting better. Look at this one from CNN.

    Miss America contestant says Trump would “inspect” the young ladies, but her only complaint is that “He would step in front of each girl and look you over from head to toe like we were just meat, we were just sexual objects, that we were not people,” Holvey said. “You know when a gross guy at the bar is checking you out? It’s that feeling.”
    I wonder if she’d have the same complaint if it was George Clooney?

    To become a Miss America, you’ve done bunches of pageants. At every one of them, you are being “looked over like sexual object by the judges and the audience. How big is the live audience at the Miss America? What is the television audience?

    But, it was only Donald Trump that made her feel like that… Did she refuse the”swimsuit competition”? Did she immediately pack her bags and leave? I’ll bet you can guess…

    1. “Did she refuse the”swimsuit competition”?

      Oh come on, that’s not what the swim suit competition is not all about sex, it’s about… well, it’s… ok, I cannot lie, it’s all about T&A and if you don’t like being ogled, don’t be strutting around on a stage half nekked!

    2. I’m reminded of Milo? Forman’s early movie The Firemen’s Ball. The firemen see a picture in a magazine of a beauty pageant, and decide to hold one of their own with the winner presenting the award to the retired fireman they’re honoring. The contestants turn out to be plain looking, but one of them actually goes home and comes back with a bathing suit.

      (The contestants end up rioting when young men start nominating their own girlfriends whom the firemen didn’t impress into the pageant, and in the rioting, there’s a shot of a grandmotherly woman on stage celebrating with the winner’s scepter.)

    3. That struck me as one of the most absurd of the recent charges: “I entered a beauty pageant, and the man running it looked me over!!”

      1. Perhaps she’s trolling the media – “I can complain about *anything* Trump did, and they’ll cover it like a scandal!”

      2. This is absurd. Women like being looked at by the opposite sex as much as men do. I remember one time I was raking my lawn, I was in my early 30s, and my hillbilly neighbors were having a cookout. There were like 3 drunk chicks checking me out and finally one of them walks over and asked if they could help me with the lawn. She said ‘you don’t have to pay us, we’ll take it out in trade’. She had maybe 2 teeth in the front and smelled like cheap beer. I was like ‘I’ll have to ask my wife’ and she was like ‘oh, that’s too bad’ and went back over there, where her and her fat drunk friends were laughing like hyenas. It didn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but I wasn’t offended either. Hey, someone was hitting on me, guys will take what attention they get and not be too upset. You take the bad with the good and put another notch in your ‘hey some chicks were hitting on me’ stick.

        1. You should have said, “there’s this guy Crusty you might want to meet.”

          1. How do you think she lost all those teeth and ended up smelling like cheap beer?

          2. Well, at this time in history, there was no Crusty for me to pass them off on.

      3. Yes but the whole walk in on them while they were changing was a bit over the line…

        1. Is that actually true?

        2. Yes but the whole walk in on them while they were changing was a bit over the line…

          Except for that Finnish sauna thing, or the Japanese bath thing, or the Geman nude swimming thing- at least until they let 1 million Muslims immigrate, or the tranny bathroom thing, or even the entire fucking history of mankind until 1900 or so thing…

          1. I like your handle. Please tell me if you’ve ever had a koala bear as an avatar anywhere on the web and I will create another ‘incident’ of which I know nothing about.

    4. You know when a gross guy at the bar is checking you out?

      1. Be handsome
      2. Be attractive
      3. Don’t be unattractive

    1. It’s Eddie posting. Of course we are not amused.

        1. I thought Daddy Francis told you not to smooch guys.

          1. Check it out, dude

            “With the Kiss of Peace, we profess our willingness and desire to forgive, no matter how many times we have been offended or hurt by our brother or sister.”

            1. Of course, some parishes do a handshake instead, why not attend Mass somewhere and see what happens?

                1. Dude, is that something that some people actually take quite seriously? I mean, I escaped a clan of Southern Baptists and although I was quite severely traumatized for half my life, I managed to survive (mostly thanks to alcohol).

                  Does anyone actually enjoy these cults and their weird rituals? I live in a mostly Jewish neighborhood now and they walk around at night in all black clothes and top hats and sometimes they have these tassel thingies on them. At least they don’t blow themselves up, so that’s good.

              1. why not attend Mass somewhere and see what happens?

                I already know what happens. I fall asleep about three mjnutes in and start snoring, then somone wakes me up with a dirty look on their face and tells me it’s time to eat that nasty cracker.

                1. tells me it’s time to eat that nasty cracker

                  Trust me, bro, I’ve eaten a few of those crackers that were quite tasty and… oh, you meant … never mind.

                  1. Sigh…on the Sunday of the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Byzantine Catholics commemorate the defeat of the Iconoclasts…which means that icons are OK.

                2. And if you take communion, does that mean you’re Catholic?

                  If you’re not, think of it this way – what if someone went to the Freethinkers of America headquarters and walked around the hallways carrying a “REPENT” placard? Wouldn’t that be a violation of property rights?

                  So why would a non-Catholic go into a Catholic church and take what is offered only to Catholics?

                  1. Violation of property rights *by your definition,* not mine.

                    1. To us, the body of Christ isn’t property, I’m saying that if you follow the logic of your position, etc.

                    2. (and the purely secular legal definition)

      1. My work is done for tonight.

          1. But if Queen Victoria up there prefers *your* links, he’s welcome to them.

            1. We are not amused by Half-Breed posting the same crap over and over, either.

              1. Half-Breed?

                Anyway, if you’re tired of the same thing over and over, try this.

          2. Product, not process is what matters here.

  22. Ribeyes + mixed roasted root vegetables + Sierra Nevada Beer Camp, I think the case was called. You fucking people who are paying attention to these venal fucks who rule us are living life all wrong.

    1. I can’t eat anymore today, but I’m sampling this bottle of Black Friars Distillery Plymouth gin. First time to try this one. I love beer, but I don’t drink it that much anymore, it bloats the hell out of me if I drink more than a couple. I’m sticking to clear liquor these days.

    2. Tomato and red-wine based beef stew + green salad (no alcohol per doctors orders). Although, since I no longer need to take Coumadin I may actually be able to have an occasional beer :-).

      1. …oh, and college football.

  23. “Fuck you” means “no”.
    And, “Fuck me” means “no”, unless you are already fucking.

    1. Yes means Yes until they change it to No.

      And then then laugh when you say they’re trying to make sex require a contract. But of course if you don’t have a contract you affimative-consent fucked….

      1. Perhaps the sexual consent form could contain a clause guaranteeing that both of you are sane.

      2. Of course, even if they sign a contract, they can always change their mind.

        The only safe alternative is Progtopia is to have a long-term monogamous relationship.

        …and they call us Puritans.

        1. “The only safe alternative is Progtopia is to have a long-term monogamous relationship.”

          I don’t think progs actually go *that* far.

        2. Not really; your wife can leave you and suddenly realize after she starts sleeping with the clerk in the mailroom that you’ve been raping her the last five years; and even if she drops the charges the court still sees it as reason to give her full custody and 2/3 of your net worth plus lifetime alimony.

          There is no safe alternative in progtopia. That’s the point. Like Ezra Klein said, the whole point is to make men afraid of sex, as some perverse kind of collective punishment. Any sex act can be used to hang you or ruin you reputation, even ones that didn’t happen. So if you want to survive without being celibate, best make yourself useful like Bill Clinton did.

          1. “There is no safe alternative in progtopia.”

            How about becoming a gay, or even a transsexual? You want sex without fear? There are options. Leave the women for those of us with a little more backbone.

            1. If I could turn gay, if only.

              And btw, may as well make the same argument to women in the third world. “Come on, isn’t the risk of getting tossed into a pit for getting laid half the excitement of it?”

              Some of us, having not been abused as children, are quite capable of enjoying sex without the perennial threat of gratuitous incarceration to spice things up.

              1. “Some of us, having not been abused as children, are quite capable of enjoying sex without the perennial threat of gratuitous incarceration to spice things up.”

                You mean like Ezra Klein? No thanks, I’ll pass. I’ll take spicy sex with a woman over safe sex with Ezra.

  24. I’m looking all of you all over, up and down. Now if you could just do a little spin for me.

    1. *does splits and puts palms on ground

    2. Trump: What’s your favorite position…for what do to in Aleppo?
      Pageant girl (giggling and wiggling tits): I’m just a girl!

        1. I was gonna go with…

          “I would make it my mission – wink – to make sure everyone in Aleppo is in good position – wink – to take advantage of our missionary goals. But I’m still just a girl.” /jiggles tits.

  25. And President Hillary Clinton means “FUCK All of US”.

  26. Is there a Hillary defender in the Hit & Run commentariat anywhere?

    Any regular who wants to come forward and say, “You know, Hillary’s not my ideal candidate, but she’s a better choice for libertarians than Donald Trump”?

    I’m willing to listen if somebody’s got something to say.

      1. Weld is not doing this right.

    1. My wife and I were having a discussion about this topic on our way home from grocery shopping today. I don’t have to convince her how bad Hillary is, she already believes it. She knows I’m not voting this year, but I just told her ‘I don’t agree with Trump on quite a few things, in particular:

      1. The retarded wall thing.

      2. Trade.

      3. I’m the law and order candidate!

      Outside of that, Trump is just being Trump, a high ego, brash, loud talking blowhard. That part is pretty harmless and doesn’t bother me.

      That being said, Hillary is just so much worse, I don’t think it’s even close. Has anyone seen the list of new taxes she wants to crush the middle class with? God help us all if she becomes president.

    2. JackandAce and Tony will both defend her.

      1. Yeah, but who cares what they say about anything?

        I’m looking for one of my fellow libertarians who makes the case ’cause that’s what they think.

        1. A Google search yielded this – it may be sarcasm, but on first glance it seems serious.

          1. “In conclusion, there are no reasons for any libertarian to consider supporting Hillary Clinton in any way. But if she is elected president, it may not be as bad for liberty as many think. If her bad health doesn’t stop her, then American public opinion should. More and more Americans view her (correctly) as a liar and a criminal. This is a benefit to the cause of liberty.”

            If the beatings continue, morale might improve!

          2. I don’t know that this forum is an appropriate gauge for the rest of the country, but there’s gotta be more support for Trump out there than the polls are letting on.

            Even among sophisticated southern Californians, it doesn’t seem as clearly one sided as the punditry is making it out to be.

            Libertarians might be a good gauge of independents, and we seem less divided on Trump than we were on the Iraq War.

            1. I wouldn’t go as far as your last paragraph, but as to shy Trump voters, Scott Adams’ idea is plausible – it’s not socially acceptable in many quarters to support Trump, but that won’t stop some people from doing it in the privacy of the ballot box.

            2. The Bradley Effect (as a general phenomenon, not just one dealing with race) is undoubtedly real at times (Brexit I think was one), but folks have played hell trying to predict it before it happens.

              So sure, it could play big in Trump’s favor, but there were other times where there was that expectation and it never materialized.

        2. …She might actively delegitimize government to numerous people by being so blatantly corrupt and evil while having people openly cover for her?

          …She might accelerate the eventual decay and collapse of the American state by about fifty to a hundred years, ensuring the possibility of a more libertarian society emerging from the ruins a thousand years down the road, with Agile Cyborg as the new Jesus/Buddha?

          This is legitimately tough.

      2. Well, both of them are clinically retarded, so does that carry any weight in reality?

    3. I am not one, but I can relate FB conversations I have had with Hillary voters.

      “Trump is unfit for any office.”

      “If you vote for him you are not intelligent.”

      That sums it up. They never try to defend her or bring up any policy.

      1. Well, these are the sort of things you can expect someone to say when they are:

        1. Blindly partisan.

        and/or

        2. Low or zero information voters.

        and/or

        3. Social signaling and nothing more.

      2. I am told by a friend that: “at least she’s sane.”

        1. If being a sociopath and pathological liar is sane, then I guess so.

    4. She’s not a true leftist believer, but rather has a severe case of power lust. Also, her private positions are actually not completely nuts unlike her public positions.

      1. Her positions are entirely consistent with the unprincipled fraud she is. Privately to garner money. Publicly to garner votes.

        1. She moves to wherever the wind is blowing and claims she was the one whose fart started it. She’s a reflection of an American public that has lost sight of the benefits that liberty provides. Fuck her, but fuck her self-centered, delusional supporters more.

      2. Yes, and the path to the left is the best path for those in lust of power.

    5. Ask the Reason writers. They have plenty to say on the subject.

    6. Eh. I’d say I’m somewhere around ‘they’re both so bad that the margin between them in either direction is negligible compared to the margin between both of them and what is bearable.

  27. I think we may have already reached peak indignation here, and are snowballing toward the point where it all becomes bias-confirmation or background noise to most people.

    But enough about Hillary’s server issues. 8-(

  28. “Democrats would be idiots not to try and stoke these flames”
    That’s a less convincing argument than you might think…

  29. The big question is when tOSU’s defense in going to show up here. Man, I expected this to be a good game, but I mean one where Wisconsin makes it close, not one where Wisconsin wins!

    1. I think your offense is going to have to swap out the scout team for the starters at some point. It’s not Urban’s fault, though. How can he get anything done when the ESPN guys spend the whole week under his desk?

  30. Part of the problem is that the Progs have changed the definitions. Misconduct occurs on several levels, ranging from ‘slap him in the face’ to ‘cut his nuts off’.

    The Proggies have re-defined everything under a catchall term called ‘sexual assault’, and demanded the ‘nuts cut off’ penalty.

    Because of this, the term is losing it’s meaning; it’s just another way for Progs to feign outrage and silence opposition.

    1. See also: racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia….

  31. Who’s not gonna like where this is going? More government in my bedroom sounds kinda hot.

    1. Democats:

      Get out of our bedrooms, Republicans!

      Get into our bedrooms, Democrats! And our bathrooms, and our kitchens, and our living rooms, and right up our very arse!

  32. Matthew . I can see what your saying… Bobby `s storry is surprising, last saturday I got a brand new Land Rover Defender since I been making $4556 this past 5 weeks and more than ten-grand this past-month . this is definitely my favourite-job I have ever had . I began this 4 months ago and immediately made more than $71 per-hr . More Info
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

    1. Don’t be an “Uncle Kyle”

  33. OT:
    In which Clinton proves she’s not a complete ignoramus, makes it clear she can be bought and proggie rag finds this distressing for all the wrong reasons:

    “Speech transcripts show Clinton avoided blaming Wall Street”
    […]
    “Hillary Clinton generally avoided direct criticism of Wall Street as she examined the causes and responses to the financial meltdown during a series of paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, according to transcripts disclosed Saturday by WikiLeaks.
    […]
    her soft-handed approach in the speeches was likely to act as a reminder to liberals in the party of their concerns that the Democratic presidential nominee is too close to Wall Street to be an effective check on its excesses if elected.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol…..973888.php

    Uh, no comment on how the gov’t fucked up? Rag gives her a pass on that.

    1. Considering Wall Street has become a governmental tool for monetary policy, it’s interesting watching a statist decry it’s profits in one breath and advocating policies which inflate those profits in the next. By “interesting” I mean “vomit inducing”.

      1. We have to define “Wall Street”.
        The large retail and investment banks trade personnel in and out of gov’t ‘service’ and trade on that cronyism.
        The equities markets (largely) trade on the anticipated response to that cronyism and other issues. Pretty sure Buffett is long Wells right now; Wells is in deep stuff with gov’t grand-standers (and should be hit with tort costs), but Buffett is betting that after CEO takes a hike and the grand-standing stops, it’ll do just fine.

        1. They call that “amakudari” -“gifts from heaven” in Japanese. Once the bureaucrat responsible for creating and enforcing regulations retires from govt service, they are offered a job at one of the institutions they were previously regulating. The public knows this is happening, knows it’s corrupt and doesn’t give a shit anyways.

  34. The sign girl is lying. In modern feminist terms, “yes” means, “Roll the dice and hope I don’t change my mind in the next day/week/month/year.”

  35. OK, really stupid mud-mamma worship. Nor Cal is getting an early rainstorm, for which those of us who use toilets are appreciative.
    But, there are fore-lock-tuggers who find that HORRIBLE (lighting the Jack/imbecile signal):

    “Wildlife officials warned that seabirds caught in the storm could face dangerous levels of phytoplankton ? small organisms that live in the water ? that break apart in the rough surf. If the phytoplankton foam gets on the seabirds, the substance could collapse their feathers and cause the birds to sink,Rebecca Dmytryk, president of Wildlife Emergency Services, said in a statement.
    “The lucky ones make it to shore and are hopefully found in time before they die or exposure or are predated on,” Dmytryk said Saturday, noting that in 2007 hundreds of seabirds perished in a similar storm in the Monterey Bay.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..973454.php

    Yep, under a rainstorm, some birds may end up eaten by predators. THE HORROR!

    1. Message: “Wildlife Emergency Services needs some PR to support our budget request!”

      Hey Sevo, want to have a drink sometime? You keep avoiding the SF meetups, but I’d still like to say hello.

  36. In France, you need at least 3 documented infidelities (and at least one of those being a non consensual sodomy of a subordunate) before you’re considered qualified for public office

    Yet progs are always whining that we need to be more like Europe

    America is a nation of silly, selectively-outraged prudes and scolds. And if Robby is any indication of what passes for normal, we’ve gotten sillier in the last 20years

  37. I stumbled on the NYT article today about Trump and sexual assault. Apparently women are crying out in their ‘collective voice’ over this, leading to a national discussion on ‘male power’ and women’s rightsz

    Maybe we men should collectively cry out over Hillary’s serial abuse if Bill, which as at least as well established as Donald’s groping. Make this a new narrative: Bill has Stockholm syndrome. Only reason I’d stay married to Hillary. We could make a movement out of it. #bringbackourbill

    1. Oh goody. I love when SJW lecture me!

  38. I’m not sure if that sign communicates what she thinks it does. “Fuck you” seems to me like a excessively rude response to a simple question. Is that how I’m supposed to be taking it if a girl says “no” to sex with me?

    1. Yeah, sounds like she’s implying straight men should be ashamed of their sexuality. Another reminder that ‘sex positive feminist’ is an oxymoron.

    2. “Fuck you” seems to me like a excessively rude response to a simple question.

      Or perhaps a threat of rape?

  39. I’m using it now and it’s awesome! I’ve signed up for my account and have been bringing in fat paychecks. For real, my first week I made $306 and the second week I doubled it and then it kind a snowballed to $120 a day! just follow the course.. they will help you out.

    —————>>>>> http://www.Ejobs90.Com

  40. I think we may have already reached peak indignation here, and are snowballing toward the point where it all becomes bias-confirmation or background noise to most people.

    Long past that point.

  41. for pity’s sake. This is the twentieth century, USA. There is no excuse for a woman passively submitting to an assault if she doesn’t want to. There is no excuse for a woman to take no action to defend herself and then to make a complaint to the flipping “authorities”. Women are that much frailer and frivolous than they were fifty years ago?

    And there’s another thing. Maybe so it’s a useful legal construct to have touching someone without consent a kind of infraction. But don’t fool yourself. It’s not on the same ethical level as real violence. Consider how often folks touch each other all the time. How often does anybody have any kind of consent? What a bunch of pantywaists.

  42. If democrats didn’t want us to elect a sexual predator, they wouldn’t keep nominating Clintons AND they would have released these accusations during the republican primary.

    The fact that they held on to this story until October (and nominated Clinton) simply proves that democrats don’t actually care about this issue.

    Meanwhile 100,000,000 men are telling their wives that they would never say anything so demeaning about women just to gain a chuckle. Never.

  43. I question the moral foundation of women who claim that they were the victim of a sexual predator, yet didn’t think it their obligation to speak up back then so that other women wouldn’t have to suffer the same fate, yet now choose to speak out for political reasons. I think the more likely explanation is that they considered Trumps advances a minor nuisance back then and are now reinterpreting it a decade later. Furthermore, the more women like this the Hillary campaign trots out, the less believable it is that not one of them complained publicly at the time.

    In any case, I really don’t care how many women Trump groped; he isn’t being hired as a harem guard. As long as he keeps his groping sufficiently in check so that he doesn’t get into legal trouble over it, like he seems to have been able for decades, it has no bearing on his job as POTUS.

  44. Anna . I see what you mean… Virginia `s postlng is incredible, last tuesday I got a new Audi Quattro after having made $5000 this last 5 weeks and over 10k this past month . without a doubt it is the coolest work I have ever had . I started this seven months/ago and pretty much immediately started making minimum $85 per hour . view it
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.