.
.
Posted on 10/08/2016 12:49:56 PM PDT by Talisker
He was joking around, and for anyone to say he seriously claimed to grope women, is totally dishonest.
That’s an interesting theory. It was common in WWII for warplane pilots to have sexy babes painted on their airplanes. If it was part of the “getting into a macho mindset” thing, it could be understood.
It even kind of harks back to the family role of the man. If the guy is hot with passion about his wife, he’s going to defend all the more fiercely.
Still, it’s not a place where Donald now needs to be.
Seemed more of a fantasy than any real statement of purpose.
I’m sure Bill & Hill’s victims (Hill wreaked vengeance on those who complained) would have preferred that Bill only fantasized about groping them....
It was niether fantasynor a statement of purpose. I I tried to say, it was his honest, un-PC reflection on how he's personally seen women respond to alpha male power.
Translated from his jocular crudity, it does not mean he thinks all women want him to grab them - and even then, he indicates that the only ones hes referencing are those that want it, not that he'd impose it on them. But generally speaking, he's observed that women are naturally sexually attracted to alpha males, in whatever expression.
Aw! Trump said something bad, but Bill stuck a cigar up Monica’s you know what! And Monica was about the same age as his daughter!
I thought Bush was worse, verbally pushing the woman to hug them both and asking who she would rather date. Trump was there for a performance, not a date, and Bush seemed to be upset that this woman wasn’t groping him.
I like your alpha male take, too, and that Trump’s thoughts were in the abstract, not directed at any female specifically. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Trump’s quip that it was locker room banter—I couldn’t think of a better phrase to explain it. And Trump was totally the gentleman when the woman was present.
Excellent post!
I disagree with you about the LA Times formatting. There is a break with the apology video, and a bolded sub headline indicating the apology transcript.
Your other analysis has some interesting points, but . . .
Men do a lot of things without thinking. Completely mindless action. No forethought, no during thought, no afterthought.
No deep meaning. No ulterior motives.
There is too much analysis of every move made and every word uttered.
1. There's no break between the incident transcript and the apology transcript.
2. There's no embedded apology video.
3. The bolded subhead is used for both transcripts, further falsely equating the two subject matters emotionally - it's what mostly reinforces the visual cognitive dissonance, as a matter of fact.
4. Your use of the word "men" in Men do a lot of things without thinking..., instead of "men and women" or "people" is blatantly biased, hateful and sexist, and indicates you are a feminist. What a surprise.
5. As for your argument of "nothing to see, move along," let's apply that to your post, shall we?
6. Thanks for playing (and say hi to the LA Times for me).
Yeah, I noticed that too - it's possible that Bush was on a mission to set Donald up. After all, why hold on to that video for 11 years at all? Not to mention why release it now? The whole thing stinks.
Except - they released it now, right now, to cover up the Podesta emails. So it had its use. But its got Hillary's fingerprints all over it.
Ooops - that was supposed to go to gnickgnack2!
To you, Extremely Extreme Extremist, I say, with humbled heart...
Thanks!
You are an angry woman with tech that is not rendering the LA Times site correctly.
Do not put words in my mouth.
“After all, why hold on to that video for 11 years at all? “
Seems to me the West Coast has a habit of retaining things for a timely release..THEN, otoh, they RETAIN certain things to PROTECT THEIR OWN..think back a decade or so......
LOL, then I invite all our gentle readers to simply click on the link and see for themselves. Which, of course, is exactly what you don't want them to do.
As for putting words into your mouth, try to remember to not specifically limit your list of hateful screeds to men - and men alone - the next time.
Otherwise people might assume you mean to apply those hateful screeds to men - and men alone.
Have a nice day.
.
.
Nevertheless, the cognitive dissonance was created and enhanced through the identical subheads, so my point stands.
And you slandered men - extensively.
Unless, of course, you're one of those "men" who, as you said, writes with "no thought before, during or after."
Or you're a typical hateful slandering projecting feminist wyyyyymyyyyynnnnnn, Lol!
Good post Talisker.
The number of freepers having kittens over this non-issue is astounding—a lot of nothing served up by Hillary, kept alive by the MSM, and swallowed whole by resident slack-jawed yokels.
She must be laughing her massive buttocks off over the idiots on our side. And just before the 2nd debate.
Idiots or moles. I’ve seen a few threads started by screen names I’ve never seen and with a only a page or two of posts, and those just recently.
You said it with much more profundity than I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.