Trump Voters.... why?

[Midwest]

I can understand this to a point.  I would argue conservatives have empathy, but the line of that empathy only goes so far.  I would guess few conservatives have empathy for Hitler, but you could argue he was trying to make a better world.  It's a stretch for me.  I doubt many liberals are empathetic to Hitler, but I could be wrong.

on the other hand, when I look at Trump's campaign rhetoric, it brings to mind people like mccarthy.
Who are the historical comparables to Trump's unlikely rise?
Hitler's rise to power may be a reasonable comparison.
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163#.5352z82uv

The thread is now complete.  Trump has been compared to Hitler.

FYI - The German media supported Hilter.  The US media is in conspiring for another candidate.  Regardless of what an ass Trump is, the news media conspiring with a candidate is disgusting.

[Northwestie]

I can understand this to a point.  I would argue conservatives have empathy, but the line of that empathy only goes so far.  I would guess few conservatives have empathy for Hitler, but you could argue he was trying to make a better world.  It's a stretch for me.  I doubt many liberals are empathetic to Hitler, but I could be wrong.

on the other hand, when I look at Trump's campaign rhetoric, it brings to mind people like mccarthy.
Who are the historical comparables to Trump's unlikely rise?
Hitler's rise to power may be a reasonable comparison.
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163#.5352z82uv

Agreed.  Just because you want some "change" doesn't mean you have to throw your vote to this racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, jerk.  Bragging about assaulting women, making fun of a disabled reporter, demeaning several women reporters, and insulting the family of a fallen soldier because of their religion.  Yea - class act.

And the GOP has been the incubator for this shop of horrors.  They have been using veiled language against minorities, immigrants, and gays for years - along with the language that government is the enemy and we need to "shrink government small enough to drown it in the bathtub".   

All this vulgar language has led us to the spawn that is Trump.    And when he does lose - do you think he will do this with any grace and concern for the nation.  Take the example of Al Gore who lost a very close election and was full of class and wise enough to depart with best wishes to his opponent and a call for unity.  That ain't going to happen this time.

[Northwestie]

The US media is in conspiring for another candidate.  Regardless of what an ass Trump is, the new media conspiring with a candidate is disgusting.

Conspiring??  Shoot - all they are doing is reporting what he actually says or tweets - and reporting what he has done to women in their own voice.  As the NYT said - he has no reputation to sully and it his own damn making.

[Jrr85]

I can understand this to a point.  I would argue conservatives have empathy, but the line of that empathy only goes so far.  I would guess few conservatives have empathy for Hitler, but you could argue he was trying to make a better world.  It's a stretch for me.  I doubt many liberals are empathetic to Hitler, but I could be wrong.

on the other hand, when I look at Trump's campaign rhetoric, it brings to mind people like mccarthy.
Who are the historical comparables to Trump's unlikely rise?
Hitler's rise to power may be a reasonable comparison.
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163#.5352z82uv

The thread is now complete.  Trump has been compared to Hitler.

FYI - The German media supported Hilter.  The US media is in conspiring for another candidate.  Regardless of what an ass Trump is, the new media conspiring with a candidate is disgusting.

So according to the media, he is basically like every other GOP presidential candidate going back to Goldwater I guess?  The sad thing is Trump is actually uniquely bad, but there's no way for the media to signal "This time, we're not just being partisan, he really is a bad candidate."  Of course, Trump is also going up against a uniquely bad candidate that the media is in the tank for (and not just as a "not trump" candidate), so maybe it's not so bad that the media doesn't have more credibility.

[MrMoogle]

I can understand this to a point.  I would argue conservatives have empathy, but the line of that empathy only goes so far.  I would guess few conservatives have empathy for Hitler, but you could argue he was trying to make a better world.  It's a stretch for me.  I doubt many liberals are empathetic to Hitler, but I could be wrong.

on the other hand, when I look at Trump's campaign rhetoric, it brings to mind people like mccarthy.
Who are the historical comparables to Trump's unlikely rise?
Hitler's rise to power may be a reasonable comparison.
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163#.5352z82uv

I'm not here to debate Hitler.  If you want to, you can go read:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/287993-comparing-trump-to-hitler-says-a-lot-more-about-the
and post it in the comments. 

I was talking about empathy.

[Northwestie]

Hmmm - let's see - H was first lady, senator, Secretary of State, a lawyer.  Involved in public service for a life time.

Then there is Trump - inherited wealth, forced to settle on Federal housing discrimination lawsuit, has stiffed contractors left and right, brought in illegal immigrants to work on signature Manhattan building and paid them below minimum wage, constant speaks in crass language regarding minorities, immigrants, and women.  Has no public sector experience, has minimal knowledge of national or world affairs and appears not to give a shit.  Brags about assaulting women and has a track record of such actions. 

This sums it up:  debasing American politics -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-economist-cover_us_580073a2e4b06e04759420c4?section=&

[Jack]

The thread is now complete.  Trump has been compared to Hitler.

Pretty sure that happened way back on page 1 or 2...

The US media is in conspiring for another candidate.  Regardless of what an ass Trump is, the new[s ] media conspiring with a candidate is disgusting.

FYI, they were conspiring for Clinton before Trump even entered the race. They would have done the same for Jeb Bush (and tried, to an extent) if he had more clearly been the GOP heir-apparent.


(Side note: how do you escape a tag in bbcode? My first attempt to correct "new" to "news" (since I'm pretty sure Midwest wasn't talking about bloggers) ended up striking through the rest of the quote.)

[MrMoogle]

Hmmm - let's see - H was first lady, senator, Secretary of State, a lawyer.  Involved in public service for a life time.

Then there is Trump - inherited wealth, forced to settle on Federal housing discrimination lawsuit, has stiffed contractors left and right, brought in illegal immigrants to work on signature Manhattan building and paid them below minimum wage, constant speaks in crass language regarding minorities, immigrants, and women.  Has no public sector experience, has minimal knowledge of national or world affairs and appears not to give a shit.  Brags about assaulting women and has a track record of such actions. 

This sums it up:  debasing American politics -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-economist-cover_us_580073a2e4b06e04759420c4?section=&

Yup you said it.  Senator, Secretary of State, and Lawyer, all bad things :)
Just a matter of perspective.

[Northwestie]

The NYT and WA Post are simply reporting the news - Trump making fun of a disabled reporter, tweeting at 3 a.m. about a beauty queen saying she has a sex tape, saying the Fox reporter had "...blood coming out of her eyes, out of her wherever..."  , bragging about assaulting women -- this crass behavior goes on and on.

And yes their editorials say he is not fit for the presidency by demeanor, knowledge, or morals.  And they are right to call this out.

Who talks like this in public or private?  Do you really want this no-nothing vulgar person to represent the US on the world stage?

Trump dug the pit and filled it with sewage of his own making.  And now goes before his dwindling supporters and cries the media and the establishment are after me.  No Donald - just a majority of Americans who are tired of your filthy mouth.

[bacchi]

There are several conservative papers that have begrudgingly endorsed Clinton. Many of these papers haven't endorsed a Republican for decades. Similarly, many neocons and traditional Republicans have stated that they won't be voting for Trump either.

Simply because he's not liked by the mainstream media doesn't, by default, mean that he's a wise choice to shake things up among the DC elite.

[Lagom]

I can understand this to a point.  I would argue conservatives have empathy, but the line of that empathy only goes so far.  I would guess few conservatives have empathy for Hitler, but you could argue he was trying to make a better world.  It's a stretch for me.  I doubt many liberals are empathetic to Hitler, but I could be wrong.

on the other hand, when I look at Trump's campaign rhetoric, it brings to mind people like mccarthy.
Who are the historical comparables to Trump's unlikely rise?
Hitler's rise to power may be a reasonable comparison.
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163#.5352z82uv

The thread is now complete.  Trump has been compared to Hitler.

FYI - The German media supported Hilter.  The US media is in conspiring for another candidate.  Regardless of what an ass Trump is, the new media conspiring with a candidate is disgusting.

So according to the media, he is basically like every other GOP presidential candidate going back to Goldwater I guess?  The sad thing is Trump is actually uniquely bad, but there's no way for the media to signal "This time, we're not just being partisan, he really is a bad candidate."  Of course, Trump is also going up against a uniquely bad candidate that the media is in the tank for (and not just as a "not trump" candidate), so maybe it's not so bad that the media doesn't have more credibility.

The whole "liberal media conspiracy" mindset has got to be one of the most egregious examples of cognitive dissonance in human history.  Sure, members of the media are individually more liberal on average, but that is a weak-ass data point for "proving" wide-spread, systemic and insidiously pervasive bias. I mean, Americans on average are more liberal than conservative, especially when you look at issues and take out those monikers. I know the rally cry of some on the right is that this is only because of media bias and liberal professors, and bla bla bla climate change hoax/Obama is a martian, etc., but then I would presume anyone looking to engage in thoughtful discussion would dismiss all of that nonsense as a matter of course. For the record, before you get lost down the rabbit hole below, know that I identify as a socially liberal small government advocate--basically an old school republican who is also pro choice, LGBT rights, etc.. I haven't had a major candidate truly representing my beliefs in my lifetime. Hillary certainly doesn't (neither does Gary Johnson, sorry Libertarians).

Also, there is a big difference between running slightly more stories that favor a liberal viewpoint (probably true for some, maybe even a majority of outlets) and actively cosponsoring to elect a Manchurian candidate. If you want to spin that sort of theory, at least target an entity that more plausibly has that kind of influence, like Google. The reason "the media" overwhelmingly opposes Trump (including many outlets that NEVER endorse democrats) is because he is uniquely unfit for the office. Trying to claim Hillary is in a similar category is just being willfully obtuse, as is pretending that there are not a wide variety of extremely popular news sources with a conservative bent. I am on record criticizing Hillary about a great many things, and also empathizing with at least some Trump supporters, but this whole blaming vague conspiracies BS is beyond the pale for anyone who wants to claim they have a balanced approach to their voting decision-making.

Because obviously your candidates are literally always the best choice but are tragically and perpetually beat down by Big Sister Rachel Maddow and friends... And the implication that all media is liberal, and since the German media supported Hitler..." Puh-leeze. While Godwin's Law pretty much is always in effect, at least comparing Trump to Hitler actually can be done by pointing to specific tactics like pandering to mob mentality, vilification of the other, scapegoating, fomenting distrust in the past establishment, etc. You won't hear me going down that road beyond that sentence because it never scores points outside the echo chamber, but this whole persecution complex is highly disingenuous. The right needs to stop whining about bias, celebrate the diversity of views in the media, and maybe instead focus on supporting strong candidates that actually believe in things like fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms, and common human decency. 

[Midwest]

The thread is now complete.  Trump has been compared to Hitler.

Pretty sure that happened way back on page 1 or 2...

The US media is in conspiring for another candidate.  Regardless of what an ass Trump is, the new[s ] media conspiring with a candidate is disgusting.

FYI, they were conspiring for Clinton before Trump even entered the race. They would have done the same for Jeb Bush (and tried, to an extent) if he had more clearly been the GOP heir-apparent.


(Side note: how do you escape a tag in bbcode? My first attempt to correct "new" to "news" (since I'm pretty sure Midwest wasn't talking about bloggers) ended up striking through the rest of the quote.)

I fixed the s for you.

With regard to the media, when they begin conspiring for a candidate they lose credibility.  At this point, many in the the media have no credibility left. 

To the above poster, I'm not whining about bias.  Have you read the most recent data dump?  Hard to be objective when pretending to be a journalist while campaigning.

I think maybe we should all vote for Johnson.  Are he or any members of his immediate family convicted or accused of rape or sexual assault?  No, He wins.

[MrMoogle]

There are several conservative papers that have begrudgingly endorsed Clinton. Many of these papers haven't endorsed a Republican for decades. Similarly, many neocons and traditional Republicans have stated that they won't be voting for Trump either.

Simply because he's not liked by the mainstream media doesn't, by default, mean that he's a wise choice to shake things up among the DC elite.

I think the fact that they haven't endorsed a Republican in decades tells you how "conservative" they really are.  It was like McCain endorsing Hillary, how many Republicans care what he thinks?  We had to hold our nose to vote for him before, not going to care what he has to say now.

[Lagom]

There are several conservative papers that have begrudgingly endorsed Clinton. Many of these papers haven't endorsed a Republican for decades. Similarly, many neocons and traditional Republicans have stated that they won't be voting for Trump either.

Simply because he's not liked by the mainstream media doesn't, by default, mean that he's a wise choice to shake things up among the DC elite.

I think the fact that they haven't endorsed a Republican in decades tells you how "conservative" they really are.  It was like McCain endorsing Hillary, how many Republicans care what he thinks?  We had to hold our nose to vote for him before, not going to care what he has to say now.

That was almost certainly a typo. Many papers that haven't endorsed a Democrat for decades are endorsing Clinton.

[MrMoogle]

There are several conservative papers that have begrudgingly endorsed Clinton. Many of these papers haven't endorsed a Republican for decades. Similarly, many neocons and traditional Republicans have stated that they won't be voting for Trump either.

Simply because he's not liked by the mainstream media doesn't, by default, mean that he's a wise choice to shake things up among the DC elite.

I think the fact that they haven't endorsed a Republican in decades tells you how "conservative" they really are.  It was like McCain endorsing Hillary, how many Republicans care what he thinks?  We had to hold our nose to vote for him before, not going to care what he has to say now.

That was almost certainly a typo. Many papers that haven't endorsed a Democrat for decades are endorsing Clinton.

I thought he was suggesting that conservative newspapers haven't had a good candidate to support in decades, which I could understand.  A typo would prove I was wrong. 

[Jrr85]

Hmmm - let's see - H was first lady, senator, Secretary of State, a lawyer.  Involved in public service for a life time.

Then there is Trump - inherited wealth, forced to settle on Federal housing discrimination lawsuit, has stiffed contractors left and right, brought in illegal immigrants to work on signature Manhattan building and paid them below minimum wage, constant speaks in crass language regarding minorities, immigrants, and women.  Has no public sector experience, has minimal knowledge of national or world affairs and appears not to give a shit.  Brags about assaulting women and has a track record of such actions. 

This sums it up:  debasing American politics -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-economist-cover_us_580073a2e4b06e04759420c4?section=&

Yup you said it.  Senator, Secretary of State, and Lawyer, all bad things :)
Just a matter of perspective.

Well, she was inconsequential as a senator, a bad secretary of state, and looks to have committed criminal acts as a lawyer, if nothing else involving hiding/destruction of evidence and also taking a bribe disguised as cattle futures gains (although in fairness that was as an state AG's wife, not necessarily as a lawyer). 

We really have been served a turd sandwich in this election.  Vote for the person who has proven she is corrupt and not fit for office as a public officer, or vote for the person who has given every indication in his personal life and business that he will be corrupt and not fit for office in the event he gets the chance. 

[LeRainDrop]

There are several conservative papers that have begrudgingly endorsed Clinton. Many of these papers haven't endorsed a Republican for decades. Similarly, many neocons and traditional Republicans have stated that they won't be voting for Trump either.

Simply because he's not liked by the mainstream media doesn't, by default, mean that he's a wise choice to shake things up among the DC elite.

I think the fact that they haven't endorsed a Republican in decades tells you how "conservative" they really are.  It was like McCain endorsing Hillary, how many Republicans care what he thinks?  We had to hold our nose to vote for him before, not going to care what he has to say now.

That was almost certainly a typo. Many papers that haven't endorsed a Democrat for decades are endorsing Clinton.

And others are endorsing Gary Johnson.

[Northwestie]

Hmmm - let's see - H was first lady, senator, Secretary of State, a lawyer.  Involved in public service for a life time.

Then there is Trump - inherited wealth, forced to settle on Federal housing discrimination lawsuit, has stiffed contractors left and right, brought in illegal immigrants to work on signature Manhattan building and paid them below minimum wage, constant speaks in crass language regarding minorities, immigrants, and women.  Has no public sector experience, has minimal knowledge of national or world affairs and appears not to give a shit.  Brags about assaulting women and has a track record of such actions. 

This sums it up:  debasing American politics -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-economist-cover_us_580073a2e4b06e04759420c4?section=&

Yup you said it.  Senator, Secretary of State, and Lawyer, all bad things :)
Just a matter of perspective.

Well, she was inconsequential as a senator, a bad secretary of state, and looks to have committed criminal acts as a lawyer, if nothing else involving hiding/destruction of evidence and also taking a bribe disguised as cattle futures gains (although in fairness that was as an state AG's wife, not necessarily as a lawyer). 

We really have been served a turd sandwich in this election.  Vote for the person who has proven she is corrupt and not fit for office as a public officer, or vote for the person who has given every indication in his personal life and business that he will be corrupt and not fit for office in the event he gets the chance.

So far - this all seems to be your opinion.  Which is fine.  But she will be elected - and I for one think she is fully capable and will do a decent job.

[Lagom]

I thought he was suggesting that conservative newspapers haven't had a good candidate to support in decades, which I could understand.  A typo would prove I was wrong.

I mean, I agree with that sentiment too. I have historically voted "liberal," but would happily vote for a republican candidate if one ever comes along that actually supports what I consider to be strong republican ideals (e.g. a small federal government, but also individual liberties, including social tolerance of all faiths/races/sexual orientations, pro-choice, etc.)

[Gin1984]

I can understand this to a point.  I would argue conservatives have empathy, but the line of that empathy only goes so far.  I would guess few conservatives have empathy for Hitler, but you could argue he was trying to make a better world.  It's a stretch for me.  I doubt many liberals are empathetic to Hitler, but I could be wrong.

on the other hand, when I look at Trump's campaign rhetoric, it brings to mind people like mccarthy.
Who are the historical comparables to Trump's unlikely rise?
Hitler's rise to power may be a reasonable comparison.
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163#.5352z82uv

The thread is now complete.  Trump has been compared to Hitler.

FYI - The German media supported Hilter.  The US media is in conspiring for another candidate.  Regardless of what an ass Trump is, the new media conspiring with a candidate is disgusting.

So according to the media, he is basically like every other GOP presidential candidate going back to Goldwater I guess?  The sad thing is Trump is actually uniquely bad, but there's no way for the media to signal "This time, we're not just being partisan, he really is a bad candidate."  Of course, Trump is also going up against a uniquely bad candidate that the media is in the tank for (and not just as a "not trump" candidate), so maybe it's not so bad that the media doesn't have more credibility.

The whole "liberal media conspiracy" mindset has got to be one of the most egregious examples of cognitive dissonance in human history.  Sure, members of the media are individually more liberal on average, but that is a weak-ass data point for "proving" wide-spread, systemic and insidiously pervasive bias. I mean, Americans on average are more liberal than conservative, especially when you look at issues and take out those monikers. I know the rally cry of some on the right is that this is only because of media bias and liberal professors, and bla bla bla climate change hoax/Obama is a martian, etc., but then I would presume anyone looking to engage in thoughtful discussion would dismiss all of that nonsense as a matter of course. For the record, before you get lost down the rabbit hole below, know that I identify as a socially liberal small government advocate--basically an old school republican who is also pro choice, LGBT rights, etc.. I haven't had a major candidate truly representing my beliefs in my lifetime. Hillary certainly doesn't (neither does Gary Johnson, sorry Libertarians).

Also, there is a big difference between running slightly more stories that favor a liberal viewpoint (probably true for some, maybe even a majority of outlets) and actively cosponsoring to elect a Manchurian candidate. If you want to spin that sort of theory, at least target an entity that more plausibly has that kind of influence, like Google. The reason "the media" overwhelmingly opposes Trump (including many outlets that NEVER endorse democrats) is because he is uniquely unfit for the office. Trying to claim Hillary is in a similar category is just being willfully obtuse, as is pretending that there are not a wide variety of extremely popular news sources with a conservative bent. I am on record criticizing Hillary about a great many things, and also empathizing with at least some Trump supporters, but this whole blaming vague conspiracies BS is beyond the pale for anyone who wants to claim they have a balanced approach to their voting decision-making.

Because obviously your candidates are literally always the best choice but are tragically and perpetually beat down by Big Sister Rachel Maddow and friends... And the implication that all media is liberal, and since the German media supported Hitler..." Puh-leeze. While Godwin's Law pretty much is always in effect, at least comparing Trump to Hitler actually can be done by pointing to specific tactics like pandering to mob mentality, vilification of the other, scapegoating, fomenting distrust in the past establishment, etc. You won't hear me going down that road beyond that sentence because it never scores points outside the echo chamber, but this whole persecution complex is highly disingenuous. The right needs to stop whining about bias, celebrate the diversity of views in the media, and maybe instead focus on supporting strong candidates that actually believe in things like fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms, and common human decency.

I have not known a single higher up within the GOP that was for fiscal responsibility in my life time.  I grew up in politics (though on the Democratic side) so I did come in contact with many.  They were not interested in a balanced budget, only increasing their pet projects by decreasing those projects they did not like and also cutting taxes which meant the budget NEVER balanced. 

[bacchi]

There are several conservative papers that have begrudgingly endorsed Clinton. Many of these papers haven't endorsed a Republican for decades. Similarly, many neocons and traditional Republicans have stated that they won't be voting for Trump either.

Simply because he's not liked by the mainstream media doesn't, by default, mean that he's a wise choice to shake things up among the DC elite.

I think the fact that they haven't endorsed a Republican in decades tells you how "conservative" they really are.  It was like McCain endorsing Hillary, how many Republicans care what he thinks?  We had to hold our nose to vote for him before, not going to care what he has to say now.

That was almost certainly a typo. Many papers that haven't endorsed a Democrat for decades are endorsing Clinton.

Yeah, it was a typo. The Dallas and Phoenix papers come to mind.

[sol]

but would happily support a republican candidate if one ever comes along that actually supports what I consider to be strong republican ideals (e.g. supports a small federal government, but also individual liberties, including social tolerance of all faiths/races/sexual orientations, pro-choice, etc.)

Blasphemy!  Everyone knows conservatives only support individual liberties that DON'T involve private sexuality, reproductive control, voting rights, gender identity, corporate interference in elections, educational access or outcomes, the right to work, or protection against individual discrimination.

Some of the other liberties are okay with them though.  Particularly the ones that straight white males are worried about.

[Lagom]

I have not known a single higher up within the GOP that was for fiscal responsibility in my life time.  I grew up in politics (though on the Democratic side) so I did come in contact with many.  They were not interested in a balanced budget, only increasing their pet projects by decreasing those projects they did not like and also cutting taxes which meant the budget NEVER balanced.

Alas, neither have I. As I said in my subsequent post, I have generally voted Democrat for that reason, although I personally side more with what Republicans used to claim were their ideals (plus, you know, actually loving my neighbor regardless of what they do in the bedroom).

Blasphemy!  Everyone knows conservatives only support individual liberties that DON'T involve private sexuality, reproductive control, voting rights, gender identity, corporate interference in elections, educational access or outcomes, the right to work, or protection against individual discrimination.

Some of the other liberties are okay with them though.  Particularly the ones that straight white males are worried about.

Indeed. Fortunately, I don't identify as a conservative :)

[Jrr85]

she was inconsequential as a senator, a bad secretary of state, and looks to have committed criminal acts as a lawyer, if nothing else involving hiding/destruction of evidence and also taking a bribe disguised as cattle futures gains (although in fairness that was as an state AG's wife, not necessarily as a lawyer). 

Would you mind posting links to the "scandals"* as I haven't read anything about them?

*I'm not sure if scandal is the right word.  Maybe I should have used raisin.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/06/us/elusive-papers-of-law-firm-are-found-at-white-house.html?_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

[Jrr85]

I can understand this to a point.  I would argue conservatives have empathy, but the line of that empathy only goes so far.  I would guess few conservatives have empathy for Hitler, but you could argue he was trying to make a better world.  It's a stretch for me.  I doubt many liberals are empathetic to Hitler, but I could be wrong.

on the other hand, when I look at Trump's campaign rhetoric, it brings to mind people like mccarthy.
Who are the historical comparables to Trump's unlikely rise?
Hitler's rise to power may be a reasonable comparison.
https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163#.5352z82uv

The thread is now complete.  Trump has been compared to Hitler.

FYI - The German media supported Hilter.  The US media is in conspiring for another candidate.  Regardless of what an ass Trump is, the new media conspiring with a candidate is disgusting.

So according to the media, he is basically like every other GOP presidential candidate going back to Goldwater I guess?  The sad thing is Trump is actually uniquely bad, but there's no way for the media to signal "This time, we're not just being partisan, he really is a bad candidate."  Of course, Trump is also going up against a uniquely bad candidate that the media is in the tank for (and not just as a "not trump" candidate), so maybe it's not so bad that the media doesn't have more credibility.

The whole "liberal media conspiracy" mindset has got to be one of the most egregious examples of cognitive dissonance in human history.  Sure, members of the media are individually more liberal on average, but that is a weak-ass data point for "proving" wide-spread, systemic and insidiously pervasive bias. I mean, Americans on average are more liberal than conservative, especially when you look at issues and take out those monikers. I know the rally cry of some on the right is that this is only because of media bias and liberal professors, and bla bla bla climate change hoax/Obama is a martian, etc., but then I would presume anyone looking to engage in thoughtful discussion would dismiss all of that nonsense as a matter of course. For the record, before you get lost down the rabbit hole below, know that I identify as a socially liberal small government advocate--basically an old school republican who is also pro choice, LGBT rights, etc.. I haven't had a major candidate truly representing my beliefs in my lifetime. Hillary certainly doesn't (neither does Gary Johnson, sorry Libertarians).

Also, there is a big difference between running slightly more stories that favor a liberal viewpoint (probably true for some, maybe even a majority of outlets) and actively cosponsoring to elect a Manchurian candidate. If you want to spin that sort of theory, at least target an entity that more plausibly has that kind of influence, like Google. The reason "the media" overwhelmingly opposes Trump (including many outlets that NEVER endorse democrats) is because he is uniquely unfit for the office. Trying to claim Hillary is in a similar category is just being willfully obtuse, as is pretending that there are not a wide variety of extremely popular news sources with a conservative bent. I am on record criticizing Hillary about a great many things, and also empathizing with at least some Trump supporters, but this whole blaming vague conspiracies BS is beyond the pale for anyone who wants to claim they have a balanced approach to their voting decision-making.

Because obviously your candidates are literally always the best choice but are tragically and perpetually beat down by Big Sister Rachel Maddow and friends... And the implication that all media is liberal, and since the German media supported Hitler..." Puh-leeze. While Godwin's Law pretty much is always in effect, at least comparing Trump to Hitler actually can be done by pointing to specific tactics like pandering to mob mentality, vilification of the other, scapegoating, fomenting distrust in the past establishment, etc. You won't hear me going down that road beyond that sentence because it never scores points outside the echo chamber, but this whole persecution complex is highly disingenuous. The right needs to stop whining about bias, celebrate the diversity of views in the media, and maybe instead focus on supporting strong candidates that actually believe in things like fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms, and common human decency.

That's a terrible way to construct a straw man and misses the whole point.  It's not just so you can reply with something non-responsive, it's so you can reply with something non-responsive and pithy.  If you're going to write several paragraphs, you might as well write something responsive. 

[Lagom]

That's a terrible way to construct a straw man and misses the whole point.  It's not just so you can reply with something non-responsive, it's so you can reply with something non-responsive and pithy.  If you're going to write several paragraphs, you might as well write something responsive.

Forsooth! I have been slain by your wicked dagger into the heart of my sophistry!

Unfortunately, I am a dullard. Please enlighten me on the point I am missing. Do you mean to say you do not believe that there is a liberal media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton regardless of her opponent? If so, my comment was not aimed at you.

[MrMoogle]

That's a terrible way to construct a straw man and misses the whole point.  It's not just so you can reply with something non-responsive, it's so you can reply with something non-responsive and pithy.  If you're going to write several paragraphs, you might as well write something responsive.

Forsooth! I have been slain by your wicked dagger into the heart of my sophistry!

Unfortunately, I am a dullard. Please enlighten me on the point I am missing. Do you mean to say you do not believe that there is a liberal media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton regardless of her opponent? If so, my comment was not aimed at you.

I think what you're saying is analogous to saying that having only men as CEOs is not sexist since women can choose which company they want to shop from.  I'm not suggesting the bias is as bad as that analogy suggest, but I'm saying it exists. 

[boy_bye]

Re: "the liberal media conspiracy"

If anything, the media has ridden the Donald to higher ratings, giving him lots of free coverage for all the crazy shit he does, to the detriment of covering actual issues throughout the entire campaign. In doing so, they normalized his misogyny, racism, and other bullshit responses to life. Now, we have him standing onstage attempting to debate with a serious, qualified politician, and that normalizes him even further. If the media hadn't pumped him up because he is ratings gold, we wouldn't be in this position.

Now that the ad buys for the rest of the campaign have largely been made, the media are circling back on him. Cynical. Yes.

[Jrr85]

That's a terrible way to construct a straw man and misses the whole point.  It's not just so you can reply with something non-responsive, it's so you can reply with something non-responsive and pithy.  If you're going to write several paragraphs, you might as well write something responsive.

Forsooth! I have been slain by your wicked dagger into the heart of my sophistry!

Unfortunately, I am a dullard. Please enlighten me on the point I am missing. Do you mean to say you do not believe that there is a liberal media conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton regardless of her opponent? If so, my comment was not aimed at you.

It depends on what you mean by "conspiracy", but for anything within the ballpark of a dictionary or legal definition of conspiracy, a conspiracy is not required to have a significant leftward bias in the media.  It doesn't even require anything as organized as the Journolist was. 

[Scandium]

And given the pandering of Trump views that are racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, and just plain vulgar - it may say more about the folks voting for him than it does about his lack of decorum.

You are just reinforcing Ender's point.  Responding to his post with this shows you don't understand what he was saying, at all.

Your loathing of Trump is justified (IMO).  Your rude condescension towards his supporters is not.

I agree.  While a lot of what Northwestie says makes sense, he/she then throws something like this in, and I then disregard everything else said.  I guess maybe it was said to people who think little of the opposition instead of a general audience.  I've said this before, but all the Trump voters I know aren't for Trump, they're against Hillary.  But none I know voted for him during the primaries either, so it's only a small sample of Trump voters.

You should spend some time reading here www.breitbart.com/

[Scandium]

Well, she was inconsequential as a senator, a bad secretary of state, and looks to have committed criminal acts as a lawyer, if nothing else involving hiding/destruction of evidence and also taking a bribe disguised as cattle futures gains (although in fairness that was as an state AG's wife, not necessarily as a lawyer). 

We really have been served a turd sandwich in this election.  Vote for the person who has proven she is corrupt and not fit for office as a public officer, or vote for the person who has given every indication in his personal life and business that he will be corrupt and not fit for office in the event he gets the chance.

I ask this again; corruption is a crime, which will be investigated and you sent to jail if proven true. She has been one of the most public persons in the country for two decades plus. Has she been convicted of corruption? Is it really the case that it obvious to at least half the country, yet not a single judge has been convinced of it? Every republican in the country would give up their mother to prove corruption, yet it has not gone anywhere? How can people say this with such certainty? About a person you have never met, and (I assume) never investigated beyond reading the washington times? I don't particularly care for some of Hillary's policies, but I have no basis for claiming criminal corruption on her part.

Or maybe it's just me who prefer not to pass criminal judgement on people based only on what I've heard..

[mm1970]

Well, she was inconsequential as a senator, a bad secretary of state, and looks to have committed criminal acts as a lawyer, if nothing else involving hiding/destruction of evidence and also taking a bribe disguised as cattle futures gains (although in fairness that was as an state AG's wife, not necessarily as a lawyer). 

We really have been served a turd sandwich in this election.  Vote for the person who has proven she is corrupt and not fit for office as a public officer, or vote for the person who has given every indication in his personal life and business that he will be corrupt and not fit for office in the event he gets the chance.

I ask this again; corruption is a crime, which will be investigated and you sent to jail if proven true. She has been one of the most public persons in the country for two decades plus. Has she been convicted of corruption? Is it really the case that it obvious to at least half the country, yet not a single judge has been convinced of it? Every republican in the country would give up their mother to prove corruption, yet it has not gone anywhere? How can people say this with such certainty? About a person you have never met, and (I assume) never investigated beyond reading the washington times? I don't particularly care for Hillary's policies, but I have no basis for claiming criminal corruption on her part.

Or maybe it's just me who prefer not to pass criminal judgement on people based only on what I've heard..

This pretty much matches my thought in this whole thing.

Where are the facts?  Were there investigations?  And who completed the investigations?  And what were the results - aka, convictions?

[Metric Mouse]

Well, she was inconsequential as a senator, a bad secretary of state, and looks to have committed criminal acts as a lawyer, if nothing else involving hiding/destruction of evidence and also taking a bribe disguised as cattle futures gains (although in fairness that was as an state AG's wife, not necessarily as a lawyer). 

We really have been served a turd sandwich in this election.  Vote for the person who has proven she is corrupt and not fit for office as a public officer, or vote for the person who has given every indication in his personal life and business that he will be corrupt and not fit for office in the event he gets the chance.

I ask this again; corruption is a crime, which will be investigated and you sent to jail if proven true. She has been one of the most public persons in the country for two decades plus. Has she been convicted of corruption? Is it really the case that it obvious to at least half the country, yet not a single judge has been convinced of it? Every republican in the country would give up their mother to prove corruption, yet it has not gone anywhere? How can people say this with such certainty? About a person you have never met, and (I assume) never investigated beyond reading the washington times? I don't particularly care for Hillary's policies, but I have no basis for claiming criminal corruption on her part.

Or maybe it's just me who prefer not to pass criminal judgement on people based only on what I've heard..

This pretty much matches my thought in this whole thing.

Where are the facts?  Were there investigations?  And who completed the investigations?  And what were the results - aka, convictions?

Well, if we elect leaders based on how much time they've spent in prison, I would say both major candidates are equally matched.

[Lagom]

It depends on what you mean by "conspiracy", but for anything within the ballpark of a dictionary or legal definition of conspiracy, a conspiracy is not required to have a significant leftward bias in the media.  It doesn't even require anything as organized as the Journolist was. 

Conspiracy implies premeditation and cooperative intent. In other words, regardless of who actually owns their company (often conservative billionaires), individual outlets and reporters are nevertheless allegedly all working together to advance their agenda rather than try their best to objectively report the news (or more cynically, chase ratings), even if some slight biases unintentionally find their way in (note, we're discounting unapologetically biased publications for this exercise). I already acknowledged that more news sources are probably liberally "biased" than conservatively "biased" in their reporting, but it's disingenuous to claim that there is not plenty of the latter. So why do "conservatives" cry so much about it? Because it's a convenient scapegoat and excuse when things don't go their way.

The only reason they could legitimately have any worry is if they secretly have the exact sort of elitist "only an idiot wouldn't agree with me" attitude they accuse liberals of having. In that case, they must assume most Americans are idiots and thus this "bias" is unfairly influencing elections because too many people who might otherwise lean conservative only read liberal news sources for some reason, despite having a wide variety of options.

Do you think most Americans are idiots that are incapable of finding "objective" news sources, and only you see clearly? I don't, but I identify as neither liberal nor conservative, at least when it comes to the popular definitions of the terms.

[Jrr85]

Well, she was inconsequential as a senator, a bad secretary of state, and looks to have committed criminal acts as a lawyer, if nothing else involving hiding/destruction of evidence and also taking a bribe disguised as cattle futures gains (although in fairness that was as an state AG's wife, not necessarily as a lawyer). 

We really have been served a turd sandwich in this election.  Vote for the person who has proven she is corrupt and not fit for office as a public officer, or vote for the person who has given every indication in his personal life and business that he will be corrupt and not fit for office in the event he gets the chance.

I ask this again; corruption is a crime, which will be investigated and you sent to jail if proven true. She has been one of the most public persons in the country for two decades plus. Has she been convicted of corruption? Is it really the case that it obvious to at least half the country, yet not a single judge has been convinced of it? Every republican in the country would give up their mother to prove corruption, yet it has not gone anywhere? How can people say this with such certainty? About a person you have never met, and (I assume) never investigated beyond reading the washington times? I don't particularly care for some of Hillary's policies, but I have no basis for claiming criminal corruption on her part.

Or maybe it's just me who prefer not to pass criminal judgement on people based only on what I've heard..

So you're position is that Hillary Clinton legitimately took $1,000 and turned it into $100k in less than a year, and then decided, that she would pass on that measly return and go do something else.  That makes sense.  It's pretty clear Hillary Clinton doesn't care about money (that's why she only charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches when she's worth tens of millions), so why would she care about 10,000%+ annual returns. 

[Scandium]

Well, she was inconsequential as a senator, a bad secretary of state, and looks to have committed criminal acts as a lawyer, if nothing else involving hiding/destruction of evidence and also taking a bribe disguised as cattle futures gains (although in fairness that was as an state AG's wife, not necessarily as a lawyer). 

We really have been served a turd sandwich in this election.  Vote for the person who has proven she is corrupt and not fit for office as a public officer, or vote for the person who has given every indication in his personal life and business that he will be corrupt and not fit for office in the event he gets the chance.

I ask this again; corruption is a crime, which will be investigated and you sent to jail if proven true. She has been one of the most public persons in the country for two decades plus. Has she been convicted of corruption? Is it really the case that it obvious to at least half the country, yet not a single judge has been convinced of it? Every republican in the country would give up their mother to prove corruption, yet it has not gone anywhere? How can people say this with such certainty? About a person you have never met, and (I assume) never investigated beyond reading the washington times? I don't particularly care for some of Hillary's policies, but I have no basis for claiming criminal corruption on her part.

Or maybe it's just me who prefer not to pass criminal judgement on people based only on what I've heard..

So you're position is that Hillary Clinton legitimately took $1,000 and turned it into $100k in less than a year, and then decided, that she would pass on that measly return and go do something else.  That makes sense.  It's pretty clear Hillary Clinton doesn't care about money (that's why she only charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches when she's worth tens of millions), so why would she care about 10,000%+ annual returns.

I honestly don't know anything about this. Where can I read about her conviction for this crime?

My position is that if she has not been convicted I have no basis for making my own judgement that she's guilty. This is the same standard that I think should be be applied to anyone, and what I hope would apply to me if I were ever suspected and acquitted of a crime. And FWIW I think the same should apply to Trump or anyone else. But equality before the law is not something everyone believe in.

[Jrr85]

It depends on what you mean by "conspiracy", but for anything within the ballpark of a dictionary or legal definition of conspiracy, a conspiracy is not required to have a significant leftward bias in the media.  It doesn't even require anything as organized as the Journolist was. 

Conspiracy implies premeditation and cooperative intent. In other words, regardless of who actually owns their company (often conservative billionaires), individual outlets and reporters are nevertheless allegedly all working together to advance their agenda rather than try their best to objectively report the news (or more cynically, chase ratings), even if some slight biases unintentionally find their way in (note, we're discounting unapologetically biased publications for this exercise). I already acknowledged that more news sources are probably liberally "biased" than conservatively "biased" in their reporting, but it's disingenuous to claim that there is not plenty of the latter. So why do "conservatives" cry so much about it? Because it's a convenient scapegoat and excuse when things don't go their way.

The only reason they could legitimately have any worry is if they secretly have the exact sort of elitist "only an idiot wouldn't agree with me" attitude they accuse liberals of having. In that case, they must assume most Americans are idiots and thus this "bias" is unfairly influencing elections because too many people who might otherwise lean conservative only read liberal news sources for some reason, despite having a wide variety of options.

Do you think most Americans are idiots that are incapable of finding "objective" news sources, and only you see clearly? I don't, but I identify as neither liberal nor conservative, at least when it comes to the popular definitions of the terms.

I'm not sure the bias is "slight."  But the reasons conservatives complain about the bias is that a lot of voters don't get any information beyond what is covered by network news.  It's not a problem for MSNBC to be what MSNBC is.  Everyone knows what it is.  It's more of a problem for NBC, ABC, CBS, and to a less extent, CNN, to be biased.  It's a problem that probably the majority of voters get consistently shaded "news".  The debates could be where even voters with low interest could get an unbiased presentation from the candidates, but the bias is apparently so pervasive that they can't find a debate moderator that not only cannot resist jumping into the debate in favor of the democrat candidate, but can't even limit herself to factually correct statements when jumping into the debate.  And when a debate moderator does actually act as a moderator rather than a debater, the bias is so pervasive that a strong message is sent to future moderators that they won't be welcome at cocktail hour if they act as an impartial moderator.     

[Jrr85]

Well, she was inconsequential as a senator, a bad secretary of state, and looks to have committed criminal acts as a lawyer, if nothing else involving hiding/destruction of evidence and also taking a bribe disguised as cattle futures gains (although in fairness that was as an state AG's wife, not necessarily as a lawyer). 

We really have been served a turd sandwich in this election.  Vote for the person who has proven she is corrupt and not fit for office as a public officer, or vote for the person who has given every indication in his personal life and business that he will be corrupt and not fit for office in the event he gets the chance.

I ask this again; corruption is a crime, which will be investigated and you sent to jail if proven true. She has been one of the most public persons in the country for two decades plus. Has she been convicted of corruption? Is it really the case that it obvious to at least half the country, yet not a single judge has been convinced of it? Every republican in the country would give up their mother to prove corruption, yet it has not gone anywhere? How can people say this with such certainty? About a person you have never met, and (I assume) never investigated beyond reading the washington times? I don't particularly care for some of Hillary's policies, but I have no basis for claiming criminal corruption on her part.

Or maybe it's just me who prefer not to pass criminal judgement on people based only on what I've heard..

So you're position is that Hillary Clinton legitimately took $1,000 and turned it into $100k in less than a year, and then decided, that she would pass on that measly return and go do something else.  That makes sense.  It's pretty clear Hillary Clinton doesn't care about money (that's why she only charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches when she's worth tens of millions), so why would she care about 10,000%+ annual returns.

I honestly don't know anything about this. Where can I read about her conviction for this crime?

My position is that if she has not been convicted I have no basis for making my own judgement that she's guilty. This is the same standard that I think should be be applied to anyone, and what I hope would apply to me if I were ever suspected and acquitted of a crime. And FWIW I think the same should apply to Trump or anyone else. But equality before the law is not something everyone believe in.

My position is that your position is willfully ignorant.  OJ being acquitted doesn't mean he wasn't guilty.  I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on that, as I don't have enough information.  I do have enough information to determine that whether Hillary was charged and convicted or not, it is not credible to claim that her trades were on the up and up.  Most likely, someone was taking extra losses in order to allocate winning trades to her.  The missing Whitewater records are less damning, but still it's more likely than not that she committed a crime there.   

[Northwestie]

Under that wide net one can wildly speculate upon almost any rumor. 

[MDM]

...I think the same should apply to Trump or anyone else.

Ok, by that standard we can assume both Donald and Hillary are nice people and not crooks.  I can live with those assumptions, despite not believing them true for either candidate.

If we ignore the personal attributes (just assuming for the sake of discussion...) then we can look at what policies we think each will support.  Here again we have to make assumptions, as each has publicly flip-flopped (or said different things in public vs. privately) on many items.

Many people will choose their candidate based on what they hope that candidate will do, then look at that candidate with whatever-colored lenses that allow them to see the candidate in the best possible light.  People with different colored lenses won't understand what others see....

[Scandium]

...I think the same should apply to Trump or anyone else.

Ok, by that standard we can assume both Donald and Hillary are nice people and not crooks.  I can live with those assumptions, despite not believing them true for either candidate.

If we ignore the personal attributes (just assuming for the sake of discussion...) then we can look at what policies we think each will support.  Here again we have to make assumptions, as each has publicly flip-flopped (or said different things in public vs. privately) on many items.

Many people will choose their candidate based on what they hope that candidate will do, then look at that candidate with whatever-colored lenses that allow them to see the candidate in the best possible light.  People with different colored lenses won't understand what others see....

No not nice people, but we can say neither have been proven to be guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubt before a jury of their peers. 

Ironically as a non-American here I believe strongly in these principles. Even that they should apply to people I don't like or agree with. While many Americans, like Mr monday-morning judge above, seem to find them downright objectionable and obstacles to their own passing of judgment based on insinuation and circumstance.

[Scandium]

Under that wide net one can wildly speculate upon almost any rumor.

Indeed. I've seen very convincing proof that Obama is a secret Muslim actively working with the terrorists.
Also; fema camps.

[sol]

based on insinuation and circumstance.

To that short list, I would add "and the candidates' own recorded statements".  And that's where I think Trump has really hurt himself.

[dividendman]

Can we all agree that:
1) Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women
2) He is now being accused of what he bragged about by many women
3) Anything Clinton is being accused of (which she never bragged about doing) is just peanuts compared to that?

The dude has grabbed half of the women in Manhattan by the pussy.

[sol]

3) Anything Clinton is being accused of (which she never bragged about doing) is just peanuts compared to that?

I doubt you'll ever get agreement on that one.  To some conservative voters for whom abortion is murder, Trump could rape a woman on live television and still be a more moral candidate than anyone who has voted to protect abortion access.  Evangelicals see a Holocaust unfolding every day, so a little sexuality assault here and there is small potatoes by comparison.  Even a convicted murderer would be preferable to them than a politician who supports abortion.

[ender]

Can we all agree that:
1) Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women
2) He is now being accused of what he bragged about by many women
3) Anything Clinton is being accused of (which she never bragged about doing) is just peanuts compared to that?

The dude has grabbed half of the women in Manhattan by the pussy.

It's ironic that while your bullet points seem sort of reasonable, you then end with a blatantly hyperbolic statement that pretty much throws out any reasonableness on your first three points.

[dividendman]

Can we all agree that:
1) Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women
2) He is now being accused of what he bragged about by many women
3) Anything Clinton is being accused of (which she never bragged about doing) is just peanuts compared to that?

The dude has grabbed half of the women in Manhattan by the pussy.

It's ironic that while your bullet points seem sort of reasonable, you then end with a blatantly hyperbolic statement that pretty much throws out any reasonableness on your first three points.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but come on, when Trump brags about it and then is accused of it, what are the odds it didn't happen?

[Northwestie]

Under that wide net one can wildly speculate upon almost any rumor.

Indeed. I've seen very convincing proof that Obama is a secret Muslim actively working with the terrorists.
Also; fema camps.

Invasion of Texas by the black opps
HPV vaccine for girls promotes sex by CDC
Obama founded ISIS
Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster
Planned Parenthood selling baby parts
Obama faked the capture of Bin Laden

A new survey from Public Policy Polling finds that one-third of Republicans believe the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory that “the government is trying to take over Texas,” and another 28 percent of GOP voters haven’t made up their minds yet about the matter.
Among Republicans, PPP found that supporters of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz were most likely to believe the conspiracy theory…. PPP also found that half of all Tea Party supporters fear an imminent Texas invasion.

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch unveiled an elaborate conspiracy theory earlier this year, alleging that the Obama administration wanted Libyan militants to kidnap Stevens in order to then do a prisoner swap for terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted in the U.S. for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. However, the compound attackers botched the job after Stevens died, Fitton said, and therefore we can never know if the administration was actually ready to release Abdel-Rahman


These are just a few examples of the mainstream GOP bat-shit-crazy ideas they have hoisted on the flag and marched with around the town square.  No wonder the knuckle draggers have adopted Trump as the standard bearer of debasement.

[LeRainDrop]

Invasion of Texas by the black opps
HPV vaccine for girls promotes sex by CDC
Obama founded ISIS
Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster
Planned Parenthood selling baby parts
Obama faked the capture of Bin Laden

. . .

These are just a few examples of the mainstream GOP bat-shit-crazy ideas they have hoisted on the flag and marched with around the town square.  No wonder the knuckle draggers have adopted Trump as the standard bearer of debasement.

Sorry, I just don't believe you that these are "mainstream" Republican beliefs.  If they are, then I don't know any mainstream Republicans but know lots of non-mainstream Republicans.

[Kris]

Can we all agree that:
1) Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women
2) He is now being accused of what he bragged about by many women
3) Anything Clinton is being accused of (which she never bragged about doing) is just peanuts compared to that?

The dude has grabbed half of the women in Manhattan by the pussy.

It's ironic that while your bullet points seem sort of reasonable, you then end with a blatantly hyperbolic statement that pretty much throws out any reasonableness on your first three points.

Although it occurs to me that if Howard Stern had asked Donald Trump on his show whether he thought he'd grabbed half the women in Manhattan five years ago, before he'd decided to run for president, my guess is his answer would have been an emphatic yes.