N.B>: Throughout this post, when I quote MRA and PUA websites, I will NOT be linking to the original posts. I have no desire to swim in cesspools. I will, rather, be using the website We Hunted The Mammoth as my main source for such quotes. If you have never read it, I highly recommend it as a source for all sorts of information on the seedier side of American “manliness”.
If you ever wanted to know why I’m not a conservative or a Republican, this craven pandering to women pretty much sums it up. I’m not sickened by Trump’s locker room talk. I’m sickened by the fact that weak little gamma males like Ryan … have any influence in Western society at all. The only correct response to this “scandal” should have been a single question: “so the f*ck what?”
Never trust a moderate, a Churchian, or a cuckservative. Never. They will stab you in the back in order to virtue-signal every single time. – Theodore “Vox Day” Beale, quoted in “Theodore “Vox Day” Beale defends Trump’s “Alpha talk about women””, We Hunted The Mammoth, October 8, 2016
“I think it’s locker room banter,” the younger Trump said. “I think sometimes when guys are together they get carried away, and sometimes that’s what happens when alpha personalities are in the same presence.” – Jenavieve Hatch, “Eric Trump: Bragging About Sexual Assault Is ‘What Happens’ When Alpha Males Are Together”, The Huffington Post, October 11, 2016
On the blog of the rabidly racist pickup artist James “Heartiste” Weidmann — you may recall his recent attacks on Paul Ryan — one of the regular commenters has a rather creative new theory about Hillary . . .
Hillary wants to send your sons off to war so your daughters will get their jobs. It’s a deliberate attempt to kill off large segments of the male population.
Maybe it’s conscious on her part; maybe it’s unconscious, but the end result is that lots of men will be pulled from the labor force making way for women. I’m surprised no one else has picked up on this. To me it perfectly explains why she’d be gunning for a war with Russia before she’s even in office. Has she been pushing for a female draft? No. Therefore, a large-scale war would be the ultimate “full employment” program for women.
The final solution for feminists, so to speak. – “Hillary wants to kill men and give their jobs to women, Alt-Right Trump fans charge”, We Hunted The Mammoth, October 11, 2016
I first learned about the whole Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) and Pick-Up Artist (PUA) movements a couple years back, at the depth of the Gamergate controversy. For those who have never heard of it, Gamergate actually occurred in two stages. First, game developer Zoe Quinn had a game she produced reviewed favorably in an online magazine. Some people thought the game was receiving more attention than it deserved, apparently; for some reason this turned into a concerted attack upon Quinn, including emailed rape and death threats, doxing (publication online of personal information, including telephone numbers and addresses). In August of 2014, one of Quinn’s former boyfriends published a very long blog post in which, for all intents and purposes, he claimed the initial good press Depression Quest received was due to a personal relationship between Quinn and gamer journalist Nathan Grayson. At this point, many started carrying on about “journalistic ethics” as the root cause of “Gamergate” rather than simple sexual harassment and threats of violence. An early vocal supporter of Quinn, game developer Phil Fish, was attacked so viciously he quit the industry and sold his company.
Media critic Anita Sarkeesian produced a YouTube video about the controversy and soon came under attack, facing the same rape and death threats, doxing, and other harassment. Through it all, a particular vocabulary among MRA/PUA folks emerged, including using the epithet “Social Justice Warriors” (SJW) as an insult and attack. It became clear to me as I followed these goings-on at a distance (I’m not a gamer, and I don’t follow gamer discussions online; I am, however, someone interested in things like the whole MRA/PUA movement and its utter degeneracy), it became clear the attacks were coming from seriously sick individuals.
It wasn’t long after I discovered the website We Hunted The Mammoth, a kind of clearinghouse for those interested in learning about MRA/PUA culture without having to dirty oneself too much. Blog writer and editor David Futrelle keeps tabs on the Alt-Right in general (white nationalism), Neo-Nazis, and the vocal MRA/PUA movement. A typical article, “Do women really enjoy sex, men who hate women ask”, from September 16 reads in part:
Ladies! Do you feel a bit twitchy? Is the hair on the back of your neck standing up? Don’t worry — that just means that Reddit’s MGTOWs are talking about you again.
On the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit the regulars are trying to figure out whether women enjoy sex as much as men. Or at all.
The general consensus? Women aren’t really into sex — unless it’s with the mythical Chad Thunderc*ck.
There follows C&P’d comments from a subreddit for “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW; men who have given up on dating women because they insist women don’t actually want relationships with good, decent men such as themselves, proving that lack of self-awareness leads people to some pretty strange palces) that make it clear most of the men writing on this subreddit have never spoken to, let along kissed or had sex with, an actual human female. As the post concludes, “The MGTOW subreddit really is one of the saddest places on planet earth.”
Part of the MRA/PUA vocabulary and worldview is the nonsensical “Alpha Male” trope. To these men, they are actually “Alpha Males” who have been dismissed by women (usually women who are attractive by conventional standards) because of feminism. Somehow, feminism seem to have taught these women they no longer need the physical and financial protection of “Alpha Males” like themselves, allowing them the opportunity to pursue quickie, no-commitment sexual relationship with “Betas”, men who treat these women solely as sexual objects. There is something sad and desperate about all this. Clearly men who think this way have been hurt by life, perhaps even a woman, in their lives. It might have been a mother, it might have been an unrequited teenage crush, or perhaps these men never escaped the general angst and low self-esteem of adolescence. In any case, while certainly nonsensical, and often a projection of their own beliefs about women combining with their own massive insecurities, it is this particular bit of MRA/PUA discourse that suddenly rose to the top of the sewer with the release last Friday of a tape in which Donald Trump spoke with a casualness and comfort of sexual assault.
I already wrote about this a bit. Having given this background and context, I think it’s important to understand the source of all this “Alpha Male” talk. Besides being nonsense of the first order, it seems to me pretty obvious that self-proclaimed “Alpha Males” are anything but, given their own descriptions of the type. Is Donald Trump an Alpha? I think the answer to that is clear enough: A man who believes he has both the ability and the right, given his financial and social status, to sexually assault random women is no more an “Alpha Male” than are the sad “MGTOW” who insist they are giving up trying to date women because women seem only to be attracted to “Beta” men. The characteristics of “Betas” is a disregard for the women as people; they treat women as sexual objects only, sometimes going so far as to physically or emotionally abuse the women with whom they form attachments. The Alphas consider themselves the “good guys” women are always complaining they can’t find: men who appreciate women for who they are, will treat them well and properly, as a man should, offering both physical and financial protection, which is what women really want. That their entire approach to women is highly sexual; their major complaint that women won’t have sex with them; that the men they call “Betas” are more attractive, successful, and desirable than they are; that they presume to know what women want rather than listening to women and finding out what it is they want; all this demonstrates pretty clearly the whole “Alpha Male” nonsense is little more than a complex psychological defense against their own sense of their lack of self-worth, and their basic belief that women are nothing other than sexual objects.
Please recall the many times Donald Trump has said that no one respects women more than he does. Regardless of the emerging parade of women coming forward accusing Trump of unwanted attention and even sexual assault, I’m convinced that Trump himself actually really believes he respects women. Like the sad MGTOW men, his entire campaign has been an object lesson in how all sorts of personality disorders present themselves, whether it’s narcissism, megalomania, or the kind of lack of self-esteem that has men preoccupied with the size of their penises and their ability to seduce women. The particular traits with which I’m concerned here aren’t unfamiliar to anyone whose been or spent time with teenage boys. Part of figuring out what it means to be a man is spending time jostling one another not so much for a place near the top of the pack as much as going through a phase in which each one really is a man. Most of us leave this nonsense behind us after the age of 16 or so; some, alas, never emerge from adolescence, for any number of reasons. These men tend to post on MGTOW subreddits, declare themselves Alphas who aren’t recognized for their greatness, and Republican candidates for President in 2016. Rather than the “real men” somehow both powerful yet victimized by an over-feminized society, these guys are sad, pitiable individuals who occasionally engage in deplorable, even violent, behavior to make up for their own inadequacies.
I will be so glad when November 9 comes.
As the Trumptanic splits in two and sinks, the only question before us is how much of the Republican Party it drags to the bottom. It is extremely possible the Democrats could take control the United States Senate. While I doubt the Republicans will lose their House majority, I’m quite sure that majority will shrink. Precisely because Paul Ryan has played Hamlet just a bit too much with his political relationship with the party’s nominee, I figure his Speakership might well be in doubt. The institutional structure of the Republican Party will be in dire need of a major overhaul. Hazarding a guess, while the post-election season might well give us a respite from the worst excesses of the campaign, I am quite confident a new President Clinton’s (first?) term will be every bit as contentious as has been both of President Obama’s.
It is still kind of shocking to me there are so many young people eligible to vote whose memories of the events of September 11, 2001 are hazy at best. The brief time between President George W. Bush’s inauguration on January 20th and that horrible day is, I think, largely forgotten by most. I think because our younger daughter was born that summer, my memories from that time are pretty clear. One of my clearest memories is thinking, sometime in July as the corn was tall behind our house in LaMoille, President Bush was heading for the history books as a single-term President. Elected with a bare majority of Electoral College votes and fewer popular votes than his opponent, from his first day in office Bush seemed to be taking advice on his governing style from his primary political adviser, Karl Rove. Rove’s “genius” was creating a campaign that aimed less at stitching together a voting coalition large enough from which to govern than simply winning an election. Receiving 50%-plus-one of the vote was enough for a win; in the end, that’s what Rove desired.
That bare majority however – reflected most of all in the United States Senate, in which the Republicans had a one-seat majority – did not stop Rove from announcing to the world his advice to the new President: govern as if you won a landslide and governing mandate. While perhaps not the best advice, it certainly created a framework within which observers could understand some of the more egregiously stupid things the Bush Administration did. Early on, Vice President Cheney held a closed door meeting with leaders from energy companies. When reporters demanded to know who attended the meeting and what was discussed, Cheney essentially told the reporters to pound sand. Declaring Executive Privilege, a hazy enough legal doctrine at the best of times, the Bush Administration insisted it had to operate in secret in order to get the best possible advice. It was unprecedented; it was unAmerican; and yet we came to know that “arrogance” would be a part of the Bush Administration (along with a kind of heavy-handed manipulation both of the press and the Executive Branch bureaucracy, something for which Cheney was well-known).
That summer occurred two seminal events that, it seems to me, sounded the real death knell for a second Bush term. First was what became known as “The Hainan Island incident” . An American spy plane and a Chinese J-8 fighter collided mid-air, killing the Chinese pilot and forcing the Aries to make an emergency landing on the Chinese Island Province of Hainan. The crew of 24 was released after 10 days, being under intense interrogation much of the time, when US Ambassador Joseph Prueher delivered a letter to the Chinese apologizing both for the death of their pilot as well as the violation of Chinese airspace. While the Bush Administration insisted it was an “apology” apology, part of the Bush campaign had included tough talk on China. While perhaps not “humiliating”, and certainly necessary both to bring home our service members in Chinese custody and prevent this incident from spiraling out of control, the end-game was interpreted by many as a sign of weakness.
In May of that year, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched his party affiliation from Republican to Independent. Prior to that the Republicans had a one-seat majority; with VP Cheney providing any tie-breaking vote toward the Republicans, they had control of the upper house. After over a month of tense negotiations between Jeffords, then working on a bill regarding special education and insisting it have adequate funding in order to be effective, was not only treated poorly by his more conservative Senate colleagues; for all intents and purposes the White House treated Jeffords more as a back-bencher than a three-term Chair of the Health, Education, Welfare, and Pensions Committee. Again, Bush Administration arrogance resulted in an unneeded loss of power, with political ramifications that, again had 9/11 not occurred, would have neutered much of Pres. Bush’s legislative agenda.
That history is important to remember. My hunch is that next month’s Presidential election is going to be a sizable win for Hillary Clinton. The Democrats will most likely win back control of the Senate. The Republican leadership will be in such turmoil they will be unable to work effectively as a legislating Party. Should the Democrats come to believe that such a result flowed from the superiority of their candidate and that candidate’s legislative agenda, I believe they will be in for a rude awakening.
For all her strengths, Hillary Clinton has always been a poor campaigner. Had she faced another, real, candidate – I’m thinking right now of Ohio Gov. John Kasich – not only is it possible Secretary Clinton might have lost the Presidential race; it is possible such an event might well have prevented a Democratic win in the Senate. Certainly the turmoil we’re seeing in the Party’s inner workings would be absent. Certainly we wouldn’t be listening to people defending sexual assault on national news programs under the umbrella of Presidential campaign coverage.
My fear is that a Hillary Clinton Administration, seeing an overwhelming victory and a new Democratic US Senate, might well repeat the Bush Administration’s mistake: they may well try to govern as if they had a governing mandate. I have no desire for Mrs. Clinton to end up doing the same stupid things George W. Bush did prior to 9/11 (not to mention the extremely stupid thing he did after: invading Iraq). Power, however, is a narcotic. Narcotics reduce the ability to think clearly, resulting in impulsive actions that usually turn out very badly. It would be far better if, on Nov. 9, a President-elect Hillary Clinton acknowledged her debt to her opponent in this race for providing the margin of victory, promising to govern with respect to a plurality of Americans who will continue to be wary of her.
Hillary Clinton has endured fewer TV attack ads so far in the 2016 campaign than Marco Rubio.That remarkable fact underscores how virtually unchallenged Clinton has been on the advertising airwaves, as Democratic and Republican strategists alike say she has gone deeper into the election calendar than any non-incumbent president they can remember in the modern era without sustained, paid opposition on television. – Shane Goldmacher, “Hillary Clinton’s Historic Free Pass On The Airwaves,” Politico, August 23, 2016
But on Monday, Clinton was delivered a rude reminder that her long-running woes will likely persist all the way to November — and potentially beyond. A federal judge ordered that the State Department must review 14,900 documents discovered by the FBI as investigators probed Clinton’s use of a private email server during her four years at the agency, and he set a hearing date for next month about the “production” of such emails. That means Clinton could be a hit by a wave of fresh emails — possibly including deleted emails the FBI recovered — right before the election.(emphasis added) – Nick Gass, “Clinton Faces Late Summer Scandal Wave,” Politico, August 22, 2016
I weep for our stupid political insider reporting. Esquire’s Charlie Pierce calls Politico Tiger Beat On The Potomac, and the above articles are excellent examples why that works. First is the claim that, since there has been very little negative advertising directed at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she has had “a free pass” during her candidacy for the Presidency. Just the day before, they published an article saying she faces “a scandal wave”, while the story itself uses the conditional “could”, a single word that carries the entire weight of the story on its possible shoulders. It’s an open secret Washington insiders detest the Clintons. While the Post is pulling out all the stops attacking Trump since he banished them from the press bus, the rest of the press corps works tirelessly asking Clinton questions about Benghazi, questions about her emails, questions about her health, and now questions about the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department during her tenure. This last in particular would be laughable if it weren’t being pressed with such dogged, if stupid, determination. She was Secretary of State for years. Not once during those years were questions asked about any possible collusion or conflict-of-interest. Now, all of a sudden, it’s a “scandal”. All because some emails are now public, released by Julian Assange who, it seems, doesn’t particularly like Sec. Clinton.
In the meantime, people continue to insist she’s personally responsible for the deaths of four foreign service workers in Benghazi in 2012, despite nine separate investigations finding nothing. The whole email nonsense – both the question of her using a private server for professional use as well as the recently dumped emails from Wikileaks – continues to be a non-story, no matter how often people insist it’s worse than Watergate. Recently, there is the whole nonsense about Clinton’s health, pushed by bottom-feeders like Roger Stone and Sean Hannity. Just to show what a horrible human being Roger Stone is, his new book recycles the claim that Webster Hubble is Chelsea Clinton’s real father, claiming the young Ms. Clinton has had multiple plastic surgeries (with no evidence whatsoever). Little different from Rush Limbaugh, back in the 1990’s, calling Chelsea Clinton a dog on his short-lived television program, this is the kind of nonsense that, thanks the Internet creating “buzz” about things that aren’t true, leads to the near-constant hounding both Clintons have faced for a quarter century.
To claim that Mrs.Clinton has received some kind of “free pass” is just to ignore the steady drip of nonsense that appears all over the news, as it always has, resulting in the widespread belief, among other things, that Mrs. Clinton is not to be trusted and is dishonest despite being the most honest candidate of the current election cycle. These things just don’t “happen”, but are the result of the mainstreaming of the wildest – and most horrid – conspiracy theories about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Even a poor Democratic National Committee staffer’s murder in Washington, DC didn’t escape becoming part of the hysterical narrative of the Clintons being mafiosi, selling drugs out of an airport in Arkansas and leaving a trail of bodies behind them that would make Ted Bundy jealous.
She has never received a free pass in her entire public career. That she continues on regardless shows how tough she is.
As has always been the case, there are legitimate questions the Clinton Campaign can and should be asked. This story by Rick Perlstein is the best among recent entries, and should be followed up. It seems the Clinton people wanted to separate sitting Republican officials from the Trump campaign, instead of chaining every single Party member running for office, whether it’s a County Coroner in Texas or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to Trump’s sinking ship. This is the kind of nonsense that makes many Democrats and liberals, including me, absolutely crazy. It’s bad tactics and worse politics.
Instead, we have people who aren’t doctors, or doctors who’ve never been within shouting distance of Mrs. Clinton, claiming she’s an epileptic, suffers from the nonexistent “dysphasia”, or requires pillows to sit everywhere because she gets so tired all the time.
I’ll be so glad when this campaign season is over. Of course, that will mean at least four more years of conspiracy mongering about Hillary Clinton, so I suppose there just is no upside to any of this.
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus and his righteousness.
This really is a truly frightening political season here in the United States. Let’s just get that out of the way. With the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, none of the candidates display any real Presidential qualities. The Republican field, in particular, is horrendous. While a whole lot of attention has focused on Donald Trump, the truth is none of the four remaining contenders for the Republican nomination for President are Presidential material. From Marco Rubio, who’s accomplished little beyond being elected Senator from Florida (and it shows) to John Kasich trying to pretend Thursday night he didn’t spend nearly 20 years as a member of Congress, the whole Republican race sinks lower and lower each day.
That Hillary Clinton will in all likelihood be the Democratic nominee doesn’t really bode well, either. Carrying way too much baggage, we really don’t need another four or eight years of a Clinton Administration. Despite his age, Bernie Sanders represents the future direction of the Democratic Party. That’s why the Party old-guard are terrified of him. It’s really quite disheartening.
Now, I could tremble in fear for what all this means for us as a people. There is much to fear, particularly if the Presidential contest comes down to a race between Clinton and Trump. I could lament the ugliness of the Republican nomination race. I could resent the underhandedness of the Democratic nomination race. I could wonder what’s happened to us as a people. I could decry everything from the lack of seriousness to the rising tide of violence at Trump rallies.
Except, I’m not going to. I mean, obviously I find the violence appalling. I am disgusted at the tone of the Republican nomination process. I’m unnerved at the thought of another Clinton Administration. All that being said, I’m not despairing for my country. Not at all.
Politics is about power, who has it, who uses it, and how they use it. The fact is Presidential politics, for all the drama it presents us, isn’t what it was 30 years ago. The reassertion of Congress as primer inter pares in our divided system renders any Presidential agenda questionable, no matter who sits in the White House. While both Trump and Sanders attract excited crowds (in Trumps case, one might call them over-zealous), in a country of over 300 million people, the actual numbers of those who truly support these candidates whole-heartedly are really quite small. Time and again over the last eight years, we’ve seen examples of how the changing age and ethnic and population demographics have changed America from what it was even thirty years ago.
Because politics is about power; because of the changing dynamics of power in the United States federal government; because our country no longer has a voting let along governing majority; these aren’t the reasons I’m not truly fearful of the result of this year’s Presidential race. The truth is, politics isn’t a hopeful process. While it’s important to speak out, to vote, to work for your candidate of choice, there is no real hope in any of it. Never has been.
Real hope, the only hope that matters, the only hope that matters, is the hope that comes from the promise we’re offered in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is certainly possible that Donald Trump could be elected President this November; that’s no reason to lose hope. It isn’t even outside the realm of possibility that a Trump Presidency could result in the unthinkable occurring; that’s no reason to lose hope. Not because these aren’t horrible things; the reason to continue to be hopeful is that, for all our world is a mess from Syria through global warming to the continual rise of racist violence here in the United States, our world is not yet complete. These things aren’t signs to despair. They are opportunities for us to work even harder, as Christians, to bring Good News in word and deed to a hurting world. In the face of hatred and violence, we need to bring love. In the face of arrogance and recklessness we need to bring humility and thoughtfulness.
In the midst of fear, we must bring the fearlessness that comes from knowing that nothing, not death, not life, not angels, not rules, not things present, not things to come, not powers, not height, not depth, nothing in creation can separate us from the love that comes from God in the name of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Ours is to be a life lived faithfully and lovingly, to be sure. It is also, as St. Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians, to be lived hopefully because the promise we have is one of never-ending faithfulness and care. Martin Luther King said it best: “I’m not fearing anybody, for mine eyes have seen the glory of the Lord.”
Now imagine FOX Noise right now, if Michelle Obama had been photographed like this ! Now think about Trump winning the Presidency & this money loving centerfold becoming our First “Lady”……..don’t like my language ? Too bad, I went through 7 years of hearing the right wingers call MIchelle Obama “Mooshell” & many other racist & nasty names !
I’m not shaming them, I’m just showing magazine photos that were sold in public, that show her publicity seeking & love of attention.
Spouses are fair game when they could possibly be representing the U.S. as First Lady. She is clearly NOT FLOTUS material. These photos should be shared and shared often.
[I]t wount be first lady it will be first slut.
Don’t dare present THIS as one who will represent the United States to the whole world! He knew who she was when he decided to run for president. He knew of these pictures and who she is. I will not overlook it! It represents his lack of judgement and integrity. A damned near bald old man running with THAT as a wife. oh no! – The top is the original accompanying statement, the rest being comments, on FB accompanying the photo below.
Liberals, it seems, have decided that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Leading Republican candidate Donald Trump is married to former model Melania Knauss. Some enterprising, and morally upright, Democrat thought it would be a great idea to use some photos of Mrs. Trump to point and laugh at “Conservative Christian Republicans”. The meme, however, is more than a little confusing. Is Mrs. Trump’s race actually the issue in these photos?
Of course not. Which is not to say that much of the vitriol Michelle Obama receives isn’t precisely because of her race. She’s an accomplished, professional woman who also happens to be quite attractive; all the same, she is attacked for having “no class” not because of anything she has done or said, but because she is an African-American woman.
The implication of this meme, I think, is that by posing as models do, or appearing in public in a sheer-top dress without a bra, Mrs. Trump is demonstrating “no class”. Indeed, in the original-original status post accompanying this meme, the poster called Mrs. Trump a whore, changing it only because someone called him out on it. While not at all surprised that people are resorting to this kind of sexist, demeaning vocabulary, I think this is a good follow-up to yesterday’s reminiscing post on the SlutWalk movement. Yet again we have an example of the sexualizing of a woman in the public eye. I honestly have no idea why the person in question thinks Mrs. Trump should be ashamed, or be shamed, for these photographs. All the same, there are many – both men and women – who seem to think these photographs indicate something about Mrs. Trump’s character. Perhaps they do. On the other hand, they might well only demonstrate that, as a model, she had all sorts of photographs taken, including ones that show more than a little skin.
Women are regarded as objects, pure and simple. Conservatives carry on about Mrs. Obama’s appearance, both for its own sake as well as a proxy for racism. Hillary Rodham Clinton has spent the better part of two decades demeaned and insulted for everything from her looks to the sound of her laughter. Sarah Palin is mocked for her seeming inability to speak in coherent sentences. She is judged as “popular” among a certain segment of the public because of her looks. Now it seems liberals have decided to play the moral scold regarding Melania Trump’s attire. They are shocked – SHOCKED! – to find a wealthy, powerful white man marrying a young woman deemed attractive according to certain arbitrary standards. They are shocked – SHOCKED! – to find a model posing for the kinds of photos models pose for all the time. This whole thing would be ridiculous if it weren’t so sexist.
I have no idea what kind of person Melania Knauss Trump is. I certainly gain no insight to her character from these photos. Perhaps she is a shallow person, marrying Trump only because he’s wealthy. Perhaps, however, she really loves him and in his own twisted way he loves her, as well. I just don’t know, nor do I care. I care far more that liberals have decided there’s something bad about adult women making choices about their careers, their public attire, and linking it to her character. Donald Trump offers enough things through his own mouth liberals can use as fodder to discuss. Going after his wife, particularly in this over-sexualized way, is disgusting. Not surprising. Just disgusting.