no, i didn't know that the June 2019 US Politics thread was nasty

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/president-donald-trump-faces-new-rape-accusation.html

When Carroll meets Donald Trump in Bergdorf Goodman, the encounter starts as a friendly one. Trump recognizes her as “that advice lady”; Carroll recognizes him as “that real-estate tycoon.” Trump tells Carroll that he’s there to buy a gift for “a girl,” and though we don’t learn the identity of this mystery woman, Carroll places the ensuing incident in late 1995 or early 1996, during which time Trump was married to Marla Maples. When Trump asks Carroll to advise him on what to buy, she agrees, and the two eventually make their way to the lingerie section. Trump suggests a lace bodysuit and encourages Carroll to try it on; she, deflecting, jokingly suggests that he try it on instead. After they reach the dressing rooms, events turn violent. In Carroll’s account, Trump shoves her against a wall inside a dressing room, pulls down her tights, and, “forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.”

Carroll, 75, is a venerated Elle advice columnist. At the time of the attack, she was well known in her own right. A frequent feature writer for magazines like Playboy and Esquire, she had her own television show on America’s Talking, the precursor to MSNBC. Trump had his own record. By the time of his alleged assault on Carroll, Trump’s ex-wife, Ivana, had already claimed that Trump violated her during their marriage. (Ivana recanted the claim after Trump launched his campaign for the presidency.) Further news reports, published in 2016, place at least four other alleged sexual-assault claims, made by Kristin Anderson, Jill Harth, Cathy Heller, and Temple Taggart McDowell, in the years before and during the time period of Carroll’s account.

Carroll is now at least the 16th woman to accuse Donald Trump of sexual misconduct and the 14th to accuse Moonves of similar offenses.

He’s a monster

he hired bolton to piss off the libs

Reading that cover story

full account from Carroll here; perhaps obvious warning that this recounting of multiple rapes and assaults is terrible reading
https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html

It’s an excerpt of an upcoming book called “what do we need men for?” To her this attack is an example of a broader phenomenon. Certainly true, it’s her story to tell not mine, but i think this will weaken the public impact of the accusation, which is corroborated by multiple people. Which sucks because america needs to reckon with the fact that the president is a rapist.

He’s been accused before, in a formal court document, and his ex wife never fully recanted the accusation, just changed how she would characterize it. He is a sexual predator.

He hired Bolton because he has no idea who to hire, what his positions and goals actually are, how to achieve anything, etc.

ultimately I don't think war is avoidable with these people in charge BUT I can't remember an american president coming out and explaining that he refrained from retaliation by citing a relatively small (by u.s. warmongering standards) number of brown ppl who would die as a consequence

am I crazy or is this....somehow....refreshing?

― d'ILM for Murder (Hadrian VIII), Friday, June 21, 2019 12:52 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this was truly remarkable I agree

Trump's single redeeming quality may be his perhaps inadvertent distaste for actually following through on his trash talk and going to war, which may be bc he's a bullying businessman and con artist and racist at heart and not (as yet!) a professional warmongering mercenary like some of the dudes in his employ (and in the employ of previous admins)

i mean this is a small sample size we're dealing with here, he may simply be doing it less out of distaste for blood and more bc he's thinking it's strategic.

He’s teasing catastrophe so he can pull back and get credit for using restraint. It’s a form of torturing the american people, and the iranian people

No credit for him

agree. this is in retaliation for a downed drone? his casually informing us that he almost authorized a dangerous, out-of-proportion response but decided to pull back at the last minute sounds super reckless to me

Yeah it's like a dude t-boned your Beemer and you threaten to blow up his neighborhood.

look it's completely insane and manipulative and there's not an ounce of decency in his *not* bombing....but under his predecessor (in an imaginary world where there wasn't a nuke deal in place) we probably would have already bombed a bunch of Iranian assets and denied/obfuscated the death count

my guess is that he genuinely sees himself as the good guy and can't cope with the idea of being personally responsible for having someone killed. Totally good with producing murderous policies/having shadowy sources "deal with the problem," just not inured in his shriveled soul to the realpolitik of being a murderer personally and knowing it. It's a redeeming quality you'd assume that would be a core human principle but one never knows with this guy

xp decency peaceful intent

Does he not involve himself in the drone strike / kill list in the way Obama did?

who knows, if it's in the daily briefing probably not

my guess is that he genuinely sees himself as the good guy and can't cope with the idea of being personally responsible for having someone killed.

Didn’t we just read an account of him raping someone?

He's getting a thrill playing God. And part of that thrill is by informing everyone of the mercy he showed with his God powers. This time he chose not to kill, next time who knows. If even 1 American is """killed by Iran"""...
Giving God powers to 1 person who's only qualification is "winning" an election is a ridiculous thing to exist in 21st century.

xp i would guess he willfully avoids that stuff out of cowardice except in piques of "I'M IN CHARGE" since no one in the military want him anywhere near the machinery

where is the contradiction in someone committing an atrocious act and still seeing themselves as a good guy?

these types of people are not going around thinking they're villains

You did, Tree. But he remembers how she totally wanted it because cmon who wouldn't.

I think he is a sadist and doesn’t need to “tell himself hems a good person” like you or i would

Escalating tensions, then pulling back, relishing the power he has over life and death—he’s a kid burning ants with a magnifyying glass.

in the audio clips he says "I didn't like it," and that's always the key word.

Yes

He’s a vile person. Look across his life—he enjoys causing suffering

Speaking of eternal suffering

pic.twitter.com/JDS4zUXXJG

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019

i'm not stupid enough to believe that Trump is incapable of being a war criminal (he already has committed a million human rights violations after all) but he may simply not want to deal with a war. it could be distaste, but then again of course it could also be that he doesn't want to have to deal with the complexities of geopolitics. i'm sure it's tough enough for his brain to handle daily briefings on new nicknames for Dem opponents.

Trump 2036 lol

TRUMP
EEEEEE

In the year Trumpy Five Trumpy Five

Does he not involve himself in the drone strike / kill list in the way Obama did?

― ShariVari, Friday, June 21, 2019 8:01 PM (twenty-two minutes ago)

by many accounts drone strike casualties have drastically increased under trump, in part because trump has removed even the limited restrictions obama placed on using drones. obama was rightly criticized for his drone policy (which was awful), but trump's clearly got no compunctions about blowing ppl up.

According to a 2018 report in The Daily Beast, Obama launched 186 drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan during his first two years in office. In Trump’s first two years, he launched 238.

The Trump administration has carried out 176 strikes in Yemen in just two years, compared with 154 there during all eight years of Obama’s tenure, according to a count by The Associated Press and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Experts also say drone strikes under President Trump have surged in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

And, as was the case during Obama’s presidency, these strikes have resulted in untold numbers of civilian casualties. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan killed more than 150 civilians in the first nine months of 2018.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

would president warren or sanders put an end to this?

in 2015 Sanders said he wouldn't end the drone program

the MIC will keep on no matter who's in there

being a war criminal is part of the job

Sanders has been talking a lot about it recently, calling it the MIC, saying that there are people profitting from war—like it seems legit

https://scontent.fewr1-4.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/64782698_2343772112344446_3258937483882135552_o.png.jpg?_nc_cat=1&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_oc=AQkv8qbJhokbrb1cuDIfjjZC-mqVatfQhjy6tDgDuEx1kREea_LQCzG2LbuoLhJgMSLdzi_h1WLI7H56gR-eaneM&_nc_ht=scontent.fewr1-4.fna&oh=f63ce82bfb1a83a500fbff0d453622b1&oe=5D93B81E

He seems more focused on this than in 2016

https://scontent.fewr1-4.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/64727025_2336155189772805_4172005994383015936_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_oc=AQkfB7voyZ5oTl9uZH_6Jk3Ej9mmyrh-YB_met5RIf-b-Wck-e406M4WaJhlkUYUA1VlveQp0BtNH-WVsTO1vxzP&_nc_ht=scontent.fewr1-4.fna&oh=dee2541fafc42ff1116db4892a214fa7&oe=5D8327C5

_nc_cat=1&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_oc=AQkv8qbJhokbrb1cuDIfjjZC-mqVatfQhjy6tDgDuEx1kREea_LQCzG2LbuoLhJgMSLdzi_h1WLI7H56gR-eaneM&_nc_ht=scontent.fewr1-4.fna&oh=f63ce82bfb1a83a500fbff0d453622b1&oe=5D93B81E

idk about that time thing (which i of course have not read) but i think "trumpism" dies with trump. his cult of personality is, like him, so superficial that i think even his most ardent fans will rapidly lose interest in him. the values they ascribed to him may live on, but i really don't think we're going to have that many die-hards after he's gone (vs, say, reagan or obama)

agreed -- he is, in his own way, sui generis. or at least i fucking hope so

We can say Trumpism existed in the party before he catalyzed it though.

DON: Well, yeah.