“Oh, I’m sure she’s never been grabbed before…”
—-Donald Trump, responding to the most recent accusations of sexual assault, in this case from Jessica Drake, a porn star who became the 11th woman to claim Trump assaulted her in a press conference over the weekend.
I suspended the Ethics Alarms Unethical Donald Trump Quote of the Day, or UDTQOTD, feature a couple of months ago when I realized that pretty soon there would be no room for anything else. This one, however, is special, and can’t be ignored. It perfectly encompasses so much of what is fatally wrong with Trump, his character and his campaign.
Here and elsewhere, desperate Trump rationalizers have defended voting for him over the horrible Hillary Clinton by reducing his abundant deficits of character to a couple of adjectives, essentially representing him as acceptable by strategic omission. As I recently replied in part to a commenter who argued that Trump may be “narcissitic and crude” but...gotta love that equivocal “may”:
“And no, you cannot get away with “narcissistic and crude” here. …Take out crude and narcissistic, and that still leaves ignorant, lazy, corrupt, arrogant, a fantasist, a liar, a misogynist, a fool, a political incompetent, a terrible delegater, a poor judge of character, lacking in any relevant experience, literally unable to comprehend what ethical conduct is, governed wholly by rationalizations, unaccountable, feckless, incompetent, cruel, mean-spirited, devoid of common sense, self-control, prudence, compassion and decency, and, on top of all of that, inarticulate and dumb as a brick. No responsible voter can risk making such an individual President, and doing so is indefensible. “
Let’s see…18, 19, 20…today’s quote embodies 21 of the characteristics on that impromptu list, and in only seven words, which is impressive.
It is ignorant, because it shows that Trump still can’t comprehend what sexual assault is, and arrogant, because it exhibits his conviction that he need not take any criticism seriously. It shows him to be a liar, simultaneously (in another section of his interview) denying the encounter and then dismissing the accusation as if it were true. The statement reveals, again, a misogynist, who does not respect women, a fool, who continues to speak in an insulting way about women even as this habit undermines his chances of winning the election, and a political incompetent, for the same reason. It again shows how Trump is literally unable to comprehend what ethical conduct is, and that he is governed wholly by rationalizations, in this case evoking “Everybody does it” and several more to make the case that porn stars have lesser rights than other women. He is unaccountable, refusing to take responsibility for his actions, and obviously feckless.
The remark once again highlights how stunningly incompetent a candidate Trump is. The expert campaigns of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were important evidence (in Obama’s case, misleading) of their administrative and leadership skills, just as the inept campaigns of Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry and John McCain raised legitimate concerns about their abilities to run the government. Trump’s campaign makes any of those losing candidates look brilliant by comparison.
The statement shows how cruel and mean-spirited Trump is. Has the U.S. ever elected a truly cruel President? Obviously the quote shows someone devoid of common sense, self-control, prudence, compassion and decency, and, on top of all of that, inarticulate, since like so much Trump says, his exact meaning is unclear. Meanwhile, nobody who isn’t as dumb as a brick would say this after all the hoopla over Trump’s misogyny, after all of the gaffes, knowing how the pro-Clinton news media is ready to pounce on any statement that can possibly be interpreted to reflect poorly on him. The comment shows us once more that Trump has a flat learning curve, or no learning curve at all. He acts, reasons and speaks like a child, but also like an incorrigible, self-destructive, none-too-bright child.
When one is running for President, words matter.When one is President, words matter infinitely more.
To be fair, today’s UDTQOTD does not provide additional evidence that Trump is lazy, corrupt, a fantasist, a terrible delegater, a poor judge of character and lacking in any relevant experience.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m sure you could do an unethical quote of the hour feature, if you had time.
“ignorant, lazy, corrupt, arrogant, a fantasist, a liar, a misogynist, a fool, a political incompetent, a terrible delegater, a poor judge of character, lacking in any relevant experience, literally unable to comprehend what ethical conduct is, governed wholly by rationalizations, unaccountable, feckless, incompetent, cruel, mean-spirited, devoid of common sense, self-control, prudence, compassion and decency, and, on top of all of that, inarticulate and dumb as a brick. No responsible voter can risk making such an individual President, and doing so is indefensible. “
Other than lazy and misogynist – I’ll give her that -that description matches Hillary as well. It’s an Alien vs Predator election: whoever wins, we lose. (I’m going with Alien)
That’s really not fair, though, James.
Ignorant: Hillary is ignorant about some things. She knows the law. She understands, sort of, the Constitution. She knows how the government works. It’s no contest
A political incompetent: she’s an accomplished Machiavellian.
A terrible delegater: Maybe. Her spokespersons are so much less moronic than Trump’s. Whatever Lanny Davis is, you can’t say he’s not a smart choice for a shameless spin-artist.
Lacking in any relevant experience: Come on. Hillary’s experience isn’t what its cracked up to be, but you can’t say it’s not relevant.
Literally unable to comprehend what ethical conduct is: Oh, she understands it very well. She just doesn’t think she should abide by it.
Cruel, mean-spirited: There’s not much evidence of this. She’s ruthless. That’s different.
Compassion: hey, all those pictures or her with kids?
Inarticulate: she’s well within normal political ranges of articulateness, unlike Trump.
Dumb as a brick: She does stupid things, but she’s certainly not stupid. She never says “I’m smart,” either.
I’ve identified four things Trump beats her on: 1) He’s healthier. 2) He has more of a sense of humor 3) He’s a better speaker in terms of technique 4) His bimbo wife is preferable to Bill.
Jack,
You just lost credibility on calling anyone a misogynst who does not respect women when you referred to Melania as a bimbo.
You’re right. I did gloss over most of those out of laziness and desire for a quick response.
Ignorant: sure Trump is more ignorant, but Hillary’s comments about the role of the Supreme Court (in the last debate) were jaw dropping. And she’s a lawyer who should know better. Trump’s an ignorant (yes, ignorant) buffoon, and even his (mostly incomprehensible) answer regarding SCOTUS was better (and it wasn’t good).
A political incompetent: Bill Clinton, absolutely, and maybe her handlers. But – despite all her years in politics – she’s just not good at it. That screams incompetent to me;
A terrible delegater: I’ll give you that Trump’s are much worse (embarrassingly so). But, again, given all the time this woman has spent in politics, what do her choices say about her? I’d argue it’s worse. Learning curve?,
Lacking in any relevant experience: ok. I kind of ignored that one;
Literally unable to comprehend what ethical conduct is: “Oh, she understands it very well. She just doesn’t think she should abide by it.” Isn’t that worse? Trump is too stupid to cover his tracks – we’re guaranteed to know about any Trump misdeed (and there would be plenty);
Cruel, mean-spirited: “There’s not much evidence of this. She’s ruthless. That’s different.” Publicly, sure. But if the accounts of the Secret Service and other (unethical) whistleblowers are believed, there’s plenty of evidence here. That said, Trump’s probably worse on this one;
Compassion: I don’t have to rebut this one, right?’
Inarticulate: more articulate that Trump? Absolutely. But again, for a lawyer who has been in politics her entire life, she’s amazingly inarticulate. Her SCOTUS answer in that debate should really be giving people pause about her. “Toddlers with Guns”. The Court’s decisions should reflect the poor and unrepresented, etc. Even as pandering it was a weak effort;
Dumb as a brick: ok. I’ll give you this one;
I like your list of his merits. I’d add a controversial one: he’s more honest. Yes, he lies all the time and I wouldn’t trust him with my cat. But, unlike Hillary, his lies are generally superficial and relate to his poor character. Hillary’s lies tend to be larger in scale and corrosive to the nation. Case in point: bringing the Moms Demanding Answers (or whatever they were called) to the DNC. Police getting killed this week based on a false narrative? Doesn’t matter – this will help shore up the black vote.
He’s dumber, less connected, less powerful, and thus, less dangerous in my mind.
I’d say the blood libel that thousands of Muslims celebrated in New Jersey after 9/11 is incredibly corrosive to the nation.
I’d say that’s a fair point but isn’t that one still open to debate? http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/exclusive_jersey_city_cop_residents_say_some_musli.html
My guess is that he was just running his mouth without regard for facts -as is his wont- but he wasn’t necessarily wrong.
No, and it’s amazing that you think that news article shows Trump “wasn’t necessarily wrong.” “Some” is not “thousands of thousands,” and since no footage of this exists, Trump was absolutely lying when he said he saw it on TV.
You mean the exaggeration of a few idiots acting stupid, right? I was in NJ on that day and some stupid stuff did go on, just not by thousands. Blood libel is also usually used to reference the untrue legend that Jews use granules of dried children’s blood in the preparation of matzoh. What Trump said was an exaggeration and unhelpful, but nowhere near the level of a blood libel.
It was a lie designed to justify persecution of a religious minority. I’m comfortable using the term.
And I’m comfortable telling you it’s an overreach, you smug ass.
Both of them are utterly without any kind of personal honor. He seeks power to gratify his ego, she seeks power for its own sake. I could quote J.K. Rowling, but I have concluded that, although she had a limitless imagination and could tell a cracking good story, when it came to Profound Thoughts, she was only master of saying what had already been said a different way, not in coming up with original insights into human nature, so I’ll say it my own way:
The most dangerous people to trust with power are those who seek it for its own sake – Hitler, Lenin, Alexander, Napoleon, Henry V, all sought power for its own sake, because they believed they were right. All of them came to grief, but ere they did they destroyed or ended a lot of lives who would just as soon they never came to be.
The ones to trust with power are those who step up not because they want to but because they must – that’s what gave us a Cincinnatus, a Robert Bruce, a Washington, and a Churchill.
Which group would you say both of these folks belong with?
You’re completely right about Hillary not being ignorant and not stupid. That’s exactly what makes her so dangerous. I think that she is also emotionally unstable as evidenced in the numerous rages directed at staffers and anybody that gets in her way. Vote for either Trump or Hillary and it will be an awful four years for America.
Boy did we dodge a bullet in the last election. Mitt Romney is such a cad. He’s so cruel he takes his dog on vacation in a dog kennel strapped to the roof of his car. And what a misogynist! As governor he hired qualified women to fill positions in his administration by using binders full off them.
Yes, America, there are consequences for allowing ourselves to be blindly stupid and ignorantly partisan and we are about to find out exactly how much worse they can be.
Yup. And I hope the whole thing goes completely to shit on Hillary’s watch. Who then will the left blame?
By default, Bush.
Bullseye. Then again, we the people are ultimately the ones at fault, for NOT re-electing his dad and instead electing the man who started the process of complete ethical rot of our government.
You hope the country will suffer under President Clinton? That seems rather vindictive.
Chris,
An expevtation that HRC s policies will not work id not hoping bad things will occur. Many said Obamacare was unsustainable when it passed that does not mean that people hope for failure.
Your writings consistently reflect political operative methods when you claim someone means something that was never suggested in the first place.
Bullshit. Read what Steve wrote. I misrepresented nothing. Steve used the word “hope,” not “expect:”
And I hope the whole thing goes completely to shit on Hillary’s watch.
Do not accuse me of putting words in people’s mouths when I simply restate exactly what they said, verbatim.
We all know the country is “going to shit.” You probably couldn’t get an honest argument to the contrary from anyone with a pulse. Hoping it happens when the people who caused it are in power is simply recognizing the political reality that each new administration blames all failures on the previous administration. Hoping it happens when Hillary is in power is simply hoping that the political party responsible for the greatest part of it have no one to creditably blame but themselves.
Well put, wg. Who was the Hollywood actress that said she hoped Trump was elected so that “the revolution would come sooner?” Tim Robbins’ ex girlfriend? Hoping for the pendulum to swing so far to one side that it snaps back the other way seems to be a fairly common occurrence.
Who was the Hollywood actress that said she hoped Trump was elected so that “the revolution would come sooner?”
Whoever she is, she’s an idiot. Is her logic and thinking something you admire?
We all know the country is “going to shit.” You probably couldn’t get an honest argument to the contrary from anyone with a pulse.
I don’t think the country is “going to shit.” I think I could make an honest argument that it isn’t, but you’ve given me nothing to argue with, just bitterness. I think our country is in overall better financial shape than we were during the height of the recession, for instance. And I still think it’s possible, and preferable, to hold out hope that things can get better than to hope things go to shit under my political opponents’ watch.
If Trump wins, I’d still hope that the country would do well, because my love for my country and my desire to not see people suffer are stronger than my need to “blame” my enemies for political outcomes I don’t like.
I guess I should have said anyone who knows how the nation was founded.
Anyone who knows how the government is supposed to work.
Anyone with the ability to see what’s actually happening not what political operatives say.
Anyone who knows how the economy is supposed to work.
Anyone who can see the debt ratio is unsustainable.
Those people are very aware that the country is “going to shit.”
Of course I hold out hope, it’s simply that holding out hope that things can get better is futile with the candidates we have available.
By the way both parties are my enemy.
It’s not often I’ll defend WJC but it’s a bit much to say that he “started the process of complete ethical rot of our government.” There were Kennedys long before there were Clintons. That said, I think it’s fair to say that he hastened the rot.
Getting back to wyogranny’s comment, I sincerely believe that it a loss to our country that Romney was never president. We need a boring president. He was never going to muck around in social issues – just boring, bottom-line issues that profoundly affect the country. You know, the ones Obama avoids like the plague in favor of airline baggage fees. Romney’s biggest problem was that he looked too perfect to a (justifiably) jaded citizenry. My wife knows the family first-hand and, in her estimation, they are every bit as genuine as they project. For those who haven’t seen it, I highly recommend the Netflix documentary “Mitt” which is likely still available via streaming.
I have a question.
Select one person randomly off the street.
Would they likely make a better president than Trump? I think so.
Would they likely make a better president than Clinton? No, they lack experience.
Of course. Easy question.