Good job, Doll-face Coalition: We hope that your coming out party was worth it. Cheers to the future with higher taxes, further devaluation of the dollar, and violations of the 2nd Amendment! As this election has morphed into a Law & Order SVU episode, rest assured that Hillary Clinton will rape you too.
This is not meant to belittle & discredit the claims brought forth by these women, although, with all due respect, why now after several years, and in some cases decades, do ye come forth?
We’re baffled by the most recent woman to come forward to allege impropriety against Trump. From the New York Times reporting of adult film star Jessica Drake’s allegations against Trump:
“She said later in the evening, Trump invited her to his hotel room, but she didn’t feel entirely comfortable going alone, so she brought two other women with her. She said when they arrived at Trump’s penthouse suite, ‘He grabbed each of us tightly, in a hug and kissed each one of us without asking permission.’ Drake said she left the room shortly thereafter feeling even more uncomfortable. After that, Drake said, she received a call from a Trump representative asking her to return to the room alone. When she declined, she said, Trump got on the phone himself and asked her to return and go out to dinner with him. She declined again, and he allegedly responded, ‘What do you want? How much?” before offering her $10,000 to go out with him.”
Drake said Trump had been flirting with her at a golf tournament earlier in the day. If the flirting was unwanted, why would she go to his suite, even with two other women? This was in 2006, a year after Trump married Melania. What is the motivation for Drake? What’s in it for her to come forward now? To show Trump wanted to cheat on Melania with Drake, that he’s a bad guy? Trump first became famous because he was involved in a nasty divorce. It was well known he cheated on his wives. Does Drake, a woman who is paid to have sex on screen, object to being offered money for sex?
Observing all the women who have come forward to level charges against Trump and Bill Cosby undermines the arguments made by those who denounce “rape culture.” Does the belief that victims of sexual assault are intimidated into silence not apply to aggressors who are rich and famous? Does it not stand to reason that those who are vulnerable would be afraid of those who are powerful? Wealth and fame is a pathway to power? How could it be that those with no power are no longer afraid of those with power? The logic does not hold.
“There was no higher-up in the company to which we could turn. Donald Trump is the boss,” is not a very good rationale, because there is law enforcement – that is your ‘higher up.’ Sexual harassment laws are stringent, and it is very difficult to acquit an accused rapist if DNA evidence is available.
Pro-athletes, high-profile government politicians, CEOs of major corporations have all been found to be guilty of crimes, personal missteps & moral transgressions. And, quite, frankly, without delving into too much detail, these days many women are just as crude about sex as men are.
The flood gates of women accusing Donald Trump of sexual assault opened when the audio of Trump and Billy Bush was released. During the debate Anderson Cooper moderated, Trump attempted damage control by saying, “When you have ISIS chopping off heads and drowning people in steel cages and wars and horrible, horrible sights all over and you have so many bad things happening, this is like medieval times. The carnage all over the world and they look and see, can you imagine the people that are frankly doing so well against us with ISIS, and they look at our country and see what’s going on. I am embarrassed by it and I hate it, but it’s locker room talk and one of those things.”
At first we were non-plussed by his response. How could he be so callous to invoke such a comparison? After all, it goes without saying that America hopes to elect someone of higher moral quality than members of ISIS. Then, we realized that in his own inept manner, he was trying to convey that there is more to a person than how he treats members of the opposite sex, different races, and creeds (although thanks to political correctness, the media & left wing politicians would like us to believe that identity is the only thing that matters). Trump urged voters to consider himself in the aggregate – as a panoramic composite of positive attributes, negative traits, etc.
Trump should have responded:
“I behaved in a manner unbecoming of a respectable, professional man. I recognize why some people would deem me unfit to be President. However, I pledge to the American people that as your leader & commander-in-chief, I will be resolutely motivated to refrain from inappropriate, morally-compromising behavior hereafter. Pursuant to my ribald remarks, I would like the American people to entertain the concept that when I said “grab them by the pussy,” I was, in point of fact, exercising a First Amendment right. First Amendment rights do not yield a cornucopia of ‘happy talk.’ First Amendment rights grant freedom of speech to everyone in society, no matter how base, controversial, politically & culturally subversive, or foul.”
The reality is Trump has not been convicted of sexual assault. He’s guilty of being a braggart. We’re not defending Trump’s promiscuity and his alleged penchant for sexual assault. But what seems clear is that these women are coming forward so that female voters, which are over half the electorate, know that Trump is a creep and that they shouldn’t vote for him.
There’s only one downside to this: it means Hillary Clinton will be elected president! And a Clinton presidency will leave everyone worse off. Once the shine wears off for some who think it is important that America elects Clinton because it’s a victory for women (though the global glass ceiling preventing women from being heads of states was shattered in 1940), women and men will be left with a president whose corruption, let alone her preferred policies and previous bad record as a politician and lawyer, disqualifies her from sitting in the Oval Office.
Women who will vote for Trump due to solidarity with Trump’s alleged victims should pause and ask themselves this question: “Will I be better off with a president who calls for higher taxes, more economic regulations, more restrictive gun laws, and who has demonstrated ineptitude regarding foreign policy?”
Shikha Dalmia wants to disabuse feminists of the notion that a Clinton presidency will be a boon to their movement. She writes:
“The conundrum for feminists is that if they ask Clinton to reconcile her actions and positions, they risk exposing her hypocrisy and making her vulnerable in the face of an intolerable alternative. But if they don’t, they end up undermining their own credibility and effectiveness. They can’t even acknowledge that Clinton cannot use the bully pulpit to make sexual assault a big issue of her presidency. Most men would have been able to do more if they chose.
Symbols and icons are important mostly when a movement is still trying to propel itself. But for all of Clinton’s talk of breaking the highest glass ceiling in the world, the fact of the matter is that the notion that women are as capable as men of occupying high office is now firmly entrenched in the zeitgeist. A female U.S. president was a question of when not if.
Hence, absent Trump, there would have been no harm if the movement had waited a bit longer for a more worthy female candidate and fully confronted the flaws of the present one. Trump is a walking, talking scandal of a type the country has never seen. But Clinton is no slouch either…
It would have been good for feminism if it had taken a pass on Clinton’s candidacy in light of all this. Instead, it now gives the impression, in the immortal words of Lena Dunham, that women simply ‘vote their uterus.’ It is fashionable these days in lefty circles to insist that identity is not something you are born with, it is something that is imposed on you. To think otherwise is to be guilty of essentialism and confuse category for identity, a cardinal sin…
But the low bar that Clinton had to cross with Trump as her opponent is a breach of standards in its own right. So feminists should take their victory, but taking joy in it is another matter.”
This may come as a surprise to some voters and pundits, but there is more to this election than women. Women represent one constituency, and as this drama unfolds, everyone will be affected by policies invoked by these candidates: the elderly, minorities, and regular white men who unpretentiously aim to lead nothing other than a good old traditional, American way of life, in a solvent & thriving economy free from an albatross of government-sponsored debt.
Clinton’s well documented negligence and conflicts of interest show that she can not be trusted to be an impartial executor of the laws and defender of the Constitution. And not for nothing, the charges Clinton and her camp have leveled at Trump are the same ones that her husband is guilty of!
Women must consider something other than their vaginas when deciding which candidate to vote for. It is perfectly fine to have a female president, but voters deserve one whose record and character are not grotesque like Hillary Clinton’s are.
Dillon Eliassen is the Managing Editor of Being Libertarian. His wife, Alice, keeps him in line.
This post was written by Dillon Eliassen.
The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.
Latest posts by Dillon Eliassen (see all)
- Shortcuts Ampersand Delusions: To War, To War! - April 20, 2017
- Fox News Fires Bill O’Reilly UPDATED - April 19, 2017
- We’ve Got Mike Crispi’s First Libertarian Interview (Seriously) - April 13, 2017