"Bimbos" or the "P-Word?"
So, what's next for those returnees? With plenty of research available on the recidivism rates of sexual predators, perhaps the most salient of question on the minds of those who quickly repatriated to Trump World was what are the odds of Trump experiencing what in the Bill Clinton era was described as a "bimbo-eruption."
One of the beautiful things about the anti-shaming aspect of a rational culture of political correctness is that in 2016, other than from Trump, his hardy "JAIL THAT B*TCH" die-hards, and anonymous keyboard commandos, it is unlikely that today, any of Trump's accusers would be publicly labeled "bimbos." But bimbo probably wouldn't suffice anyway in the throwback, alpha male-cultured locker rooms of Trump World -- not "epic" enough. In such heady environments, the phrase P*SSY ERUPTION is likely to be considered a worthier non-PC term of art.
But so much for digression. The question at the time for anyone who considered revoking his or her initial Trump renouncement had little to do with any dispute over how the accusers are characterized. It's about whether it makes sense to instantly dismiss the likelihood that more accusers from one of Trump's sleaze-ball "F*ck-It Lists" may have yet to come forward.
As is now known, it didn't take long for those with patience to get an answer. Within 24 hours of the second debate the dreaded "eruption" occurred as woman after woman (numbering 11 at the time of this writing) many of whom fit a pattern of similar looks -- flowing blond hair and high cheekbones -- stepped forth with claims of having been groped or otherwise sexually assaulted in some form by Trump. This easily foreseen turn of events then raised the question: What are those Republicans who originally renounced and subsequently rescinded their renouncement to do now? Can one re-renounce a previously renounced renouncement and survive unscathed politically? Seems like either way, they are, uh, "screwed."
Meanwhile, as these events unfolded, the Clinton campaign cleanly avoided getting caught up a proverbial "sh*t fight with a skunk." It simply chose instead to pull up a chair and gawk like the rest of America at the dynamic lunacy of her opponent's awkward game plan for digging himself from a tawdry stink-hole of his own making. It was deft strategy as a fully uncorked Trump continued railing away like a possessed cuckoo bird, dominating news cycles at a time when the attention of voters might have otherwise been drawn to news related to the same weekend's WikiLeaks dump of his opponent's e-mails. As it turned out, the Clinton campaign's decision to "go high" by laying low help it avoid getting caught up in a game of "dueling sexual atrocities" with Trump. In doing so, it further avoided helping Trump sustain his narrative of false equivalency in the minds of the electorate regarding his own and Bill Clinton's respective sex scandals.
And so, by the conclusion of that Sunday's second debate, Trump's campaign was essentially at circling-the-drain status. Within a day of the final debate -- during which he called Hillary a "nasty woman" and rejected a commitment to honoring the election's outcome -- his campaign's status had been lowered to "down the drain."
Finally, perhaps even prior to the conclusion of his wincingly-awkward performance at the Al Smith Charity Dinner, Trump's campaign was completely in the sewer.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
