новый скандал трампа
Oct. 9th, 2016 07:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avvaВ Америке разразился скандал по следам публикации старой записи Трампа, на которой в 2005-м году он хвастается своими половыми похождениями в частной беседе. Меня этот скандал поражает своим лицемерием, по двум причинам:
1. Ничто из сказанного в этой записи не является новой информацией о характере и поведении Трампа.
2. Хвастовство в частной беседе имеет очень отдаленное отношение к действительно важным вопросам на этих выборах, и заведомо должно быть стократ менее важно, чем *публично* высказанные мнения Трампа, в том числе на эти темы.
Возможно, этот скандал решит исход выборов - но если так, то исход выборов решит наиболее тривиальная, наиболее поверхностная и наименее важная причина не доверять Трампу и голосовать против него, в сравнении с реально серьезными причинами и важными рисками. Не знаю, почему так получается; другой версии, кроме "это влияние пуританского ханжества, продолжающего играть важную роль в американской политике", у меня нет.
Это была выжимка из длинного комментария на эту тему, который я написал по-английски; вот он целиком для тех, кому интересно.
I’m surprisingly (to myself) annoyed by the hypocrisy of this scandal blowing up in such a huge way. For the record, I’m strongly anti-Trump, and endorse a Hillary vote as a (by far, far, far…) the lesser evil. Two reasons why this ought to be a non-event or close to that:
1. Trump is already known to be boastful of his sexual successes, including with married women. He’s already known to be misogynistic, to attack and belittle women based on looks etc. What new information is revealed by this tape?
I mean, suppose we go back in time by one week, and ask all the pundits having their field day with it, and all the Republican senators denouncing Trump today, suppose we sit privately with them, show them the transcript of this tape, and ask: “Do you feel it likely that Trump would’ve said that in private? Does it seem likely given what you know about him, and if you knew he said that privately, would it change your vote?”
I think the answer is obvious. There’s no new information here beyond the actual release of the private words. The conversation itself does not throw new light on the character of Donald J. Trump as it’s well-known publicly!
2. This continues the trend of recent decades to essentially ignore the difference between private words and public record. This trend seems to remarkably dangerous, as well as essentially hypocritical in how it’s applied to different people and different beliefs. The recent evisceration of Donald Sterling over private racist remarks recorded by a girlfriend was the same sort of thing.
People are imperfect, and they inherently conduct themselves differently in private life and in the public eye, based on whatever ideals and goals they’ve constructed for their public persona. That’s a good thing. For example, it’s possible for someone to be a bigot in private life and committed to racial equality in their public duty, and in fact many (probably most?) advances in racial equality have been pushed along by just such people. In that vein, Trump’s *public* remarks e.g. about Rosie O’Donnell ought to be considered much more vile and dangerous than whatever he’s blurted out in private – precisely because they were knowingly public. I also think that Trump’s claim that “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course” is quite plausible, and all the pundits having their field day right now would likely privately agree with that.
Look, if this seals the victory for HRC, I’ll still take it. Trump remains the incredibly dangerous candidate and HRC with all her flaws an obviously preferred choice. But, but —
Of all the reasons to mistrust Trump and deny him the presidency, of all the reasons why he is dangerous, of all the dangers and risks, this – a species of typical sexual male banter in private – seems to be the most trivial one, the most superficial one, the least important one. That it seems to be becoming the strong differentiator is stupid, and I take it to be evidence of the continuing influence of a Puritan strain in the US society (convince me otherwise?). In particular I think I’m losing all respect I had for John McCain. McCain didn’t denounce Trump over his danger to national security, over his *public* remarks on veterans, over etc. etc. etc. – but *this* is what tips him over? A private conversation of boastful sexual banter? What a freaking hypocrite.
1. Ничто из сказанного в этой записи не является новой информацией о характере и поведении Трампа.
2. Хвастовство в частной беседе имеет очень отдаленное отношение к действительно важным вопросам на этих выборах, и заведомо должно быть стократ менее важно, чем *публично* высказанные мнения Трампа, в том числе на эти темы.
Возможно, этот скандал решит исход выборов - но если так, то исход выборов решит наиболее тривиальная, наиболее поверхностная и наименее важная причина не доверять Трампу и голосовать против него, в сравнении с реально серьезными причинами и важными рисками. Не знаю, почему так получается; другой версии, кроме "это влияние пуританского ханжества, продолжающего играть важную роль в американской политике", у меня нет.
Это была выжимка из длинного комментария на эту тему, который я написал по-английски; вот он целиком для тех, кому интересно.
I’m surprisingly (to myself) annoyed by the hypocrisy of this scandal blowing up in such a huge way. For the record, I’m strongly anti-Trump, and endorse a Hillary vote as a (by far, far, far…) the lesser evil. Two reasons why this ought to be a non-event or close to that:
1. Trump is already known to be boastful of his sexual successes, including with married women. He’s already known to be misogynistic, to attack and belittle women based on looks etc. What new information is revealed by this tape?
I mean, suppose we go back in time by one week, and ask all the pundits having their field day with it, and all the Republican senators denouncing Trump today, suppose we sit privately with them, show them the transcript of this tape, and ask: “Do you feel it likely that Trump would’ve said that in private? Does it seem likely given what you know about him, and if you knew he said that privately, would it change your vote?”
I think the answer is obvious. There’s no new information here beyond the actual release of the private words. The conversation itself does not throw new light on the character of Donald J. Trump as it’s well-known publicly!
2. This continues the trend of recent decades to essentially ignore the difference between private words and public record. This trend seems to remarkably dangerous, as well as essentially hypocritical in how it’s applied to different people and different beliefs. The recent evisceration of Donald Sterling over private racist remarks recorded by a girlfriend was the same sort of thing.
People are imperfect, and they inherently conduct themselves differently in private life and in the public eye, based on whatever ideals and goals they’ve constructed for their public persona. That’s a good thing. For example, it’s possible for someone to be a bigot in private life and committed to racial equality in their public duty, and in fact many (probably most?) advances in racial equality have been pushed along by just such people. In that vein, Trump’s *public* remarks e.g. about Rosie O’Donnell ought to be considered much more vile and dangerous than whatever he’s blurted out in private – precisely because they were knowingly public. I also think that Trump’s claim that “Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course” is quite plausible, and all the pundits having their field day right now would likely privately agree with that.
Look, if this seals the victory for HRC, I’ll still take it. Trump remains the incredibly dangerous candidate and HRC with all her flaws an obviously preferred choice. But, but —
Of all the reasons to mistrust Trump and deny him the presidency, of all the reasons why he is dangerous, of all the dangers and risks, this – a species of typical sexual male banter in private – seems to be the most trivial one, the most superficial one, the least important one. That it seems to be becoming the strong differentiator is stupid, and I take it to be evidence of the continuing influence of a Puritan strain in the US society (convince me otherwise?). In particular I think I’m losing all respect I had for John McCain. McCain didn’t denounce Trump over his danger to national security, over his *public* remarks on veterans, over etc. etc. etc. – but *this* is what tips him over? A private conversation of boastful sexual banter? What a freaking hypocrite.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-10-10 05:23 pm (UTC)“He pushed me up against the wall, and had his hands all over me and tried to get up my dress again,” Harth said, “and I had to physically say: ‘What are you doing? Stop it.’ It was a shocking thing to have him do this because he knew I was with George, he knew they were in the next room. And how could he be doing this when I’m there for business?”
no subject
Date: 2016-10-11 02:19 am (UTC)это oбъясняют например в комментах
http://yakov-a-jerkov.livejournal.com/1232224.html#comments
и комментах в др. его постах, и Вы это читали.
> “He pushed me up against the wall ...”
???
это Трамп что ли хвастается ?!
no subject
Date: 2016-10-11 02:31 am (UTC)Впрочем, я не юрист. Иск той женщины, рассказ которой я процитировал, описывал данное поведение Трампа как "attempted rape".
То, что в воображении Трампа его действия совершались при непротивлении женщин, вполне может быть правдой. То, что даже при наличии сопротивления он не станет об этом упоминать в своем рассказе - также вполне возможно. Собственно, насильники всегда выбирают такую линию защиты: "она не сопротивлялась", "она сама хотела".
no subject
Date: 2016-10-11 02:48 am (UTC)Остальное это домыслы, той или иной степени правдоподобности, но это неважно - утверждение то было не о домыслах, а о том сам Трамп сказал.
Если б Вы написали "из того что Трамп сказал, я, активный борющийся с ним его противник, предположил то-то" - это было б нормально, не враньё.
> Иск той женщины описывал данное поведение Трампа как "attempted rape".
Как оно в сравнении с претензиями женщин к Биллу Клинтону, и к Хиллари, которая всё это покрывала и поливала грязью жертв ?
no subject
Date: 2016-10-11 02:57 am (UTC)...
On Jan. 24, 1993, Harth and Houraney went to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida for a contract-signing celebration, bringing along some “calendar girls” at Trump’s request. He offered Harth a tour of the estate and then pulled her into the empty bedroom of his daughter Ivanka.
“I was admiring the decoration, and next thing I know he’s pushing me against a wall and has his hands all over me,” Harth told me. “He was trying to kiss me. I was freaking out.” Harth says she was desperately protesting, and finally managed to run out of the room and find the group again. She and Houraney left rather than stay the night, as they had intended.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-groper-in-chief.html
Еще раз. Я вполне готов поверить, что в воображении Трампа всем женщинам нравится, когда он лезет к ним с поцелуям и хватает их за промежность.
Но доверять воображению Трампа у меня нет никаких оснований. Я более чем уверен, что многим женщинам это не нравилось, хотя они и не стали подавать на Трампа в суд. Если бы подали, то поступки Трампа могли бы быть классифицированны как sexual assault.
Скажите, где и в чем я тут соврал?
no subject
Date: 2016-10-11 03:14 am (UTC)Это то чем Трамп хвастается. Лапать женщину которая добровольно это позвилила - не может быть классфицированнo как sexual assault.
Вы говорите: "а я то знаю, на самом деле Трамп лапал несогласных женщин" - может быть, но Трамп то этим не хвастается.
no subject
Date: 2016-10-11 03:18 am (UTC)Ну так я и написал - "хвастается поступками, которые могут быть классифицированны как sexual assault". "Могут быть" означает, что не сам Трамп их так классифицирует или может классифицировать, а что они могут быть так классифицированны при независимом от воображения Трампа разбирательстве.
no subject
Date: 2016-10-11 03:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-10-11 03:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-10-11 03:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-10-11 03:36 am (UTC)