Obligatory, 10.9.16

A few thoughts:

Trump's troubles brings to mind this collectivist mentality v. the individualist mentality.  What does Trump's words have to do with women in general ( collectivist ) as opposed to the women involved?

That is to say, what business is it of theirs what Trump said about anybody else if it didn't involve them personally?  Note that Trump's opponents like to generalize it to the collective.  So anything he says or does with regards to one woman becomes something he says or does with all women.  I think that is a kind of lying.  If he didn't say it of all women, then it wasn't with regard to all women, and therefore is a misrepresentation of fact.

As for way the GOP is acting, well, they are screwing themselves when they try to screw Trump.  Why would Trump supporters vote for a GOP replacement?  The reason we are where we are with this country is just this kind of behavior, not with what Trump said or done.  After all, Trump has never been a public official like Hillary Clinton.  What he has said or done is miniscule in comparison with what she has done.  Trump may have affected a few women.  Hillary's acts affect the entire country.
 
There is no comparison.  It is being hyped and misrepresented, and the GOP won't support their own nominee.  This is why they lose.  Not because of what Trump said or did as a private citizen years ago.

Then you've got the phenomenon of people unable to make distinctions.  To make distinctions is to discriminate.  There's nothing wrong with making distinctions, unless the distinctions are in made in certain cases, such as discrimination upon the basis of race.  Instead of limiting the use of the word to only select cases, it is generalized to cover all cases, which reduces an act of intelligence down to an act of idiocy.  If you cannot discriminate in any case, then you are a moron.  You cannot tell the difference between Shiite and Shinola.

Finally, the kabuki thing.  If Trump drops out, it is suspicious.  If he really wants to be president, he can overcome this thing.  It really is rather stupid on its face.  An intelligent man can overcome this idiocy.  The real question is does he want to?

It is rather clear that his "colleagues" in his party do not want him to.