Voice Of Reason, Or Pouring More Petrol On The Flames?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3834237/KATIE-HOPKINS-Trump-flawed-human-big-deal-d-grabbed-p-governed-one.html

[jackthehat]

Katie Hopkins is only interested in Katie Hopkins and will say things (the more inflammatory the better) to raise her profile and please her masters at the Daily Mail.

She has an opinion on Trump and on Clinton? Guess what? So do I...

[naomi24]

//I'd rather be grabbed by the p**** than governed by one//

Katie Hopkins is in the business of creating or exacerbating controversy. Personally I wouldn't want to be subjected to either.

[andy-hughes]

To an extent - both.

Ms. Hopkins makes a persuasive argument that Mr Trump is no better or worse than any of us - and uses that as a defence for him.

The issue is, this is not just the one fly in the proverbial ointment for Mr Trump, to mix metaphors, it is the straw that has broken the camel's back.

This is not 'locker room talk' from an otherwise balanced credible welcome candidate, it is the final evidence that the man is a whey-faced loon who has no business being anywhere near a position of authority in anything, especially not the USA.

The Republicans are not leaving scorch marks in their haste to distance themselves from Mr Trump because they are morally offended by his sleazy nasty boorish personality. They are leaving him because this is the 'get out' clause they prayed for when he was endorsed as the candidate.

The proverbial 'Be careful what you wish for ...' delivered a million-fold when Trump was selected. What could they do? They had signed up for a complete buffoon to represent them, how could they ditch him and retain their own credibility?

And then, like a gift from heaven, along comes this tape, and everyone can shout from the rooftops that Trump is a pariah and they want nothing to do with him - while privately heaving sighs of relief because initially they wanted everything to do with him, until he 'went rogue' on them.

Politicians are like monkeys - they higher they climb, the more of their unpleasant parts you can see - but now the Republicans can cast their raving liability loose, and hopefully do better next time.

Although, considering that this is the party that thought Sara Palin was a viable candidate for Vice-President, the signs don't look good!

[andy-hughes]

jack - //Katie Hopkins is only interested in Katie Hopkins and will say things (the more inflammatory the better) to raise her profile and please her masters at the Daily Mail. //

I think this tends to be true.

It's the easiest thing in the world to see the general view on something, and then take the diametrically opposite view - although as I have said her points are well written.

The difficulty occurs when you take Ms. Hopkins' views over a period of time, and a range of subjects.

Being opposite is her default position, and you have to wonder how sincere anyone can be who lives in a society, but routinely disagrees with the majority of its citizens on anything and indeed everything they care to discuss.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, // you have to wonder how sincere anyone can be who lives in a society, but routinely disagrees with the majority of its citizens on anything and indeed everything they care to discuss. //

I don't believe she does 'routinely' disagree with the majority. I think quite often she says exactly what the majority are thinking - although not necessarily in this instance.

[CrapAtCryptics]

I agree with Jack - KH is a total waste of print space

[naomi24]

CrapAtCryptics, Her employers would disagree with you.

[anotheoldgit]

CrapAtCryptics

/// I agree with Jack - KH is a total waste of print space ///

And that wasn't?

[ummmm]

I also agree with Jack....but I didn't read Andy's reply as it's far too long...

[andy-hughes]

AOG - //CrapAtCryptics

/// I agree with Jack - KH is a total waste of print space ///

And that wasn't? //

I would say not - it was an admirably brief viewpoint succinctly expressed.

You can argue with it, but it is a valid point of view.

[naomi24]

As I said, her employers would disagree.

[andy-hughes]

ummmm - //I also agree with Jack....but I didn't read Andy's reply as it's far too long... //

Let me summarise for you -

Trump is wonderful, let's back him ... Trump is a moron, what can we do ... Trump is an unelectable sexist buffoon , let's abandon him quick ... phew, that was close!

[ummmm]

Lol...I'll go for 'Trump is a moron' :-)

[Khandro]

As Katie says; "But so far as we know so far it didn't happen. It was bragging, bravado, the Ginger One trying to be a big man, the Alpha male of the media pack."

So he said something and nothing has actually happened. I suspect that no one one here (andy hughes excepted) hasn't said, or done something in the last eleven years which they now regret.

[Bazile]

Khandro
Yes , but we are not running for public office or the leadership of arguably the only world superpower .

When you are in that position , you have to accept that everything you say / have said , will be picked apart by others ; whether you are a republican or a democrat .

It goes with the territorary

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - //As Katie says; "But so far as we know so far it didn't happen. It was bragging, bravado, the Ginger One trying to be a big man, the Alpha male of the media pack."

So he said something and nothing has actually happened. //

The coming forward or increasingly large numbers of women to accuse Mr Trump of various acts of sexual assault suggest that far from 'nothing' has actually happened.

// I suspect that no one one here (andy hughes excepted) hasn't said, or done something in the last eleven years which they now regret. //

I am mystified as to why you need to take a nasty an unprovoked sideswipe at me - but for the record, I can join the majority in having said or done things in the last eleven days, never mind the last eleven years.

Please try and stick to the point of your post, which will mean leaving me out of it.

[youngmafbog]

So that is most people out of the running for an office then Bazille?

Really?

[andy-hughes]

youngmafbog - //So that is most people out of the running for an office then Bazille?

Really? //

Not at all - only those whose past may generate something so detrimental to their political future that they should think carefully before embarking on a political career - especially at this level.

I have no desire to run for political office, but should I do so, I would be confident that there are no actions or recordings of my past that would derail the process if revealed, and I am sure those that are in that position - like Mr Trump - are a seriously small minority.

[Bazile]

ymb

I'm not saying that people should not run for office , am i .

What i'm saying is that , people should not complain, that what those running for office , have said / done and in this particular case Trump / Clinton will come under close scrutinity

[jim360]

There is anyway a difference between making a sexist remark one time, and having a life-long history (alleged) of not only making those comments all the time but also acting on them occasionally.

What Katie Hopkins thinks about this seems to me to be based on stopping the video at the instant before he gets off the bus, when Trump and Bush spend the next couple of minutes asking the woman they had just been speaking about (and referred to as "it") for hugs, kisses, and which of the two of them she'd most like to sleep with. Or, indeed, why not both? It's not totally clear if she is joining in the chat willingly or out of embarrassment, but the conversation wasn't kept in the back of the bus.

And anyway, he was describing what he did. She's just plain wrong. And, sadly, buying into the "Hillary hate" that has taken hatred of any particular politician to new depths.