I think his marksmanship is wonderful.
The question was, who will defend Trump’s attack. Did MSNBC defend it? Do you have a cite for anyone defending Trump’s actions? Defending Trump would look something like this:
I’m not sure what argument you’re advancing, so I have no idea if I wish to defend against it.
Probably not.
But just to help, here are some guesses I have about your argument:
[ul]
[li]It’s wrong to call this a sex tape[/li][li]It’s wrong to use the existence of a sex tape against an opponent[/li][li]It’s wrong to consider Machado fair game as an opponent[/li][li]It’s wrong for Trump to try to be President[/li][/ul]
Any of those close?
Am I missing the link between “She has a sex tape” and “Therefore, calling her Miss Piggy is perfectly fine”?
1 and 4 see accurate
Perhaps he has a Miss Piggy fetish?
One wonders how low Trump can stoop or how long before his supporters say “enough”. I’m struggling to see how one could support him and be a good person.
Then I do have a defense.
There’s no rule that a “sex tape,” has naked flesh. This is a tape that purports to show two people having sex under a sheet. Her dialogue suggests this as well: “¡Ay qué pinga mi amor! ¡Qué pinga tan rica! Tienes una pinga divina.” (I’ll translate if anyone needs it, but the gist is that she believes her lover has a great cock.)
I suppose it could be staged, but it’s certainly fair to call it a sex tape.
I have no defense on 4, except to say that clearly Trump doesn’t agree.
Hillary Clinton: My opponent suggested you google and watch a sex tape. I think you should google and view pictures of my opponent’s naked wife!
I think when most people hear “sex tape” they’re thinking of a video made privately by one or both of the participants not a clip from broadcast TV.
Wow. I guess I have to apologize for being so unclear.
First, I’m no shrinking violet. I’m not shocked by a sex tape, nor am I shocked that Trump says crazy things. However, in my mind this actually is a new level for him (which is not the point of my post) because he’s actually suggesting that people google the sex tape of someone who isn’t even a political figure. Americans tend to be very skittish about sex generally, and here you have a candidate for president saying we should all go look at a sex tape.
What I was really asking about was how the backers, Republican party, various conservative news outlets, etc. would (nay, could) defend such a statement. How it isn’t just the end for him. I know it won’t be, but I don’t get it… It’s a case of cognitive dissonance for me: What I see happen just doesn’t seem possible with how I think things work
The clip I saw would not have been from broadcast TV, at least not in the United States. It would have run afoul of FCC rules.
As usual, whoever runs Hillary’s tweet responses is on point.
Who still watches broadcast tv? Would it run on basic cable?
I think you’re reading the line a bit wrongly. “Google her sex tape,” is intended, in my opinion, not as a literal command but as a rhetorical device to say, “She’s untrustworthy because she made a sex tape.”
Perhaps. Does that reduce in any way Trump’s treatment of her during her Miss Universe days?
Perhaps if it had come from someone with a filter between their brain and their mouth who didn’t already have a history of saying outrageously over-the-top crap. With Trump…?
Well, basic cable is unfettered by the FCC, so there’s no legal reason it could not run on basic cable.
But the clip is almost certainly too raw for the standards and practices of, say, A&E, SyFy or Discovery. Starz would be cool with it, I would imagine.
No, one has nothing to do with the other.
All in service of fighting ignorance and serving the public interest, no doubt. 