It's more than just low hanging fruit. It's a beautiful synchronicity. Samantha Bee and Donald Trump were made for each other.

All good stuff.

On an unrelated personal note, I wish people wouldn't (as Sam does in her coverage of Pussygate) throw "little" around as a general insult. Heightism is real, in America at least, the land of corn-fed giants. Short people aren't out there getting shot 2-to-1 by the cops, but something can be an issue without being a grave issue.

And I get it, we're animals, and stupid body-image caveman shit like that's going to be with us for a long time. And short men still don't have it worse than most groups, just non-short men, really.

But I'm not trying to get into a victimhood pissing contest. I have it all right, except for that one thing -- but it's one thing that people are always in small ways trying to make sure I can never forget.

In an age of heightened sensitivity to what offends various groups of people, it sucks and is hypocritical that I can't just say "hey please don't make fun of short people just for the fuck of it" and expect that to be respected afterward. And I'm generalizing here -- but my experience has been that for whatever reason men don't "punch down" in that specific way as often as women do. Anecdotal, I know.

But I think it causes me to read some more hypocrisy into the SJWism = progress meme than others, which is unfortunate.

Whatever. Again not trying to take it out of perspective, but it's something beyond my control that definitely impacts my life in large and small ways, and mostly I let it go, but hearing someone like Samantha Bee do it just kind of got to me tonight.

Also I wouldn't even say Billy Bush is that short -- certainly he's much taller than me, so yeah :\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmuIw9hy_lI

>>>On an unrelated personal note, I wish people wouldn't (as Sam does in her coverage of Pussygate) throw "little" around as a general insult. Heightism is real, in America at least, the land of corn-fed giants. Short people aren't out there getting shot 2-to-1 by the cops, but something can be an issue without being a grave sue.

I'm going to take a little time to consider this issue, and try to develop a sense of empathy about it. Time will tell if that will change my behavior, but you have my respect and gratitude for speaking up.

Better than Colbert? Pleaaaaaaassssseeeee.

The Colbert Report was on par with Samby, but his new Letterman show is kinda meh. I can't stand the orchestra section doing little sound effects for his jokes.

Better than Colbert, yes. They're doing different things so it's tough to compare them directly, but Sam is really good at what she does and Stephen is really good at what he does and I like Sam's show better.

I wouldn't put her above Colbert, but she's got more wonderfully righteous anger than Colbert and John Oliver combined. Larry Wilmore might match her, but his was more of a calm, bemused fury.

As for Trevor Noah, he apparently also exists.

Wilmore lost me permanently when he chided those women at that Seattle Sanders rally: "now ladies, I agree that black lives matter, but black manner matter as well".

Plus in that same video I realized Larry Wilmore was actually Lemongrab. Just close your eyes and listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdgFfPUOKpw#t=4m12s

... and I just figured out why the "mind your manners, ladies" argument against BLM bothers me so much. At the core of the problem that BLM is trying to solve is, there is no form of behavior that can reliably keep them safe. Comply fully with cops ... ? You can get shot. Demand one's rights ... ? You can get shot. Resist arrest ... ? You can get shot. Run ... ? You can get shot.

So to turn around and tell BLM protesters that their behavior is a problem, is about as tone-deaf to the situation as is humanly possible.

And yes, I do understand that unnecessary conflict is typically counterproductive, but it's not like America has been particularly receptive to the concerns of BLM. They did what they had to just to be heard; good for them.

Five starring Bort being right on this one. :D

YOU TAKE THAT BACK YOU -- oh. Oh! Thanks!

When you're right you're right.

He never intended to win. This was all just part of his sociopathic dog and pony show.

He probably never really intended to get this far, which is what the anonymous word is coming out of his campaign. But, now that he *is* this far, he's had to push the narrative to his base that the system is rigged against him and that Clinton is so corrupt that he has no chance of winning, so that this way when he loses he has his built in narrative about never having a chance. He's playing the same game Glenn Beck played years back: create the illusion you are bucking the system so hard that when you eventually are exiled from the system (in his case, poor ratings and advertising loss) you simply capitalize on the people dumb enough to believe it and continue playing on fearmongering and political muckraking under the illusion you are still some kind of maverick then charge people to listen to you. See also Sarah Palin. It's a grift. That's all this has ever been to Trump..a grift. A way to keep existing off other people's money and create a base for his planned post-election TV network/private streaming channel/whatever to keep grifting people.
With Trump, though, I think he probably thought he could survive until November without it really damaging him much. He probably figured he could keep coasting on the ridiculous love-fest he was getting from the media to carry him all the way through, but now that's not quite working. And it will probably get worse for him. But, in the end, he'll still make a profit out of it and spend the rest of his life in luxury off of other people's money and gullibility. He's set, and that's what this was ALL about.

I just want him to not be President. He can go back to reality TV with my blessing and good will.

I'm still thinking this is a planned election takeover by the Clinton+Trump team. He is TRYING to fuck it up super badly so she wins, but people keep saying they won't vote for her!

Of course he can't just come out and say it, because that would be admitting conspiracy, so he just keeps trying to flush his own campaign by upping the awful ante.

Stanley Pain is right, Trump never wanted to win, he wanted to get some publicity and be out by Christmas. He's been trying to lose ever since.

Which isn't to say he isn't an awful person, of course. Last week's video is probably the first time of the whole campaign we've seen the real Trump.


This is good at what it is but it still feels very television, which is to say it's kind of just stating the obvious, but I suppose that's the whole point.

How do you figure Trump never intended to win? I grant you the presidency is a position that would never make him happy, but I'm not sure I'd credit Trump with that much insight.

I wonder if Garrison Keillor got it right: Trump's doing this because he's very "Queens" and not "Manhattan". Winning the presidency makes him high class and not just some wealthy commoner.

Trump doesn't care about the logistics of being president, but he does care about being seen as a "winner." If he loses, that's all he'll be remembered for, and he knows it. That's why he's growing more and more desperate and delusional.

It's not hard to imagine Trump announcing his candidacy without the least thought of actually winning. Who knows what he's thinking now?

I think Trump went into this thinking he would win. His ego is that big and he is that far out of touch with reality because he has built his own in a protective bubble around himself.

In an oddly prescient moment before he became a right-wing asshole, Dennis Miller prophetically referred to Trump as "a low-rent Charles Foster Kane." That about sums it up.

I wonder what his last word will be.

I think he looked at Sarah Palin and all the money she's making on books and incoherent speaking engagements and thought "Shit, I can do that."

Check out JMH's replies on http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=156115 about the matter. I'm kind of on board: it's quite possible that Bill Clinton raped women at some point, just like any powerful man in the modern US.

It should have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's campaign though. To think otherwise would be to argue that another rapist should be President because this particular woman's husband MIGHT be. They're not voting for "do we live in a rape culture Y(Trump)/N(Clinton)".

Elections, like most high-level political decisions, require a certain erasure of nuance. If we have to open up the can of worms that is the First Gentleman's college years, let that happen after the election.

Hillary supporter here -- I honestly don't know what to make of them. Believing women is important, but Broadrick has also said, under oath, that any allegations of rape are false. (She has also made allegations of rape under oath.)

It's really, really fortunate that this election is about HILLARY, who is not alleged to have raped anyone.

One of these women said "I know Mr. Trump said some bad words..."

Are you fucking kidding me? "Bad words?" Do you really not get it that bad?

These women aren't appearing in a press conference with Donald Trump as therapy. Maybe 30-40 years ago they were rape victims, but now they're rape apologists. I hope they got paid for this, because giving away their credibility for this "man" would be a shame.

I just don't care if the allegations against Bill Clinton are true. Maybe I should, but I can't know, so how can I care? I don't even care all that much if Donald Trump groped women. I mean, it matters, of course, but for the sake of the election, and the sake of what is knowable, what matters most is this horrible press conference. Spoiler alert: DonaldTrump has no finesse. His supporters think that's great. They're as wrong about that as they are about everything else. The job needs a politician. Being President is all about politics, duh.

Hillary Clinton is a master politician. The Republicans have been throwing everything they can at Hillary Clinton for decades. They've investigated her over and over and she's about to be President. Since she's a woman, she's had to be twice as qualified as any man, and she's had to break twice as many eggs, while being twice as scrutinized. And still, she's about to be president. She's going to be the first woman president, facing a Republican congress, and bigots who are still so pissed off about the first black president that they tried to elect Donald Trump.

Not sure I'd go as far as "rape apologists", but they certainly have allowed politics to supersede their anti-rape message. Like the Book of Matthew says, you can't serve two masters because you're going to honor the one and ignore the other. These women have chosen "anti-Clinton" as the master they honor, and "anti-rape" as the one to be ignored.

It's a judgement call, but I went that far. There were allegations about Trump before the tape came out, and he was bragging about sexual assault.

They weren't there to defend Trump's muslim policies, or the wall with Mexico.; they were trading on their status as alleged victims to defend the idea that an alleged rapist bragging about sexual assault is not unacceptable.. If that's not a rape apologist, it's as close as you can get. Really, I hope they got some money for that.

I think that in the beginning he never intended to win. But, with a field of what? 18? different Republican hopefuls, his brand of bullying stood out. He got the nomination, or could see he was going to get it, and then it all went to his head.

He's still trying to parlay this into another grift, as Stanley Pain said, however.

He can't win. All you have to do is go out and vote against him with literally anyone else. Clinton's walking away with this one.

>>> worst thing to come out of this election.

Five stars. Just because.

Dennis Miller syndrome is nothing new.