December 16, 2018
I can believe this guy never grabbed anyone by the pussy.
Oh my word.
Anyone who attacked President Trump over that Access Hollywood tape is the biggest beta male.
Seriously: I cannot even imagine any single man having not joked around with other men about sex. The only thing you could say is that he’s a little bit old for those types of jokes. But the fact is, the reason Trump is such a powerful figure is that he has certain “adolescent” aspects to his character.
Saying that it is morally wrong to talk about “pussy” is just the most disingenuous, faggy thing ever.
Furthermore, being a Republican and attacking Trump over this AFTER HE WAS ALREADY THE NOMINEE is beyond the pale. Even if you are this much of a sheltered fag who has never been around the kind of men (which I thought was all men) who talk sexually about women when there are no women present, publicly attacking the nominee FOR ANY REASON is inexcusable.
When I saw this headline saying it was “revealed” that he said this, I thought it might be some private comment or note, which still would have been gay, but whatever. No. He posted it on Facebook.
I guess it’s good this guy is only coming in temporarily.
Because you cannot trust a beta male white knight. They are literally worse than women. Way worse.
President Trump’s next chief of staff was among a chorus of his Republican critics after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, saying of the then-presidential nominee: “He is not a very good person.”
“What he said in the audiotape is disgusting and indefensible,” Mick Mulvaney, then a South Carolina congressman seeking reelection, wrote on his campaign Facebook page in 2016. “My guess is that he has probably said even worse.”
Even as he was critical of his party’s presidential standard bearer, Mulvaney went on in the post to explain why he would still vote for him that November.
“I’ve decided that I don’t particularly like Donald Trump as a person. But I am still voting for him. And I am still asking other people to do the same. And there is one simple reason for that: Hillary Clinton,” he wrote.
It was a distancing while also an endorsement.
Does that make it better?
Why say anything at all?
It was a private conversation.
Maybe if he was asked directly in a public place “do you support grabbing women by the pussy?” he could say “I do not.”
But coming out to make a statement about it before being asked – why?
He went on to attack Clinton in the post and raise her husband’s infidelity, suggesting Democrats had no standing to attack Trump for his previous lewd comments about women.
“In politics, we call that hypocrisy. And it is the worst part of American politics,” he said, arguing that neither Clinton nor Trump would be a role model for his children. “Don’t talk to me about which one should be ‘disqualified from holding the office.’ In a perfect world, they both would be,” he wrote.
The post and others like it have long since been deleted, but were shared with NBC News by a South Carolina Democratic political operative on the condition they not be identified.
Video from a debate against his Democratic rival in 2016 shows Mulvaney making a similar comment.
— Harry Siegel (@harrysiegel) December 15, 2018
Personally, I think any comment at all attacking Trump AFTER HE BECAME THE NOMINEE should be disqualifying.
It’s one thing to attack him during the primaries. In fact, that doesn’t really mean anything at all, and I would argue that every such attack should be forgiven. Because who cares. That was just a battle, and in a battle, you can say anything and have it be forgiven.
But anything said after Trump secured the nomination was said IN SUPPORT OF HILLARY CLINTON.