#Regarding Hypocrisy
To anyone out there who likes to watch women urinate and who does so while respecting the women involved, whether they are enthusiatic volunteers or for-hire, don’t worry, most of us are totally fine with that.
When I imagine Trump doing this, I have trouble inserting the “respecting the women involved” part in my brain, and I seriously doubt he would have done any research into whether the women he hired were entrepreneurs or slaves before paying for them (this is a serious issue in Canada and the USA and I can only imagine it’s worse in Russia).
So I’m pretty much ready to answer anyone who says this is left-wing hypocrisy. And if they doubt my sincerity, I might even be willing to piss on them to show them I mean it.
#Is This Thing Real?
Finding out about this reminded me of the Rob Ford Crack video. I heard about that and I was like, “Of course it’s real.” Rob Ford was the kind of guy who would smoke crack, no doubt. And you can call Gawker a tabloid if you want, but they aren’t making up stories about alien babies every week. They were excited about this because it was real. You could tell how excited they were. The thing is, for all I know Gawker was run by a cadre of amoral psychopaths. But if that was true, they were high functioning psychopaths, people who passed.
Buzzfeed is pretty much on par with Gawker. I don’t really trust them to tell me the whole truth. I do think that fabricating a document like this would be outside their scope. That’s not to say they couldn’t have been bullshitted by someone else. Still, is Trump the kind of guy who would hire prostitutes to piss on a bed because of some combination of hating Obama and getting turned on by watching women pee? Yeah, come on, we know he’s that kind of guy. Trump is probably about as likely to be turned on by watching women pee as any random man in the population. But the average man who is turned on by that may have a small to moderate chance of ever acting on it, while Trump, if he’s into that, would be 100% guaranteed to do it over and over and over.
Seems awfully believable to me.
But there’s this huge confounding factor. Imagine this:
Gossip site: “Politician A has done an embarrassing sex thing.”
Me: “Enh, really?”
Politican A: “I DEFINITELY DID NOT DO THAAAAAAAT!!!”
Me: “Oh… I guess really.”
But the inclusion of Trump messes the whole thing up. Sub in Trump for A and he would react loudly whether he did it or not. And that means if I entertain the possibility of a psychopathic editorial staff at Buzzfeed, suddenly it’s like, “Oh, they could say anything they want because they know Trump will give them cover by denying it loudly.”
I’m still leaning toward this thing being real, but I don’t know how much of that is because my filter is still tuned to “human being”.
Yeah, this is the big issue. Trump’s going blow up at that stuff.
