Look, at this late stage in the game it’s almost cliche to go up to *opposing political party* supporters and confront them with *thing that politician they support said/did* and trick them into sounding *dumb/ignorant/racist/sexist* by posing *ethical quandary* to them in order to get them to say *lesser of two things by comparison* and therefore make them appear *dumb/ignorant/racist/sexist*.
It’s a well-travelled road, is what we’re saying.
With that fish-in-a-barrel analogy said, hardcore Trump fans continue to be a source of great fascination. Not only for their blind devotion to what appears to be a small portion of tumbleweed attached to a rotting orange peel, but the vigorous, spirited, and many-layered defences they make of it.
The Chaser has sent a couple of correspondents to the US to follow the Trump campaign as it winds its way towards the November 8th US Presidential Election, stopping off at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina to discuss the appropriateness of Trump’s “grab her by the pussy” comments.
If you like seeing semi-ambushed people squirm, you’re gonna get a kick outta this.
The entire video is made up of three types of people. The first being people who have very clearly never been in a locker room defending Trump’s comments as locker room talk.
The second being people goaded into saying a silly thing via the “Trump said this bad thing, would you agree it would be more appropriate if he said this slightly less bad thing instead?” cornering question, which is kind of the equivalent of asking someone if they would like to get punched in the face 15 times, or merely 14 times instead. One option is, sure, *less* bad, but quite obviously the best option is for it to not happen at all.
But the third, and the real doozy, is that smarmy fucker at 0:26 who leans into the mic and immediately rebuffs “Bill Clinton’s a rapist” and then smugly smiles at the camera like he just landed the knockout blow on Conor McGregor.
Here’s the thing about that damned pre-prepared /r/ThingsToSayWhenChallengedAboutTrump retort:
- Bill Clinton’s very well documented history of sexual proclivities (that contain is, let’s not mince words here, q u e s t i o n a b l e at best. But just because a President has attained the office in the past in spite of that does not mean it is a smart, good, or downright even legal idea to let a man whose history is *DEMONSTRABLY* worse to do so as well.
- Hillary Clinton’s actions and personality as politician, woman, and human GD being are not defined by the person she married, and using that to try and get the “my candidate > your candidate” argument across is thin, watery jerk-ism.
But yeah, look. All that said, solid bants.
Source: News.com.au/Facebook.
