Some Cops Will Stand against Grabbing Women By Their P*$$y, But Not the National Fraternal Order of Police

Since the release of the tape showing Trump bragging about “grabbing [women] by they pussy,” I’ve been far more interested in the response from cops’ unions than members of Congress. After all, the Republicans who really had a moral or ethical problem with Trump would have already distanced themselves (as some have). Anyone flipflopping now would simply be gaming the impact on their own election.

But cops? Cops are supposed to protect people from men grabbing them by their genitalia without consent. And thus far, the Fraternal Order of Police has shown no regret for their national endorsement of Trump and all he stands for (which of course includes gambling, financial trickery, racism, and some ties to the mob, on top of the explicit sexism).

I’ve been annoyingly reminding people of that on Twitter every day.

Finally, someone else is examining the issue. While I’ve been traveling, the Baltimore Sun did a piece noting that their state FOP, along with four other states and DC, actually voted against endorsing the Donald.

The story quotes FOP president, Chuck Canterbury, explaining that they endorsed because Donald claims we need “law and order” (apparently Canterbury is cool if everything about him defies that campaign claim).

Canterbury attributed the endorsement for Trump to the candidate’s campaigning on the need for “law and order” and on his support of law enforcement officers.

It ends with contrasting quotes from Canterbury and a member of a minority police organization addressing the “pussy” comment.

Canterbury described Trump’s remarks as “crass and very inappropriate” but said that his organization likely wouldn’t weigh in “until someone comes forward to press criminal charges.”

Louis Hopson of the Vanguard Justice Society, an organization of minority police officers in Baltimore, said that other states should have followed Maryland in voting not to endorse a candidate.

“We need to make sure the commander in chief understands that sexual assault is sexual assault,” Hopson said. “Unlawful touching is a violation of the law.”

In other words, even after the release of the tape, one of the nation’s cops unions is still okay if Trump endorses sexual assault, so long as no one presses criminal charges (as opposed to the rape lawsuit currently working its way through court).

You know? “Law and order”?

Update: In a piece on NARAL’s new petition calling on the FOP to withdraw its nomination, Ryan Grim the broader discomfort among non-white cops with the endorsement.

The FOP also represents thousands of African-American police officers, many of whom have complained publicly that a largely white leadership pushed through the endorsement without getting consensus.

“At a time when we’re all trying to unite and bring the world to a calm, the last person we need is a Donald Trump,” said David Fisher, president of the greater Philadelphia chapter of the National Black Police Association. “And the last thing the police need is to hitch its wagon to a Donald Trump.”

5 replies
  1. Evangelista says:


    You have been making a fool of yourself, on Twitter, “annoyingly”, per your confession, if you have been gassing about a “tape showing Trump bragging about “grabbing [women] by the[] pussy,””.

    But you have by no means been alone.  You have millions of fellow-fools who along with you blasted off in blather on imagination and conjecture, and in some cases misinformation from second-hand sources, about what is NOT on the infamous “Trump Sex Tape”, as it has been called.

    A transcript of the tape is available from the New York Times (no friend to Trump) at .

    Go there and listen and read.

    The NYT correctly titles their transcript “Donald Trump’s Taped Comments About Women”.  What you will hear, and can read, is Donald Trump saying, but in locker-room jargon (or military jargon, Trump went to a military school, and with the guys talks like it) “I found that woman attractive enough I made a play for her, a serious play, but now (direct quote) “…all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything.” (end direct quote).
    He also says, direct quote:  “…when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”  To which Bush concurs:  “Bush: Whatever you want.”  To which Trump adds:  “Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
    If you have ever heard any male, however enamored of mammaries, express admiration by saying “…big phony tits”, you were running with a way weirder set than any I have encountered.
    What Trump said on the tape was that a woman he thought attractive went and made herself a sex-object.  His wording indicated criticism, not admiration.  There is no expression of interest, intent or inclination to have anything to do with the “big phony tits” he references in the tape, or the woman who bagged herself up with them.
    Notice that the second expression, beginning from “…when you’re a star, they let you do it¨ and culminating with Bush concurring and Trump adding the “Grab ’em by the pussy;  you can do anything.” cap is not Trump bragging exploits or confessing to doing anything, it is Trump observing that “they”, a class of women, let themselves be done to by “stars”, let “stars” do “anything” to them.  There is more marvel than approval in Trump’s expression.  There is even more marvel than anything else in Trump’s confession that “I just start kissing them.” with which he leads to his “when you’re a star, they let you do it.” observation.
    Most women do not offer themselves for pawing, or “anything” else.  The tape shows Trump not talking about those.  The tape shows Trump talking about the ones who do, who offer themselves, sell themselves as objects, allow themselves to be manipulated, women who make themselves sex-objects (whether they provide sex-servicing or not). The ones Trump and Bush talk about on the tape are adult extensions from the “groupie” phenomenon, the usually under-age girls who flock to rock-stars, being ‘available’ and offering a spectrum of ‘services’.
    The tape shows Trump expressing degrees of disapproval, disapproval shaded with marvel and amazement, in regard to the allowing “anything”, including pussy-grabbing, shaded with disappointment in regard to turning ‘bagger’ in regard to the one he suggest on the tape was attractive, but ruined her appearance getting big phony tits.
    When you don’t double-check what you hear a mob start to howl, you put your own integrity in danger.  If you go off with the mob you put your integrity in the mob’s hands.  Integrity is easy to lose, difficult to regain.
    Go to archives on the web and check out the “Rolling Stone” University of Virginia “gang-rape” report case.  In that instance the perpetrator of the hoax justified her lying by asserting that the subject is “so important” it is OK to lie to draw attention.  Perhaps the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf justified his lying the same way.
    Go through the cases of The Innocence Project.  Most of their exonerations are of men accused of sexual crime.  The difference between 19th and 20th century lynch-mobs is that the 20th century ones were led by lawyers, the lynchers were judges and juries and the lynchings were to lives spent in jails, instead of death.
    As easy as it is to review the eleven year old tape that someone made, and doctored to, apparently, ‘tighten up and clean up’, and as easy as it is to analyze audio today in the computer age, and as clear as Trump’s actual references in his taped words are, it is just about certain that the Trump Tape business is going to blow up and to backfire.  The difficulty in determining what will result will come from there being so much falsifying, fabricating, exaggerating, fictionalizing and lying in reporting it will be hard to determine in each case how much and what each component’s effects contribute to what and where.
    You should try to get out of the storm, if you can at this point.

      • Evangelista says:


        Jerusalem!, bmaz! (to modernize your “Jebus!” expression)

        In this post I am over your head again?

        What do I have to do to connect on a level with you?  Have Beatrice get Vergil to lead me down to where Purgatory meets Hell?

        [The above is an effete intellectual joke.  “where Purgatory meets Hell” means “the center of the Earth”, or “the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Circle in Dante’s “Inferno”.”]

        I’m not insulting or bullshitting, bmaz;  my purpose is to draw attention to facts that will be becoming more significant as the solids of the debates fall into places when the election-year gases have blown on by.  Facts that will become focal, such as the roles of women in their own imaging, which is what the Trump Tape brings into discussion, and, the effects of “fem” reaction, and what (who) ‘fem’ women call to aid them, and demand they be granted, ‘allowed’ and permitted (privileges and protections) and be ‘protected’ when they do.

        As long as women depend on Chauvinism to ‘protect’ their ‘rights’ women will depend on their ‘protector’ Chauvinists for their ‘rights’.  They will depend on their ‘protectors’ to define their ‘rights’, and what ‘rights’ they will be granted, meaning allowed, by their ‘protectors’, who will be their owners.  Today, in the United States, women are Calibans:  They are not free, they have only changed masters, from husbands to judges. [‘Caliban’:  “The Tempest”:  Shakespeare]

        In the United States the personal rights of independent women are protected by the 13th Amendment.  The personal rights of ‘liberated’ women are allowed by Roe v. Wade.  Independent women need their equal rights guaranteed, they do not need to be ‘allowed’ anything.  They cannot be independent if only ‘allowed’, or ‘liberated’ by others (who may likewise restrict), or have their rights to self-determination ‘liberalized’.

        Blowing up lies to incite and increase Chauvinistic reaction is a ‘liberation’ (“give us more independence!”) tactic.  It reinforces the male-protector-for-the-little-woman mythology.  It undermines demand for real equality (“Give us real equality, equal rights, equal self-responsibility!”).

        In my post to Marcy I point out that the mob-narrative is lie, and I advise her to avoid being drawn in to advocating lies seriously, for any reason, because it is self-undermining.

        My advocacy for independence is standard.  My admonition to Marcy to avoid falling in with lies is not standard, since I read her analyses for their dissectings to expose and delineate lie, to separate lie from truth.  I think this is the first time I have advised her to not fall off the wagon, to not let herself be carried away by the mob.

        Waste of electrons is equivalent to waste of sound.  If the electrons are read with opti-cerebric circuits open, then like sound falling on deaf ears the electrons, and sounds, are both wasted.  “Let those who have eyes to see, see, and those who have ears to hear, hear.” is said to have been said somewhere;  but I think it was some kind of religious admonition, which means no one pays it any attention.


        • bmaz says:

          Nobody is going to read your rambling junk. Least of all me. Do not waste your mental breath and our electrons and column inch space.

          Do us all a favor and take Mark Twain’s advice about not proving yourself a fool by opening your mouth. Digitally that is.

Comments are closed.