PDA

View Full Version : Anyone that makes cruel and insulting comments about women shouldn't be President.



Rum_Pirate
10-10-2016, 11:02 AM
Who called Gennifer Flowers as 'trailer trash' ?

Who called Monica Lweinsky as a " narcissistic loony toon"?

Who disparagingly referred to numerous women as “bimbos."

Is it Donald Trump?

Norman Bernstein
10-10-2016, 11:34 AM
Who called Gennifer Flowers as 'trailer trash' ?

Who called Monica Lweinsky as a " narcissistic loony toon"?

Who disparagingly referred to numerous women as “bimbos."

Is it Donald Trump?

The meme about Hillary Clinton treating her husband's accusers poorly has been so pervasive over the last 25 years, I imagine everyone takes it as 'gospel'.

Rather than just accepting this on faith, I looked into this, as best I could. A significant part of the accusations turn out to be hearsay... but not all of them.

This Atlantic article is a decidedly more rational take on this topic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/why-hillary-clinton-wont-pay-for-disparaging-her-husbands-accusers/283801/

CWSmith
10-10-2016, 11:37 AM
Adding to Norman's comments, there is a difference between verbally attacking one woman based on her behavior and attacking all women or women in some general sense.

I also believe that any wife is entitled to some indignation toward the woman that had sex with her husband. (And, yes, the husband gets criticized too.) Is that so hard to comprehend?

I must admit that I find it difficult to understand that this needs to be explained to anyone.

Rum_Pirate
10-10-2016, 11:40 AM
Is http://www.newsbusters.org a credible fact checker/reliable source?

Norman Bernstein
10-10-2016, 11:45 AM
Is http://www.newsbusters.org a credible fact checker/reliable source?

No, it is not.


NewsBusters is a wingnut (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wingnut) media watch website that styles itself as "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_media) Bias." The site is an extension of Brent Bozell III's (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III) hate group, Media Research Center (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center).

While an ostensibly admirable goal to keep check on the media (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?[1] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NewsBusters#cite_note-0)), it does not so much expose "liberal bias (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberal_bias)" as try to ram a Republican (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Republican) agenda in all over the place. The site also has a blatantanti-science (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-science) agenda, often bashing stories on evolution (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution) and global warming (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming) that don't give time to wingnut creationist (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationist) or denialist (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denialism) perspectives.

Newsbusters' methods for exposing the media's bias toward liberalism include only reporting instances that they perceive as liberal (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) and copy/pasting from blogs that have actual, clearly stated liberal biases.[2] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NewsBusters#cite_note-1)

Bob Adams
10-10-2016, 11:59 AM
Fixed it fer ya:

Anyone that gets caught on tape making cruel and insulting comments about women shouldn't be President

Rum_Pirate
10-10-2016, 12:01 PM
Fixed it fer ya:

Anyone that gets caught on tape making cruel and insulting comments about women shouldn't be President

So it is OK to do so in private, or as one politician has thoughts for the public and others (private) for the donors? :rolleyes:

bobbys
10-10-2016, 12:04 PM
Who called Gennifer Flowers as 'trailer trash' ?

Who called Monica Lweinsky as a " narcissistic loony toon"?

Who disparagingly referred to numerous women as “bimbos."

Is it Donald Trump?
.

DT apologies Hillary , never.

Bob Adams
10-10-2016, 12:05 PM
So it is OK to do so in private, or as one politician has thoughts for the public and others (private) for the donors? :rolleyes:

O come on. How many past presidents do you think made lewd comments in private with no recorder present? It's not right, it's locker room talk and men have been doing it forever.

LeeG
10-10-2016, 12:10 PM
Is http://www.newsbusters.org a credible fact checker/reliable source?

It's adequate for right wing trolls in the US.

CWSmith
10-10-2016, 12:13 PM
Every teenager I know understands this issue. Why don't some of you?

They understand how their mothers would react if their fathers were unfaithful and that it would not be limited to the fathers.

They also understand that you don't go around grabbing women without permission.

Some of you could learn a lot from children.

Nicholas Scheuer
10-10-2016, 02:07 PM
I always considered the adjectives in the OP were accurate. Who'da thunk?

skuthorp
10-10-2016, 03:35 PM
Still at it RP?
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/grasping-at-straws2.jpg

Osborne Russell
10-10-2016, 03:38 PM
"Insulting comments about women" is kind of simplified. Like, "The Nazis say let's exterminate them, so what? Lots of people insult the Jews."

Keith Wilson
10-10-2016, 03:45 PM
Guys, come on, it isn't that hard.

Cheating on your wife with a willing young intern is bad.

Sexual assault (grabbing them by the . . . ) on an unwilling victim is a lot worse, and where Mr Trump lives can get you a year in jail..

Rum_Pirate
10-10-2016, 04:52 PM
Guys, come on, it isn't that hard.

Cheating on your wife with a willing young intern is bad.

Sexual assault (grabbing them by the . . . ) on an unwilling victim is a lot worse, and where Mr Trump lives can get you a year in jail..

Agreed, but didn't Donald Trump say '. . . they will let you do anything' (i.e. consenting) before prefacing the remark?

Bobcat
10-10-2016, 04:55 PM
Agreed, but didn't Donald Trump say '. . . they will let you do anything' (i.e. consenting) before prefacing the remark?

"Let you do anything" is not the same as "want you to do anything." A power imbalance is often behind the "letting"

Rum_Pirate
10-10-2016, 04:56 PM
"Let you do anything" is not the same as "want you to do anything." A power imbalance is often behind the "letting"

You really are grasping at straws.

Michael D. Storey
10-10-2016, 05:00 PM
O come on. How many past presidents do you think made lewd comments in private with no recorder present? It's not right, it's locker room talk and men have been doing it forever.Eisenhower was known for his racial crudities.

Bobcat
10-10-2016, 05:04 PM
You really are grasping at straws.

I am not the one grasping at straws

I can't believe you are defending a man who feels entitled to kiss or grab the private parts of women.

I have daughters. If you do, I am sorry

Rum_Pirate
10-10-2016, 05:19 PM
I am not the one grasping at straws

I can't believe you are defending a man who feels entitled to kiss or grab the private parts of women.

I have daughters. If you do, I am sorry

I believe that if a woman gives her consent then yes he may touch her.

I am not defending Mr Trump.
I am pointing out how what people are saying is not correct.
Along the lines of I do not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it.

I too have children, I have consistently told (drummed it into his head) my son that 'No' means 'No'. No 'if's', 'buts' or 'perhaps' about it. I have also told and talked about this with my daughter.

Bobcat
10-10-2016, 05:21 PM
Of course a man can touch a woman if she consents. It's clear Trump is not talking about that

If you had been Trump's father, we would not be having this discussion.

Rum_Pirate
10-10-2016, 05:23 PM
If you had been Trump's father, we would not be having this discussion. True. I would have used a condom. |;)

Sky Blue
10-10-2016, 05:48 PM
Guys, come on, it isn't that hard.

Cheating on your wife with a willing young intern is bad.

Sexual assault (grabbing them by the . . . ) on an unwilling victim is a lot worse, and where Mr Trump lives can get you a year in jail..

Rape?

Reynard38
10-10-2016, 05:48 PM
Of course a man can touch a woman if she consents. It's clear Trump is not talking about that

If you had been Trump's father, we would not be having this discussion.


Man I would hate to be single now. You'd have to carry a consent form and a notary public on every date.
And no, I am in NO way justifying Trumps actions. I just think the dating scene must be a minefield now.

Bob Adams
10-10-2016, 06:00 PM
Given all today's recording devices I could see high school kids recording locker room talk in the hopes one of their group gets rich and famous!

CWSmith
10-10-2016, 06:06 PM
Given all today's recording devices I could see high school kids recording locker room talk in the hopes one of their group gets rich and famous!

So you are saying that Trump's behavior is childish? I agree.

What is more childish is that about half of the American voters think like him. That is disturbingly childish.

Bob Adams
10-10-2016, 06:07 PM
So you are saying that Trump's behavior is childish? I agree.

What is more childish is that about half of the American voters think like him. That is disturbingly childish.

No argument.

Lew Barrett
10-10-2016, 06:07 PM
I just think the dating scene must be a minefield now.

Not for everybody. Things have not changed that much if at all. The biggest difference is that social advancements of the last forty years have made it a little less difficult for the victims to discuss it. Not in all cases, but as a general rule.


To the broader topic, powerful men have always taken advantage of their positions, (duh!). That is unchanged through history and crosses party lines. The unique element here is that Trump is running under the banner of family values, looking to fill his tent with evangelicals and social conservatives.

Bill Clinton was and remains forever tainted by his lack of self restraint in respect to the Lewinsky affair and Gennifer Flowers, but that hardly reflects on Hillary. Instead we see some misguided souls failing to distinguish between the wrong doing and the victim. Criticism of Hillary on legitimate issues is one thing. Equating Bill Clinton to Trump and then trying to transfer the ogre dust onto to Hillary is just dumb. This part isn't directed to you, R, just an extension rant. More Trump BS in an effort to obfuscate, something he has leaned over the years works well when targeted at certain mentalities.

Sky Blue
10-10-2016, 06:10 PM
Paula Jones? Juanita Broadrick? Kathleen Willey?

TomF
10-10-2016, 06:17 PM
I saw a TED talk by Lewinsky, in which she talked about "falling in love with her boss". Who "unfortunately, was the President of the United States". Whatever they did together, Monica wanted it to happen. She consented, and was a willing participant.

Why is it even remotely difficult to see a difference between that, and a woman being afraid or uncomfortable to express her unwillingness to be forcibly kissed or sexually touched without giving express agreement. Kinda like all those women at FOX who were targets of Roger Ailes over the years, and were too afraid or humiliated to speak up till recently.

Sky Blue
10-10-2016, 06:18 PM
Bill Clinton abused these women. Democrats demeaned them, almost uniformly, to include the feminist establishment, and Mrs. Clinton, it is claimed, threatened and intimidated some of them.

And they would deign to suggest that Trump's rude remarks, just remarks mind you, are disqualifying.

Trump is right. Hillary and the Democrats should be ashamed. As should anyone who supports her.

Lew Barrett
10-10-2016, 06:20 PM
Paula Jones? Juanita Broadrick? Kathleen Willey?

What did Hillary do to them?

Tom Wilkinson
10-10-2016, 07:57 PM
Man I would hate to be single now. You'd have to carry a consent form and a notary public on every date.
And no, I am in NO way justifying Trumps actions. I just think the dating scene must be a minefield now.

No, it really isn't. Women are pretty good at letting you know when the time is right. They like sex too, but a bit of respect goes a hell of a long way.

LeeG
10-10-2016, 08:01 PM
I believe that if a woman gives her consent then yes he may touch her.

I am not defending Mr Trump.
I am pointing out how what people are saying is not correct.
Along the lines of I do not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it.

I too have children, I have consistently told (drummed it into his head) my son that 'No' means 'No'. No 'if's', 'buts' or 'perhaps' about it. I have also told and talked about this with my daughter.

You are caught in a weird identity trap promoting US RWW bs from a little island

Chris249
10-10-2016, 11:50 PM
Bill Clinton abused these women. Democrats demeaned them, almost uniformly, to include the feminist establishment, and Mrs. Clinton, it is claimed, threatened and intimidated some of them.

And they would deign to suggest that Trump's rude remarks, just remarks mind you, are disqualifying.

Trump is right. Hillary and the Democrats should be ashamed. As should anyone who supports her.


The fact is that no one in this thread has proven the claims that Hilary insulted "these women". So your claim that Hillary should be ashamed rests (at most) on facts that you have not proven.

Keith Wilson
10-11-2016, 07:42 AM
Trump's few remaining defenders here, SB in particular, keep making the point that these particular remarks should not disqualify a person from being elected president. Well, yes, that's true. If this tape, unpleasant as it is, were an isolated example out of the blue, Trump would have apologized and it would have blown over, doing some damage. But in reality, it's one more piece of evidence after many, many others that Mr Trump is a conscienceless narcissist with no self-control, no judgement, no sense of decency. It's like we already had a dead body with bullet holes, blood on Trump's cuffs, eyewitness reports of screaming arguments between the deceased and Trump, and witnesses that put him in the area at the time of the murder. This tape is his fingerprints on the gun, one excellent piece of evidence reinforcing what we already suspected. That's why it's had a significant effect on people's thinking.

These remarks do not by themselves disqualify him from becoming president. The pattern of behavior revealed by this tape plus many, many other pieces of evidence, and the character and mental state that his behavior over years demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt - that definitely does disqualify him. How any halfway sane person could vote to give him a position of great power at this point is completely beyond me.

Rum_Pirate
10-11-2016, 08:35 AM
You are caught in a weird identity trap promoting US RWW bs from a little island

:confused: Because I point out where something is not correct, you tell me I am caught in a weird identity trap promoting US RWW bs?? :rolleyes:

biga
10-11-2016, 08:40 AM
Trump's few remaining defenders here, SB in particular, keep making the point that these particular remarks should not disqualify a person from being elected president. Well, yes, that's true. It this tape, unpleasant as it is, were an isolated example out of the blue, Trump would have apologized and it would have blown over, doing some damage. But in reality, it's one more piece of evidence after many, many others that Mr Trump is a conscienceless narcissist with no self-control, no judgement, no sense of decency. It's like we already had a dead body with bullet holes, blood on Trump's cuffs, eyewitness reports of screaming arguments between the deceased and Trump, and witnesses that put him in the area at the time of the murder. This tape is his fingerprints on the gun, one excellent piece of evidence reinforcing what we already suspected. That's why it's had a significant effect on people's thinking.

These remark do not by themselves disqualify him from becoming president. The pattern of behavior revealed by this tape plus many, many other pieces of evidence, and the character and mental state that his behavior over years demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt - that definitely does disqualify him. How any halfway sane person could vote to give him a position of great power at this point is completely beyond me.


the only things that would disqualify him would be his age or country of birth. we know you're not voting for him, but he's not DISQUALIFIED from running by any standard on record.

Keith Wilson
10-11-2016, 08:50 AM
The only things that would disqualify him would be his age or country of birth. We know you're not voting for him, but he's not DISQUALIFIED from running by any standard on record.Feeling excessively literal-minded today? Sure. He's over 35, was born in the US, and has lived in the US over fourteen years. Thus he meets the minimum constitutional requirements for president. However, I was using the word 'disqualified' in a broader sense.

biga
10-11-2016, 08:55 AM
Feeling excessively literal-minded today? Sure. He's over 35, was born in the US, and has lived in the US over fourteen years. Thus he meets the minimum constitutional requirements for president. However, I was using the word 'disqualified' in a broader sense.


what? i thought every single word typed in this forum was intended to be taken literally? i mean, i didn't see any smileys or other indicators that what was being posted should not be taken to the highest order of literal interpretation. maybe it's just a selective and exclusionary tactic taken by some on others....... you think?

Gerarddm
10-11-2016, 09:04 AM
IIRC, the answers are:

1. James Carville
2. Hillary Clinton
3. I can't recall. Maybe Carville.