In the words of an esteemed political advisor.
???
What does this have to do with anything I said?
I think he’s implying that the women coming forth, now, with charges of sexual assault against Trump, are doing it only for the money (or fame.)
It’s a commonplace form of personal attack of the ugly “smear” variety. It was used to powerful effect against Anita Hill when she exposed Clarence Thomas’ sexual offenses.
It’s not much different from “she was wearing revealing clothing” or “she’d had sex with him before.” Consistent with an anti-woman mind-set.
You guys can’t be serious with this feigned ignorance of James Carville and his character attacks on behalf of the Clintons.
While I agree that discrimination and shaming directed at short men is bad, your link doesn’t actually say what you think it does. It describes a heightened risk of violent suicide among men who had short birth length as newborns, not just among men who are short as adults:
Emphasis added. The linked article does say that men who are short as adults also have a heightened suicide risk, except it defines “short” very broadly (so to speak):
In other words, “short” as a descriptor of adult male height in that study is anything up to and including 5’10". I’m guessing that the five-foot-ten guys are not really the ones you’re thinking of when you mention victims of anti-short-male prejudice.
:dubious: Now there’s some faint praise for you. “Okay, he may have ogled and groped and forcibly embraced and kissed a bunch of non-consenting women, but at least he never (as far as we now know) drugged anyone or immobilized an unwilling woman with physical restraints! Give the guy some credit, can’t ya?”
The source is understood. The relevance remains unclear.
My fingers are long and luxurious. They’re yuge. Just creepy long and alien-like.
Wait. Scratch that last part.
When Clinton has an issue with women sick an attack dog, Carville, to disparage the accusers. When Trump has an issue with women every accusation must be 100% true.
I find the hypocrisy interesting.
Meh, I don’t see it that way, Bill Clinton’s feet already were put to the fire. (it may had been deservely so, but in the end the doubt remains as per what the courts resolved and the settlements made) It is the Turn of Trump and he is reacting like a whiny man child wanting to sue the press for being mean.
A press that Trump has treatened to do even worse things to it if he gets the power. Not even Bill Clinton offered to do that.
Nobody here is defending Carville’s insinuations against women who alleged sexual assault.
The hypocrisy is chiefly on the side of the Trump defenders, such as his campaign manager who called for believing accusers when she was talking about sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton but then dismissed sexual assault allegations against Trump as fabricated:
If Carville was wrong to defend Clinton, then those who defend Trump must also be wrong. You can’t have it both ways.
I find the hypocrisy interesting.
I find it interesting that, according to Trump supporters, we are supposed to ignore what Trump did 10 years ago while focusing on what Clinton’s husband, (not Clinton), did 20 years ago.
There’s no hypocrisy. I’m perfectly happy for Trump to undergo the same level of public and legal scrutiny as Bill Clinton did, the same level of innuendo and insinuation from the media and his political opponents as Bill Clinton did, and for Trump to spend the rest of his days being referred to as a sleazy philanderer and alleged rapist as Bill Clinton has and will.
Fair’s fair, after all.
Your straw man might be hypocritical, but you were responding to me with the Carville quote. What did I say that was hypocritical?
yes true.
but the tea-room moderation keeps us well stocked in the promoters of hatred and in the trolls who know how to maintain the mask and fiction of politeness
Not necessarily what you wrote though I do think you are far too generous towards the slimes on the left. It’s more about just how filthy political tactics are on each side. Disparaging the character of an accuser is not unique to the right.
I’d like to see an example of this.
No. Nominating a candidate who has consistently disparaged women over decades, and continuing to support him after video surfaces of him bragging about sexual assault (along with accusers with allegations that match this bragging), is unique to the right (not all of the right, but a huge portion of it), at least at this moment.
Any hypocrisy on the left from the 90s doesn’t come close to what’s happening right now with Republican leaders.
Oh please. If Bill were eligible to run and he didn’t look so rough, he’d crush The Donald. I’m surprised it was close for awhile with Hilary.
Whether true or not, what does this have to do with what I said? What did I say that’s incorrect?
hope the progressives in this thread who trashed me are happy if Trump wins Tuesday! I held my nose and voted for the Democratic nominee (who I like personally bc I like the Clintons) mainly because I guess I am a “neo-conservative” but if the rest of the country doesn’t, I think its fair to say that Barack Hussein Obama’s heavy bet on identity politics and left-wing social stances alienated much of the country.