WaPo: Women, this is how much Republicans hate you

[katietornado]

www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2016/09/27/women-of-america-this-is-how-much-leading-republicans-hate-you/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na&utm_term=.75d2ff41e65e


The “war on women” started as a Democratic talking point intended to delegitimize Republican positions on abortion, rape and domestic violence. But over the past couple of days, we haven’t even needed a policy debate or a slightly hyperbolic political slogan for a number of Republicans to do a truly impressive job of demonstrating just how much they personally hate women.



First, Donald Trump created a pre-debate stir by suggesting that he would invite Gennifer Flowers, who claims she had an affair with Bill Clinton, to attend his first contest with Hillary Clinton. Trump’s suggestion was a response to Clinton’s decision to give tickets to Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and a businessman who has consistently questioned whether Trump’s business successes and claims of charitable giving are real.



By the standards of this presidential campaign, nothing is shocking anymore, but Trump’s jibe suggested that raising Bill Clinton’s failures as a husband was in some way a response to criticisms of Trump’s professional and philanthropic life. If Trump wanted to raise questions about whether Hillary Clinton has consistently supported women who report sexual harassment or rape, he could have suggested that he might invite Juanita Broaddrick or Paula Jones. Instead, he chose a woman who allegedly had a consensual relationship with Bill Clinton. The point wasn’t to critique Hillary Clinton’s behavior as a public figure. It was to shame her as an inadequate wife.

Flowers wasn’t at Hofstra University on Monday, of course — Trump is nothing but bluster and reversals. But the nastiness continued. During the debate, pollster Frank Luntz shared a text that he said he’d received from a Republican member of Congress saying Clinton “just comes across as my [b—–] wife/mother.” Totally aside from the fact that defining Clinton’s collected, occasionally funny, performance in a debate where she was constantly interrupted and lied about as shrill or unpleasant suggests that there is literally nothing a woman can do that won’t cause some moron offense, this is an astonishingly nasty thing to say about one’s own spouse or mother.



Not to be outdone, Trump called in to “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning to dig in on one of the charges Clinton leveled against him. While he initially seemed to believe Clinton was making up a story about his harassment of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, asking “Where did you find this?” just hours later Trump was leaning into the story, saying Machado “gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem.”

While Trump was bemoaning the difficulties a woman’s body caused him, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a man with all the personal charm of a cockroach, declared that “After being married to Bill Clinton for 20 years, if you didn’t know the moment Monica Lewinsky said that Bill Clinton violated her that she was telling the truth, then you’re too stupid to be president.”

This raises an interesting series of questions. Does Giuliani think that his second wife and the mother of his children, Donna Hanover, is a fool for attempting to keep their marriage together in light of what her divorce lawyer ultimately described as Giuliani’s “notorious adultery.” Does he think Ivana Trump is stupid for trying to maintain her marriage to Donald Trump even after Trump began cheating on her with Marla Maples?



Is Giuliani really so devoid of personal feeling or political strategy that he thinks people who are cheated on, even repeatedly, regularly and blithely admit it immediately and in public? The answer to that last one, at least, is probably yes, since Giuliani is the sort of person who holds a news conference to announce his separation from his second wife and to praise the woman who will become his third wife without informing the current wife that he plans on going public.



[Eugene Robinson: Clinton delivers a beat-down]



It’s also worth pondering, given that men like Trump and Giuliani tend to portray their adulteries as part of a process of trading up from their earlier wives, what Giuliani expected from Judith Nathan, that third wife. Since Giuliani famously used the impotence that resulted from his prostate cancer treatments as a defense in his second divorce, does he think Nathan would have been justified in swapping him for a healthier partner?



I get the point, not that I didn’t get it before. If I speak up, I’m a shrill nag. If my weight fluctuates at all, I’m a gross, inconvenient fatty. If my husband cheats, it’s on me. If I try to defend or salvage my marriage, I’m a stupid dupe. Men like Trump and Giuliani have advanced ideas like these so the women in their lives will be cowed, thin and compliant, while if they err, they’re swashbuckling and strategic. The idea that we should trust men who hate us in private to protect us in the public sphere is the ultimate insult to our intelligence.

[jlt19]

I am honestly shocked that Trump would bring any sort of BILL's (NOT Hillary's, mind you) infidelity into the fight when he has so much himself, not to mention the rape accusations. But then again, he thinks settling means not guilty, so...

[katietornado]

Sept 28, 2016 13:30:18 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

I am honestly shocked that Trump would bring any sort of BILL's (NOT Hillary's, mind you) infidelity into the fight when he has so much himself, not to mention the rape accusations. But then again, he thinks settling means not guilty, so...

I DON'T FUCKING GET THIS.  Like, literally everything he slings at HRC is something that has been leveled at HIM first.  Temperament is the latest one.  It's unreal.  Remember when he was in the throes of his post-convention meltdown with the Khans and the second amendment people and and and, and he called HRC unhinged?  Come on, dude.

But more than this, why does he have a platform to criticize someone for being cheated on, despite being a cheater himself?  Why can he criticize her for living in an ivory tower (as he did last week), when he literally lives in the penthouse of an actual tower?  How is he the champion of the little guy when he has spent his career destroying little guys?  It completely defies belief.

[toepick]

Trump and Giuliani truly believe that when they cheat, that it's the woman's fault.

[jlt19]

Sept 28, 2016 13:34:51 GMT -5 katietornado said:

Sept 28, 2016 13:30:18 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

I am honestly shocked that Trump would bring any sort of BILL's (NOT Hillary's, mind you) infidelity into the fight when he has so much himself, not to mention the rape accusations. But then again, he thinks settling means not guilty, so...

I DON'T FUCKING GET THIS.  Like, literally everything he slings at HRC is something that has been leveled at HIM first.  Temperament is the latest one.  It's unreal.  Remember when he was in the throes of his post-convention meltdown with the Khans and the second amendment people and and and, and he called HRC unhinged?  Come on, dude.

But more than this, why does he have a platform to criticize someone for being cheated on, despite being a cheater himself?  Why can he criticize her for living in an ivory tower (as he did last week), when he literally lives in the penthouse of an actual tower?  How is he the champion of the little guy when he has spent his career destroying little guys?  It completely defies belief.

Because, penis?

That's literally the only answer I've got. I'm just as perplexed as you are.

[aurora]

Sept 28, 2016 13:30:18 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

I am honestly shocked that Trump would bring any sort of BILL's (NOT Hillary's, mind you) infidelity into the fight when he has so much himself, not to mention the rape accusations. But then again, he thinks settling means not guilty, so...

I don't pretend Trump is rational, but he could view cheaters as strong and people who are cheated on as weak, which would support his overall persona.

[bex]

Trump is so obviously chomping at the bit to bring up Bill's infidelities (in a major way, not just the kind of snide way he has up to this point), and I'm sure someone on his team (kellyanne maybe? Ivanka?) is telling him not to do it. He really has very little to win by bringing it up. It's going to be a turn off for women. The people who are going to say "yeah! you tell her Donald!" are the ones who are voting for him anyway, no matter what.

so my guess is he is dying to really make this a focal point of the campaign, and someone is, for once, managing to prevent him from doing it.

[eclaires]

Did Monica ever claim Bill violated her? I have many opinions on her ability to give full consent in that relationship and the very obvious power differential, but she never claimed it was anything but consensual right?

Not the point, really, but ya know.

[ESF]

Sept 28, 2016 13:40:05 GMT -5 bex said:

Trump is so obviously chomping at the bit to bring up Bill's infidelities (in a major way, not just the kind of snide way he has up to this point), and I'm sure someone on his team (kellyanne maybe? Ivanka?) is telling him not to do it. He really has very little to win by bringing it up. It's going to be a turn off for women. The people who are going to say "yeah! you tell her Donald!" are the ones who are voting for him anyway, no matter what.

so my guess is he is dying to really make this a focal point of the campaign, and someone is, for once, managing to prevent him from doing it.

You should read the last few pages of the post-debate thread. We are discussing this issue there.  

[katietornado]

Sept 28, 2016 13:40:05 GMT -5 bex said:

Trump is so obviously chomping at the bit to bring up Bill's infidelities (in a major way, not just the kind of snide way he has up to this point), and I'm sure someone on his team (kellyanne maybe? Ivanka?) is telling him not to do it. He really has very little to win by bringing it up. It's going to be a turn off for women. The people who are going to say "yeah! you tell her Donald!" are the ones who are voting for him anyway, no matter what.

so my guess is he is dying to really make this a focal point of the campaign, and someone is, for once, managing to prevent him from doing it.

LOL do you listen to Keepin' It 1600?  In the most recent episode, the guys talk about how Trump was at that debate with Ailes on one shoulder saying 'do it' and Kellyanne on the other saying 'don't' and "they both lost."  LOLOL

[ESF]

Seriously this party is beyond repair.

I know some women here are still registered as Republicans. Please give some thought to changing that, particularly as I do not think there are primaries coming up. This party needs to see people fleeing.

[smock]

In Trump's view, you're literally screwing someone, or you're getting screwed. That goes for sexual relationships, business relationships, everything. That's why he brags about cheating on his wives and not paying contractors, and that's why he thinks he's smart for not paying taxes.

In his mind, the world is a scam, and you're either the scammer or you're getting scammed.

[bex]

Sept 28, 2016 13:43:36 GMT -5 ESF said:

Sept 28, 2016 13:40:05 GMT -5 bex said:

Trump is so obviously chomping at the bit to bring up Bill's infidelities (in a major way, not just the kind of snide way he has up to this point), and I'm sure someone on his team (kellyanne maybe? Ivanka?) is telling him not to do it. He really has very little to win by bringing it up. It's going to be a turn off for women. The people who are going to say "yeah! you tell her Donald!" are the ones who are voting for him anyway, no matter what.

so my guess is he is dying to really make this a focal point of the campaign, and someone is, for once, managing to prevent him from doing it.

You should read the last few pages of the post-debate thread. We are discussing this issue there.  

No I've lost track of that thread! let me go take a look

[isabel]

Sept 28, 2016 13:30:18 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

I am honestly shocked that Trump would bring any sort of BILL's (NOT Hillary's, mind you) infidelity into the fight when he has so much himself, not to mention the rape accusations. But then again, he thinks settling means not guilty, so...

He is the ultimate double standard. Not to say that she doesn't have some skeletons, but everything he slings is something that also applies to him. Yet, nobody seems to care that he has had multiple affairs, wives, and children with different mothers. It's all about Bill's infidelities and what not. He and Bill both have rape allegations; Hillary does not. But guess who gets punished when that gets thrown into the ring? Hint: it's not the presidential candidate who allegedly raped someone.

I truly can't understand it. It baffles me.

DH texted me the morning after the debate and said he didn't realize that the nasty stuff Trump planned to sling at Hillary had to do with Bill's affairs. He was all confused about why he would say something like that when he himself has had affairs. Welcome to the double standard, H.

[mrsdewinter]

Sept 28, 2016 13:34:51 GMT -5 katietornado said:

Sept 28, 2016 13:30:18 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

I am honestly shocked that Trump would bring any sort of BILL's (NOT Hillary's, mind you) infidelity into the fight when he has so much himself, not to mention the rape accusations. But then again, he thinks settling means not guilty, so...

I DON'T FUCKING GET THIS.  Like, literally everything he slings at HRC is something that has been leveled at HIM first.  Temperament is the latest one.  It's unreal.  Remember when he was in the throes of his post-convention meltdown with the Khans and the second amendment people and and and, and he called HRC unhinged?  Come on, dude.

But more than this, why does he have a platform to criticize someone for being cheated on, despite being a cheater himself?  Why can he criticize her for living in an ivory tower (as he did last week), when he literally lives in the penthouse of an actual tower?  How is he the champion of the little guy when he has spent his career destroying little guys?  It completely defies belief.

It's psychological projection.

Sorry to quote Wikipedia but I think this is spot on about Trump:

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting...Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of crisis, personal or political[17] but is more commonly found in the neurotic or psychotic[18] in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder.[19]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[pitta12]

So, Trump deflecting and projecting his own misdeeds onto others in and of itself doesn't really surprise me that much, as it is pretty textbook behavior for narcissistic personality disorder. Narcissists are all about controlling the narrative and rewriting history to make it say what they want it to say. The part I cannot understand at all is the sheer number of people who are refusing to call him out on this bullshit, and even more frighteningly those who actually think this constitutes leadership. All he is leading is his own imaginary world, FFS.

[elleblue]

mrsdewinter, he's such a textbook narcissist it's rather incredible.

[litebright]

My DH and I had an argument about the Mark Cuban vs. Gennifer Flowers thing this weekend. His view was that Hillary's goal was to throw Trump off-balance, and Trump was responding with something that would throw HER off-balance. That the intent and goal was basically the same, therefore both should be seen as roughly equivalent and that Hillary shouldn't expect Trump NOT to respond the "same way" she did.

I argued that Mark Cuban has made a point of disagreeing with Trump on policy, on his business history/success, and essentially on the basis of Trump's ideas -- not Trump or his family's personal relationships (AFAIK). That inviting someone who disagrees with your ideas and might rattle you because of that, is NOT the same as inviting someone with whom your husband (probably) had an affair. It's a personal attack vs. a professional one.

I still don't think he saw it the same way that I did.

[katietornado]

Sept 28, 2016 14:22:13 GMT -5 mrsdewinter said:

Sept 28, 2016 13:34:51 GMT -5 katietornado said:

I DON'T FUCKING GET THIS.  Like, literally everything he slings at HRC is something that has been leveled at HIM first.  Temperament is the latest one.  It's unreal.  Remember when he was in the throes of his post-convention meltdown with the Khans and the second amendment people and and and, and he called HRC unhinged?  Come on, dude.

But more than this, why does he have a platform to criticize someone for being cheated on, despite being a cheater himself?  Why can he criticize her for living in an ivory tower (as he did last week), when he literally lives in the penthouse of an actual tower?  How is he the champion of the little guy when he has spent his career destroying little guys?  It completely defies belief.

It's psychological projection.

Sorry to quote Wikipedia but I think this is spot on about Trump:

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting...Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of crisis, personal or political[17] but is more commonly found in the neurotic or psychotic[18] in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder.[19]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Obviously it is, but why the fuck is it working???  Why aren't we laughing at him like we laughed at Mitt Romney when he called himself middle class?

[smock]

Sept 28, 2016 14:28:09 GMT -5 litebright said:

My DH and I had an argument about the Mark Cuban vs. Gennifer Flowers thing this weekend. His view was that Hillary's goal was to throw Trump off-balance, and Trump was responding with something that would throw HER off-balance. That the intent and goal was basically the same, therefore both should be seen as roughly equivalent and that Hillary shouldn't expect Trump NOT to respond the "same way" she did.

I argued that Mark Cuban has made a point of disagreeing with Trump on policy, on his business history/success, and essentially on the basis of Trump's ideas -- not Trump or his family's personal relationships (AFAIK). That inviting someone who disagrees with your ideas and might rattle you because of that, is NOT the same as inviting someone with whom your husband (probably) had an affair. It's a personal attack vs. a professional one.

I still don't think he saw it the same way that I did.

UGH that's such a false equivalency! If the argument isn't over, try asking him WHY Cuban would throw Trump off-balance, and compare that with why Flowers would throw HRC off-balance.

If he still doesn't get it, your only choice is to cheat on him, turn the affair into a huge news item, and then convince him to run for office, and THEN ask how he'd feel if the person his spouse cheated with was in front of him during a debate. 

[mrsdewinter]

Sept 28, 2016 14:27:05 GMT -5 elleblue said:

mrsdewinter , he's such a textbook narcissist it's rather incredible.

Yes!  It's terrifying.

[Deleted]

Sept 28, 2016 14:28:52 GMT -5 katietornado said:

Sept 28, 2016 14:22:13 GMT -5 mrsdewinter said:

It's psychological projection.

Sorry to quote Wikipedia but I think this is spot on about Trump:

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting...Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of crisis, personal or political[17] but is more commonly found in the neurotic or psychotic[18] in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder.[19]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Obviously it is, but why the fuck is it working???  Why aren't we laughing at him like we laughed at Mitt Romney when he called himself middle class?

It really is mind-boggling.

[sm12]

Sept 28, 2016 14:27:05 GMT -5 elleblue said:

mrsdewinter , he's such a textbook narcissist it's rather incredible.

this is what I was coming to say.  


www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568


DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:



Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance

Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it

Exaggerating your achievements and talents

Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate

Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people

Requiring constant admiration

Having a sense of entitlement

Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations

Taking advantage of others to get what you want

Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others

Being envious of others and believing others envy you

Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner

Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal and value yourself more than you value others

[boxertdog]

Sept 28, 2016 13:30:18 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

I am honestly shocked that Trump would bring any sort of BILL's (NOT Hillary's, mind you) infidelity into the fight when he has so much himself, not to mention the rape accusations. But then again, he thinks settling means not guilty, so...

He / They do not think a man cheating on his wife is something to be ashamed of, they think she deserved it. Which is how they can make Hillary the villain and not think it impacts them at all. She deserved it. Obviously.

[litebright]

Sept 28, 2016 14:31:59 GMT -5 smock said:

Sept 28, 2016 14:28:09 GMT -5 litebright said:

My DH and I had an argument about the Mark Cuban vs. Gennifer Flowers thing this weekend. His view was that Hillary's goal was to throw Trump off-balance, and Trump was responding with something that would throw HER off-balance. That the intent and goal was basically the same, therefore both should be seen as roughly equivalent and that Hillary shouldn't expect Trump NOT to respond the "same way" she did.

I argued that Mark Cuban has made a point of disagreeing with Trump on policy, on his business history/success, and essentially on the basis of Trump's ideas -- not Trump or his family's personal relationships (AFAIK). That inviting someone who disagrees with your ideas and might rattle you because of that, is NOT the same as inviting someone with whom your husband (probably) had an affair. It's a personal attack vs. a professional one.

I still don't think he saw it the same way that I did.

UGH that's such a false equivalency! If the argument isn't over, try asking him WHY Cuban would throw Trump off-balance, and compare that with why Flowers would throw HRC off-balance.

If he still doesn't get it, your only choice is to cheat on him, turn the affair into a huge news item, and then convince him to run for office, and THEN ask how he'd feel if the person his spouse cheated with was in front of him during a debate. 

LOL. 

[hopecounts]

Sept 28, 2016 14:28:52 GMT -5 katietornado said:

Sept 28, 2016 14:22:13 GMT -5 mrsdewinter said:

It's psychological projection.

Sorry to quote Wikipedia but I think this is spot on about Trump:

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting...Projection tends to come to the fore in normal people at times of crisis, personal or political[17] but is more commonly found in the neurotic or psychotic[18] in personalities functioning at a primitive level as in narcissistic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder.[19]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Obviously it is, but why the fuck is it working???  Why aren't we laughing at him like we laughed at Mitt Romney when he called himself middle class?

Because unlike Mitt Romney Trump is a salesman conman and he had a successful reality show because he can perform to an audience. 

[MrsAxilla]

Sept 28, 2016 13:40:05 GMT -5 bex said:

Trump is so obviously chomping at the bit to bring up Bill's infidelities (in a major way, not just the kind of snide way he has up to this point), and I'm sure someone on his team (kellyanne maybe? Ivanka?) is telling him not to do it. He really has very little to win by bringing it up. It's going to be a turn off for women. The people who are going to say "yeah! you tell her Donald!" are the ones who are voting for him anyway, no matter what.

so my guess is he is dying to really make this a focal point of the campaign, and someone is, for once, managing to prevent him from doing it.

His ONLY reason to do this is to humiliate her.  That's it.  He knows he won't win voters, but he just wants people to point and laugh at her, even if it is only the other bullies in his playground gang.