Why do women’s groups treat Bill Clinton and Donald Trump differently?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, as to why Trump is "different" in the eyes of some women from Bill Clinton ... perhaps here's another reason:

But Trump has not always spoken so favorably of the Clinton accusers. In fact, the last time they dominated the news, he described the situation as being “from hell” and the accusers as a “really unattractive group.” “I don't necessarily agree with his victims, his victims are terrible,” Trump said during a 1998 interview with Fox News. “He is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position.” He went on. “The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it's just a really unattractive group,” he said. “I'm not just talking about physical.”

Emphasis mine.

LA Times -A 'really unattractive group.' Trump wasn't always so fond of Bill Clinton's accusers

Serial sexual predators often choose unattractive women to attack because of the victim's low self esteem.

That doesn't mean they are not lying...hell why would a trump or Clinton not just pay a gorgeous hooker or intern to play out some rape fantasy??


I am disgusted by the media and trump pushing fake rape accusations. They are disrespecting America and rape victims everywhere....

The hypocrisy is astounding..

That's why the clintons have avoided jumping into it. It is toatally disgraceful

Broderick is a liar...

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: Gryphon66

Keep telling yourself that.

I don't have to, I know it to be factual.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You know that the link you provided proves that its a reason? LOL, okay. You're a special kind of stupid then. Typical Libtard.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, as to why Trump is "different" in the eyes of some women from Bill Clinton ... perhaps here's another reason:

But Trump has not always spoken so favorably of the Clinton accusers. In fact, the last time they dominated the news, he described the situation as being “from hell” and the accusers as a “really unattractive group.” “I don't necessarily agree with his victims, his victims are terrible,” Trump said during a 1998 interview with Fox News. “He is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position.” He went on. “The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it's just a really unattractive group,” he said. “I'm not just talking about physical.”

Emphasis mine.

LA Times -A 'really unattractive group.' Trump wasn't always so fond of Bill Clinton's accusers

Serial sexual predators often choose unattractive women to attack because of the victim's low self esteem.

Is this an opinion or do you have something to back it up?

Also, does it have something to do with the fact that in 1998 Trump was insulting the female accusers of Clinton he's now bringing to debates?

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: Gryphon66

You know that the link you provided proves that its a reason? LOL, okay. You're a special kind of stupid then. Typical Libtard.

What link? That you remind me of Sarah Palin?

What are you on about?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Clinton/Trump link you provided. Sorry, I guess you have selective memory too.

Why do women's groups treat them differently?

Simple. Liberal hypocrisy.

If one of 'ours' does something wrong we will stick to the liberal playbook: 1) point out that a conservative has also done it, 2) attack the accuser and assassinate their character, 3) rally around the accused and show support 'in their time of need', 4) distract the media with anything you can think of such as we are adopting a baby or look at our new puppy, 5) make the conservative's actions sound worse at any cost, even if they weren't.

And if none of that works, blame it on Bush.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Well, neither of them have ever been to court over a sexual offence either, but one of them has straight admitted grabbing a woman by the genitals without any invitation to do so. He has straight up explained that he "just cannot help himself" and will "just walk right up and kiss her" without any invitation also, and will get away with it because "If you're famous you can do anything."

What does that sound like to you, and by the way, your answer is invalid if it refers in any small way, to Bill Clinton, or tries to pass the comments made off as anything other than entirely horrific and grounds to have him kicked off the campaign trail.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Byrd

Which women's group are you a part of?

White, cis-gendered, heterosexual female over age 50. (alternatively: white, cis-gendered, feminist, heterosexual, liberal, college-educated female over age 50)

Notice, however, that I didn't hop up with an explanation (yet.) I think that if you want a woman's opinion, you should approach (politely) women that you've interacted with here on ATS and ask them if they would consider contributing to the thread rather than making up ideas of what women think.

That's ridiculous. Men can be a part of a women's advocacy groups.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

But Bill will be back in the White House again as First Lady (First Man?) whatever, LOL. But anyway, the point remains. Bill's penis and his cigars will grace the white house once again. He used his power before to commit adultery and turn women into humidors before. I bet he tries again.

But see, you are using what's called "moving goal posts," or at least compared to the op. The original question is "why is the media treating Bill and Donald differently?"

Once again, answering that question is quite simple. Much of that is that the media focuses more on PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES during election cycles, and to lesser extents other related actors. If you are looking at a current job candidate for let's say a company position, and they have some problematic references, you are going to focus more on that person than let's say a FORMER employee who also has problems but is already gone...

Bill Clinton DOES have a lot of accusations of sexual misconduct, and even though he may or may not be first husband, he isn't running for office right now. First husband doesn't carry a lot of power beyond the political power he already has.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Clinton/Trump link you provided. Sorry, I guess you have selective memory too.

Nope.

Dude, I said you remind me of Sarah Palin. You've been on about me "reaching" ever since.

If you want to talk about the link I provided to Donald Trump's attack on the Bill Clinton accusers back in 98, you could have mentioned that.

Are you saying it's "reaching" to quote Donald Trump???

a reply to: Gryphon66

Its reaching that the link you provided has anything at all to do with this threads premise and why women support Bill and not Trump.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: Gryphon66

Its reaching that the link you provided has anything at all to do with this threads premise and why women support Bill and not Trump.

Ah, not at all. Perhaps they remember that, before it was politically expedient for him, Trump was in support of Bill Clinton (as shown clearly in the link I provided.)

Why do you consider that "reaching"?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Because I'm sure a lot of women don't correlate the two of them being in support of each other. This was 20 years ago or so. A lot of us had no clue about ANY of this stuff until Trump actually ran for President. The fact that he supported the Clinton's at one time and was a Liberal/Dem was news to a lot of folks at the time that it came out and its why a lot of the Right called Trump a RINO in the beginning. The only people who'd know these facts, are people that read tabloids or keep up with politics 24/7 in general or are just politic geeks. Which honestly, isn't as many people as we think. Tons of people stay away from politics like the plague.

So no, the link you provided proves nothing or says nothing. Its reaching.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: Gryphon66

Because I'm sure a lot of women don't correlate the two of them being in support of each other. This was 20 years ago or so. A lot of us had no clue about ANY of this stuff until Trump actually ran for President. The fact that he supported the Clinton's at one time and was a Liberal/Dem was news to a lot of folks at the time that it came out and its why a lot of the Right called Trump a RINO in the beginning. The only people who'd know these facts, are people that read tabloids or keep up with politics 24/7 in general or are just politic geeks. Which honestly, isn't as many people as we think. Tons of people stay away from politics like the plague.

So no, the link you provided proves nothing or says nothing. Its reaching.

"You're sure" a lot of women don't correlate the two events because Trump's comments were made "20 years ago", yet, you think they've made a choice to excuse what Bill did and not what Trump did because of what happened ... 20 years ago?

Really?

a reply to: Gryphon66

What I said completely flew over your head. You're as dense as a sack of bricks.

Carry on.

Because it profits them most.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: Gryphon66

What I said completely flew over your head. You're as dense as a sack of bricks.

Carry on.

The argument usually made when someone figures out that they're making a ridiculous argument.

AKA ad hominem.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
That's ridiculous. Men can be a part of a women's advocacy groups.

Yes, they can.

But in this case, we see mansplaining here on ATS, where a number of men have jumped in to tell us how women's groups think - and then start insulting one another over their claims. I don't see any statements from any of them that they belong to any women's groups or are involved in women's advocacy actions.

Everything I see is framed in terms of "they" -- a process of "othering" us and telling us how we arrived at whatever we thought.

Men who are feminists generally don't mansplain to women.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Why do women's groups treat them differently?

Simple. Liberal hypocrisy.

If one of 'ours' does something wrong we will stick to the liberal playbook: 1) point out that a conservative has also done it, 2) attack the accuser and assassinate their character, 3) rally around the accused and show support 'in their time of need', 4) distract the media with anything you can think of such as we are adopting a baby or look at our new puppy, 5) make the conservative's actions sound worse at any cost, even if they weren't.

And if none of that works, blame it on Bush.

I don't like it, but at least this time people are making a concerted effort to flip the standard script.

If we don't fight fire with fire, we end up with Hillary which may happen anyhow.

But shut it out. Bad behavior cancels bad behavior in this case when it comes to the sex shenanigans. Trying to say that Bill won't be President doesn't cut it. He was, and it was OK for you then, and you are seeking to put him right back in the White House because he and Hillary are a team.

So it defaults to policy on that score.

... and then you have to consider all of her other actions which are on a whole other plain than simple sexcapades.