Wednesday, August 3, 2016

A Question No One Will Answer

I have many problems with both candidates, but here is one question that no one will answer. Why do women who are voting for Hillary Clinton refuse to address Bill Clinton's war on women as a known serial sexual predator? I have asked this question over and over to my female friends who are Hillary Clinton supporters, but all side-step the issue like it shouldn't matter because they won't be electing Bill. But shouldn't this be more of issue for women?

Here is an example. A friend of mine posted a meme on Facebook addressing the recently released naked photos of Melania Trump with something about "family values" and "The woman on the right is our potential First Lady". [I won't post the photos here, but you can find them with a simple internet search.] I posted this response: "And yet Hillary's husband is a serial sexual predator. Be careful about flinging accusations about lack of "Family values". I won't bore with the responses. Let's just say that not one woman who responded could adequately explain why they had "family values" problems with Trump's wife posing naked in her 20's, yet no "family values" qualms whatsoever with Hillary's husband sexual harassing and/or assaulting women.

I am at a loss as to why the Clintons get a pass on this. I know there are many, many areas in which the Clintons get a pass and even much more pressing issues, but this particular issue should be a big one for women.

Anyone want to weigh in?


AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Great question!

The problem is that liberals simply don't care. They don't view the world from the stand point of logic, consistency or anti-hypocrisy. They view the world from the standpoint of what they like emotionally and what they don't. The rest is all irrelevant.

In other words, they aren't really thinking when they select candidates... they are emoting. That's why you see so many odd behaviors, like those which amount to messiah worship. Basically, they want to fall in love with their heroes and hate the bad guys. And whatever mental contortions it takes to make that happen are fine by them.

In particular, they justify ignoring problems by redefining them through the prism of intent: "Well, we know X did/didn't mean it." Hence, "We know Hillary didn't intend to hurt anyone" but "I know Trump wants to kill gays." And "we know that Bill didn't do anything wrong because he's not that kind of guy." "Besides, those women are all in it for something!"

In all my years of watching liberals, this really is how they reach decisions.

Kit said...

Easy: Clintons are Democrats, your concerns are irrelevant.

Kit said...

Anyway, as the resident frothing-at-the-mouth Trump hater at Commentarama, I can say that the photos of Melania are largely irrelevant in a pornified America.

Clinton's behavior is a bit more relevant, or it could be made more relevant if Trump could actually focus his campaign in a way that (1) did not make him seem like an idiotic nut job because people will vote for a woman married to a pervert/predator over a a man who is a wacko if it came down to that choice, and (2) actually attacked the Clintons for once, rather than going after Gold Star families, fellow Republicans, crying babies...

Also, google "Silvio Berlusconi"

Anthony said...

When it comes to conduct towards women, there is not much difference between Trump and Bill Clinton.

Both have (old by media standards) histories of getting in where they can fit in and both are strongly (and fairly recently) linked to a billionaire pedophile.

The difference is that lately Bill has refrained from doing anything stupid (as far as we know) or saying anything inflammatory about women.

Trump on the other hand, has recently gone after lots of women in lots of stupid ways (Megyn Kelly must be on her period! Look at Fiorina's face! Look at Ted Cruz's wife!'). That stuff thrilled the people who make up his base (Dude! He went there on that b--ch! He's mah hero!) but predictably it turned off many women.

Due to the fact they made Trump their nominee, attacking Bill Clinton for his conduct towards women is now as problematic for the Republicans as attacking Coke for selling sugary beverages is for Pepsi.

Anthony said...

The only mention prior to this article I've seen of the photos of Trump's wife is on Breitbart (Trump's feud with the dead Muslim soldier's family is consuming most of the oxygen). I doubt the photos are or will become a big deal.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Let met throw an of topic question in here if I may. To the group...

Do you like the Olympics? And do you prefer the summer or winter Olympics?

AndrewPrice said...

Stop the presses! A WNBA star has come out as lesbian. Seriously! A women's basketball player... gay. I know, shocking. A women's basketball player... gay. Just try to wrap your head around that people!

My mind is blown.

At least women's tennis and women's soccer remain purely heterosexual.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - I liked the Olympics up until this latest announcement about a lesbian basketball player! This is just outrageous and unbelievable on so many levels! And except for the other lesbians who have come out in other sports, I am surprised that this could even be! [Notice just how suprised by the many "!!!!" I am using!!!].


tryanmax said...

Andrew, great answer. To expand on that, people who are emotionally invested in either liking or disliking a candidate will tell themselves stories to confirm their feelings and explain away whatever doesn't fit. Campaigns feed the confirmation bias with stories of their own and made-up rules about how to interpret competing stories. The most common rule is: discussion about X is very important, but views against X can't be entertained. This is "pump up the base" stuff and doesn't address the people who have not bought into either story. It's important to note, neither campaign has turned focus to the general election yet.

I also have to address one thing that annoys me. The only people keeping the Khan thing alive are the ones claiming Trump can't let it go, and if you believe them, you're a dupe. I put a bookmark on a CNN article published yesterday where Khan claims he's done. We'll see.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Yahoo and social media seems to think it's front page news, so I'm assuming she's the first, right?

Yeah, it can't possibly be that most of them are lesbians and that they've all made news for things like beating up their girlfriends and things like that in the past, can it?

Dog bites man! OMG!!!

BevfromNYC said...

Okay, the shock of that announcement has warn off...No it...stop thinking about it..¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

So back to your question.
I actually love both Summer and Winter Olympics for different reasons. BUT the Rio Olympics is just a disaster on so many levels I am afraid to watch or even listen. But if the athletes don't die of some water-born plague or cause Zika pandemic when returning to their native countries; if the unfinished buildings don't collapse around them; and/or there is no coup b/c of the impeachment hearings of Pres. Dilma Rousseff; and/or there is no major terrorist attack b/c of the admitted lack of security, then we should all shout "Hooray! What a success!".

But other than that, I like the decathalon where they shoot guns and stuff, oh and the floor exercises where they wave around streamers on a stick!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks tryanmax, I agree with you. I think this mindset gets fed by the various campaigns. In liberals though, I do think this type of "thinking" comes naturally. They really break the world down differently: people/things I like (blameless) and people/things I don't (demonized).

BevfromNYC said...

And curling...who doesn't like curling??

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, There are always stories with every Olympics of Olympic venues not being ready and a pending Olympocalyse. But this time, it actually seems to be true. Yikes.

Personally, I think the biggest danger will be kidnapping. It won't surprise me if some athletes get grabbed.

I personally like the Winter Olympics better, but I enjoy them both. I would love to see them (but not in Rio).

AndrewPrice said...

I love curling! :D

tryanmax said...

I used to get excited by all the Olympics hoopla, but it gets harder each time around. The actual games themselves are a spectacle, but the coverage is impossible to watch. Apparently, every athlete has a sob-story and we all must know about it.

"He planted a flower when he was six and it died; her father missed her 4rd grade pageant because of a dentist appointment; he never met his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate; But somehow--amazingly--they all overcame their grief to compete for Olympic gold!"

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I actually feel the same. It's ridiculous. They focus on these lame sob stories to the point of distraction. They should look at how the NFL covers itself.

The NFL typically does this...

1. Highlights of games
2. Profile of what makes stars great, with stylized highlights
3. Highlights of greatest games, references to history and rivalries.
4. More highlights
5. 2 minute weepy interview
6. Mixture of profile and highlights.
7. 12 hours of games....

That's typical NFL coverage. Olympic coverage seems to be...

1. Gay man/woman/golf announcer in sweater tells us about the extraordinary courage of these athletes.
2. Today show host does weepy segment about hangnails suffered by athlete as child. Opens with 10 second action shot. Then cut to Oprah style interview.
3. Commercial break.
4. Sweater people talk about how inspired they feel.
5. They mention how several events went and promise to show you something involving an American after more weepy segments.
6. I change channel.

BevfromNYC said...

But back to my question. I most heartily agree that the answer is we all have our issues that are important in choosing our candidates. Which is the answer that I would have accepted from any of the women who I asked. None would give that response even when pressed. Just the same "But Trump did too and Melania posed naked! So it's the same exact thing."

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, They need the flexibility to be hypocritical. Otherwise, their entire worldview falls apart and they either need to admit that they've been unfair to the people they hate or that they're ignored their principles to like people.

So either they are intolerant and hateful, or they are moral hypocrites who espouse things they don't really believe. Neither would make them happy. So they blind themselves to the things they don't want to see.

BevfromNYC said...

Wow, now the Libs are lobbing political hand grenades over speculation of Melania's immigration status 20 years ago. Of course, they had at least 2 illegal/undocumented worker/aliens speak on television at their convention but... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - this is now my favorite emoji, btw. It expresses so much I just can't express with words.

Koshcat said...

I like both winter and summer olympics. I prefer the sports that have clear winners/losers: timed events or goal scoring. I can enjoy gymnastics and diving but usually don't care who wins. There are too many events including events that already have world wide events such as golf, tennis, and soccer. I have mixed feelings about hockey but don't care about baseball or softball or basketball. I still think kayaking is a hobby not a sport especially when you have to build "special" event areas. BMX should stay in x-games.

I was living in Salt Lake during the Olympics and it was fun. Went to a women's hockey game: Canada vs. Sweden. The eventual gold and bronze winners. Canada won 12-1 or something awful but the Swedish goalie was hot. The downtown was all blocked off and you could walk around and see people. Certain stores were opened just for the Olympics which was cool. There was a lot of pin trading at the University as well. They had the medal ceremony downtown as well which was fun and followed by a concert. I went with my brother and his friend. Saw Train live in concert. Brother got into an argument with one of the fascist security members. Good times!

Post a Comment