Donald Trump holds press conference with Bill Clinton rape accusers right before debate - Polidicks

Apparently, during the time of the Monica Lewinski scandal, Trump called Bill Clinton's accusers (the ones he did the recent press conference with) "terrible" and "unnattractive" and thought Bill was "terrific". [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/flashback-donald-trump-called-bill-clintons-accusers-terrible/story?id=42686582[/url]

Trump thinks so lowly of women that he doesn't get that he's running against Hillary and not Bill. He genuinely cannot separate Hillary from the man who "possesses" her. Because he treats them like objects. He doesn't fucking [i]comprehend[/i] that Bill's infidelity reflects [i]nothing[/i] on Hillary's ability preside over the country.

[QUOTE=Fort83;51179055]This close to election you can see how desperate he's getting.[/QUOTE] I dont think its desperate at all. I think its calculated. A lot of people questioned in the first debate why he seemed relatively leashed compared to everything else in the build up. The obvious answer was he is saving the heavy material for later while Hillary was hitting him with the kitchen sink right out of the gate. Both are viable strategies, and only time will tell which one comes out better. At the moment that looks like Hillary, but lets not forget how many times pundits who consider themselves political sages have been proven wrong about trump every step of the way so far.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51181441]Trump thinks so lowly of women that he doesn't get that he's running against Hillary and not Bill. He genuinely cannot separate Hillary from the man who "possesses" her. Because he treats them like objects. He doesn't fucking [i]comprehend[/i] that Bill's infidelity reflects [i]nothing[/i] on Hillary's ability preside over the country.[/QUOTE] How many kilometers did you fucking run to get an idea this far fetched ? It's just a response to people calling him out on [I]speaking[/I] badly of women, his point being that Clinton (Bill and Hillary) have [I]acted[/I] in worse ways - Bill having allegedly raped women and Clinton having bullied women out of their commitment to lawsuits, the latter having been pointed out repeatedly by people on this very forum. I'm basing this on his recent apology response to the 2005 audio which he ended with raw criticism of the Clintons' own behavior regarding women. Given it's just childish "they did worse shit than me" level shit, but you're trying really hard to find things that aren't there.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51181441]Trump thinks so lowly of women that he doesn't get that he's running against Hillary and not Bill. He genuinely cannot separate Hillary from the man who "possesses" her. Because he treats them like objects. He doesn't fucking [i]comprehend[/i] that Bill's infidelity reflects [i]nothing[/i] on Hillary's ability preside over the country.[/QUOTE] I uh, think the more likely scenario is he's just using her president husbands infidelity to attack her character.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;51181441]Trump thinks so lowly of women that he doesn't get that he's running against Hillary and not Bill. He genuinely cannot separate Hillary from the man who "possesses" her. Because he treats them like objects. He doesn't fucking [i]comprehend[/i] that Bill's infidelity reflects [i]nothing[/i] on Hillary's ability preside over the country.[/QUOTE] Where do you base that on? can you elaborate?

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51181500]How many kilometers did you fucking run to get an idea this far fetched ? It's just a response to people calling him out on [I]speaking[/I] badly of women, his point being that Clinton (Bill and Hillary) have [I]acted[/I] in worse ways - Bill having allegedly raped women and Clinton having bullied women out of their commitment to lawsuits, the latter having been pointed out repeatedly by people on this very forum. Given it's just childish "they did worse shit than me" level shit, but you're trying really hard to find things that aren't there.[/QUOTE] Good reasons, honestly - agree that it's a shitty, pointless argument that he's latched on to for some asinine reason. It's just a trend I've noticed - Trump has a tendency to treat women as possessions and highlight their relationship to their SO above all else. Hell - in 2007 he said he "owned" Miss Universe and Miss USA. There's little arguing that he treats women like literal objects. When he [URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/240462265680289792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw"]tweeted[/URL] about Ariana Huffington, he brought up her ex-husband leaving her for a man - judging her "unattractive" because her husband accepted his sexuality. And again, he [URL="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/585262729511972864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw"]tweeted[/URL] about Huffington [I]only in relation to her ex-husband.[/I] And he [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/women/2016/06/03/trumptweet-large_trans++WTE8URzJVEortt55St7h5H0SgpsEyBBKQGTSmQdos-M.jpg"]retweeted[/URL] a tweet about how Hillary wouldn't be able to satisfy America if she couldn't satisfy her husband. Almost [I]everything[/I] Trump says about women relates to their attractiveness or their relationship to their husband. Carly Fiorina? Too ugly to be the face of America. Angelina Jolie? Just OK - [I]because[/I] she got involved as a figurehead for international aid instead of just being a pretty face. Alicia Machado? Became a "real problem" because she gained weight and became worth less. He's talked about dating his [i]daughter[/i]. He called a twelve-year-old Paris Hilton beautiful, despite being "not into that" because of her age on Howard Stern. He rated women contestants on The Apprentice by tit size and talked [i]in front of them[/i] who he'd like to fuck [I]and then compared one of their asses to his daughters.[/I] If you want a definition of objectification of women, Trump is it. This isn't some video game character having a pose that shoes too much booty and someone getting upset, this [i]consistent[/i] behavior where Trump finds the [i]sole[/i] value of women in [i]how much he'd like to put his dick in them[/i].

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;51180279]Oh please tell me how much do you actually know about the case that you are referring too?[/QUOTE] Don't bother. When asked to substantiate his claims, Cructo slinks away every time. With all due respect given our private conversations, Cructo, that really needs to change. If one isn't prepared to back up one's arguments with reliable evidence, it sends a message that one cannot defend one's convictions. There is no valid excuse for failing to do this.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51181523]I uh, think the more likely scenario is he's just using her president husbands infidelity to attack her character.[/QUOTE] Because it's not relevant. Bill's infidelity is Bill's infidelity, and says effectively nothing on Hillary's character. Most people would say, if anything, it reflects positively on her behavior, because it shows a dedication to vows of marriage. I get as upset when people point at Melania Trump and say "what a dumb bimbo airhead" or that type of shit, like when she ripped off Michelle Obama's speech. The difference here is that people don't (usually) apply [i]Melania's[/i] actions onto Trump's character. You can judge Trump by saying he treats women like disposable objects and remarries once they become problematic financially or are no longer attractive enough, because those are [i]Donald's[/i] actions. But if Melania cheated on Donald and people started [i]criticizing[/i] Donald because of [i]his wife's[/i] actions, it'd be sexist, too. If they said "Trump is a weak cuck because he can't satisfy and control his wife," that'd be sexist bullshit too - her actions wouldn't reflect [i]at all[/i] on Trump's character. That's what my understanding of the situation is - but Ganerumo brought up good points about the bullying that I hadn't considered. If Trump focused on [i]that[/i], which shows Hillary's behavior, it could be pretty powerful - but instead he's mostly focusing on Bill's behavior and not Hillary's [i]response[/i] to Bill's behavior, which comes off as very sexist.

I asked before if a Trump supporter could explain why attacking Bill Clinton's affairs is a good strategy and didn't receive an answer. I don't understand the thought process involved in swaying undecided voters. "Her husband cheated on her? Well I'm not voting for her!". I just don't get it.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51181833]I asked before if a Trump supporter could explain why attacking Bill Clinton's affairs is a good strategy and didn't receive an answer. I don't understand the thought process involved in swaying undecided voters. "Her husband cheated on her? Well I'm not voting for her!". I just don't get it.[/QUOTE] Because it's hard to justify voting for someone if you're convinced that they protected their spouse after they raped someone, and would make all the "Listen and Believe" they spew massively hypocritical.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51181966]Because it's hard to justify voting for someone if you're convinced that they protected their spouse after they raped someone, and would make all the "Listen and Believe" they spew massively hypocritical.[/QUOTE] I was speaking strictly to the infidelity claims, there is no reason to address the rape claims with absolutely zero evidence.

Isn't trump on trial for rape?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51179053]You're deluded if you ever thought politics - anywhere - was more than emotional pandering.[/QUOTE] Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse. I'm just wondering who hit rock bottom, Poland or the US? [editline]10th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;51179256]This bullshit again?[/QUOTE] That's the kind of bullshit that goes both ways. You can't have it just one way

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51181833]I asked before if a Trump supporter could explain why attacking Bill Clinton's affairs is a good strategy and didn't receive an answer. I don't understand the thought process involved in swaying undecided voters. "Her husband cheated on her? Well I'm not voting for her!". I just don't get it.[/QUOTE] Because to these people, if a husband cheats on his wife it's because the wife is not up to standard and so he must find satisfaction somewhere else. Therefore it reflects badly on his wife rather than himself.

[QUOTE=RB33;51179071]Yeah, watching the Swedish party leader debate yesterday, then go to this. Is this even the same planet anymore? Is this actual politics?[/QUOTE] This so much. Saw a few people here stating "Oh but politics is like this all around the globe". No it's not. As per example some scandinavian countries seem to have a way better political system going on and it's actually showing in the wealth of those countries. The only countries that seem to wage these kindergarden bullshit in their politics are the western countries and those that follow the US in "culture" closely. Yes, the Netherlands is one of those countries. Just seems like a really flawed way to lead a country. ^ Opinions, sure, but I really disagree that all politics goes like this. [editline]12th October 2016[/editline] And don't get me wrong, sure theres countries that don't even get a vote to start out with and i'm happy I live in a country that does allow voting. I guess i'm just getting sick of politicians bringing up issues that don't even matter, next to the fact that certain politicians make statements that are utterly biased and disproven by science on multiple occasions. But I think i'm digressing, /rant

[QUOTE=MyAlt91;51193174]This so much. Saw a few people here stating "Oh but politics is like this all around the globe". No it's not. As per example some scandinavian countries seem to have a way better political system going on and it's actually showing in the wealth of those countries. The only countries that seem to wage these kindergarden bullshit in their politics are the western countries and those that follow the US in "culture" closely. Yes, the Netherlands is one of those countries. Just seems like a really flawed way to lead a country. ^ Opinions, sure, but I really disagree that all politics goes like this. [editline]12th October 2016[/editline] And don't get me wrong, sure theres countries that don't even get a vote to start out with and i'm happy I live in a country that does allow voting. I guess i'm just getting sick of politicians bringing up issues that don't even matter, next to the fact that certain politicians make statements that are utterly biased and disproven by science on multiple occasions. But I think i'm digressing, /rant[/QUOTE] Yeah, I noticed that contrast even in here as well. Acting like this in an attempt to win elections is not normal and is highly looked down upon. Surprisingly enough though all the vitriolic troublemakers in our local politics happen to be either immigrants from America, Canada, or Bosnia, or people which worked extensively with any of the three countries, like for example in foreign affairs or in NATO.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51181966]Because it's hard to justify voting for someone if you're convinced that they protected their spouse after they raped someone, and would make all the "Listen and Believe" they spew massively hypocritical.[/QUOTE] If the accusations that Clinton's husband raped someone are enough to convince you that the event actually happened, then you have to also accept the accusations of Trump sexually assaulting women as being sufficient evidence that those events actually occurred.