Trump points out that he’s way nastier than Clinton
Now for that interview in the Times.
Donald J. Trump unleashed a slashing new attack on Hillary Clinton over Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions on Friday as he sought to put the Clintons’ relationship at the center of his political argument against her before their next debate.
Hard to believe. A skeevy serially-unfaithful man attacks a woman because her husband is a skeevy serially-unfaithful man. Hard.to.believe. A woman’s faults are hers, and a man’s faults are hers too. Men have a free pass, women are blamed for men’s bad behavior.
In an interview with The New York Times, he also contended that infidelity was “never a problem” during his three marriages, though his first ended in an ugly divorce after Mr. Trump began a relationship with the woman who became his second wife.
Well it wasn’t a problem for him, he means. That’s all that counts, he means. Women are just those skanks that real people fuck until they don’t want to any more, and then they get a new one.
Then he went after Alicia Machado.
Mr. Trump said that Mrs. Clinton, who has portrayed Ms. Machado as a victim of Mr. Trump’s cruel insults, had “made this young lady into a girl scout when she was the exact opposite.” He asserted, without offering any evidence, that Ms. Machado had once participated in a sex tape.
That was the content of his 3 a.m. Twitter rampage the night before, too. He of course never explained how putative participation in a sex tape would make it untrue that Trump insulted and humiliated her and stiffed her on the 10% of profits from advertising she starred in.
He said he was bringing up Mr. Clinton’s infidelities because he thought they would repulse female voters and turn them away from the Clintons, and because he was eager to unsettle Mrs. Clinton in their next two debates and on the campaign trail.
“She’s nasty, but I can be nastier than she ever can be,” Mr. Trump said.
Mr. Trump said he believed that his own marital history did not preclude him from waging such an attack. He became involved with Marla Maples while he was still married to his first wife, Ivana, who divorced him in 1991. He married Ms. Maples in 1993; they were divorced in 1999. He married his current wife, Melania, in 2005.
While Mr. Trump has bragged about his sexual exploits over the years, he charged in the interview that Mr. Clinton had numerous indiscretions that “brought shame onto the presidency, and Hillary Clinton was there defending him all along.”
But when asked if he had ever cheated on his wives, Mr. Trump said: “No — I never discuss it. I never discuss it. It was never a problem.”
Narcissistic much?
Mr. Trump’s sharply negative attacks on the Clintons, and on Ms. Machado, pose a significant political risk to his own appeal: Two-thirds of voters already see him unfavorably, according to polls, and he is struggling to win over female voters — including white women, a majority of whom have historically supported the Republican candidate in presidential elections.
Well, attacking a woman for being married to a skeevy serially-unfaithful man should be just the way to win them over.
I didn’t see any sign that Clinton turned Ms. Machado into a “girl scout” or an “angel” (from the other tweet). She merely pointed out Trump’s nasty behavior. Of course, to some, that is the same thing, because if a woman isn’t a “girl scout” or an “angel”, she is fair game. So maybe by complaining about Trump’s nastiness, Trump was assuming she was saying Ms. Machado was somehow a perfect person?
Gee, what about Donny Jr.’s “moment I’ll always remember,” when his daddy showed such “courage” in not bringing up Bill Clinton’s infidelity?
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/28/donald-trump-jr-praises-fathers-courage-throwing-clintons-husbands-infidelities-face.html
As I’m sure everyone with any EQ, compassion or understanding of debate technique at all can attest (pretty sure that includes everyone who reads B&W), saying you’re not going to bring something up is actually a passive aggressive and back door way OF bringing it up, but in a way that creates a barrier to the person who has been attacked being able to defend themselves. All while giving plausible deniability to criticism. I despise that technique. A very very few satirists can pull it off when used sparingly and that’s it.
Finally a true statement! (Not much of a revelation though.) What a statesman!