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

originally posted by: Byrd

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.

All right, as a woman, I'll explain it.

Bill Clinton was a sonuvabitch, but he was their sonuvabitch.

In other words, they were willing to throw other women under the bus and excuse the trangressions of Bill because he was a liberal like them. Policy was more important than personal behavior and treatment of women, so they looked the other way.

They largely do the same when it comes to Islam. It matters not how horribly misogynistic Muslims from the ME can be, it is good liberal policy to push for expanded and massive refugee immigration from there, and liberal politicians who also pay lip service to their issues want it ... so they want it. Plain and simple.

The left is very, very good at cohering even when it means pushing issues and positions you would think would be antithetical to them. It is the mind set of collectivists and the Greater Good.

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.

No consent!!!!!


Liberals don't care what you do as long as it is consensual.

Donald trump said he had been bullying subordinates into sleeping with him.
AKA there is no consent.

That said 90% of his accusers are lying. The only one I buy is he walked into the dressing room for MS TEEN USA (15-17 year olds.)









Bill is a cheater and a garbage husband. But it was all consensual.


Brodrick is a liar.. flowers is a liar...haven't looked into willies story so won't comment. The 12 year old rape victim is "fair"... she was just doing her job, but it is factual at least.

However Clinton DIDNT bring Trunp accusers to the debate..hell she hasn't had ANYTHING to do with the Trump allegations..



Love it or hate it, That is the difference for liberals.

Trumps taped comments and then debate disgrace (3accusers) was viewed as a personal challenge for every partisan dem, feminist and honestly any legit sexual assault victims to stop his election chances.

Now they think it is acceptable to lie about sexual assault because "he prob did it to some one.." which is disgusting..

Trump started it, but the media was happy to go all tabloid with him..

ya know, bill has gone through a whole lot more criticizing and embarrassment for his misdeeds for year than trump has right?
I mean both have had affairs, but it was clintons who had his blasted over the media night after night, month after month. it was him who stood in front of congress....

and, the both have had their share of rape and assault allegations thrown at them. they both paid off some of the accusers. Bill has had to live with just about the whole world knowing all the little facts of his life.
trump decided to he wants to be president, which, is the position that bill held that gave everybody what they felt was justification to dive into his sex live.

I would say that it's trump's supporters who think that trump should be treated differently from bill. SOME of yous are acting in the same way as SOME women were acting when bill's fiasco broke out. only, I think yous are being much meaner about it and I wouldn't be surprised if more threatening is going on in the back rooms directed at the women who is making the allegations. and... I don't remember any recordings coming out where bill was bragging about assaulting women. he was probably too afraid of hillary to take a chance on that one happening.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Byrd

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.

All right, as a woman, I'll explain it.

Bill Clinton was a sonuvabitch, but he was their sonuvabitch.

In other words, they were willing to throw other women under the bus and excuse the trangressions of Bill because he was a liberal like them. Policy was more important than personal behavior and treatment of women, so they looked the other way.

They largely do the same when it comes to Islam. It matters not how horribly misogynistic Muslims from the ME can be, it is good liberal policy to push for expanded and massive refugee immigration from there, and liberal politicians who also pay lip service to their issues want it ... so they want it. Plain and simple.

The left is very, very good at cohering even when it means pushing issues and positions you would think would be antithetical to them. It is the mind set of collectivists and the Greater Good.

Bingo.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

In a thousand words (give or take a few) ...

a reply to: Bloodydagger

This is a very good question. I am baffled and disgusted. Inconsistent doesn't even begin to cover it. I despise both Bill Clinton and Trump. And yes, I am a feminist.

Because most of us lived through the Clinton stuff in the 90s and made up our minds about it a long ass time ago, that's why. Plus, we haven't heard anything new in 20 years, and during that time no further allegations have surfaced.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Bloodydagger

In a thousand words (give or take a few) ...

I don't think it's fair to characterize all Trump followers in this way ... just many of them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

He had a legitimate argument until he failed to continue arguing his point. At the point where he attacked the person with the opposing point of view instead of the view itself is where he completely lost his argument.

But to answer you Gryphon. It is not the fact that the women groups are attacking Trump. It is the fact that they are hypocrites for attacking him and not caring that Clinton did the same.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Bloodydagger

In a thousand words (give or take a few) ...

I don't think it's fair to characterize all Trump followers in this way ... just many of them.

If you'd want that to apply to the hardcore Trump supporters, you'd have to take out the "consensus" line.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Byrd

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.

All right, as a woman, I'll explain it.

Bill Clinton was a sonuvabitch, but he was their sonuvabitch.

In other words, they were willing to throw other women under the bus and excuse the trangressions of Bill because he was a liberal like them. Policy was more important than personal behavior and treatment of women, so they looked the other way.

They largely do the same when it comes to Islam. It matters not how horribly misogynistic Muslims from the ME can be, it is good liberal policy to push for expanded and massive refugee immigration from there, and liberal politicians who also pay lip service to their issues want it ... so they want it. Plain and simple.

The left is very, very good at cohering even when it means pushing issues and positions you would think would be antithetical to them. It is the mind set of collectivists and the Greater Good.

No bill was a cheater and his assault allegations are the thinnest BS imagainable!!!

Trumps accusers are the thinnest most garbage BS imagainable.

How in the F is it ok for the media and trump to throw around fake rape allegations?!?!

Remember Rep making fun of Clinton for "all accusers should be believed.."

They were right to blast her for it because it is totally insane to sacrifice innocent people "just in case it might discourage a real victim from comming forward."

No one should be sacrificed "just in case...maybe."


Good luck trying to make the morality argument as a republican in our life times.

Not dropping trump has destroyed the GOP and the reputation of every republican.

a reply to: Byrd

Thanks for femsplaining.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

He had a legitimate argument until he failed to continue arguing his point. At the point where he attacked the person with the opposing point of view instead of the view itself is where he completely lost his argument.

But to answer you Gryphon. It is not the fact that the women groups are attacking Trump. It is the fact that they are hypocrites for attacking him and not caring that Clinton did the same.

They are not hypocrites because of trumps disgraceful debate circus dragging out known frauds pushing fake rape accounts..


No one has seen anything as detestable as that...nor in modern politics.


It is destetable the media has given the fake trump accusers a platform, but that isn't hillarys fault . It is trumps...he set the bar.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: Gryphon66

"If they are to be believed" - You see, that is the main sticking point here. A lot of the Left will believe Billy boy is innocent no matter what. A lot of the Right will believe that Trump is innocent until proven guilty (ie need more proof then just anecdotal evidence)

And also, where did Trump "admit" to anything? If you're talking about that bus video, then you're wrong. That's not admitting to anything because it can be taken several different ways and the Left just fits it in to fit their agenda and narrative.

"the left will believe billy boy is innocent"?.....I have not heard one person from the left say that.....this is the crap talk the right engages in to make their point.....sad.....those cases against billy boy were adjudicated for years both legally and in the press....to imply that there is an equivalency in both, is dishonest.

a reply to: jimmyx

No one has ever claimed Bill Clinton is innocent in the last 20 years or so.

Many right wingers claim that those on the left have done so, though.

As seen above.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

They are not hypocrites because of trumps disgraceful debate circus dragging out known frauds pushing fake rape accounts.. No one has seen anything as detestable as that...nor in modern politics. It is destetable the media has given the fake trump accusers a platform, but that isn't hillarys fault . It is trumps...he set the bar.

They are hypocrites, but not because of trump (who is disgusting and idiotic by the way). They are hypocrites, because they only stand for something when it suits them. If they stood by what they say they believed, then they would be blasting both Trump and Clinton.

As for not seen in modern politics???? This type of thing has always been in politics and always will.

As for the media doing Clinton's work for her; that is in their best interest.

a reply to: Greggers

actually, this was the last item to come out related to the clinton impeachment (outside of the political chaos we're hearing...

CHICAGO — Former House speaker Dennis Hastert, who less than a decade ago stood second in line to the presidency, was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison Wednesday for a bank fraud case linked to allegations he sexually abused teen boys more than 30 years ago.

www.usatoday.com...

it took awhile, but the last republican speaker of the house that did their part to lead the party on in the impeachment fell because of sexual misconduct.

clinton's misconduct, along with the republicans willingness to use it as a grand political football made the US a laughingstock across the globe and probably emboldened the terrorists and played a part in 9/11.

so, now we either can vote in another bill clinton type, or the jilted wife of bill clinton... and we are told above all else, we should be voting for hillary.
I agree, we shouldn't be voting for hillary, if she is elected, we are gonna end up with the republicans in congress hitting her with everything they can come up with, tying her up in investigation after investigation, with the media blitz that comes with them, it won't be good for the country for just this fact.

but, to say that the only other choice is the bill clinton clone, which will come with the chaos and media blitz similar to that in bills time is just as wrong as saying we have to vote for hillary...
neither are appropriate, if we all could convince alot of other to this fact (many are already coming to that conclusion) those votes for third parties would not be wasted at all. they'd be coming from those who are disenchanted in the democratic party as well as the conservative party. one of the two might win but it's quite possible they wouldn't be to claim no mandate from the people since the majority of the people were divided amount the three or four or five other candidates that got votes.

a reply to: dawnstar

LOL ...

Hastert: Pedo

Gingrich: Serial adulterer

Starr: Rape enabler

Gosh ... so much for the party of morality and family values, eh?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Byrd

Thanks for femsplaining.

So as a woman, I shouldn't be annoyed when men state what they think women believe instead of tagging women here on ATS and asking if they'll respond?

I beg to differ. As a woman, I found the rush-to-tell-what-women-think rather offensive. We have some interesting women here on ATS and we all certainly don't support the same ideas and same candidates. The initial question had the potential for good discussion by women and among women as well as prompting some searching into how and why this came about.

And "femsplaining" is not accurate here. I'm a woman. I would be "femsplaining" if I rushed in to explain how men like you think and react and then to argue with you (when you tried to say "no, men don't...) about men's behavior.

Just hope order is restored in 2020 because I think Hillary and Trump both are only one term Presidents. I don't think the Left can put anyone out there in 2020 to contend with the roster that the GOP will have. Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio...one of those three are destined to win in 2020. I think the GOP has 2020 in the bag personally. Sanders wont run again. Hillary is a one termer. Who else does the Left have? The Castro brothers? Elizabeth (LOL) Warren?