Did Trump Really Say Anything That Wasn't True About Some Women?

[Dirty Penguin]

Did she reject his furniture or advances? Did he continue to pursue her after she rejected him? It takes two to tangle.

Oh so not the point and it shows you weren't paying attention to what he said. He said he "aggressively moved on her" and at one point took her furniture shopping. This says to me he invested some time and effort in trying to f_____ her. Did she let him? Well according to him NO...she didn't. But again...all this is excusing the fact he was a newlywed to his current wife. All of that conversation was before the supposed "locker room talk"...

 

[buddhist]

Oh so not the point and it shows you weren't paying attention to what he said. He said he "aggressively moved on her" and at one point took her furniture shopping. This says to me he invested some time and effort in trying to f_____ her. Did she let him? Well according to him NO...she didn't. But again...all this is excusing the fact he was a newlywed to his current wife. All of that conversation was before the supposed "locker room talk"...

I ask because I haven't heard of this particular situation regarding Trump before. Nor do I know of his particular vows to his current wife, or his specific perspective on marriage.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I ask because I haven't heard of this particular situation regarding Trump before. Nor do I know of his particular vows to his current wife, or his specific perspective on marriage.

Wow....yeah this was all over the news. This is just one of many actual recordings. Some are audio/video while others are just audio but they're all of him and his views.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think most of us can agree upon one thing this election.
Trump is a boor.
But is this a problem because boorishness, especially towards women,
is as wrong as all the attention given it would seem? Or is it so wrong
because, he's running against a Democrat?
I ask because I ran across something interesting about Obama.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/michelle_obamas_promotion_of_misogyny_and_date_rape.html
From the article....
In April 2016, the Obamas invited numerous rap artists to the White House to discuss Barack Obama's "My Brother's Keeper" initiative while recognizing them for their "artistic" contributions to minority communities. The rappers whom the Obamas promoted with these invitations include:

• Rick Ross's, "U.O.N.E.O." glorifies date rape with the lyrics, "Put molly all in her champagne/ She ain't even know it / I took her home and I enjoyed that/ She ain't even know it." While Ross denies that this was his intended meaning, "molly" is slang for Ecstasy, a well-known date rape drug, and the context of "molly" in his lyrics shows clearly that a man put it into a woman's drink without her knowledge or consent so he could have sex with her. Ross' "Same Hoes" is meanwhile not about agricultural implements as shown by its lyrics, which consist primarily of the F word, a variant of the N word, and "hoes."

There are more examples listed in the article.

Is civil treatment of women something to decry only when a Republican fails?
Are Democrats excused from such expected norms?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think most of us can agree upon one thing this election.
Trump is a boor.
But is this a problem because boorishness, especially towards women,
is as wrong as all the attention given it would seem? Or is it so wrong
because, he's running against a Democrat?

I think it's a little beyond boorish. If this was just isolated to his rantings of yesteryear...that might be one thing.... But as we've seen throughout his campain he's pretty much stayed consistent with the rhetoric.

I ask because I ran across something interesting about Obama.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/michelle_obamas_promotion_of_misogyny_and_date_rape.html
From the article....
In April 2016, the Obamas invited numerous rap artists to the White House to discuss Barack Obama's "My Brother's Keeper" initiative while recognizing them for their "artistic" contributions to minority communities. The rappers whom the Obamas promoted with these invitations include:

• Rick Ross's, "U.O.N.E.O." glorifies date rape with the lyrics, "Put molly all in her champagne/ She ain't even know it / I took her home and I enjoyed that/ She ain't even know it." While Ross denies that this was his intended meaning, "molly" is slang for Ecstasy, a well-known date rape drug, and the context of "molly" in his lyrics shows clearly that a man put it into a woman's drink without her knowledge or consent so he could have sex with her. Ross' "Same Hoes" is meanwhile not about agricultural implements as shown by its lyrics, which consist primarily of the F word, a variant of the N word, and "hoes."

Not sure I see the relevance. This isn't an impeachment of Bill Clinton's character as he's not the one running for president.....and none of these entertainers writing rap lyrics (which may be fictional anyway) are running for president either. Shucks, Rick Ross (William Leonard Roberts II) Went to a historically black college on a football scholarship...and later worked as a corrections officer. Hardly a gangster from the mean streets.

Heck...the article made me think of rappers like Eminem who is from 8 Mile in Detroit...which is almost as poor as it gets in many of the areas up there...He rapped the same way...yet we know he doesn't like that life at all. He wrote all sorts of songs about doing bodily harm to someone...stuffing them in a trunk etc...yet we know he's done nothing of the sort. I think the writer of the article confuses a stage persona with reality.

In the case of Trump that was something totally different. He explicitly said because of who he is he's able to do these things. Additionally...we heard that before that comment, as bad as it was, he, under no duress, said how he moved on a married woman even though he himself was only married to Milania for only a few months with the sole purpose of______her. I leave you to fill in the blank with his own word he used.

Is civil treatment of women something to decry only when a Republican fails?
Are Democrats excused from such expected norms?

No...but the overall subject wasn't about what democrats do. I've notice that many play that game. When the subject is on point and on message...someone steps in and says...well but democrats.......

I don't give democrats an easy pass but they're not who we're discussing here. I don't give a pass to the like of Marion Barry, Anthony Wiener, Elliot Spitzer...etc. I thought what they did was horrible and at the time on other social media sights said as much. I lived in DC during the Marion Barry years.....and never voted for him and tried to get others not to. So this isn't a ("I know you are but what am I") situation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not sure I see the relevance.

It shows that committing & tolerating wrongful speech has a double standard.
Democrats will tacitly approve of "rape culture" when their allies display it.
Now, to be fair.....
I find Republicans to be hypocrites too.

This isn't an impeachment of Bill Clinton's character as he's not the one running for president.....

Hey, that's what I've been saying all along.

.....and none of these entertainers writing rap lyrics (which may be fictional anyway) are running for president either.

No, but Hillary's tacit approval (lack of criticism) of their misogyny is an interesting thing to watch.
It's almost as much fun as Madeleine Albright's & Gloria Steinem's hypocrisies.

Heck...the article made me think of rappers like Eminem who is from 8 Mile in Detroit...which is almost as poor as it gets in many of the areas up there...He rapped the same way...yet we know he doesn't like that life at all. He wrote all sorts of songs about doing bodily harm to someone...stuffing them in a trunk etc...yet we know he's done nothing of the sort. I think the writer of the article confuses a stage persona with reality.

When I run for prez, be assured that M&M won't be by my side.

In the case of Trump that was something totally different. He explicitly said because of who he is he's able to do these things. Additionally...we heard that before that comment, as bad as it was, he, under no duress, said how he moved on a married woman even though he himself was only married to Milania for only a few months with the sole purpose of______her. I leave you to fill in the blank with his own word he used.

Or is the difference that Trump's flaws are on display at all times,
while Hillary is practiced at hiding hers from public view?

No...but the overall subject wasn't about what democrats do. I've notice that many play that game. When the subject is on point and on message...someone steps in and says...well but democrats.......

I don't give democrats an easy pass but they're not who we're discussing here. I don't give a pass to the like of Marion Barry, Anthony Wiener, Elliot Spitzer...etc. I thought what they did was horrible and at the time on other social media sights said as much. I lived in DC during the Marion Barry years.....and never voted for him and tried to get others not to. So this isn't a ("I know you are but what am I") situation.

I say the subject is the election of one of these two.
Each does not exist in a vacuum.
Each exists because of the other.
One cannot understand one without considering the other.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It shows that committing & tolerating wrongful speech has a double standard.
Democrats will tacitly approve of "rape culture" when their allies display it.
Now, to be fair.....
I find Republicans to be hypocrites too.

I find that both can be hypocritical as well. Then again...democrats weren't the subject or focus here.

No, but Hillary's tacit approval (lack of criticism) of their misogyny is an interesting thing to watch.

For me the question would be ...do they have a history of acting out what they say in their songs or is it tantamount to what we see and hear on TV any given moment we tune in. The writer in the article you cited doesn't seem to draw that distinction....unless I missed it.

I remember back in the day listening to the Beetles sing about drugs or Jimmy Hendrix song "Hey Joe"...and countless other song talking about drugs and sex.....and it was less ambiguous then than it is now in many of these rap songs...especially when you research them and discover many of them aren't from "the hood"....

Then again...what Trump said was completely different.

Or is the difference that Trump's flaws are on display at all times,
while Hillary is practiced at hiding hers from public view?

All we have is Trump's history..in print, audio and video...even if he believes he never said or did these things we have evidence he did. It's on display because it comes with the territory. As far as Hillary I'll let you wrestle with that one. I don't know and don't particularly care..unless something comes to light then we can have that discussion.

I say the subject is the election of one of these two.
Each does not exist in a vacuum.
Each exists because of the other.
One cannot understand one without considering the other.

Well as far as staying on topic that's where I'm at. We're discussing what Trump said. It has little to do with Hillary...

 

[Perditus]

Did Trump Really Say Anything That Wasn't True About Some Women?

Or men?

No.

People need to learn the old-fashioned habit of ignoring what they don't like instead of screaming, "Microaggression!" and running for their safe space with their blankie.

 

[Revoltingest]

For me the question would be ...do they have a history of acting out what they say in their songs or is it tantamount to what we see and hear on TV any given moment we tune in. The writer in the article you cited doesn't seem to draw that distinction....unless I missed it.

Acting out or not, it's an awful message, one for which Trump would be pilloried by the press.
It's a double standard, no matter how it's defended.

I remember back in the day listening to the Beetles sing about drugs or Jimmy Hendrix song "Hey Joe"...and countless other song talking about drugs and sex.....and it was less ambiguous then than it is now in many of these rap songs...especially when you research them and discover many of them aren't from "the hood"....

I'm pro drug legalization, so I've no problem with that.

Then again...what Trump said was completely different.

There's no disagreement about Trump saying awful things.
But he gets lots'o bad press when supporters say the same.
Yet Hillary is given a pass.....except by me.

All we have is Trump's history..in print, audio and video...even if he believes he never said or did these things we have evidence he did. It's on display because it comes with the territory. As far as Hillary I'll let you wrestle with that one. I don't know and don't particularly care..unless something comes to light then we can have that discussion.
Well as far as staying on topic that's where I'm at. We're discussing what Trump said. It has little to do with Hillary...

Does this defense mean that you think Hillary's tacit approval of pro-rape lyrics is OK?

 

[Perditus]

Does this defense mean that you think Hillary's tacit approval of pro-rape lyrics is OK?

Touché.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Acting out or not, it's an awful message, one for which Trump would be pilloried by the press.

So you believe in morality over artistic license? To me that's the big difference from the article you cited verses Trump's actual feelings.

There's no disagreement about Trump saying awful things.
But he gets lots'o bad press when supporters say the same.
Yet Hillary is given a pass.....except by me.

She doesn't get a pass by me either....but so far as I can tell she's never said anything remotely close to what Trump said.

{quote]Does this defense mean that you think Hillary's tacit approval of pro-rape lyrics is OK?[/QUOTE]

What defense..? You're bringing up Hillary in a thread on the thing Trump has actually said about women. Sounds like you're making a false equivalency....

 

[Revoltingest]

So you believe in morality over artistic license? To me that's the big difference from the article you cited verses Trump's actual feelings.

To rephrase your question into something else....
Is an artistic work which degrades women & praises rape worse than what Trump said.
Yes.

She doesn't get a pass by me either....but so far as I can tell she's never said anything remotely close to what Trump said.

Is this evidence of greater morality or a greater ability to hide behind a public persona?
I say it's the latter.
Both have said horrible things, but Hillary's have been to staff.

What defense..? You're bringing up Hillary in a thread on the thing Trump has actually said about women. Sounds like you're making a false equivalency....

You're invoking the false false equivalency fallacy, ie, to try to avoid comparison by saying thins are too different to compare. Au contraire, comparison of 2 candidates is necessary & possible. We just disagree about which is worse. We cannot evaluate Trump is no mention of Hillary is allowed

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To rephrase your question into something else....
Is an artistic work which degrades women & praises rape worse than what Trump said.
Yes.

What is given artistic license with no evidence of said action(s) existing in reality is far different than someone stating that because of his status in life women allow themselves to be sexually assaulted by him or the admission that he tried to seduce a married women, even though he had only been married ti Melania for several months, with the sole purpose of having sex with said married woman...is a completely different.

Is this evidence of greater morality or a greater ability to hide behind a public persona?
I say it's the latter.
Both have said horrible things, but Hillary's have been to staff.

So far the point you've made in a thread about Trump is a vague assertion that "she" (Hillary) has said bad things too.

You're invoking the false false equivalency fallacy, ie, to try to avoid comparison by saying thins are too different to compare. Au contraire, comparison of 2 candidates is necessary & possible. We just disagree about which is worse. We cannot evaluate Trump is no mention of Hillary is allowed

Yes we can evaluate Trump and not mention Hillary because we're in a thread dedicated what "HE" said. You're the only one bringing up the notion that she's said bad stuff too or some vague assertion that she tacitly gives approval to violent rap lyrics. The thread in question had nothing to do with her, democrats, rap music...etc. Your tactic in trying to draw parallels is in fact a false equivalence.

If I was in the threads "Stuff Democrats Say" and brought up stuff republicans say...by starting off with ("but a republican said.....") or vice versa.... If I was in the thread "Stuff Republicans Say" and brought up stuff democrats say...by starting off with ("but a democrat said.....") then that would be off topic in either of those threads and it would be setting up a false equivalence.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is given artistic license with no evidence of said action(s) existing in reality is far different than someone stating that because of his status in life women allow themselves to be sexually assaulted by him or the admission that he tried to seduce a married women, even though he had only been married ti Melania for several months, with the sole purpose of having sex with said married woman...is a completely different.

Your hypothetical isn't applicable to your criticism of Trump.
His marital infidelity is far from sexual assault, which is what Hillary enabled in Bill,
& what gains her tacit approval by allowing pro-rape entertainment in her campaign.

So far the point you've made in a thread about Trump is a vague assertion that "she" (Hillary) has said bad things too.

You misuse the word, "vague'.
Further, you dismiss things Hillary said, & focus solely upon what Trump said.
This avoids comparison.
When reaching a fork in the road, one doesn't say....
"That road is bad, so I'll take the other without looking."

Yes we can evaluate Trump and not mention Hillary because we're in a thread dedicated what "HE" said.

However you see dedication, I prefer the broader picture.

You're the only one bringing up the notion that she's said bad stuff too or some vague assertion that she tacitly gives approval to violent rap lyrics.

Again, you misuse the word, "vague".
If I've not been clear, feel free to point out where, & I'll elaborate.

The thread in question had nothing to do with her, democrats, rap music...etc. Your tactic in trying to draw parallels is in fact a false equivalence.

You're falling for the old false false equivalency fallacy.
One picks a side, & believes that one is so right that there can be no other view.
Any comparison to provide context is then certainly false.
That is the trial lawyer mentality, ie, to pick a side, & look only at that which supports it.

If I was in the threads "Stuff Democrats Say" and brought up stuff republicans say...by starting off with ("but a republican said.....") or vice versa.... If I was in the thread "Stuff Republicans Say" and brought up stuff democrats say...by starting off with ("but a democrat said.....") then that would be off topic in either of those threads and it would be setting up a false equivalence.

I won't limit discussion to a narrow agenda driven focus of apologetics.
This is not an Anti-Trump DIR.
The election has 2 candidates who must be compared in order to choose one.
Anything less is blind partisanship.

 

[Perditus]

Regarding this whole Trump the Pervert thing, he's a dirty old man. A lot of men are and, historically, there have been thousands. There will be as many in the future.

He's a dirty old man. Nothing new under the sun.

 

[Parchment]

Regarding this whole Trump the Pervert thing, he's a dirty old man. A lot of men are and, historically, there have been thousands. There will be as many in the future.

Whether you dressed up and bowed and prayed in the pews with your family on Sunday you still had a hell of a night on Saturday

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Your hypothetical isn't applicable to your criticism of Trump.

What hypothetical....My response was to artistic license and the comparison to the actual words from Trump's mouth about his status in life and his ability to grope women at will.

His marital infidelity is far from sexual assault, which is what Hillary enabled in Bill,

His marital infidelity and his sexual assault are two things he admitted to on the hot mic. And again...what does this have to do with Bill? I thought we already agreed this has nothing to do with him.

You misuse the word, "vague'.

You asserted she "tacitly" condones misogyny and rape language in rap songs without presenting any evidence. Then again...this thread has nothing to do with Hillary.

Further, you dismiss things Hillary said, & focus solely upon what Trump said.
This avoids comparison.

Because the thread has nothing to do with Hillary...and everything to do "solely" with what Trump said.

However you see dedication, I prefer the broader picture.

Wrong. I don't mind comparing the two...if we're comparing them on sexist remarks....assuming she's made them. But once again...the thread wasn't about her nor was it about comparing the statements made. Just him..!

You're falling for the old false false equivalency fallacy.
One picks a side, & believes that one is so right that there can be no other view.
Any comparison to provide context is then certainly false.
That is the trial lawyer mentality, ie, to pick a side, & look only at that which supports it.

I've used it correctly. The thread is about what Trump said. You immediately bring up Hillary...asking...well what about what she said..or what about what she and other democrats allow to be said and condone...all the while totally ignoring that this has nothing to do with any of that and only to do with statements he's made.

I won't limit discussion to a narrow agenda driven focus of apologetics.
This is not an Anti-Trump DIR.
The election has 2 candidates who must be compared in order to choose one.
Anything less is blind partisanship.

A basic question was asked about what Trump said about "some" woman. The OP didn't ask us...('and what about what Hillary said...'). So there was no apologetics or partisanship going on here. We're simply answering the question with the many, many things Trump has said about women over the years.

 

[Revoltingest]

You asserted she "tacitly" condones misogyny and rape language in rap songs without presenting any evidence.

This is all getting old.
And the election is over.
So we should abandon this discussion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Or men?

No.

People need to learn the old-fashioned habit of ignoring what they don't like instead of screaming, "Microaggression!" and running for their safe space with their blankie.

Meh...maybe.
Some people like to scream catch phrases like 'microagression' as protection from ever having to defend crap behaviour. The protective blanket of political correctness cuts both ways.

 

[Perditus]

Meh...maybe.
Some people like to scream catch phrases like 'microagression' as protection from ever having to defend crap behaviour. The protective blanket of political correctness cuts both ways.

Oh, boohoo.

My side didn't win, so we're all going to throw a collective tantrum.

Is that better?