Yes, we all know that Donald Trump is a highly flawed person and candidate.
But I suspect that the real purpose of this article is to get us to accept in his place a manipulative war criminal who may not have the typical traits of a wife abuser, but who has absolutely no qualms about murdering women and children if it helps her get ahead. Doesn't actually killing wives and mothers make someone an actual wife abuser?
No matter how bad Donald Trump is, it does not make Hillary Clinton an acceptable choice.
The ONLY reasonable candidates in this election are Bernie Sanders and Dr. Jill Stein.
Can't defend anything about Trump in this article, but I still think an argument can be made Clinton is potentially worse. While he may have "affection for tyrants", that might be better for us, temporarily, than someone who sees Hitlers everywhere, wants to bomb them all, and is a puppet of the oligarchs on trade deals and wall st.
Also, the resistance will be there against Trump. For Clinton? let's be honest, not so much, just like with Obomber.
Donald Trump is a typical abuser no doubt. If you have ever known one you can see that tactics. The fact that he is all of these things is pretty clear but what needs to be considered is that Clinton is not the opposite. She is controlling, manipulating, powerful, secretive and is out to prove how tough she is. In a way she could be the female counterpart. That's a part of her that is also not discussed. These traits often propel people into high office.
So while we look at Trump lets remember that Hillary and the media paint him in such a way as to make a common abuser, blowhard, into the walking devil we must defeat. I've known abusive men, they are weak and afraid. Women like Clinton, Thatcher, Albright are every bit as abusive and every bit as weak and afraid as Trump. Hillary has been accused of being paranoid and that's why she's such a war hawk.
Be careful of so many articles painting him as such a powerful evil. He's pretty average and only dreams of being as powerful as Clinton and her machine. She is the one to watch out for, as she has a p.r. machine that will convince you bombing all over the world is a humanitarian necessity.
There are two sides to every coin and both sides of this coin are hated by most of the country and in many ways for the same reason. These two are the worst of the worst, neither one is worth our vote.
I've always been a fan of shows like "Law and Order," and with You Tube making shows like "The FBI Files" and other crime-solving programs available, I found myself watching real life dramas that concerned serial killers.
Naturally, I felt compelled to check the birth data of these individuals and a report I wrote about a year ago just came out in the July 2016 issue of "Dell Horoscope Magazine." (A statistical error was made--not on my end--at the conclusion of the article.)
I'm mentioning this because the #1 sign (either sun or moon) that showed up most often was GEMINI and it's the sign of Trump, Henry Kissinger, and George Bush, Sr. (among others).
The duality that defines the Zodiac's sign of "the twins" makes it quite natural for these individuals to possess both a charming side and a ruthless abusive side. And to Gemini natives, that pronounced duality is entirely normal. Add in any childhood conditioning that inclines towards the sensibilities of a sociopath, and a potential criminal is launched.
The usual legion that despises Hillary Clinton will likely weigh in. After the controlling, conservative, patriarchal sign of Capricorn, Scorpio shows up with the highest probability in those sorts of police state tactics that define the Surveillance Society. Hillary Clinton, Petraeus, and Joseph McCarthy fall into the cosmic camp of the Scorpion.
Placing Trump into the category of serial killers doesn't mean Hillary Clinton is any angel. Everyone born between l942-1949 has Uranus--the maverick planet--in Gemini. In other words, most people do have some key planet in Gemini.
Also, 1946 was the year harboring the highest statistical showing in the serial killer camp; and that's also Bill Clinton's and George Bush, Jr.'s year of birth (among millions of others).
Everyone has a celestial fingerprint...
It's mostly angry white guys who identify with Trump. The fact that the somewhat effeminate peacock TALKS a good game of machismo covers the fact that this guy would be absolutely CLUELESS (not to mention likely cowardly) in actual combat.
BTW: John Wayne was also a Gemini (as is Clint Eastwood) and a lot of Americans see John Wayne as a hero... but he never spent a day in actual combat. As for Clint Eastwood, I think he did more for the NRA than Charlton Heston!
The common denominator among corporations and the media and politicians they own is they have all refined the art of blaming the victim(s) and rewarding the perpetrator(s).
'Let me be clear. I’m not suggesting that Donald Trump beats his wife (or wives).' Ann, you're far too kind to him. You should've cited the repeated allegations of abuse--sexual, physical and emotional that have dogged the Donald since his time in the Governor's mansion. And all the investigations. As testament to his abusiveness, consider how he managed to manipulate his wife into the role of attack dog against these women. Shameless!
To the contrary, Ms. Jones was pointing out WHY women can see through Trump while so many men identify with him.
But OF COURSE, this understanding is lost on men who think the entire world, not to mention God, is made in THEIR image and likeness... and that is precisely how Trump thinks... so "what's not to like"?
Every critical analysis of Trump does not represent a nod to Mrs. Clinton. Not everyone views the world through narrow binary lenses.
I have pointed this dynamic out for some time and I don't recall you ever supporting me when I did so. Interesting, that you've adopted the insight.
Trump exploits both men & women as objects to achieve his sordid & squalid aims. He is unfit to be POTUS. However, Hillary Clinton is no feminist. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who truly respects women, and all people, to be frank.
Clinton's faux-feminism has been documented by Lisa Featherstone on truthout.org in an article entitled "Hillary Clinton's Faux Feminism" (28 February 2016). Here's an excerpt:
"This is a feminist issue. As the Our Bodies Ourselves organization - authors of the indispensable women's health book of the same name - pointed out in 2009, single-payer health care (also recognizable to US policy wonks as Medicare for All) is the only system in which health care is independent of employment or marriage, both critical considerations, especially for women. Women would benefit more than anyone from single-payer health care; our health-care costs are higher than those of men, and women make up two-thirds of low-wage workers. With an opponent, Bernie Sanders, supporting single-payer, Clinton has been campaigning aggressively against that idea, declaring that we will "never" have such a system in this country. It's not just that she thinks it's not practical; her campaign has even used right-wing arguments that it would raise taxes on the middle class, ignoring the massive savings to middle-class families that would result from such a plan."
Misogyny can come in many forms; from abusive men and callous women. It's gender neutral, and thus, it's important to study carefully the policies of a candidate, and not blindly assume their positions due to their gender or race.
Yes, Ms. Jones is a respected journalist, but it is the height of irresponsible journalism to skewer one national candidate on his attitude towards women while not even mentioning that the current other national candidate is guilty of far worse atrocities towards women, children, and other innocent civilians who get in the way of the candidates's political goals.
No one can deny that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are not currently vying for the same elected office. The lack of an "electoral position" in the article is all the worse precisely because she does NOT mention Hillary Clinton's war crimes, and as a result, the "excellent article" as you put it, devolves to a hit piece on one candidate with a perceived favor towards Ms. Clinton.
If we did not have this intentionally stupid electoral system, in which you only get to vote on one single candidate in each race, almost universally restricted to the "top two" or duopoly candidates, instead of voting your preference on every candidate in each race, with multiple qualifying candidates on the ballot, then there would simply be no "lesser evil" or "wasted vote" arguments.
If we had an intelligent system, like Rank Choice Voting, Score Voting, or Approval Voting, then denunciation of one candidate would NOT be de facto support for "the other" candidate. And instead of "the other" candidate there would be multiple candidates, and your vote would express your assessment of each one.
The endless argument and recrimination between voters about voting, is ENGINEERED by the imposition of the stupidest possible voting system. Check out electology.org.
"These two are the worst of the worst, neither one is worth our vote."
i've said this also in multiple threads, and it bears repeating. BOTH are the greater evil. NEITHER will ever get a vote from me.
Of course he is abusive. And while Jones (who I value as one of our best and most insightful writers) is essentially right there is one statement she made which bothers me because, in reading it, I realized that I've known (and know) a good number of severely abusive and controlling women). Ann Jones writes, "Whether the victim is female or male, the controlling assailant is almost always a man."
I don't disagree with this in absolute numbers at this time. In the past I would have gone along with it. I do take Ann Jones' basic point about domestic abuse translated to bosses and so forth, then I catch myself re-thinking.
I had to stop and reflect. First, there is nothing in being a woman which guarantees honesty, honor, equality and so forth. Nor is there anything in being in an oppressed grouping which does the same. It may just mean that the opportunity to be a central-casting villain hasn't been there yet. Both can be every bit as corrupt and corrosive.
In the DNC both Wasserman-Schultz and Clinton have been abusive and manipulative in terms of control over the party and the electoral results. In the case of HR Clinton there are the war crimes she has been a willing hawk over.
In the case of several women admins I know in academia I've watched tremendously abusive and damaging (to other's careers) and controlling actions wipe out whole divisions, departments and job losses en masse (on that, you could also think of Carly Fiorina). In other areas I've watched women exercise control and isolation in smaller groups, social and arts groups, cutting out other people at whim and undermining those women and men trying to do a job.
The means and methods have some stylistic differences, mostly along social connection lines. And I suspect there are differences as a result of different average body masses (20% larger?) between men and women. I've watched some pretty nasty maneuvering over the years by both men and women. Although women seem a little stealthier about it, I'm not always sure anymore who is scarier in terms of controlling people and destroying people's lives.
I agree with your comment up until this ridiculous statement.
It's been pointed out that the females who do back Trump tend to be of the Christian Conservative persuasion.
Any women who display misogynist tendencies typically are those raised to identify with patriarchal religious beliefs and customs.
The FACT that most corporations, academic institutions, and high government offices are HELD and run by males (the world-over, with Iceland being a notable exception) explains why policies tend to favor war over peace, competition over cooperation, and masculine qualities over feminine ones.
Females who wish to advance within patriarchy either naturally take on these tendencies or feel forced to do so. In other words, they adapt to the world AS it is.
That hardly means that misogyny is "gender neutral." The meaning of the word itself indicates a hostility for females and things feminine.
You're such a coward. Instead of addressing me directly, like a high school sneering teenager, you play this little game.
I OFTEN cite RAY on the things he's noted for. He's one of the best analysts of economic trends who posts here.
By the same token, there are a number of positions that I've put my neck out to explain and/or assert.
As a writer, I don't like when someone lifts one of those without any attribution.
It's courtesy, at a minimum.
Just like the dingdongs who had me flagged for daring to correct stupid spelling errors (that's pretty funny), here you are reinforcing something that can easily be corrected and should be.
Arrogance is found in more males than females. After they do something that they should correct, they'd rather blame the person who points it out.
The reaction to the correction of simple spelling errors is a perfect example.
Actually, original work does hold a copyright. And I typically cut and paste most of my comments so that I have that running history.
MANY of you are paid to sit on your asses here and post. I am not. At a minimum, if someone lifts or borrows an idea that I introduced (and probably stated on multiple occasions), it is the mark of respect to merely make mention of this.
Surely you and your tag team buddies have no problem mentioning the WE item... and doing your utmost to mock it.
It's amazing that like the kids who can't spell and would rather blame me for pointing that out--instead of improving their own writing by correcting their errors; here, too, you make the issue into that of me pointing out a form of boundary-crossing... rather than simply doing the right thing.
Soldier boys, all.
Now that the Barney/Boy's Town dots are being connected predator is indeed the more accurate word in at least some cases.
When a person looks at the many reported incidents of Donald Trump exploiting and oppressing his contractors, vendors, employees and business associates; I don't think it is an unwarranted assumption that he, to varying degrees and methods, treats his spouse the same way.
Regardless of his self-serving defense of his behavior, he is simply a dominating, abusive individual whose ego is front and center and worn on his sleeves. Not only must he win, it is more important that you lose to him.
Exploitative and abusive behavior is inherent to Donald Trump.
Agreed, adding only that in addition to her war crimes and support for others' war crimes (both of the past and continuing) abroad there is her support for repressive criminal and economic laws at home.
That's absurd. I'm a woman, a feminist, and someone who has fought my entire life for equal rights for women; against domestic violence; and have setup rape crisis centers to help rape victims. I've worked with great women; seen helpless & terrorized women; and also, I have seen women who are callous, selfish & as misogynistic as are some abusive men like Trump. I've also known great men who supported women; helped women in need; and who promote women's rights, equal pay, and top positions for women. Bernie Sanders is more of a true feminist than is Clinton. His policies would really help women & children. Clinton's neo-con, neo-liberal policies will help Wall Street & thus Clinton. Trump is out for Trump. Voters need to think deeply instead of voting for the worst or least worst candidates.