Former Latina Miss Universe: Trump called me "Miss Housekeeping" "Miss Piggy"

[Ebsy]

https://twitter.com/mattlewisBU/status/780594950673096705

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

https://twitter.com/mattlewisBU/status/780594950673096705

These are Spanish speakers in the US? If so, is it a poll on support or on who's winning the debate?

[Ebsy]

I'd assume Univision viewers (who are mostly Spanish speakers), and it is for winning the debate.

[psychprofessor]

Anderson Cooper is having Alicia Machado on his show tonight...

[Green Line]

Its pronounced latinX

[Virginiá]

But I want to go on record as saying that I don't believe this will have any negative long-term effects on his campaign. At worst, there will be a temporary halt to his upward trajectory, but that should end within 2-3 weeks and we'll begin seeing him recover again.

You're probably right that this will only have a temporary effect, but it could also serve to bring Millennials back to her. Not to say it'll be thee saving grace, but on top of her increasing attention to Millennials and huge investment in media for them, it should begin to move those numbers. If she recovers enough among Millennials, she can get her comfortable, consistent lead back.

However, it also seems inaccurate to think Trump is the only one who can make real gains at this point. Who is to say Hillary doesn't take control of the race after this? I'm not saying she will, but just because Trump has been gaining the past month doesn't mean that it will continue forever.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Remember: Trump is winning because of people's "anxieties about the economy".

There are tens of millions of voters who don't care about job security but get really motivated to support someone just so long as they are insulting to women?

Alas, yes.

As demonstrated by that famous slogan of James Carville that won the '92 campaign "It's the philandery stupid!"

[Maxwell]

Remember: Trump is winning because of people's "anxieties about the economy".

There are tens of millions of voters who don't care about job security but get really motivated to support someone just so long as they are insulting to women?

I suppose it would make sense if Trump had any sort of coherent economic message. He doesn't.

[Badger]

Remember: Trump is winning because of people's "anxieties about the economy".

There are tens of millions of voters who don't care about job security but get really motivated to support someone just so long as they are insulting to women?

no. vice versa. which is why Trump still has a narrrow shot.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The woman who doesn't have any command of English was given US citizenship by Obama to spread her lies. 

What do you care? You live in Russia.

[Ebsy]

There are citizens of the United States that aren't masters of the English language. One of them even managed to get himself nominated by a major party for President of the United States.

[Maxwell]

There are citizens of the United States that aren't masters of the English language. One of them even managed to get himself nominated by a major party for President of the United States.

hey man, he knows words, he has the best words. He knows more than Merriam Webster, who by the way was totally low energy with his dictionary.

[Badger]

The woman who doesn't have any command of English was given US citizenship by Obama to spread her lies. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7

[elcorazon]

Battleground Texas!

[ProudModerate2]

Be prepared to see 30 second commercials on this topic (trump blunder) in October.
Especially in places like Nevada, Florida, Colorado and maybe North Carolina, Arizona.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Maybe Lester Holt could ask Hillary about this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3810484/Miss-Universe-fat-shamed-Donald-Trump-accused-threatening-kill-judge-accomplice-MURDER-native-Venezuela.html

I'm for giving the former Miss Universe the exact degree of credibility that Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Brodderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, et al have received from the red avatars here, from Bill Clinton (who made this post possible) and Hillary Clinton, who orchestrated the "Nuts and Sluts" discrediting campaign.

Of course, if we're going to believe Miss Universe is on the level here (and I wouldn't doubt for a minute if her story is true, at least in major part), then maybe it's time to give Juanita Brodderick and Kathleen Willey (especially those two) the same level of credibility, so America can decide how it feels about a former President groping victims and a future President shaming and intimidating victims.  Fair is fair, isn't it?  Or does a red avatar on Atlas give you special privileges in picking and choosing victims?

I'm not condoning Trump.  He's a pig at certain levels.  He's not my idea of a role model for my sons, any of them.  But Bill and Hillary Clinton aren't any better role models than Donald Trump, at least not in this arena of life.

[Virginiá]

Of course, if we're going to believe Miss Universe is on the level here (and I wouldn't doubt for a minute if her story is true, at least in major part), then maybe it's time to give Juanita Brodderick and Kathleen Willey (especially those two) the same level of credibility, so America can decide how it feels about a former President groping victims and a future President shaming and intimidating victims.  Fair is fair, isn't it?  Or does a red avatar on Atlas give you special privileges in picking and choosing victims?

Trump himself admits to the general issue of him being upset at her being fat and there is video of him remarking on it numerous times, even recently, in addition to that disgusting press conference he called long ago to shame her. Given Trump's behavior and his propensity to insult just about everyone, as we have seen so, so many times the past year, it's really not a stretch at all to believe he called her those names.

Compared to some women making claims about a high profile, powerful politician. Why should I believe completely unsubstantiated rape claims against Bill? Does he have a proven history of rape like Trump has a proven history of denigrating people both on and off camera, even to this day?

These aren't remotely the same. So, no, they don't get the same level of credibility and I'm rather surprised you're even making these connections.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Of course, if we're going to believe Miss Universe is on the level here (and I wouldn't doubt for a minute if her story is true, at least in major part), then maybe it's time to give Juanita Brodderick and Kathleen Willey (especially those two) the same level of credibility, so America can decide how it feels about a former President groping victims and a future President shaming and intimidating victims.  Fair is fair, isn't it?  Or does a red avatar on Atlas give you special privileges in picking and choosing victims?

Trump himself admits to the general issue of him being upset at her being fat and there is video of him remarking on it numerous times, even recently, in addition to that disgusting press conference he called long ago to shame her. Given Trump's behavior and his propensity to insult just about everyone, as we have seen so, so many times the past year, it's really not a stretch at all to believe he called her those names.

Compared to some women making claims about a high profile, powerful politician. Why should I believe completely unsubstantiated rape claims against Bill? Does he have a proven history of rape like Trump has a proven history of denigrating people both on and off camera, even to this day?

These aren't remotely the same. So, no, they don't get the same level of credibility and I'm rather surprised you're even making these connections.

I'm making the connection for two (2) reasons:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/14/hillary_clinton_women_should_be_believed_when_they_claim_rape_have_to_increase_prevention.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Upon reflection, Mrs. Clinton saw fit to update her website:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741760/Hillary-Clinton-s-website-removed-promise-believe-sexual-assault-survivors-emergence-Bill-Clinton-Juanita-Broaddrick-historic-rape-allegations.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is talking out of both sides of your mouth on a major issue that even Trump couldn't approach.  And what we're talking about are violent felony offenses against female victims who, often, lack the ability to defend themselves adequately (in every sense of the word) against the attack.  I'll let the reader think for themselves as to how bad this particular hypocrisy stinks.  But Hillary is terrified that she'll have to apply her own standards on the subject of sexual assault to Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, and who knows who else. 

Trump may be a scumbag, but Hillary is actually worse.  That's how bad a situation our nation is in today.

[ag]

Trump may be a scumbag, but Hillary is actually worse.  That's how bad a situation our nation is in today.

You have no clue what the words "better" or "worse", "good" or "evil" mean. That is the extent to which you have lost any moral compass.

[Virginiá]

This is talking out of both sides of your mouth on a major issue that even Trump couldn't approach.

He contradicts himself on what, a weekly basis? But that is a whole other conversation.

I'm a little bit confused as to your logic here - You said we should treat those women's accusations as credible, but why would should I treat them as credible based on Hillary's blatantly obvious pandering-gone-wrong? Just because someone claims rape doesn't mean I'm going to suspend my burden of proof and immediately assume they are telling the truth. I am sympathetic, but I also have to weigh a multitude of factors. I can't just take everyone at their word. Otherwise, by that standard, I could go out tomorrow and falsely claim that someone who slighted me in the past had recently raped me, and I would be automatically believed and thus destroy that person's life just because of this non-existent burden of proof. We simply do not live in a world where everyone automatically deserves that kind of blind trust. I wish we did, but we don't. Fortunately for Miss Universe, there a whole lot of reason to believe Trump actually did say that given his non-stop name calling and insults this election, and apparently now a new former beauty queen has come forward also backing Miss Universe up on Trump's fat-shaming antics.

I wholeheartedly reject your argument.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump may be a scumbag, but Hillary is actually worse.  That's how bad a situation our nation is in today.

You have no clue what the words "better" or "worse", "good" or "evil" mean. That is the extent to which you have lost any moral compass.

I know that it is better to be an obnoxious cad than to commit sexual assault, or actively discredit a victim of sexual assault when there is something in it for me in making the allegation go away.

I know it is better to tell the truth under oath, even when it is in your best interest not to do so (if you believe you can get away with it) then it is to lie.

I know it is better to be faithful to your spouse than to cheat.

After the Clinton Administration, I gained the credentials to be a facilitator of Batterers Intervention Program groups.  It was an experience that enabled me to see domestic violence and female victims in an entirely different light.  I could talk at length about that, but one thing I remember is how victims were frequently disparaged by perpetrators who called them, essentially, nuts and sluts and liars.  These perpetrators, at best, minimized their behaviors, and, at worst, denied them, and blamed their partners.  I remember one group member who denied the allegations and called his partner a liar.  In the midst of his groups, he was arrested for a new incident.  One group member told another group member (in my presence) of this person's rearrest.  The other group member, who never confronted the newly arrested person in group, excitedly uttered, "AGAIN???"  It was incredibly difficult to bring these folks to come to the point where they would take even a minimum of responsibility for their actions.

It is through these lenses that I now see Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick.  They were victimized, they wanted to be believed, they were attacked for disclosing their victimization, and they were called liars and crazies by folks who had credibility in their lives.  It would be enough for a victim if their family, their boss, and their significant other didn't believe they were beaten or sexually assaulted, but imagine if your perpetrator went on to be President, and then, after you have been actively discredited by THE PRESIDENT'S WIFE, events turn to where the President's wife is on the cusp of the Presidency herself.  How blown would your mind be?

I will also say this to many of the females here who would consider themselves feminists:  Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey are women who have been victimized and who have every reason to believe that the Feminist Movement has sold them out for the glory Hillary will bring their movement.  I hope you can honestly reflect on this.  Judas Iscariot betrayed the Savior for 30 pieces of gold, after which he couldn't bear living with himself for even 12 hours.  Ask yourselves if you are not the Judas Iscariot of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is talking out of both sides of your mouth on a major issue that even Trump couldn't approach.

He contradicts himself on what, a weekly basis? But that is a whole other conversation.

I'm a little bit confused as to your logic here - You said we should treat those women's accusations as credible, but why would should I treat them as credible based on Hillary's blatantly obvious pandering-gone-wrong? Just because someone claims rape doesn't mean I'm going to suspend my burden of proof and immediately assume they are telling the truth. I am sympathetic, but I also have to weigh a multitude of factors. I can't just take everyone at their word. Otherwise, by that standard, I could go out tomorrow and falsely claim that someone who slighted me in the past had recently raped me, and I would be automatically believed and thus destroy that person's life just because of this non-existent burden of proof. We simply do not live in a world where everyone automatically deserves that kind of blind trust. I wish we did, but we don't. Fortunately for Miss Universe, there a whole lot of reason to believe Trump actually did say that given his non-stop name calling and insults this election, and apparently now a new former beauty queen has come forward also backing Miss Universe up on Trump's fat-shaming antics.

I wholeheartedly reject your argument.

You reject my argument because accepting it requires you to consider rejecting your candidate, even if you vote for that candidate. 

I should also state that I'm not for lowering the standard of proof in sexual assault or domestic violence trials.  Of course there are false allegations.  But Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick were intimidated by the power of the Clinton White House AFTER their victimization.  Their allegations have, by no means, been proven false.

The solution, of course, would be for Bill Clinton to take a polygraph exam on these issues.  There is no shortage of qualified polygraphers who would be able to constitute a test that would produce a valid result.  If he's not facing the possibility of criminal charges and he's not guilty, why wouldn't he do such a thing?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I read the short form of this thread title as 'Former Latin Mass' and wondered for a moment what the Trad-Cats are hot and bothered about now.

[Lyin' Steve]

Trump may be a scumbag, but Hillary is actually worse.  That's how bad a situation our nation is in today.

You have no clue what the words "better" or "worse", "good" or "evil" mean. That is the extent to which you have lost any moral compass.

I know that it is better to be an obnoxious cad than to commit sexual assault, or actively discredit a victim of sexual assault when there is something in it for me in making the allegation go away.

I know it is better to tell the truth under oath, even when it is in your best interest not to do so (if you believe you can get away with it) then it is to lie.

I know it is better to be faithful to your spouse than to cheat.

After the Clinton Administration, I gained the credentials to be a facilitator of Batterers Intervention Program groups.  It was an experience that enabled me to see domestic violence and female victims in an entirely different light.  I could talk at length about that, but one thing I remember is how victims were frequently disparaged by perpetrators who called them, essentially, nuts and sluts and liars.  These perpetrators, at best, minimized their behaviors, and, at worst, denied them, and blamed their partners.  I remember one group member who denied the allegations and called his partner a liar.  In the midst of his groups, he was arrested for a new incident.  One group member told another group member (in my presence) of this person's rearrest.  The other group member, who never confronted the newly arrested person in group, excitedly uttered, "AGAIN???"  It was incredibly difficult to bring these folks to come to the point where they would take even a minimum of responsibility for their actions.

It is through these lenses that I now see Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick.  They were victimized, they wanted to be believed, they were attacked for disclosing their victimization, and they were called liars and crazies by folks who had credibility in their lives.  It would be enough for a victim if their family, their boss, and their significant other didn't believe they were beaten or sexually assaulted, but imagine if your perpetrator went on to be President, and then, after you have been actively discredited by THE PRESIDENT'S WIFE, events turn to where the President's wife is on the cusp of the Presidency herself.  How blown would your mind be?

I will also say this to many of the females here who would consider themselves feminists:  Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey are women who have been victimized and who have every reason to believe that the Feminist Movement has sold them out for the glory Hillary will bring their movement.  I hope you can honestly reflect on this.  Judas Iscariot betrayed the Savior for 30 pieces of gold, after which he couldn't bear living with himself for even 12 hours.  As yourselves if you are not the Judas Iscariot of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. 

Dude, Clinton is one of the most charismatic men of the last century, it's well known that he's a ladies man, he was extremely ambitious and knew he'd have a highly public career in politics from the time he was in college, do you really think he had to resort to raping women?  The guy was probably able to charm the pants off of most girls at the time, but instead he risked his life and entire career to rape some random married 36-year-old nursing home admin in a city he was visiting during his run for governor?  Doesn't that strike you as a bit implausible?

As for Kathleen Willey, who's been showboating the case ever since and launched an anti-Clinton website, she was a known and proven liar and manipulator, there was testimony from her close associates that she had asked them to join her in lying, she couldn't even keep her own story straight and her story was different from Linda Tripp's story about her.  Not only is there insufficient evidence to believe she's telling the truth, there's more than sufficient evidence to believe she's a liar.  Yet you and your Clinton sex scandal friends rotate these women's stories as soon as people forget them.  People have figured out he didn't rape Flowers?  On to Willey.  People have figured out he didn't rape Willey?  On to Broaddrick.  It's pathetic.

[Virginiá]

You reject my argument because accepting it requires you to consider rejecting your candidate, even if you vote for that candidate.  

I just wrote a big post explaining why I'm rejecting your argument, and you just sort of make this up and make that whole effort pointless. Great lol

It has taken me a while, but I'm slowly beginning to realize in my own way why arguing over the internet is so utterly pointless. I write this whole post about standards of proof, then you just say what amounts to "but you're for hillary clinton so that's why", then you go on to say you're not for lowering the burden of proof but THEN proceed to say 2 women who have absolutely not even remotely met a reasonable burden of proof should be believed, because..? Oh, right, Clinton I guess.

You can respond if you want, but I'm letting you know I'm not even going to read the post because so far you're just leading me in circles, selectively ignoring points made and tossing erroneous assumptions about my motives to bolster your argument. If it makes you feel better, then I guess you could say you won this argument by attrition!