There, Clinton seemed to be trying to create another version of Trump’s feud with the Khan family earlier this year, in which Trump wouldn’t be able to restrain himself from insulting a non-politician who criticized him.
But where the Khan controversy had special resonance with military families, the Clinton campaign is hoping to use Machado-gate to further tarnish Trump’s image among women and Hispanics (note that the controversy has been heavily covered in Spanish-language media), and to raise general concerns about his temperament among the electorate.
However, as the controversy simmered this week, some wondered whether the Clinton team had properly vetted Machado — particularly after old stories reemerged that she had been accused of being an accomplice to a murder and of threatening a judge’s life back in Venezuela. (She was never charged, but didn’t exactly deny the old allegations when they were brought up this week.)
But the Clinton campaign clearly isn’t all that worried about what’s in Alicia Machado’s past — instead, they think they think Trump’s temperament and sexism are the real stories here. They seem to love this controversy and want Trump to stay embroiled in this dispute as long as possible.
It was her land, she said, and she was tired of her uncle planting his wheat and grazing his cows on her property without paying rent.
So in April, Leena Sharma traveled from her home in New Delhi to her ancestral village in central India to confront her uncle, a powerful community leader. She planned to build a fence to keep him off her 37 acres — and eventually sell the property.
It was a bold move in a country where patriarchy remains deeply ingrained and where women have long been denied the legal right to own land. For Sharma, the consequences of asserting her property rights would prove deadly. First she disappeared. Then her half-naked corpse was found in a remote forest about six miles away.
This is part of a series about oppression and violence against women in India as a rising generation collides with old social mores.
I don’t really give a damn about your man hating jokes, but some of yall are normalizing girls abusing and controlling their boyfriends.
Fucking stop humiliating your boyfriend in front of his friends, stop making him feel bad/guilty for not spending every single fucking second of his life with you, stop being a petty bitch everytime he doesn’t text back, stop yelling at him or hurting him, stop going batshit when he’s uncomfortable with you going through his phone, fucking stop accusing him of cheating just because he talks to other girls or hangs out with other girls.
I am sick and tired of you guys normalizing this shit. You’re normalizing abuse and yet you guys suddenly can’t read whenever someone calls out these harmful jokes.
If you don’t support controlling and abusive boyfriends, don’t reblog/make jokes of abusive and controlling girlfriends.
Clinton has weathered intrusive, insulting, gendered smear campaigns – cookies,
Benghazi, emails and pneumonia – with a grace rivalled only by Obama’s
unflappable handling of birthers. She swam through tar every single day
of her career and still surpassed male opponents who swam through water.
She has been scrutinised in bad faith and beyond all reason for her
entire campaign (and decades prior), and Republicans have still had to
manufacture baroque, toothless scandals out of dust motes.