Presidential Debate Ethics: The “Have Your One Of Your Adversary’s Husband’s Former Mistresses Sit In The Front Row” Tactic [UPDATED]

"Hi, Hillary! I'm back! Where's Bill sitting?"

“Hi, Hillary! I’m back! Where’s Bill sitting?”

It is being reported that Donald Trump has arranged to have Gennifer Flowers, Bill Clinton’s paramour from the years before his election, sit in the front row of the audience for Monday’s Presidential debate. If true, the objective is obviously to unnerve Hillary.

I hope it is just pre-debate psychological warfare, and that even Donald Trump has more class and couth than to actually do it. What am I saying? The man  has neither, nor any respect for basic decency or fairness, either.  Trump’s capacity to fall below even my low expectations regarding decent and professional conduct continues to amaze.

What adjectives describe this vile tactic of a Master Troll? Let’s see:

  • Cruel
  • Dastardly
  • Mean
  • Rude
  • Unprofessional
  • Unfair
  • Disrespectful
  • Diabolical
  • Typical
  • Risky
  • Amusing
  • Bold
  • Clever
  • Undignified
  • Brilliant
  • Wrong

UNETHICAL.

UPDATE (9/25/160): Trump now says he was just fooling.

30 Comments

Filed under Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Etiquette and manners, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics

30 responses to “Presidential Debate Ethics: The “Have Your One Of Your Adversary’s Husband’s Former Mistresses Sit In The Front Row” Tactic [UPDATED]

  1. Rick M

    Now if he could only get Bill to sit with her then you would really have something.

  2. crella

    Every time I think he has sunk as low as he possibly can, he invents a new low to sink to.

  3. Chris

    You forgot “hypocritical,” since Trump has openly boasted about cheating on both his first two wives.

    • Not hypocritical! Trump is openly a pig and an adulterer. Hillary is the one who claims to be a feminsit advocate while enabling Bill’s sexual predation. No, whatever else, Trump is focusing on Hillary’s hypocrisy. He’s a consistent bastard.

      • Chris

        “enabling Bill’s sexual predation”

        Lots of assumptions packed in there, Jack.

        • Name one. Many of Bill’s victims, including Juanita Broaddrick, say that they received direct threats or warnings engineered by Hillary. She went on the Today Show after the timeline shows she knew about Bill’s Monica Madness and cover-up, and said it was all a lie concocted by a vast right wing conspiracy. A woman who continues to say with her husband and cover up for his affairs is an enabler by DEFINITION.

          So where are the assumptions? I’ve followed this family, Chris. The Clinton Corrupted deflections and lies don’t work with me.

          • Spartan

            Or it could be summed up as denial. No one knows for sure Jack.

            • I know for sure that bald-face lying on national television that what you know to be true is a politically motivated lie by others so you can still use your husband’s sleazy coattails to get elected to the Senate without any relevant experience or connection to the state involved is sure as hell not “denial”, and so do you.

              • I know that a high executive that uses a woman he supervises at the bottom of the totem pole to give him sexual favors is a predator, too. And so does “feminist” Hillary.

                Women who allow their boy friends or husbands to sexually abuse their children aren’t in “denial” either, but that’s what their defenders always claim.

            • Spartan

              My guess is that Hillary stayed in the marriage for political gain, but it’s only that, a guess. I know people (not famous, not politicans) where the spouse stays even when the other has cheated, even egregiously. In some instances both would be fine financially if there was a divorce, so why stay?

              I just take issue with anybody who doesn’t know a couple purporting to state — and do so definitively — what is going on in a marriage.

              • Point taken. But I know what went on at the Today Show.

              • Eternal optometrist

                If Hillary stayed in the marriage for political gain, that’s her decision. Fine. But don’t tell me then you’re the exemplar and defender of women’s rights everywhere. Because you’re not.

                • Spartan

                  One can defend womens’ rights while staying with a husband who cheated.

                  • Eternal optometrist

                    Im not sure about that. But even if you’re right, she did more than stay with him. She marginalized, debased, and humiliated these women. All while protecting the perpetrator. You can’t do that, and stand for women’s rights.

                    • dragin_dragon

                      And you damn sure can’t promote the ‘rape culture’ in which all men are evil. Not when your husband is part of it.

                  • You sure you want to hang your hat there? How about the black rights advocate who enjoys morning coffee with their KKK poobah spouse? How is that materially different?

                    • Rick M.

                      Of course you can be a vocal supporter of whatever the issue of the day is regarding women. The problem is all the snickering from all those non progrssive types who actually can see the hypocracy.

            • Rich in CT

              “Denial” is by definition willful ignorance, and is itself unethical.

              • dragin_dragon

                “Denial” is, by definition, a defense mechanism, and is NOT, therefore, per se unethical. HRC was not, however, in denial. She wilfully, and with aforethought went to the defense of a philandering husband, with her political future in mind. No more, no less.

  4. E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

    This may sound mean, but it isn’t. And it may sound as if I offer one iota of support to Trump, but I don’t.

    Here’s the situation as I see it: What, exactly, has Hillary done to deserve one ounce of respect, fair play, honor, or even pity by her competition? I admit Trump is a pig and a frightening prospect as POTUS, but in this case at least he’s a somewhat creative pig, while Hillary: presents herself as a feminist while riding the coattails of her philandering husband for year, blaming that vast right-wing conspiracy for filling us full of lies she really can’t refute, lies all the time about almost everything, is not called to task for it, and wonders why there is a group of hateful morons out there who would vote for a lawn chair, or worse, Trump, to keep her out of the White House. If all that is not bad enough, her sense of entitlement in leading the ruling class while pretending there isn’t one is just as reprehensible as her pretense that she speaks for the little people, women, children, blah, blah blah.

    The only reason I hope Trump does not put Flowers in the debate audience is that it would provide just another new low in Presidential politics. But be honest here: it’s both of them, not just Trump. He may want to make her uncomfortable; she wants to make him — and more important — those who will vote for him as the lesser of two evils — as totally marginalized and un-American. Should she not have some inkling that she is part of the problem, and that she, personally, helped to create Trump?

    I despise them both equally, for different reasons. But I despise them both.

    • I am speaking in general in the following comment.

      I get the neener neener thing, but conservatives, while being losers in previous Presidential elections, could usually be counted on to demonstrate class and surround themselves with people capable of doing the same. They, at the very least, were able to avoid being openly childish.

      To be fair, liberals prior to Clinton usually behaved in public with dignity as well.

      Now, no one in public life behaves well.
      Ever.

  5. dragin_dragon

    And, to be fair, this threat was in response to a threat by Mark Cuban to come to the debate and sit on the front row. As you may be aware, Mr. Cuban is an avid Clinton supporter. Trump, in his Twitter rant, threatened to have Ms. Flowers sit “right next to” Cuban.

    • Not even close to equivalent, however. One is a business rival and a Hillary supporter. The other is part of a personal humiliation. One is politics, the other is below the belt, literally and figuratively.

  6. Phil Alperson

    Wait!  So Gennifer Flowers slept with a married man and prostituted herself for years throughout the nedia to cash in on this, her only claim to fame, and she is (again) proud to exploit her sinful behavior in a massively public way? Is she saying the Bill was the only bad guy in that matter?  And, wait!   Bill isn’t running for office again is he? This is a Steve Bannon and David Bossie doing what they do best — sleaze over substance.  

    Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

  7. ….. even Donald Trump has more class and couth than to actually do it

    Drink warning next time please.

  8. bonnibrai

    Why not just have the debates on radio without any audience at all?This whole bit with loading the audience with favorable/hostile members is a farce in my view.

  9. Wayne

    I think I’d go with amusing and risky. “The Debate” could turn into an episode resembling the Jerry Springer Show.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s