he figured out how to touch the pulse of the disgruntled white man and folks in the south and he was able to parlay that to becoming the republican nominee. it really does show you how unhappy republicans were with their party.

but he also proved to be a grade A idiot b/c becoming the republican nominee was the tough part...pivoting to look more presidential would've won him the election since so many people don't like hillary. that was the EASY part and he just flat out blew it.

so he's either very very very dumb...or this run for president was for alterior motives (i.e. starting his own news channel).

if trump really cares about the country, then let's see what he does after he loses. 100% odds that hillary would still continue as a public servant if she loses. trump? well i'm not holding my breath and that will tell you if this guy was actually serious about helping america.

earthmansurfer wrote:You put words in my mouth regarding FOX. I know them from regular programming, as opposed to a cable news network. How do you just quote what suits you and ignore what I say?

What relevance does the Fox-owned broadcast TV network have to this discourse.

When you say you are unfamiliar with cable news, it is fair to assume that extends to the highest-rated cable news network.

The point you're trying to make now escapes me.

The link I posted was to say, I am aware it was incorrect but many people thought the same. You are gonna hold it against me for reporting what many reported? You never did that? You further research EVERYTHING you hear? Come on now. So, you don't seem to understand what I said, thus far. Maybe ask for clarification instead of demean and accuse.

Again, what is the relevance of of the fact other people believed something to be factual incorrect.

It is a given there are racist ignorant, misinformed people out there who believed (and still do) ridiculous things about President Obama. That is not in dispute and never have been. So what was your point of reminding us of this fact?

The obvious? I think we both see we are being systematically lied to. Is that fair?
Whether Trump or Clinton get elected, it is a crap shoot of corruption? Who is less likely to start a war?
I think Donald Trump is less likely to use force for what I've seen. I know Hillary likes using force (e.g. Iraq, Libya, etc.)
I know Trump likes making money, however inept at times he may be.

Then you're ignoring what's right in front of you. Trump reacts to the slightest of slights like a angry child. He's demonstrated a total ignorance and disdain of diplomacy. He's openly questioned whether he'd honor treaties.

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:-12 women accusing Trump so far...

For fairness:

Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.

A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home operator, told NBC's Lisa Myers five weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC shelved the interview, saying they were confirming all parts of the story, but finally aired it Wednesday night.

Broaddrick finally took her story to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal rape at the hands of the future President, followed by The Washington Post and some other publications.

But Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that Broaddrick's story is only one account of many attempted and actual sexual assaults by Clinton that go back 30 years. Among the other incidents:

Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

Bill Clinton isn't running for President..

Yeah, he was president. lol
And now he will be back in the White House again. What is he gonna do with all that time?

For the millionth time - what does this have to do with Hillary's fitness to be president? This reminds me of Obama being blamed for the words of Rev. Wright and the deeds of Bill Ayers 40 years ago. This republican strategy of guilt by association will not work. Trump's action isn't offset by the actions of his opponent's husband. And Trump should be happy nobody is bringing up the ACTIVE child rape case he's defending himself against as we speak.

In my opnion it was a real whiff for Hillary. She should never had engaged Trump with that stuff. She should have simply said when Trump brought this stuff up "how does making accusations about Bill Clinton make you a better president or leader?"

fishmike wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:-12 women accusing Trump so far...

For fairness:

Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.

A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home operator, told NBC's Lisa Myers five weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC shelved the interview, saying they were confirming all parts of the story, but finally aired it Wednesday night.

Broaddrick finally took her story to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal rape at the hands of the future President, followed by The Washington Post and some other publications.

But Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that Broaddrick's story is only one account of many attempted and actual sexual assaults by Clinton that go back 30 years. Among the other incidents:

Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

Bill Clinton isn't running for President..

Yeah, he was president. lol
And now he will be back in the White House again. What is he gonna do with all that time?

For the millionth time - what does this have to do with Hillary's fitness to be president? This reminds me of Obama being blamed for the words of Rev. Wright and the deeds of Bill Ayers 40 years ago. This republican strategy of guilt by association will not work. Trump's action isn't offset by the actions of his opponent's husband. And Trump should be happy nobody is bringing up the ACTIVE child rape case he's defending himself against as we speak.

Well... its the "your candidate is just as bad" and that is the relevance. If the attack on Trump is his poor treatment and view of women than perhaps Hillary isn't any better. If she enabled Bill, knew about his exploits and if any of those involved sexual assault than its quite a hypocritical stance for Hillary. How can Hillary be pro-woman when she enabled her own husband's sexual misconducts? Its not MY stance, but that is the argument.

In my opnion it was a real whiff for Hillary. She should never had engaged Trump with that stuff. She should have simply said when Trump brought this stuff up "how does making accusations about Bill Clinton make you a better president or leader?"

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I am not familiar with cable news networks to be honest. Thanks for mentioning it though. I'm really on the periphery through this all. (Getting most of my news online but also through "TV" on youtube.)

You're genuinely claiming to be unaware of the known slant of Fox News and who Rupert Murdoch is?

Who you're describing is someone who sounds massively uninformed.

earthmansurfer wrote:For something so simple, why did Obama spend millions (I heard) defending where he was born?
I don't think he was really ever officially investigated for being a non US born citizen, was he?

Annnnd... then you confirm it.

He didn't.

And no, he was not. Because there was no credible evidence to warrant an official investigation.

You don't launch an investigation based on racist fantasies.

Where did I say I'm unaware of Fox News and their slant, nor Rupert Murdoch. I said cable news networks, last I lived in the States, I got FOX on TV. Regardless...

"I am not familiar with cable news networks to be honest."

There.

Fox News is a cable news network.

And excuse me for citing what was reported elsewhere. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/12/donald-trump/donald-trump-claims-obama-has-spent-2-million-lega/

The link you cited dismisses the claim $2m was spent on what you claim (you heard) it was spent on.

You don't seem to understand the conclusion of the very thing you're citing.

Do you not see the bigger point in this all? Can you look past the personal? There is NO winner here. If Trump by some miracle did win, I wouldn't celebrate it, I would just think there is less of a chance of war.

I have little interest in the rhetorical platitude of whether there is a winner in the result. At this point in time there is NEVER going to be a winner under any circumstances. The electorate is too apathetic, misinformed and self-interested in produce a win-win presidential administration.

The entire premise of your argument is irrelevant.

Now as to why you think Donald Trump is less inclined to use force to get his way and less inclined towards resolving disputes through open conflict is another manner.

Are you not paying attention to the obvious?

Knickoftime, you are restoring my faith in humanity and reason with your posts, thank you.

earthmansurfer: Trump is warring with his own highly-ranked party leaders including the Speaker of the House who is right after the VP in presidential succession, the Chairman of the Armed Services committee... disagreeing with Pence on major foreign policy points they haven't discussed yet. So how can you be even sure that Trump won't do this or do that... it seems clear he does what he wants to do, which isn't necessarily the wise thing to do. Saying you know that Hillary is worse is entirely speculation on his goals and temperament that everyday seems more erratic.

And earthman keeps talking about "wars" he fears Hillary will lead us into. I don't know why we don't put an asterisk after any "war" fought by the US since Korea. Then-Senator Clinton is blamed by Trump for getting us into Iraq but she wasn't alone. But she is guilty of abdicating her constitutional responsibility to the executive out of groupthink vengeance lubbed up with shoddy intel. Congress has the sole authority to declare war. They used to at least hide that fact by calling everything "Operation [Somebullsht]". I'm really tired of all the ignorance of my "fellow Americans"... I'm not perfect of course. My Canadian family can't understand what is going on here.

I see both candidates as weak. But neither you, nor the other pro Hillary people, don'T really seem to mention much negativity about Hillary, citing her experience. Just doesn't feel right as she is very flawed, not to mention serious health questions.

Look, you name call and talk derogatorily, too often. It isn't interesting for me to defend my opinion (much)against that.

I don't trust Hillary, like I don't trust Bill. Their history is clear. This is not to say that I think Trump won't be a problem. But that is an IF, with Hillary and
Bill, we already know. And again, I have more worries with corrupt politicians over corrupt businessman. And I don't think Hillary serves people, she is in "the club".
If you want to know more about it, just look into the man Bill Clinton praised: "In 1991, Clinton named Quigley as an important influence on his aspirations and political philosophy, when Clinton launched his presidential campaign in a speech at Georgetown.[2]:96 He mentioned Quigley again during his acceptance speech to the 1992 Democratic National Convention" WIKI
Free Summary version of CQ's incredible work and huge historical work, where he describes just who Bill/Hillary and the rest of the club, do who what they do (and names names). http://www.joeplummer.com/tragedy-and-hope-101 There it is, laid out by Bill Clintons mentor. (well, that is the summary, the original book is quite a work to get through.)

Agreed about declaring war, getting old, but standard practice...

Don't find solace in other like minded individuals.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." K

I looked up the Joseph Plummer link you posted and skimmed, and looked up Quigley. Not sure what you are trying to point out: The Clintons are a part of a semi-secret multinational club of oligarchs? Sure, I can imagine that. But imagination is not evidence. I will not have the time or desire to go through that link or the book itself.

I'm all for using a variety of sources to get a fuller picture, but I've been down that conspiracy theory road back when it was self-published books, before websites were popular. Easy to get lost in the weeds, and usually ends up with some version of the Illuminati. Despite whatever shreds of the truth remain, I dismiss any InfoWars video without reservation. Alex Jones is a loon.

I do apologize for name calling. I should just leave counterarguments to posters like Knickoftime who can respond more calmly. Perhaps I've just had enough.

fishmike wrote:

Welpee wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:-12 women accusing Trump so far...

For fairness:

Women have been charging Bill Clinton with sexual assault since his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford 30 years ago.

A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas nursing home operator, told NBC's Lisa Myers five weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC shelved the interview, saying they were confirming all parts of the story, but finally aired it Wednesday night.

Broaddrick finally took her story to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal rape at the hands of the future President, followed by The Washington Post and some other publications.

But Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that Broaddrick's story is only one account of many attempted and actual sexual assaults by Clinton that go back 30 years. Among the other incidents:

Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

Bill Clinton isn't running for President..

Yeah, he was president. lol
And now he will be back in the White House again. What is he gonna do with all that time?

For the millionth time - what does this have to do with Hillary's fitness to be president? This reminds me of Obama being blamed for the words of Rev. Wright and the deeds of Bill Ayers 40 years ago. This republican strategy of guilt by association will not work. Trump's action isn't offset by the actions of his opponent's husband. And Trump should be happy nobody is bringing up the ACTIVE child rape case he's defending himself against as we speak.

Well... its the "your candidate is just as bad" and that is the relevance. If the attack on Trump is his poor treatment and view of women than perhaps Hillary isn't any better. If she enabled Bill, knew about his exploits and if any of those involved sexual assault than its quite a hypocritical stance for Hillary. How can Hillary be pro-woman when she enabled her own husband's sexual misconducts? Its not MY stance, but that is the argument.

In my opnion it was a real whiff for Hillary. She should never had engaged Trump with that stuff. She should have simply said when Trump brought this stuff up "how does making accusations about Bill Clinton make you a better president or leader?"

Do you have any women in your life? Sisters, cousins, friends, wife or girlfriend? Blaming the victim is really lame. Again, the party of "family values" is crucifying someone who kept her family together despite horrendous circumstances versus bailing out? So you have more respect for someone like Trump who treats marriage like buying a car and trading in his wife every few years for a newer model?

Whoa fella... you seemed to miss my last sentence, but I bolded it for you. Where do I say any of the things you are jumping on me for? I simply stated the purpose behind Trump's attacks on Bill. You said it has no relevance, and if what Trump is saying is true or partially true Hillary has plenty of warts there also. That's it. Not I love Trump. Not I think Trump is better than Hillary. Not that I think Trump is better for women. I simply said that in a discussion of treating women, that Bill's history has relevance when you talk about Hillary's potential role there. That's it man. Just focus on the words I wrote, not the ones I didn't.

My "knock" on Hillary is she should not have engaged him on this, and should have simply turn it back on Trump. Instead she engaged him, and every time she does that there is more noise, and the more noise the better for Don. That his game. If nothing can be trusted, if nothing is at it seems, then you simply go with your gut and pick who you think is best. That is Don's plan. He cant match her record, he lies constantly, but he does take advantage of how unliked she is, which lets him hammer home his bumper sticker mottos with no substance.

Knickoftime wrote:

fishmike wrote:My "knock" on Hillary is she should not have engaged him on this, and should have simply turn it back on Trump. Instead she engaged him, and every time she does that there is more noise, and the more noise the better for Don. That his game. If nothing can be trusted, if nothing is at it seems, then you simply go with your gut and pick who you think is best. That is Don's plan. He cant match her record, he lies constantly, but he does take advantage of how unliked she is, which lets him hammer home his bumper sticker mottos with no substance.

I'd question endorsing the political wisdom of this strategy. I'd even question this is an actual intentional strategy.

Right now, the focus in solely on Trump, and as Mark Halperin wisely said the other day, any day the focus is on trump, it is a day it is not on Clinton, making it a lost day.

He's losing and has been losing ground every day since the 1st debate. Hard to imagine it getting any better any time soon.

He's not going to white noise his way up that hill.

Little known fact. For votes cast on election day 2012, Obama and Romney were tied. But Obama killed him on early voting. THAT was where the margin was.

Early voting is going on right now. This race won't be decided on Nov. 8. It is being decided as we speak.

This is such a weird argument. The focus is on both of them all the time. Every discussion about Trump brings people out of the woodwork to lay equal blame on Hillary. Whether that's accurate or even useful is a completely different issue. But 6 weeks from the election the focus is not on one over the other is too intertwined. I think, I agree with Fishmike's premise. P

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-13/trump-said-to-block-campaign-s-requests-to-do-self-opposition-research

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump rebuffed political aides’ requests to research his past, people familiar with the matter said, a decision that contributed to his campaign being caught unprepared for the past week’s barrage of claims he mistreated women.

Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager, requested that Trump submit himself to a forensic evaluation that is traditional for any public figure seeking office, according to people granted anonymity to speak freely about the campaign’s start-up days last year. Opposition research would allow Trump’s new political team to prepare for potential attacks on his candidacy.

Paul Manafort and his team made a similar request when they took over the reins after Lewandowski, who was ousted this June.

Trump declined, the people said, and the issue became a point of contention among his closest political advisers and some long-time employees at the Trump Organization. Trump spokespeople Jason Miller and Hope Hicks didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Now, Trump is fighting an onslaught of scrutiny of his behavior toward women, less than one month before voters cast final judgment on him and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Some of the scrutiny is a result of Trump’s own words, including in a 2005 video that surfaced Friday where he bragged about being able to do “anything” to women because of his fame.

Both the New York Times and People magazine reported fresh allegations Wednesday from women who say Trump touched them inappropriately, without their consent. The candidate has flatly denied all accusations, tweeting that the incidents never happened.
Trump Tower Huddle

Roger Stone and Michael Cohen, two of Trump’s earliest advisers, also advocated for a forensic research effort to be conducted when Trump was considering running for governor, but Trump declined.

Keep up with the race of a lifetime.
Get our politics newsletter daily.

In the months before Trump announced his presidential candidacy in June 2015, Lewandowski huddled with a small team of aides in Trump Tower to prepare for his candidacy. They knew early on that Trump would rely on an abundance of free media and utilize his celebrity appeal to bolster crowd sizes that they anticipated would dwarf a packed Republican field of candidates. His unpredictability, they argued, would be an asset.

But they also recognized it would be a liability. His new political team wondered about the secrets that might be lurking in the real-estate developer and TV personality’s past—beyond the pages of New York City tabloids, where the candidate, who is now 70, was a regular feature for his entire adult life.

Republican National Committee officials conducted opposition research on Trump and the other members of the GOP field, one of the people familiar with the matter said, but the results yielded nothing substantial. There was no mention, for example, of the 2005 Access Hollywood tape that the Washington Post first reported last week, sending Trump’s campaign into crisis.

Lewandowski, according to people familiar with the matter, did prepare research regarding Trump’s positions on the Iraq War (Trump has said he opposed the war from the beginning, though he said in a radio interview prior to the invasion that he supported the war). Lewandowski also researched how to respond to criticism during the Republican primary that Trump had given money to Democrats.

Trump’s decision not to bless a full opposition research effort about himself was seen inside the campaign as one of the first in a series of unconventional decisions that Trump would make. Indeed, while Trump’s inner circle has gone through various iterations, his political advisers still do not know the extent of the material his opponents may have prepared to mount against him.

“I don’t know what’s out there,” said Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, who took the job this August, on Fox News on Wednesday. “There’s no way for me to know what is and isn’t out there.”
Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

fishmike wrote:My "knock" on Hillary is she should not have engaged him on this, and should have simply turn it back on Trump. Instead she engaged him, and every time she does that there is more noise, and the more noise the better for Don. That his game. If nothing can be trusted, if nothing is at it seems, then you simply go with your gut and pick who you think is best. That is Don's plan. He cant match her record, he lies constantly, but he does take advantage of how unliked she is, which lets him hammer home his bumper sticker mottos with no substance.

I'd question endorsing the political wisdom of this strategy. I'd even question this is an actual intentional strategy.

Right now, the focus in solely on Trump, and as Mark Halperin wisely said the other day, any day the focus is on trump, it is a day it is not on Clinton, making it a lost day.

He's losing and has been losing ground every day since the 1st debate. Hard to imagine it getting any better any time soon.

He's not going to white noise his way up that hill.

Little known fact. For votes cast on election day 2012, Obama and Romney were tied. But Obama killed him on early voting. THAT was where the margin was.

Early voting is going on right now. This race won't be decided on Nov. 8. It is being decided as we speak.

This is such a weird argument. The focus is on both of them all the time. Every discussion about Trump brings people out of the woodwork to lay equal blame on Hillary. Whether that's accurate or even useful is a completely different issue. But 6 weeks from the election the focus is not on one over the other is too intertwined. I think, I agree with Fishmike's premise. P

I don't know. I've had a completely different experience than you two.

The focus has been almost entirely on Trump since the first debate and that only intensified on Friday.

Yes, there have been attempts to turn the focus onto Clinton (much of it the wrong Clinton, however), I don't dispute that, but again in my experience it isn't sticking the way the Trump stuff is sticking to him.

There is one candidate in this race openly warring with the Republican Speaker of the House and high ranking senators and influential Republicans, being repudiated by 25% of the Republican Congress.

This period of activity is being reflected quite demonstratively in a shift in the polls.

Perhaps I misunderstand you guys or what your overall thesis is, but my impression is you seem to be arguing this is a zero sum game for both of them, and the data strongly suggests otherwise.

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

fishmike wrote:My "knock" on Hillary is she should not have engaged him on this, and should have simply turn it back on Trump. Instead she engaged him, and every time she does that there is more noise, and the more noise the better for Don. That his game. If nothing can be trusted, if nothing is at it seems, then you simply go with your gut and pick who you think is best. That is Don's plan. He cant match her record, he lies constantly, but he does take advantage of how unliked she is, which lets him hammer home his bumper sticker mottos with no substance.

I'd question endorsing the political wisdom of this strategy. I'd even question this is an actual intentional strategy.

Right now, the focus in solely on Trump, and as Mark Halperin wisely said the other day, any day the focus is on trump, it is a day it is not on Clinton, making it a lost day.

He's losing and has been losing ground every day since the 1st debate. Hard to imagine it getting any better any time soon.

He's not going to white noise his way up that hill.

Little known fact. For votes cast on election day 2012, Obama and Romney were tied. But Obama killed him on early voting. THAT was where the margin was.

Early voting is going on right now. This race won't be decided on Nov. 8. It is being decided as we speak.

This is such a weird argument. The focus is on both of them all the time. Every discussion about Trump brings people out of the woodwork to lay equal blame on Hillary. Whether that's accurate or even useful is a completely different issue. But 6 weeks from the election the focus is not on one over the other is too intertwined. I think, I agree with Fishmike's premise. P

I don't know. I've had a completely different experience than you two.

The focus has been almost entirely on Trump since the first debate and that only intensified on Friday.

Yes, there have been attempts to turn the focus onto Clinton (much of it the wrong Clinton, however), I don't dispute that, but again in my experience it isn't sticking the way the Trump stuff is sticking to him.

There is one candidate in this race openly warring with the Republican Speaker of the House and high ranking senators and influential Republicans, being repudiated by 25% of the Republican Congress.

This period of activity is being reflected quite demonstratively in a shift in the polls.

Perhaps I misunderstand you guys or what your overall thesis is, but my impression is you seem to be arguing this is a zero sum game for both of them, and the data strongly suggests otherwise.

At this point I think he loses in an epic landslide in both the popular vote and electoral. He's literally given up on VA, a critical state and focused on flipping blue states from the last election. I don't see it but...