Trump attacks Billary

[lucas80]

Interesting that Donald Trump over the weekend started attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton, and threw out charges that Bill is, well, a bad person.
1. Bill Clinton may be a surrogate in this race, but he isn't running.
2. I don't think it's a good strategy to attack Hillary in this manner. It makes her seem like a sympathetic figure to a lot of women who have decided to stick it through tough marriages. I work with a lot of these kinds of women and it amazes me how they'll say bad things about their husband, then pivot to how they need to keep their marriage together.
3. Trump has two living ex-wives. If he wants to go down this road he had better be ready for a rehashing of the marital rape charges filed against him. Plus all the other stuff that has to be floating around from two divorce proceedings.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/26/politics/donald-trump-bill-clinton-sexism/index.html

 

[hawkcub]

I actually find it very arogant of Trump. Imagine that. Going after Hilary he's acting lIke the Republican nomination is locked up.

It hasn't been proven his supporters will show up to vote. If this becomes a 2 horse after SC I doubt he will have the lead anymore. Even a 3 horse race with the 3rd having Omalleyesqe support will hurt Trump.

 

[MitchL]

As far as Trump goes... I'm sure he feels that any publicity is good, free publicity. Keep your name in the news.

The other thing he is doing is trying to endear himself to the GOP base. Attacking HRC is the easiest way to do it.

But the GOP, including Trump, has to realize that they still aren't finding a way to appeal to the groups they need to win the WH. White, male voters won't be enough for them to win.

 

[The Tradition]

Attacking Bill is a losing strategy. Everyone knows about all his sins and the liberal base does not care.

 

[gojojo]

Best of luck attacking Bill Clinton. The guys record in coming out ahead in these cases is 2367-0

 

[BondHawk]

But the GOP, including Trump, has to realize that they still aren't finding a way to appeal to the groups they need to win the WH. Racist voters won't be enough for them to win.

FIFY

 

[dandh]

Attacking Bill is a losing strategy. Everyone knows about all his sins and the liberal base does not care.

He's not attacking Bill. He's attacking Hillary for knowing what Bill was doing and supporting his activities by demonizing the women upon whom Bill was preying.

 

[Greenway12]

Realistically, one of the few (if only) accomplishments Granny can point to is her success in managing Bill's 'bimbo eruptions'. Well, except for he one with the chubby intern.

The MSM will do their very best to avoid this topic and protect Bill and Hil, however, Trump may be the only one that can get away with pounding this obvious hypocrisy. (no pun intended)

 

[soybean]

He's not attacking Bill. He's attacking Hillary for knowing what Bill was doing and supporting his activities by demonizing the women upon whom Bill was preying.

Good luck doing that...again.

BTW - Is marriage fidelity really the ground Trump should select to fight a battle?

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

Attacking Bill is a losing strategy. Everyone knows about all his sins and the liberal base does not care.

Why should they care?

 

[hawkland14]

Good luck doing that...again.

BTW - Is marriage fidelity really the ground Trump should select to fight a battle?

Trump isn't attacking Bill's fidelity. He is attacking the fact the Hillary acts like a champion for female abuse victims unless you are a female that has been abused by her husband. Then you are a lying scumbag who is just looking to exploit the Clintons according to Hillary.

 

[soybean]

Trump isn't attacking Bill's fidelity. He is attacking the fact the Hillary acts like a champion for female abuse victims unless you are a female that has been abused by her husband. Then you are a lying scumbag who is just looking to exploit the Clintons according to Hillary.

And you, of course, can prove that?

 

[hawkland14]

And you, of course, can prove that?

Can you prove that it hasn't happened?

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

Can you prove that it hasn't happened?

Ah yes, the tried and true response of asking someone to prove an outlandish accusation is false. Straight out of religion's playbook.

 

[StonesCat]

And you, of course, can prove that?

That's the whole point. You can't go around claiming to be some women's champion, tweeting about believing raped/abused/bullied women, and at the same time act and talk in completely the opposite manner toward the half dozen accusers that Bill had. Trump disgusts me, but his point is valid.

 

[soybean]

Ah yes, the tried and true response of asking someone to prove an outlandish accusation is false. Straight out of religion's playbook.

Can you prove that is what I was doing?

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

Can you prove that is what I was doing?

I was referring to hawkland14's post.

 

[lucas80]

He's not attacking Bill. He's attacking Hillary for knowing what Bill was doing and supporting his activities by demonizing the women upon whom Bill was preying.

You don't think a surrogate of HRC couldn't deliver some body blows on Trump about indiscretions? Do you think that fine distinction matters? I guarantee you there are a few shapely secretaries in Trump's past, speaking of preying on young women. When the money is right, or the hypocrisy too much to bear they'll come forward.

 

[naturalmwa]

Attacking Bill will just remind people why they want Hill in office. Its a 2 for 1 deal remember, just like last time.

 

[IACub]

Can you prove that it hasn't happened?

How do you prove something didn't happen?

 

[soybean]

 

[hawkland14]

That's the whole point. You can't go around claiming to be some women's champion, tweeting about believing raped/abused/bullied women, and at the same time act and talk in completely the opposite manner toward the half dozen accusers that Bill had. Trump disgusts me, but his point is valid.

Spot on. But Spaceman, lucas, and soybean don't care about the hypocrisy from Hillary. And Donald Trump is being hypocritical as well because of his past with women. I don't think any rational person is denying Donald is a scumbag.

The whole point is libs on this board talk about how they will hold their nose while voting for Hillary in November because the field on the right is so bad. That is such a garbage statement. She is worst of all the candidates and Trump, who is a moron, is rightfully pointing it out on this issue.

 

[dandh]

You don't think a surrogate of HRC couldn't deliver some body blows on Trump about indiscretions? Do you think that fine distinction matters? I guarantee you there are a few shapely secretaries in Trump's past, speaking of preying on young women. When the money is right, or the hypocrisy too much to bear they'll come forward.

There's a difference between indiscretions and rape (Juanita Broddrick & Kathleen Willey), but the big difference is that Hillary directed the nuts 'n sluts attacks against Bill's victims.

There are a lot of young people who have never heard this stuff - if Hillary pushes Trump harder on indiscretions, he'll push Hillary even harder on why she attacked Bill's victims. Trump doesn't have a lot to lose with women, especially younger ones, right now. Hillary does.

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

Spot on. But Spaceman, lucas, and soybean don't care about the hypocrisy from Hillary. And Donald Trump is being hypocritical as well because of his past with women. I don't think any rational person is denying Donald is a scumbag.

The whole point is libs on this board talk about how they will hold their nose while voting for Hillary in November because the field on the right is so bad. That is such a garbage statement. She is worst of all the candidates and Trump, who is a moron, is rightfully pointing it out on this issue.

Do we know each other?

 

[Greenway12]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/hillary-clinton-paula-jones-question/


Hooksett, New Hampshire (CNN)Hillary Clinton answered a question about Bill Clinton's alleged sexual impropriety on Thursday, saying that victims of sexual abuse "should be believed" until evidence disproves their allegations.

At a campaign stop in Hooksett, New Hampshire, a woman asked Clinton: "Secretary Clinton, you recently came out to say that all rape victims should be believed. But would you say that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones be believed as well?"


Clinton responded: "Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence."

She then moved on to the next question."

Reminder - Bill settled out-of-court for $850,000 with Paula Jones in a sexual harassment suit in 1998.

 

[IACub]

Spot on. But Spaceman, lucas, and soybean don't care about the hypocrisy from Hillary. And Donald Trump is being hypocritical as well because of his past with women. I don't think any rational person is denying Donald is a scumbag.

The whole point is libs on this board talk about how they will hold their nose while voting for Hillary in November because the field on the right is so bad. That is such a garbage statement. She is worst of all the candidates and Trump, who is a moron, is rightfully pointing it out on this issue.

How is it a garbage statement? Every single candidate in the GOP field is either a small-minded bigot of some sort, a bible thumper who will put God before the Constitution, or a moron (or any combination thereof). Hillary isn't the candidate I would choose, but if she's nominated she's the lesser of all evils, and it's not even close.

 

[hawkland14]

How is it a garbage statement? Every single candidate in the GOP field is either a small-minded bigot of some sort, a bible thumper who will put God before the Constitution, or a moron (or any combination thereof). Hillary isn't the candidate I would choose, but if she's nominated she's the lesser of all evils, and it's not even close.

That is completely false. It just shows no matter how good of candidate someone is or isn't, you are always going to vote for the dude or woman with a D by their name. Face it. You are a political ideologue man.

 

[IACub]

That is completely false. It just shows no matter how good of candidate someone is or isn't, you are always going to vote for the dude or woman with a D by their name. Face it. You are a political ideologue man.

Bullshit. I've voted Republican in the past, before they moved so far to the right. Name one GOP candidate with a reasonable chance of winning the nomination that doesn't fit into one or more of the categories I listed above.

 

[hawkland14]

Bullshit. I've voted Republican in the past, before they moved so far to the right. Name one GOP candidate with a reasonable chance of winning the nomination that doesn't fit into one or more of the categories I listed above.

Easy. Rubio, Kasich, and Jeb. Moderate and willing to work with he other side.

 

[IACub]

Easy. Rubio, Kasich, and Jeb. Moderate and willing to work with he other side.

Rubio falls into the bible thumping category - he'll place his religious beliefs above my rights any day of the week, and twice on Sunday (you know, for God). JEB! has almost zero chance of continuing beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. Kasich doesn't have a chance of even sniffing the nomination, which is sad because he seems like the most reasonable of the group, which is why Republican voters ignore him. Realistically it's looking like Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or Carson, none of whom would I ever even consider voting for. Hence, I'm voting for Hillary or Bernie.

 

[dandh]

Now Catholics are considered Bible Thumpers?

 

[IACub]

Now Catholics are considered Bible Thumpers?

Not all of them, but Rubio and Cruz have made it pretty clear that pandering to the religious right is their only chance of getting elected.

 

[dandh]

Not all of them, but Rubio and Cruz have made it pretty clear that pandering to the religious right is their only chance of getting elected.

I've always thought Bible Thumpers reserved to evangelical Christian types. I think you're stretching here - neither of them is very religious, save their traditional Catholic stance on abortion. Is that your litmus test?

 

[The Tradition]

Why should they care?

I dunno... most people would be upset if they were directly lied to on national TV by their president.

But for the left, it's like "whatevs... we love Bill anyway."

 

[IACub]

I've always thought Bible Thumpers reserved to evangelical Christian types. I think you're stretching here - neither of them is very religious, save their traditional Catholic stance on abortion. Is that your litmus test?

Not particularly, though I consider myself pro-choice. But his stances on abortion and gay marriage, not to mention being in the NRA's pocket, put him opposite me on virtually every social issue. He seems like the guy who could be reasonable if he wasn't such a sellout.

 

[hawkcub]

Saying you won't vote for republicans because they are to far right then turning around with being OK with Hilary or Bernie. Leads me to believe you lean slightly to the left.

Catholics are neither democrat nor republican. Like evengelicals are.

 

[sijoint]

Good luck doing that...again.

BTW - Is marriage fidelity really the ground Trump should select to fight a battle?

Well yes, because of one person in Hillary's past. This is why Trump told Hillary to.............."watch it". He's got something big on Hillary. Do you know the person I'm referring to?

 

[dandh]

Not particularly, though I consider myself pro-choice. But his stances on abortion and gay marriage, not to mention being in the NRA's pocket, put him opposite me on virtually every social issue. He seems like the guy who could be reasonable if he wasn't such a sellout.

So, he's not a Bible Thumper, you just don't agree with him on social issues.

 

[naturalmwa]

Rubio falls into the bible thumping category - he'll place his religious beliefs above my rights any day of the week, and twice on Sunday (you know, for God). JEB! has almost zero chance of continuing beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. Kasich doesn't have a chance of even sniffing the nomination, which is sad because he seems like the most reasonable of the group, which is why Republican voters ignore him. Realistically it's looking like Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or Carson, none of whom would I ever even consider voting for. Hence, I'm voting for Hillary or Bernie.

I'll have to look into Rubio's religious ideas. Personally I'm more concerned that he will bomb Iran and destroy the budget like he has promised to do.

 

[IACub]

So, he's not a Bible Thumper, you just don't agree with him on social issues.

Fine, you caught me. Maybe Rubio's not a textbook "bible thumper," he just panders to the religious right. Also, on top of social issues I disagree with him on foreign policy and fiscal issues.