2016 Presidential Horse Race

[woolybug25]

Rather amusing how people don't think it's 'Presidential' to get into a dust up on twitter. I wonder how many of these people found a way to not mind that Clinton was getting blowjobs by interns in the oval office. Unless that is 'Presidential' in some way.


I am not saying two wrongs make a right...just pointing out how easy it is to look past something when you don't like the other team.

Neither are right of course, but Clinton wasn't trying to garner support through blow jobs. Completely disconnected points there in my opinion. Apples and oranges, if you will.

 

[EddytoNow]

Rather amusing how people don't think it's 'Presidential' to get into a dust up on twitter. I wonder how many of these people found a way to not mind that Clinton was getting blowjobs by interns in the oval office. Unless that is 'Presidential' in some way.


I am not saying two wrongs make a right...just pointing out how easy it is to look past something when you don't like the other team.

The fact that Bill Clinton got some consensual action while president doesn't upset me. That was a matter to be dealt with internally by the family. In the same way, Trump's numerous affairs while married are not a public concern. They, too, were private family matters.

What does irk me is that Trump is using Bill Clinton's personal behavior (which is pretty much the same as Trump's own behavior) to attack Hillary. Hillary has been one of the victims of Bill's misdeeds, not the perpetrator. Trump, on the other hand, is guilty of the same behavior, using his power and wealth to attract and disrespect young women.

Of the three, Hillary is the most trust-worthy on this issue. Unlike Bill and Donald, she has no lifelong history of spousal cheating.

 

[Irish YJ]

The fact that Bill Clinton got some consensual action while president doesn't upset me. That was a matter to be dealt with internally by the family. In the same way, Trump's numerous affairs while married are not a public concern. They, too, were private family matters.

What does irk me is that Trump is using Bill Clinton's personal behavior (which is pretty much the same as Trump's own behavior) to attack Hillary. Hillary has been one of the victims of Bill's misdeeds, not the perpetrator. Trump, on the other hand, is guilty of the same behavior, using his power and wealth to attract and disrespect young women.

Of the three, Hillary is the most trust-worthy on this issue. Unlike Bill and Donald, she has no lifelong history of spousal cheating.

Uh... didn't Hilldog send investigators to harass Bill's women?

 

[Irish YJ]

Victim,... maybe,,,, but complicit and more concerned about her own career than her husbands behavior.

Covering Bill’s dirty deeds

The Clintons have been accused of hiring private investigators to not only dig up dirt on perceived adversaries – such as Juanita Broaddrick, the woman allegedly raped by Bill, and other abused women such as Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones – but to stalk, scare and threaten them. Willey asserts Hillary was behind a campaign of intimidation and harassment against her that fit a pattern employed against numerous other women whose claims of sexual impropriety or assault by Bill Clinton threatened the couple’s political fortunes.

As WND reported, Willey and her husband, Ed, were Democratic activists who founded Virginians for Clinton and helped send Bill and Hillary to the White House in 1992. While serving as a volunteer in the White House and facing financial hard times, Willey says she met with Bill Clinton in the Oval Office to request a paying position. But instead of getting help, she says, she was subjected to “nothing short of serious sexual harassment.” Distraught, Willey fled Clinton’s presence, only to discover that her husband Ed had committed suicide that same tragic afternoon. Later, she was drawn “unwillingly” into the Paula Jones lawsuit, the Ken Starr investigation and impeachment proceedings.

Willey, author of the 2007 book, “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” has claimed the Clinton tag team used mob-style intimidation campaign to keep her silent, even purportedly breaking into her home to steal her memoirs of the events.

Despite Bill’s 20 years of alleged and admitted extra-marital relationships, Hillary famously came to his defense shortly after the Monica Lewinsky affair broke in 1998. Asked about the accusations, the then-first lady said, “Certainly, I believe they’re false. Absolutely.”

Then, in a memorable interview with the “Today” show’s Matt Lauer, she explained years of accusations by women such as Willey, Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Kyle Browning: “Bill and I have been accused of everything, including murder, by some of the very same people who are behind these allegations,” she said, pointing to a “vast right-wing conspiracy. … So from my perspective this is part of a continuing political campaign against my husband.”

What makes a book about Bill and Hillary Clinton so explosive that someone would STEAL it? Kathleen Willey tells America the shocking story in her book, “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.”

Later, however, when placed under oath, Bill Clinton admitted to an affair with Flowers, as he did with Lewinksy. But Hillary’s actions, Willey contends, indicated by word and deed that her main concern was to ensure her husband’s proclivities didn’t ruin their political careers.

In her book, Willey cites sources who contend Hillary began engaging private investigators during their time in Arkansas so she could head off any repercussions from her husband’s behavior. The first to be dispatched were her own father and brother when she committed to marry Bill, according to author Jerome Levin in “The Clinton Syndrome.” Bill had left Yale University for Arkansas to teach law, and she went to work in Washington, D.C.

When Bill was governor, Hillary sent out a group of investigators known at the “Truth Squad” to discourage many of her husband’s lovers from going public.

 

[kmoose]

What does irk me is that Trump is using Bill Clinton's personal behavior (which is pretty much the same as Trump's own behavior) to attack Hillary. Hillary has been one of the victims of Bill's misdeeds, not the perpetrator. Trump, on the other hand, is guilty of the same behavior, using his power and wealth to attract and disrespect young women.

Of the three, Hillary is the most trust-worthy on this issue. Unlike Bill and Donald, she has no lifelong history of spousal cheating.

I would say that it probably irks you because you don't understand the context and meaning of it. I wrote about this earlier in this thread:

I'm not sure you understand the relevance of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades, as they relate to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is courting the female vote by trying to draw a clear line between her and Trump, with Trump as an objectifier and user of women, and her as a champion of women's rights, women's equality, and respect for women. Trump is fairly saying, "Where was all of this concern for women when your husband was banging anything and everything that moved in front of him?" I think that's a valid tactic on his part. That has nothing to do with any of Trump's current or past spouses; none of them are claiming to be champions of respect for women. The attack is not on Bill Clinton; the attack is on Hillary, for at least tacitly approving and enabling him to treat (supposedly A LOT of) women in the exact manner that she is attacking Trump for.

 

[phgreek]

The fact that Bill Clinton got some consensual action while president doesn't upset me. That was a matter to be dealt with internally by the family. In the same way, Trump's numerous affairs while married are not a public concern. They, too, were private family matters.

What does irk me is that Trump is using Bill Clinton's personal behavior (which is pretty much the same as Trump's own behavior) to attack Hillary. Hillary has been one of the victims of Bill's misdeeds, not the perpetrator. Trump, on the other hand, is guilty of the same behavior, using his power and wealth to attract and disrespect young women.

Of the three, Hillary is the most trust-worthy on this issue. Unlike Bill and Donald, she has no lifelong history of spousal cheating.

Oh come on...she is generally being hammered because SHE leads with the WOMAN card (she is the answer for womens' issues)...yet in her own state department the women were comparatively underpaid, and she attacked women her husband victimized for 30+ years. Further she stayed with him to further her own political career...ie, she didn't show how strong and independent a woman could be, but rather how one could compromise her sense of self, and pride to "get what she wants"...sounds like a god damned prostitute if you ask me...AAAAND, not so ironically, her biggest issue beyond criminality is ....no one knows who the fuck she is....who is the real Hillary. Ya think had she tossed his ass out she would be a political creation, or an authentic human being? She is the worst of all possible characteristics...she is grounded by literally nothing but ambition.

 

[NDinL.A.]

She is the worst of all possible characteristics...she is grounded by literally nothing but ambition.

THAT is the worst of all possible characteristics?

I'm not a Hillary fan, but Trump is even worse than she is. He is grounded by literally nothing. She has ambition (to be the President), while he has always clearly been out for himself and will do everything to further himself. He too wants to be President, so even more people can bow down to all things Trump. Policy issues? Nah, why waste time with that when you can just talk in platitudes and just insult your way to the top?

To me anyway, he is far more dangerous.

 

[kmoose]

THAT is the worst of all possible characteristics?

I'm not a Hillary fan, but Trump is even worse than she is. He is grounded by literally nothing. She has ambition (to be the President), while he has always clearly been out for himself and will do everything to further himself. He too wants to be President, so even more people can bow down to all things Trump. Policy issues? Nah, why waste time with that when you can just talk in platitudes and just insult your way to the top?

To me anyway, he is far more dangerous.

I'm not voting for the guy, so don't take this as a defense of him, or an attempt to sway your vote. It's merely an observation that provides an alternate explanation for his vagueness on policy issues:

As a businessman and deal maker, Trump is conditioned to keep his mouth shut about the business at hand until he is actually at the negotiating table. I think he knows exactly what he wants to do, but he isn't saying because he doesn't want to give his competitors a chance to maybe steal all, or part, of some policy idea that he has.

 

[IrishLax]

The fact that Bill Clinton got some consensual action while president doesn't upset me. That was a matter to be dealt with internally by the family. In the same way, Trump's numerous affairs while married are not a public concern. They, too, were private family matters.

What does irk me is that Trump is using Bill Clinton's personal behavior (which is pretty much the same as Trump's own behavior) to attack Hillary. Hillary has been one of the victims of Bill's misdeeds, not the perpetrator. Trump, on the other hand, is guilty of the same behavior, using his power and wealth to attract and disrespect young women.

Of the three, Hillary is the most trust-worthy on this issue. Unlike Bill and Donald, she has no lifelong history of spousal cheating.

Cool so we're just going to ignore her hiring bullies to threaten/silence Bill's alleged rape victims? Seems legit, because she has a "D" next to her name.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm not voting for the guy, so don't take this as a defense of him, or an attempt to sway your vote. It's merely an observation that provides an alternate explanation for his vagueness on policy issues:

As a businessman and deal maker, Trump is conditioned to keep his mouth shut about the business at hand until he is actually at the negotiating table. I think he knows exactly what he wants to do, but he isn't saying because he doesn't want to give his competitors a chance to maybe steal all, or part, of some policy idea that he has.

That would be a great tactic if he were running for King of the United States. Unfortunately he won't have the absolute power to make deals without bringing the citizens and the Congress along with his ideas. He doesn't share his plans because he doesn't have any except what happens to be spilling out of his mouth at any given moment. For a someone who doesn't support the guy, you expend a lot of effort defending his idiotic positions and making excuses for his odd behavior.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I'm not voting for the guy, so don't take this as a defense of him, or an attempt to sway your vote. It's merely an observation that provides an alternate explanation for his vagueness on policy issues:

As a businessman and deal maker, Trump is conditioned to keep his mouth shut about the business at hand until he is actually at the negotiating table. I think he knows exactly what he wants to do, but he isn't saying because he doesn't want to give his competitors a chance to maybe steal all, or part, of some policy idea that he has.

I've heard that said by his supporters, and I think it's a horrible mask for the truth - that he has is pathetically ignorant when it comes to so many important domestic and foreign issues. When he is put on the spot, his ignorance shows (see: his response on abortion to Chris Matthews for just one example).

He has already backtracked/flip-flopped on his policies written on his own website. He has no backbone, no true platform to stand behind...he merely panders to every crowd he speaks to. In other words, he is a politician in every sense of the word, except the other politicians have thorough plans on pretty much every issue. I may not agree with Clinton's plans, but when I go to her website, there is a thorough plan behind every listed issue.

"The devil I know is safer than the devil I don't know" - that's my major worry with Trump. His "policies" are dangerous to both our economy, and our standing in the world. Dude is a friggin' maniac.

 

[kmoose]

That would be a great tactic if he were running for King of the United States. Unfortunately he won't have the absolute power to make deals without bringing the citizens and the Congress along with his ideas. He doesn't share his plans because he doesn't have any except what happens to be spilling out of his mouth at any given moment. For a someone who doesn't support the guy, you expend a lot of effort defending his idiotic positions and making excuses for his odd behavior.

*shrugs* I just offered a possible alternative explanation. I won't vote for him, but I do want him to do well enough to convince some other, more qualified, independent, non-politician to run in the future.

It really doesn't take a lot of effort to consider other, alternative explanations. You should try it sometime.

 

[GoIrish41]

*shrugs* I just offered a possible alternative explanation. I won't vote for him, but I do want him to do well enough to convince some other, more qualified, independent, non-politician to run in the future.

It really doesn't take a lot of effort to consider other, alternative explanations. You should try it sometime.

I'll keep that in mind if I ever decide to be a fiction writer, a conspiracy theorist or a Trump apologist. Until then I will focus on those things that are most obvious.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

That would be a great tactic if he were running for King of the United States. Unfortunately he won't have the absolute power to make deals without bringing the citizens and the Congress along with his ideas. He doesn't share his plans because he doesn't have any except what happens to be spilling out of his mouth at any given moment. For a someone who doesn't support the guy, you expend a lot of effort defending his idiotic positions and making excuses for his odd behavior.

Given some of Obama's actions over the last 7 years, this might be the funniest thing you've posted in the thread.

 

[NorthDakota]

That would be a great tactic if he were running for King of the United States. Unfortunately he won't have the absolute power to make deals without bringing the citizens and the Congress along with his ideas. He doesn't share his plans because he doesn't have any except what happens to be spilling out of his mouth at any given moment. For a someone who doesn't support the guy, you expend a lot of effort defending his idiotic positions and making excuses for his odd behavior.

To quote another president, "I've got a pen and I've got a phone."

 

[kmoose]

I'll keep that in mind if I ever decide to be a fiction writer, a conspiracy theorist or a Trump apologist. Until then I will focus on those things that are most obvious.

Whatever helps you sleep at night....

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I'll keep that in mind if I ever decide to be a fiction writer, a conspiracy theorist or a Trump apologist. Until then I will focus on those things that are most obvious.

Well Carl, based on your eloquent words on blm. You already are a masterful fiction writer.

 

[yankeehater]

This statement is completely wrong. California as a State and Southern California as a region exceeded a sustainable level of water consumption a long time ago. Climate change is only going to make the situation worse. Making water use restrictions permanent would be the prudent/conservative thing to do. People should be applauding Jerry.

I guess you are right about exceeding levels a long time ago because California is using the same amount of water as we were 20 years ago.

Water Use in California (PPIC Publication)

Blaming global warming is completely a joke. If you haven't noticed California is a desert, and always has been. Other than a strip along the coast we are a complete desert climate. I have been hearing since the day I was born that we should build a desalination plant and we are finally doing it. Just like the bullet train, which we will still be trying to build in 50 years and don't need by the way, politicians have not been able to get the damn thing done.

 

[phgreek]

THAT is the worst of all possible characteristics?

I'm not a Hillary fan, but Trump is even worse than she is. He is grounded by literally nothing. She has ambition (to be the President), while he has always clearly been out for himself and will do everything to further himself. He too wants to be President, so even more people can bow down to all things Trump. Policy issues? Nah, why waste time with that when you can just talk in platitudes and just insult your way to the top?

To me anyway, he is far more dangerous.

I don't disagree...he seems not to be real tethered to anything either. That said, he isn't owing to anyone either...this is where we depart because you think Hillary is less a danger...I think Trump could be dangerous, but there is a chance he does the right things because he CAN!

 

[dales5050]

The fact that Bill Clinton got some consensual action while president doesn't upset me. That was a matter to be dealt with internally by the family. In the same way, Trump's numerous affairs while married are not a public concern. They, too, were private family matters.

LOL.

Thanks for proving my point.

There is a difference between having an affair and having a staffer give you a blowjob in the oval office.

To start, you have the disrespect to the 'office'. Both the position itself and the room, which to many, is the center of the free world in terms of Government. That place should be sacred for politicians.

Second, you have the liability created by the 'CEO' of the United States in getting a blowjob from a staffer. It breaks countless employment laws and who knows what security protocols were broken.

But none of this matters to people like you. You act enraged over how Presidential someone is but in reality you either don't really care or are not bright enough to put aside your personal opinions to look at the office itself.

You're the problem.

Of the three, Hillary is the most trust-worthy on this issue. Unlike Bill and Donald, she has no lifelong history of spousal cheating.

Your opinion carries no weight with me.

Does not mean you should have one. You're entitled to it. But it also does not mean I can't call you out for being stupid and blinded by your bias.

 

[connor_in]

Here’s why Dilbert creator Scott Adams says Donald Trump will win in a ‘landslide’ [video] – twitchy.com

 

[zelezo vlk]

Here’s why Dilbert creator Scott Adams says Donald Trump will win in a ‘landslide’ [video] – twitchy.com

Without reading the article, is it because he's the pointy haired boss?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[connor_in]

Without reading the article, is it because he's the pointy haired boss?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Good guess but...

On Friday’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, “Dilbert” creator and trained hypnotist Scott Adams reiterated his earlier prediction that Donald Trump will defeat Hillary Clinton in a “landslide” because of the GOP nominee’s mastery of the art of persuasion.

From the clip below:

Trump’s “complete ignoring of facts are actually part of the persuasion because he doesn’t give you targets. He doesn’t give you details of his policies, usually. So he’s reducing the number of targets while making you feel good and focusing on the things he wants. So it’s not about facts, it’s about focus and attention.”

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Good guess but...

I watched the Maher interview. It's scary. He's been predicting a Trump win for months.

 

[EddytoNow]

LOL.

Thanks for proving my point.

There is a difference between having an affair and having a staffer give you a blowjob in the oval office.

To start, you have the disrespect to the 'office'. Both the position itself and the room, which to many, is the center of the free world in terms of Government. That place should be sacred for politicians.

Second, you have the liability created by the 'CEO' of the United States in getting a blowjob from a staffer. It breaks countless employment laws and who knows what security protocols were broken.

But none of this matters to people like you. You act enraged over how Presidential someone is but in reality you either don't really care or are not bright enough to put aside your personal opinions to look at the office itself.

You're the problem.



Your opinion carries no weight with me.

Does not mean you should have one. You're entitled to it. But it also does not mean I can't call you out for being stupid and blinded by your bias.

Actually, you are the problem. Deep down you know that Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are very similar. Both used their positions of authority and power to attract and seduce younger women. I point out that a man who cheats on his wife can't be trusted, and you call me stupid. Are you really suggesting that Donald Trump's cheating doesn't count as cheating because he isn't the president? Men who cheat on their wives are not untrustworthy (unless of course they happen to be a past-president of the opposing political party)? Both men used their positions of power to cheat on their wives. Both men also made unwanted advances on women who were not their wives. If the person closest to you (your spouse) can't trust you, how do you really expect anyone else to trust you? I take it you aren't married or you haven't shared your views on cheating with your spouse?

 

[connor_in]

50% Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[dales5050]

Actually, you are the problem. Deep down you know that Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are very similar. Both used their positions of authority and power to attract and seduce younger women. I point out that a man who cheats on his wife can't be trusted, and you call me stupid. Are you really suggesting that Donald Trump's cheating doesn't count as cheating because he isn't the president? Men who cheat on their wives are not untrustworthy (unless of course they happen to be a past-president of the opposing political party)? Both men used their positions of power to cheat on their wives. Both men also made unwanted advances on women who were not their wives. If the person closest to you (your spouse) can't trust you, how do you really expect anyone else to trust you? I take it you aren't married or you haven't shared your views on cheating with your spouse?

I said what I did because you thought that the President getting a blowjob from a staffer in the Oval Office was "a matter to be dealt with internally by the family"....

It has nothing to do with fidelity to a spouse. It's about the complete disregard to the office. I was also pretty clear in admonishing both and pegged that people like you would somehow make excuses for someone you don't have an issue with politically.

Thanks for playing.

 

[connor_in]

Hillary's Crooked Defense - WSJ

“I’m not a crook.”

In 1973 the sitting president, Richard Nixon, used these words at a news conference to deny allegations he had profited off his public service.

In 2016 an aspiring president, Hillary Clinton, as part of her campaign for the White House, is advancing an aggressive variant of the Nixon defense. It runs like this: Anything that isn’t criminal is permissible—and therefore none of it should be disqualifying for the Oval Office.

This has become the go-to argument for Team Clinton these days. Thus Maryland Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings was quick out of the box last week when the State Department’s inspector general released a damning report finding that then-Secretary of State Clinton had defied the department’s rules by setting up her private email server. Mr. Cummings, ABC News said, pointed out that the inspector general’s report “does not accuse Clinton of any crime.” The implication is that it therefore doesn’t matter.

In a perverse way, it all works to Mrs. Clinton’s advantage. For so long as a criminal conviction is presented as the only possible disqualification for running for president, Mrs. Clinton will remain viable even if she does get indicted. In addition, the whole obsession with whether the FBI investigation will end up in an indictment helps deflect attention away from other key aspects of the server mess that themselves make pretty substantive claims for Mrs. Clinton’s unfitness.

Even putting aside the question of criminality, we know the following: While in a position of trust, Mrs. Clinton deliberately chose to put American security at risk by setting up her home server. In so doing, she also concealed what should have been public records from the American people. In the year since she’s been found out, almost every public statement she has made in defense of her actions has been exposed as false. And she refused to cooperate with investigators.

 

[IrishLax]

Actually, you are the problem. Deep down you know that Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are very similar. Both used their positions of authority and power to attract and seduce younger women. I point out that a man who cheats on his wife can't be trusted, and you call me stupid. Are you really suggesting that Donald Trump's cheating doesn't count as cheating because he isn't the president? Men who cheat on their wives are not untrustworthy (unless of course they happen to be a past-president of the opposing political party)? Both men used their positions of power to cheat on their wives. Both men also made unwanted advances on women who were not their wives. If the person closest to you (your spouse) can't trust you, how do you really expect anyone else to trust you? I take it you aren't married or you haven't shared your views on cheating with your spouse?

But a spouse that hires goons to intimidate/harass/slander that husband's alleged rape victims IS trustworthy? That's what you're saying?

 

[connor_in]

But a spouse that hires goons to intimidate/harass/slander that husband's alleged rape victims IS trustworthy? That's what you're saying?

Stop being sexist! We all know that Hillary is the TRUE VICTIM here.