Let's not get crazy here, people. I can guarantee this won't happen.
LOL I read somewhere yesterday that his advisers can't even get him to spend a half hour daily studying the issues.
ETA please please please let one of the questions just be "here's a blank map of the Middle East. Please place the country names on the countries."
You know he'd just walk over and write really big "USA!" across the whole thing, and say something like, "That's the way it ought to be labeled!" And then segue into something about ISIS being the result of the US levaing Iraq.
Post by CheeringCharm on Aug 16, 2016 11:26:59 GMT -5
"They need to be less focused on dealing with his policy proposals and more on dealing with the unexpected. He’s going to be in attack mode, probably the whole time.”
I know this is true but what a sad commentary on the GOP's pick for POTUS. SMH.
"They need to be less focused on dealing with his policy proposals and more on dealing with the unexpected. He’s going to be in attack mode, probably the whole time.”
I know this is true but what a sad commentary on the GOP's pick for POTUS. SMH.
And this is what Trump has turned the presidential election into, a student council popularity contest where the football jock bully gets to pick on the smart girl. GOD I love the world we live in.
I think any question directed at her regarding Bill's affair should just be "We all go through low points in our marriages, and ours was done on the national stage for everyone to see and judge. Do I wish it never happened? Of course. But staying committed to keeping our marriage vows, even in the face of an affair, is the much more difficult road to take than cheating and walking away. Twice."
I think any question directed at her regarding Bill's affair should just be "We all go through low points in our marriages, and ours was done on the national stage for everyone to see and judge. Do I wish it never happened? Of course. But staying committed to keeping our marriage vows, even in the face of an affair, is the much more difficult road to take than cheating and walking away. Twice."
Well that will really endear her to the women who chose to leave their husbands after cheating. Look none of this is appropriate for the political stage. She just should say she is there to discuss policies and that is it. Trying to make any kind of moral or value statements about staying in a marriage or walking away from one is not going to work for her and quite honestly her decisions in this space are none of our business.
I think any question directed at her regarding Bill's affair should just be "We all go through low points in our marriages, and ours was done on the national stage for everyone to see and judge. Do I wish it never happened? Of course. But staying committed to keeping our marriage vows, even in the face of an affair, is the much more difficult road to take than cheating and walking away. Twice."
Well that will really endear her to the women who chose to leave their husbands after cheating. Look none of this is appropriate for the political stage. She just should say she is there to discuss policies and that is it. Trying to make any kind of moral or value statements about staying in a marriage or walking away from one is not going to work for her and quite honestly her decisions in this space are none of our business.
True. But I think the emphasis should be that she respects her marriage vows when he obviously doesn't, which is why it's weird that she is being targeted for this kind of line of questioning. Not to divorce-shame people. But I do see your point.
Well that will really endear her to the women who chose to leave their husbands after cheating. Look none of this is appropriate for the political stage. She just should say she is there to discuss policies and that is it. Trying to make any kind of moral or value statements about staying in a marriage or walking away from one is not going to work for her and quite honestly her decisions in this space are none of our business.
True. But I think the emphasis should be that she respects her marriage vows when he obviously doesn't, which is why it's weird that she is being targeted for this kind of line of questioning. Not to divorce-shame people. But I do see your point.
Trump doesn't respect his vows because he cheated or because he divorced?
If it is the former she opens up more criticism of the man she is married to because the only way that love story works is that Bill is really a good person who made a mistake and he has respected their vows going forward, which is questionable. Alternatively it will become more of the narrative that she stayed married for her own political aspirations.
And if it is the latter it will basically condemn anyone, including Trumps former wives, that choosing to get a divorce makes you someone who doesn't respect the vows they took.
This is not a road that will end well. We already know what kind of person trump is, she is not going to gain anything by getting in the dirt with him. Further she has so little capital on being moral that it would be a mistake to try to reshape that view by making an argument that by her chosing to stay married she represents some moral superiority.
Because he cheated. It's insane to indicate in some way that she is not fit for the Presidency because of the way Bill's actions reflect on her without pointing out that those exact same actions of Trump's own reflects even more so on Trump. That would be the point. That the cheating could not disqualify her in some manner without absolutely disqualifying him in the process twofold.
Because he cheated. It's insane to indicate in some way that she is not fit for the Presidency because of the way Bill's actions reflect on her without pointing out that those exact same actions of Trump's own reflects even more so on Trump. That would be the point. That the cheating could not disqualify her in some manner without absolutely disqualifying him in the process twofold.
No, she needs to stay away from this minefield. There is no winning by trying to address it head on.
She needs to say that she thinks the American people care more about the issues than they do about tabloid fodder and change the subject.
If she ignores him on it, that will make him wild. He'll keep bringing it up so he looks ridiculous and burns all his time talking about blow jobs, and she'll be able to talk about the issues.
Ditto ESF and cookiemdough. ESPECIALLY given Bill's...we'll go with checkered past...she does not want to touch this with a 10-foot pole (or with Bill's pole, ba dum bum!). There is no way to hit back at him without looking petty. Part of the gift that Trump has given her is the ability to campaign as the only adult running. Anything beyond a simple, "I'm not going to discuss my marriage" cedes that ground.
I don't know. I think that it's some misogynistic bullshit to say she can't bring up the fact that Trump cheated reflects more on him than Bill's cheating ever could reflect on her if she is confronted on the subject. I'm not saying she should pull that out from nowhere, but if she's asked about how his affairs somehow makes her look bad, or indicated that it seems like she should not be in the white house because Bill would be too and it looks bad - it's a reasonable response to pivot that exact same thing back on to Trump because she would come out on top. She wasn't the one who cheated, end of story and she's the one running for office as is Trump, who did in fact cheat. Twice. That's some double standard fucker-y. Maybe pointing it out in a debate won't win her points, that whole we go high when they go low thing, but I think as a nation we need to confront that that is the case and it's fucking bullshit.
But part of the issue is that the state of Clinton's marriage should NOT be fodder for the campaign. If she hits back with, "Yeah, well, you did it, too!" then she's validating that it's an appropriate topic for the campaign.
If she hits back with criticism of his infidelities, then she invites criticism and comparison of their behaviors within their respective marriages. If she takes the high road, she sends the message that this is not open for discussion and the entire narrative becomes that Clinton is campaigning with plans and ideas and Trump is continuing to campaign with sexist insults.
Post by jojoandleo on Aug 16, 2016 13:28:45 GMT -5
I don't think cheating on a spouse disqualifies anyone from office. Sometimes, people are shitbags in their personal life and brilliant politicians. I don't want anyone talking about affairs. And yes, it is misogynistic bullshit that she is looked down on for BILL cheating and Trump isn't looked down upon for cheating personally. BUT that is not the point. The point is, talking about this shit does NOTHING for her but bring up stuff she would rather not talk about. It is better to redirect and ignore this BS. It's not very presidential (in my opinion) to be like, "Well I'm rubber and you're glue" about cheating. I PERSONALLY would prefer for her to say what funfetti said or to redirect to the topic at hand/point out he is avoiding the topic than get into this shit. It's none of my business.
I agree, I just think it's the principal of the thing that annoys the crap out of me. That people act like it's open season to pull out the Bill cheating card on her, but no one who does that in an attempt to score points on her takes into account that the exact same thing would reflect twice as badly on Trump. It shouldn't be brought up at all. But if you're going to go there, you better be directing that same line of questioning at Trump or that's some sexist crap that a woman shouldn't have to put up with. Why did your husband cheat on you? Why did you stay with him? When the man who actually cheated on two different wives isn't getting that same kind of vitriol. She shouldn't have to be the one to point that out but the media is doing a terrible job of it. He mentioned Monica's dress at a rally just last week and I didn't see one media outlet call him out on his own cheating.
I mean, what would R's be saying if Hillary had 5 children from three different fathers? I bet it wouldn't be "what a nice blended family she has".
I don't know. I think that it's some misogynistic bullshit to say she can't bring up the fact that Trump cheated reflects more on him than Bill's cheating ever could reflect on her if she is confronted on the subject. I'm not saying she should pull that out from nowhere, but if she's asked about how his affairs somehow makes her look bad, or indicated that it seems like she should not be in the white house because Bill would be too and it looks bad - it's a reasonable response to pivot that exact same thing back on to Trump because she would come out on top. She wasn't the one who cheated, end of story and she's the one running for office as is Trump, who did in fact cheat. Twice. That's some double standard fucker-y. Maybe pointing it out in a debate won't win her points, that whole we go high when they go low thing, but I think as a nation we need to confront that that is the case and it's fucking bullshit.
You answered your question here.
If these were two private citizens having an argument, sure. She would be well within her rights to throw it back at him. But that's not what's going on. This is a debate for the most important job in the world.
Nobody is saying she should behave a certain way because she's a woman. People are saying she should avoid it because it's a fucking sideshow and she's not going to win by slinging tabloid mud back at the orange manchild. It's not her job to be the patron saint of the betrayed. It's her job to run for president.
I agree, I just think it's the principal of the thing that annoys the crap out of me. That people act like it's open season to pull out the Bill cheating card on her, but no one who does that in an attempt to score points on her takes into account that the exact same thing would reflect twice as badly on Trump. It shouldn't be brought up at all. But if you're going to go there, you better be directing that same line of questioning at Trump or that's some sexist crap that a woman shouldn't have to put up with. Why did your husband cheat on you? Why did you stay with him? When the man who actually cheated on two different wives isn't getting that same kind of vitriol. She shouldn't have to be the one to point that out but the media is doing a terrible job of it. He mentioned Monica's dress at a rally just last week and I didn't see one media outlet call him out on his own cheating.
I mean, what would R's be saying if Hillary had 5 children from three different fathers? I bet it wouldn't be "what a nice blended family she has".
When Trump called out Marco Rubio for being short, it really worked out well for Rubio to call out Trump's small hands in response.
Trump's opponents just cannot waste time responding to his inane attempts at distraction. Because when you do that, all you do is say, "I have nothing of substance to talk about either!"
I agree, I just think it's the principal of the thing that annoys the crap out of me. That people act like it's open season to pull out the Bill cheating card on her, but no one who does that in an attempt to score points on her takes into account that the exact same thing would reflect twice as badly on Trump. It shouldn't be brought up at all. But if you're going to go there, you better be directing that same line of questioning at Trump or that's some sexist crap that a woman shouldn't have to put up with. Why did your husband cheat on you? Why did you stay with him? When the man who actually cheated on two different wives isn't getting that same kind of vitriol. She shouldn't have to be the one to point that out but the media is doing a terrible job of it. He mentioned Monica's dress at a rally just last week and I didn't see one media outlet call him out on his own cheating.
I mean, what would R's be saying if Hillary had 5 children from three different fathers? I bet it wouldn't be "what a nice blended family she has".
Sure, people who are going to ask these things of her should ask them of Trump.
But - and I could be proven wrong - I don't think the moderators are going to be bringing up Monica Lewinsky or the Clintons' marriage.
The likely scenario is that Trump starts rambling and brings it up. So when she responds by refusing to engage and pivoting to issues, it just further shows Trump's colors. Sure, there will be his hardcore supporters who will think this line of questioning is totally acceptable, but those people are not up for grabs in the voting booth. For everyone else, Trump is going to look like the petty know-nothing misogynist that he is.
It's a double standard if moderators bring up the Clintons' marriage but don't bring up Trump's multiple marriages. But it's not really a double standard if he brings it up and she refuses to engage. Not bringing up his marriages would be consistent with her refusal to discuss her own.
It's perhaps one of the few times when one action is honorable, ideologically consistent, and politically smart all at the same time.
If she ignores him on it, that will make him wild. He'll keep bringing it up so he looks ridiculous and burns all his time talking about blow jobs, and she'll be able to talk about the issues.
Oh my god this - so true. You have to think of dealing with him like dealing with a three year old. They are testing limits and trying to get a reaction. The best way to deal with it is to refuse to engage and to stay perfectly calm. Repeating over and over again "This is about the American people, not my marriage." "This is about our country and not about personal attacks." "I'm going to discuss issues facing the voters, and not dignify personal insults."
Just like she should have a pat, tight response on servers, the crime bill, and Benghazi that she should stick to every.single.time.
If she ignores him on it, that will make him wild. He'll keep bringing it up so he looks ridiculous and burns all his time talking about blow jobs, and she'll be able to talk about the issues.
Oh my god this - so true. You have to think of dealing with him like dealing with a three year old. They are testing limits and trying to get a reaction. The best way to deal with it is to refuse to engage and to stay perfectly calm. Repeating over and over again "This is about the American people, not my marriage." "This is about our country and not about personal attacks." "I'm going to discuss issues facing the voters, and not dignify personal insults."
Just like she should have a pat, tight response on servers, the crime bill, and Benghazi that she should stick to every.single.time.
Guys, let's just call Hillary up. We can have a CEP sit down and come up with her blanket responses to Trump. I will watch hours of Trump videos if necessary, even if it will eat a part of my soul. I mean, if I HAD a soul, it would.
Fine. I concede that she should not try to shoot it back on Trump in the format of a debate. But if a moderator asks her a question about Bill Clinton's affairs or whatever, I am going to lose my damn mind. For the record. Because that some grade-a sexist bullshit given the other candidate's more applicable history seeing as he is running for office and Bill isn't. If Trump brings it up on his own, well, he's an idiot who has zero self-reflection abilities so I wouldn't be surprised. He's already done it.
I would also be OK if she shot back with " What point are you trying to make, Donny?"
I would prefer it if say they asked about issues with the national deficit and he goes off on this tirade for her to say, "What point are you trying to make about the national deficit here, cheeto jesus?" Then flip it to her talking points on the subject. Don't give him a chance to respond. Don't let him talk about the deficit now. He had his chance, he chose to squander it. So then be like, "It appears my opponent has no plans to handle the national deficit. Personally, I plan to do XYZ. This is why my plans work. Next question, Anderson Cooper." (Because I love Anderson Cooper.)
If he was planning on bringing this up, he absolutely won't now. He's going to try and blindside her with his remarks. Now that his camp knows she's prepping for this, they'll leave it be. Well done, HRC and team. Well done.
If he was planning on bringing this up, he absolutely won't now. He's going to try and blindside her with his remarks. Now that his camp knows she's prepping for this, they'll leave it be. Well done, HRC and team. Well done.
Wellll, that assumes (1) someone is working on strategy and (2) DT has the attention span or self control to not just go off anyway. The man has shown time and time again that he cannot help himself. He just can't. If she stays calm, smart, direct, unflappable and does not engage, he WILL go over the top to try to evoke a response. He can't help himself.
ETA: AND - if he doesn't - if he tries to pivot to being a "wonk" who engages at her level, he'll be unsuccessful and begin to alienate his base of supporters who love his anti-elite, just-like-me, unvarnished rage.
I agree, I just think it's the principal of the thing that annoys the crap out of me. That people act like it's open season to pull out the Bill cheating card on her, but no one who does that in an attempt to score points on her takes into account that the exact same thing would reflect twice as badly on Trump. It shouldn't be brought up at all. But if you're going to go there, you better be directing that same line of questioning at Trump or that's some sexist crap that a woman shouldn't have to put up with. Why did your husband cheat on you? Why did you stay with him? When the man who actually cheated on two different wives isn't getting that same kind of vitriol. She shouldn't have to be the one to point that out but the media is doing a terrible job of it. He mentioned Monica's dress at a rally just last week and I didn't see one media outlet call him out on his own cheating.
I mean, what would R's be saying if Hillary had 5 children from three different fathers? I bet it wouldn't be "what a nice blended family she has".
When Trump called out Marco Rubio for being short, it really worked out well for Rubio to call out Trump's small hands in response.
Trump's opponents just cannot waste time responding to his inane attempts at distraction. Because when you do that, all you do is say, "I have nothing of substance to talk about either!"
Nail on the head, man. The other important point to remember is that his followers cheer for this insanity, while the anti-HRC Rubio's of the party have come to accept these idiotic comments and begrudgingly swallow them while nodding their heads with a weak-ass, fake smile on their face while lifting a shaky thumb. (Too far? )
Whereas HRC would be ferociously ripped apart for ever attempting to delve to the BS-level to where Drumpf regularly dives/ almost resides by now.
The unfairness makes Opposite-World seem like a real life place
I think any question directed at her regarding Bill's affair should just be "We all go through low points in our marriages, and ours was done on the national stage for everyone to see and judge. Do I wish it never happened? Of course. But staying committed to keeping our marriage vows, even in the face of an affair, is the much more difficult road to take than cheating and walking away. Twice."
Well that will really endear her to the women who chose to leave their husbands after cheating. Look none of this is appropriate for the political stage. She just should say she is there to discuss policies and that is it. Trying to make any kind of moral or value statements about staying in a marriage or walking away from one is not going to work for her and quite honestly her decisions in this space are none of our business.
You know I am no fan of HRC, but I agree with this. Bill's philandering is on him, not HRC.
There are people who care about Trump's affairs. They already aren't voting for him. Clinton saying anything about them isn't going to convince anyone who is undecided.