Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
He's also a chickenshit, so.Trump literally said in his message about this scandal that he was going to bring it up next week at the debate.
He's also a chickenshit, so.Trump literally said in his message about this scandal that he was going to bring it up next week at the debate.
He didn't cancel, the Trump campaign replaced him with a campaign insider (Giuliani) likely so they could control the messaging.
I'm comparing that she knew the email server would be an issue and it took her and her staff a while to finally come up with a clear, concise answer to it. Just assuming that she will have a great answer for the Bill accusations right out of the gate isn't a given. That's all. I'm not comparing the severity of the issues or anything.
I doubt she brings up anything about him being accused of rape. IMO she's going to stick to her guns and when it comes up she'll have an answer for it.
You guys have to remember. Trump is treading on light ground. If Trump brings this up himself at a Town Hall setting he's toast. Only other way it comes up is if Anderson asks it or someone in the Town hall.
Manu Raju ‏@mkraju 40m40 minutes ago
Giuliani, leaving Trump Tower, signals Trump is ready to wage war against his party. "This is basically the insiders versus the outsiders."
Symone D. Sanders
Symone D. Sanders‏ @SymoneDSanders
You apparently can say whatever you want about Mexicans, Hispanics & Black people, but the Republican Party draws the line on white women.
I can't tell if Hillary should go sympathetic or hard aggressive on the accusations she's a rape enabler. I see it both ways. I think It's pretty terrible if anything that people allege she did she actually did. It's obvious to me this is one area where political expediency might have compromised her actual beliefs/practices/policy. But it's sort of coming from the dying campaign of a raving madman so it is hard to tell how to react.
But I agree with HTupolev. It's not to be taken lightly.
Kumail Nanjiani‏ @kumailn 2h
"That's it, that's the last straw," they said, surrounded by billions of straws
How much would Hillary have to win by for Ted Strickland to win in Ohio?
I think it's about whether you think she should be playing prevent defense, or go for the kill. She can give some scripted and canned non-answer or she can highlight that she's a woman and he's a rapist and that his attempts at false equivalency would make women fume. If I were here, i'd try to kill him in this debate and not let him numbers crawl back up.
I can't tell if Hillary should go sympathetic or hard aggressive on the accusations she's a rape enabler. I see it both ways. I think It's pretty terrible if anything that people allege she did she actually did. It's obvious to me this is one area where political expediency might have compromised her actual beliefs/practices/policy. But it's sort of coming from the dying campaign of a raving madman so it is hard to tell how to react.
But I agree with HTupolev. It's not to be taken lightly.
BYE BYE JOE HECK AND ROY BLUNT
Jesus people, Hillary will not and should not mention Trump's alleged rapes of anyone, are you fucking nuts
She's trying to be sympathetic, not lose everyone's votes
By 20 or 30 points probably unless polls start to show portman losing support in polls soon. At this point I can see hilary winning ohio by around 5 points.
Lol @ CNN playing Trump on Stern. As a guy who grew up listening to stern it is very surreal.
The Clinton's have been subject to the harshest public spotlight of any couple in the history of sexual relations, ever. It's already been litigated in the court of public opinion. Hillary has been through the trenches before and she's had this answer in her back pocket for the past 16 years. Probably longer when you think about the Flowers stuff.
Trying to pivot and attacking Trump for raping his wife is a beyond horrible strategy imo. You can't dignify the Broadarick line of attack with any kind response, you can't legitimize that "you enabled an abuser" line of attack under any circumstances--don't even entertain the possibility of a false equivalency. Let the tape speak for itself.
The criticism against the Clinton's is that they allowed their usual distractions to derail the highest office in the land and the country. No one is under any illusions that Trump will not do that, times a hundred. No one, other than Roger Ailes and Sean Hannity, actually finds this line of argumentation, on face, without context, without rebuttal, to even be persuasive. You can't just throw it out in a 30 sec debate soundbite without any evidence and expect people to find it convincing, in the least. Treat it the same way she treated the Blumenthal birther stuff - a non-sequitur not worthy of a response.
I like, "You are blaming me for Bill's infidelity, so do you blame Melania for yours?"
But Blunt still backs Trump?
I think he's probably toast now anyway.
Nah. She shouldn't say that shit. You risk muddying the waters and "both sides" being called out. Focus on the Town hall. If he brings it up she gives and answer that pretty much shuts out that line of attack.
Don't accuse Trump of being a rapist. That'll most likely come out later on it's own anyway.
It's already come out. The sworn deposition of his first wife and a 13 year old girl are in the legal system. She's doing it with the same validity of what he's attacking Bill with. They're both the same, but she's a woman. It works.
Thanks for that.This article covers it fairly well.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick?0p19G=c
She should go hard sympathy, defend women, say the 90s were a difficult time for her family and point out that Donald looks real desperate to deflect from his own comments.
Let that play out in the press. Keep leaking shit. But she can't be the messenger.
It's already come out. The sworn deposition of his first wife and a 13 year old girl are in the legal system. She's doing it with the same validity of what he's attacking Bill with. They're both the same, but she's a woman. It works.
This is why it was always insane for the Republicans to believe that they could make a deal-with-the-devil with Trump when they had literally zero leverage over him. He has always shown that he is willing to take down the party with him (Jeet Heer's Samson theory, if you will).
If anything, he--and more importantly, his white nationalist base--already has his stab-in-the-back theory ready to go. It was the GOP who betrayed us. That's why we lost. If the GOP thinks that they can just pretend this cycle never happened, they're fucking idiots, destroying our democracy, etc. etc. but what else is new.
What has changed in the past 16 years though? This was already litigated in the court of public opinion. (And congress). No one earned more sympathy and, frankly, political capital through that than Hillary.
So the argument plays well to the Fox News base... who cares?
If anyone tries to forget, Cruz's opponents will make sure that it's impossible.No one is probably going to remember but yikes does the timing of Cruz's reendorsement of Trump look bad.
I get the desire to play it safe, but this won't go away after tomorrow. They will call her an enabler and him a rapist for the next 30 days. And if she starts soft then attacks as time goes on, she'll look desperate. You have to end this tomorrow night. Or it will be a slow drip drip. She has to change the angle of the story and canned non-answers don't do that, ever.
I get the desire to play it safe, but this won't go away after tomorrow. They will call her an enabler and him a rapist for the next 30 days. And if she starts soft then attacks as time goes on, she'll look desperate.
I've listened to Stern most of my life, and he will absolutely love this
Hey, what's happening in Georgia? Not only did it not experience the bump that Arizona has had, but Alaska is ahead of it in 538.
IA DMR
Trump 43
Hillary 39
IA DMR
Trump 43
Hillary 39
No polls.Hey, what's happening in Georgia? Not only did it not experience the bump that Arizona has had, but Alaska is ahead of it in 538.
No, you have to remember a big chunk of the Democratic voting block wasn't actually around for the 90s, so anything that demotivates or demoralizes them is dangerous. It IS an issue if Hillary's current line is in direct opposition to what she (allegedly) did in the 90s. Supposedly. Maybe. Again, it's all he said-she said I think.