Trump threatens to use Bill's sex scandal against Hillary

[SillyAmerican]

The issue Trump (or any other Republican) will have against Hillary is the fact that Hillary was complicit in helping to label as "nuts and sluts" all the women who made allegations that Bill Clinton had sex with them while married to Hillary, including those who alleged coercion.  Think about this for a moment when you consider how important the "gender gap" is to Democrats, and how driving that gap through the roof is a viable campaign strategy for them.  Think of how this will affect Hillary when Kathleen Willey's name is brought up during a discussion of the Violence Against Women Act.  Never mind that Willey's story contains inconsistencies; just wait until Trump portrays Hillary as doing Bill's dirty work in discrediting a sexual assault victim.

Does anyone here really think that stuff like this is beyond the pale for Donald Trump?  Donald Trump has convinced me that he knows more about politics than anyone in this race.  He knows what will play and what will drive his campaign, and he's not afraid of getting dirty because he's got a bigger mud bucket.  Hillary thinks she'll make mince meat out of the Neanderthal Trump, when, in fact, Trump is likely three jumps ahead of her.  Just like Obama was in 2008.  What Hillary doesn't get is that she (A) isn't as smart as Bill and (B) isn't the politician Bill is.

Completely agree, and couldn't have said it better.

[SillyAmerican]

The rest of us civilized "American People" will just stand back and react in horror, if Trump (or any candidate) would actually move to such low-level tactics as described in this thread.

Yes, it's really awful the way "those other folks" stoop to using those terrible, low-down tactics. Thank goodness for us "civilized" people, the ones who recognize Hillary for the sweet grandma that she is, spending her time making chocolate chip cookies and just loving on everyone. It's too bad that that evil Trump guy can't seem to see it our way...

[SillyAmerican]

The point I am making is that spouses, children and other family members, should be off-limits to "attacks" during the campaign. Any issues directly committed by the candidate himself/herself is fine, but we need to stay away from attacks on their family.

I actually agree with you 100% here. A candidate's family members should be off limits.

However, if Hillary is trying to portray herself as some kind of feminist icon, isn't it fair to point out that she did nothing to support those women who accused her husband of wrongful activities? In fact, she went and pooh poohed all of those accusations. So if a woman accuses a man of something, and that man's wife does everything she can to deflect those charges, then later runs for public office, are her activities subject to review/criticism? (Note that the criticism in question is being directed towards her, not towards him...).

[SillyAmerican]

.... using other candidate's spouses and children, and somehow "twisting it" (the issue or story) to relate to the presidential candidate ....

Sorry, but raising the question of whether or not this woman is a wonderful bastion of women's rights that would make an ideal first woman President? That's not "twisting it", that's completely on point...

[SillyAmerican]

Easy as pie !
My challenge to you : Give me any "controversial" issue/story about a family member of any presidential candidate, and I can "twist" the issue and relate it back to the candidate, every time.

So I suppose you conclude that Mrs. Clinton can go around claiming to be a wonderful proponent of women's rights, the ideal candidate to lead the charge for women everywhere, and nobody is allowed to ask her why she dismissed the credible charges made by several women regarding the actions of her husband? If that's what you are actually saying, then I'm sorry, but I have to be in Trump's corner on this one. (And believe me, I'm not in his corner on too  many things...). The fact is, Hillary Clinton wants to tout herself as this great feminist, but when it mattered, she showed herself to be anything but...

[SillyAmerican]

There should be no issue with who is a better "proponent of women's rights," when we look at only two candidates : Hillary or Trump.
Which of these two candidates do you honestly believe would support more of woman's rights ?
Hillary .... or Trump, who continues to say degrading (and poorly disguised) things about women and women as leaders ?

Trump's spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, would have a different answer than you do. But my point is why should Hillary be allowed to make claims about her record on women's rights in a vacuum? People should challenge Trump on the things he says. People should do the same with Hillary. Is she supposed to be the better proponent of women's rights because she's a woman? Can she point to any real activities to back up her claim? Because as I say, her record based on how she treated certain badly treated women in the past doesn't speak well for her.

[SillyAmerican]

You didn't answer one of my last questions. I want to know what your belief is, or are you intentionally ignoring it ? Please give me a quick one word answer ("Trump" or "Hillary") to this question ......

Which of these two candidates do you honestly believe would support more of woman's rights ?

Sure thing. The honest answer I would give anyone posing a question like yours is quite simple: if you don't see a candidate being put forward by the two major political parties whose positions reflect your thinking on the issues you find important, and whose temperament you feel to be a good fit for the position he/she is seeking, vote for somebody else. So my quick one word answer to you is "neither". It's how I voted in the 2012 Presidential race, and could very well be how I vote in 2016. We'll see. If more people treated their vote as something of value, that needs to be earned (and I mean through things other than shouting "I'm better than that other person"), perhaps the country would be in better shape.

You and others fail miserably at pointing to a single, solid example of Mrs. Clinton acting in the best interest of a woman, either during her time as first lady, as Senator of New York, or as Secretary of State. But I'm supposed to take it on faith that she'd be better than Trump on "women's issues", because she's a woman and she says so (with just the right amount of bluster). Sorry, but I'm not buying it. She's a very good politician, granted, but an advocate for women's issues? Nope.

[SillyAmerican]

Taking everything into consideration that you know about both candidates (Trump or Hillary), which do you believe would support woman's rights more ?
You cannot answer "neither." If you had to choose one, which of these two candidates would you select ? Which one to you is "slightly" more than the other (if you see both as almost equal) ?
The question is easy.

My starting point is that the two candidates are equally bad. I asked for evidence of Mrs. Clinton's past positive activities vis-a-vis women's issues, and none were forthcoming. I can give examples of women leveling charges against a man she knows, charges which she dismissed outright but were since shown to have merit. That's bad. I'm waiting for counter examples that would lead me to conclude Mrs. Clinton is better than Mr. Trump. Absent any such evidence, I cannot and will not say she'd be even "slightly" better.

[SillyAmerican]

Your answer is Trump.
That's all you had to say.

No, my answer is that I don't play the game "Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?" That's all I have to say.