Trump threatens to use Bill's sex scandal against Hillary

[ProudModerate2]

Like I said in the thread I made yesterday, as pointless as this is, if Trump just keeps hitting Hillary like this, how will she respond? Can she effectively respond?

She doesn't need to respond. This is a disgusting topic, and tactic. Only someone like the likes of that pig Trump, and his people, would go down this road.

It would only cause even more of the electorate to lose respect for him (even though Trump's respect-meter is near empty).

[ProudModerate2]

"I remember that.  It was 1998. When GDP was growing by X, X million people moved into the middle class, the budget surplus was X, etc."

Basic gist of a Hillary response to GOP bringing back Lewinsky.

Genius! I would tell you to work for her campaign, but I worry - if she can't satisfy her husband, how can she satisfy her campaign staff?

smilo,

You are such an a##hole !
There are hundreds-of-thousands of women who suffer mental pain and anguish because of their cheating husbands.
This hurts the entire family, and many times, destroys the family bond altogether.
Has nothing to do with wives/women unable to "satisfy their husband," but more about how we as men take little regard in controlling our sexual desires, and feel little/nothing about the marriage vows we swore to. Massive failure.
(Not all men, but many.)

Unable to comprehend the filth that you spew, other than to say that it should not surprise us.
A true Trump supporter have you proven to be ... just like Trump, the scum bag that he is.
Trump the bigot, hater and insulter towards women, the disabled, Muslims, immigrants, etc etc etc.
"Birds of the same feather, flock together."

[ProudModerate2]

He should! If Hillary can't satisfy her own husband, how will she satisfy us as president?

I didn't know that the President is obliged to perform sex with the voters.

No I mean if she can't even make a good wife how will she make a good president? It starts in the home.

Donald Trump has been through multiple divorces. Not that that's any of my business.

Has anyone left him? You're proving my point actually, but you aren't seeing it.  His wives weren't suitable just like Hillary Clinton wasn't suitable.  She can't even maintain a husband so how will she maintain the US?

...Go away. When you make me defend Hillary there's a serious problem. So, do us a favor and stop trolling.

Yes you are correct.
Seems that both he and smilo are trolling.

[ProudModerate2]

Oh my gosh, are you literally retarded or have you never heard that line of horrible logic with the word "America" inserted where "campaign staff" is? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I don't like to use the r-word, but with the influx of talented posters that keep popping up, I must make an exception.

Oh don't worry, we understand your use of the r-word. If you degrade women, we know that you have no respect towards individuals with Down Syndrome, either.

As far as your "influx of talented posters that keep popping up" ....
Well for you information, this site always welcomes new members. I have been with the site for many years now.
I have noticed that you and a few others, sometimes like to advertise yourselves like you're some kind of Atlas elitist. You can come off your high-horse attitude, because its not working here.
And if you have a problem with an "influx" of new members, then why don't you leave the site.
I'm confident that the owner, mods and the rest of us, welcome new-blood and enjoy hearing their opinions.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

Maybe. But what you fail to understand and take into consideration, is the huge loss of people that would be willing to support Trump, when he keeps offending people with the filth that comes out of his mouth. He has offended Hispanics, women, the disabled, Muslims, etc etc.

These groups are very unlikely to support him in the general election, all at the expense of gaining white republicans that he needs in the primary. And now you say that Trump should use a strategy of sex and sexual assaults ?
That is disgusting and a very low level trashy strategy.
You ask "Does anyone here really think that stuff like this is beyond the pale for Donald Trump?"
Of course not, Trump and trash are synonymous. Trump is a bigot, bottom of the barrel scum bag, and such a strategy would only cause more of the electorate (in the general election) to toss him into the gutter where he belongs.

[ProudModerate2]

He goes further:

"If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!"

Yes you are right ... he does "go further."
Trump goes further on making himself look more like of an ass, than he already has.

[ProudModerate2]

He goes further:

"If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!"

Yes you are right ... he does "go further."
Trump goes further on making himself look more like of an ass, than he already has.

What people don't get is that Trump is the only one trying to hold BILL Clinton accountable for his past actions, and the only way he can do this is by pre-empting a degree of the appeal for the Clintons (and they are, truly a "package deal") amongst women on the gender issues.  Violence against women is a real-world thing.  Even a liberal woman will be creeped out if she thinks long enough about some of what Bill Clinton allegedly did.  It wasn't a CAMPAIGN issue in the past; the Willey/Lewinsky/Tripp stuff happened after 1996.  But it WILL be a campaign issue now, thanks to Donald Trump.  Think about this, and the effect that this could possibly have.

How far in time do we go back, and discuss such dinosaur issues, to "hold people accountable" ?
Should we go back and discuss Kennedy for his past (affairs) ?
Maybe early Presidents for having slaves ?
Should Trump discuss Barry Goldwater and his anti-segregation stance .... oh wait, Trump is also in the bigot arena ... scratch this one, Trump wouldn't use that tactic.

In any case this is an old issue. Bringing it up again, will just make people roll their eyes.
I also think it's a disgusting tactic, and people will only have less respect for Trump for doing it (if he has any respect left by the time the general election rolls around). The past "bad behavior" of Bill Clinton, should not be something used to attack or take advantage of, towards Hillary Clinton. What people fail to see, is that Hillary was the victim regarding Bill's actions. If you don't think that Hillary and hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of women who experience similar situations, endure emotional pain for the family, then you have no heart and soul (and to also consider the pain that their children also go through).

So women in the electorate will only relate more to what Hillary experienced. And then for women to hear someone else (Trump) mocking the whole situation for political gain, will only make women hate Trump even more. This is not really a safe, or in-play issue, for candidates to use. Kind of like attacking or using the other candidate's children for political points (an area the media and candidates know they should not do).

It's really disgusting if you think about it. (I'm a man, and I can see how rancid and hideous this strategy would be.) Would Trump do it ? Probably, being the scum bag that he is. Will it back-fire on Trump ? I say yes.

PS: If Hillary was the one committing affairs, then OK, she is a direct candidate for the office. But attacking and using other candidate's spouses and children, and somehow "twisting it" to relate to the presidential candidate, then No.

[ProudModerate2]

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

[ProudModerate2]

The American People care greatly about the private lives of the opposition party's politicians.  They hope the sleaziest dirt comes out so their candidate can win, and America will either be saved from the reign of Satan's Disciples, or from Neanderthals who wish to repeal the 20th and 21st centuries.  That's how divided we are.  The American People hunger for dirt on the opposition to reinforce their view that they are right in what they, personally, believe.

This is false, and thus so is everything else you assume in your post. The American People don't "hope for the sleaziest dirt." The American People don't "hunger for dirt on the opposition to reinforce their views."

Do some Americans feel this way .... more than likely yes. But if you are describing anyone this way, then more than likely you are describing Trump supporters and Tea-Baggers. They are the only ones who would accept such "sleazy dirt" to be thrown around. Probably because they have lived their entire lives without any morals/ethics.

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.
I am actually offended that you would refer to and assume that all Americans are, as you describe.
I have faith that the vast majority of us, would have nothing to do with enjoying and sporting-wood for "sleaze and dirt." But I can tell you this .... the minority that you describe are similar to the many posts if have read from Trump yes-men on Atlas. They are the perverted ones that seem to get some kind of sick gratification from "sleaze and dirt."

[ProudModerate2]

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...

I said nothing about Hillary being perfect or described her as a "sweet grandma baking chocolate chip cookies." NO ONE is perfect, and everyone's sh#t stinks, including Hillary's and mine and yours 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.

Shouldn't we as people of this nation demand this ? Would you want your family (spouse, your child, your own mother/father/grandparent) attacked and used by the opposition ?
Of course not.
Thus I am perplexed by your comment : "It's too bad that that evil Trump guy can't seem to see it our way..."
Your use of the words "our way" seems to imply that "our" means Hillary supporter's way of looking at it. But that is not the "way" I am trying to convince anyone to look at my argument.
The way I would like people to understand my argument is that we should conform to and demand that family is off-limits, and that this is an "American way" of "our" politics. (That represents ALL OF US. Regardless if Dem, Rep, white, black, man, woman, fat or skinny.)

[ProudModerate2]

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...

I said nothing about Hillary being perfect or described her as a "sweet grandma baking chocolate chip cookies." NO ONE is perfect, and everyone's sh#t stinks, including Hillary's and mine and yours 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.

Shouldn't we as people of this nation demand this ? Would you want your family (spouse, your child, your own mother/father/grandparent) attacked and used by the opposition ?
Of course not.
Thus I am perplexed by your comment : "It's too bad that that evil Trump guy can't seem to see it our way..."
Your use of the words "our way" seems to imply that "our" means Hillary supporter's way of looking at it. But that is not the "way" I am trying to convince anyone to look at my argument.
The way I would like people to understand my argument is that we should conform to and demand that family is off-limits, and that this is an "American way" of "our" politics. (That represents ALL OF US. Regardless if Dem, Rep, white, black, man, woman, fat or skinny.)

Bill Clinton is an ex-President and top drawer Democratic surrogate for the party's current generation of politicians, not some misty housewife or a clueless teen. He should be able to handle attacks on his personal conduct, given that many of them are richly deserved.

But where do we draw the line, in who is considered acceptable to attacks ?
You say "ex-Presidents," but why not ex-senators or ex-mayors ?
You say "misty housewife," but why not sexy housewives or housewives from reality TV shows.
You say "clueless teen," but what about highly intelligent teens who graduate high school at the age of 15 ?

Who gets to determine that if you "should be able to handle attacks," then you are in-play during the campaign ?
Did Bill Clinton "richly deserve" the criticism for his misconduct during his tenure ... you bet your ass he did !!!
But should all that ancient mess now be "twisted" so that it somehow relates to something Hillary did directly, and then be used against her ? ........ No.

[ProudModerate2]

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

[ProudModerate2]

.... 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...

Think about it .....
Any topic/subject related to one spouse, can easily be "twisted" to somehow attach it and have it related to the other spouse (the presidential candidate). They're married .... so making "any connection" will be easy.

Same with someone's child. The adult (mother and presidential candidate, in our case) is the guardian of anything and everything that child does. So again .... how easy would it be to "twist" any controversial topic/subject related to the child, and then attach responsibility back to the parent(s).

So ....
"twist, turn, detach and then reattach" the topic/subject to the presidential candidate ....
Add in some fancy organizations or groups that relate to the topic, like those associated with women's rights, a child welfare protection association against parental incompetence, PETA, the association of ufo's and aliens, etc etc ....
and wa-lah .... you have a cock-a-mamie attachment to the presidential candidate, and now the family member is considered fair-play for campaign abuse.

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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...

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 ?

[ProudModerate2]

Trump's spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, would have a different answer than you do.

Really !?? Tell me something I (we) don't already know.

Is she supposed to be the better proponent of women's rights because she's a woman?

Obviously no. But also as obvious is that in most cases, a woman will always be a better proponent of "woman's" rights, than a man. The profound changes to greater rights for women in the 1910's and 20's was because of women, and because of their devotion and hard work. If we would have left this push to just the men, well ....

Can she point to any real activities to back up her claim?

And what has Trump done for women ? Seems that through the years, Trump has consistently insulted, belittled, sexualized and stereotyped women. He has insulted notable women like Sarah Jessica Parker, Rosie O'Donnell, Cher, Bette Midler, Fox News' Megyn Kelly during the debate and now Hillary.

Also consider that no one can be a 100% pure "proponent" of any issue. A woman can never be a perfect proponent of woman's rights, a black (African-American) individual can never be a perfect proponent of black rights, etc.
We all have flaws, and no one can say that their sh#t does not stink when using the bathroom.

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 ?

[ProudModerate2]

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.

I had a hunch you would evade the question.
I did not ask you who you will support or vote for ? You are allowing who you support, interfere with answering the question.
An issue such a woman's rights is complicated, and cannot be seen as one person versus another having the exact same stance on this issue.
Don't look at the question as "what are the odds of seeing heads or tails" when flipping a quarter (coin) in the air (in where the odds are exactly 50-50).

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

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