Donald vs Hillary

[BubberMiley]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

I think Hilary Clinton is a a serial liar and a deliberate one.

 

This is exactly what I mean by vague and questionable accusations. Lots of hot air but the more you look, the less you see.

[WestCoastRunner]

2 hours ago, BC_chick said:

There are numerous testimonies by the women and collaborated accounts from aids and investigators.

You know what they are, everyone does and the issues have been mentioned even in the pro-Hillary op-eds about the ghosts of her past that can haunt her. 

Some people like me choose to root for her in spite of them.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that Hillary destroyed the lives and reputations of these women.

[BC_chick]

1 hour ago, cybercoma said:

Mac uses the command key instead of control.

Got it.  Still doesn't work though.  I'll leave for the mods I guess.

[betsy]

5 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

That's one way to spin it. Another more truthful way would be to say that Donald has lost his consistent sizable lead in the LATimes poll. You might also wonder why this one poll is so different than all the others and look into its methodology. There you would find it is in fact a totally different poll. It measures likelihood to vote on a scale of 1 to 100. It factors in voter exuberance so that a person who is very, very likely to vote counts more than a person who is only very likely to vote. It appears Trump's supporters are becoming noticeably less exuberant. I blame the grabbing of the pussies.

 

Relax.

  I'm saying, it ain't over til it's over.   The results from polls show that LA Times has them as tie.  

 

Anyway, here's the latest from Rasmussen:

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 41%. Yesterday, Clinton still held a four-point 43% to 39% lead over Trump, but  that was down from five points on Tuesday and her biggest lead ever of seven points on Monday.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13

 

[BC_chick]

30 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

I'm still waiting for the evidence that Hillary destroyed the lives and reputations of these women.

Using that logic there is also no 'evidence' Donald Trump groped anyone.

[betsy]

3 hours ago, BC_chick said:

She went beyond just accepting it. 

Having said that, you're welcome to count yourself in the 'I believe women except ones who accuse Bill Clinton' camp. 

I prefer to root for her in spite of her bad points as opposed to denying them outright. 

I'm curious.

Why do you root for someone you believe to have enabled her husband in committing atrocities against women?

[BubberMiley]

4 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Using that logic there is also no 'evidence' Donald Trump groped anyone.

No, there are people who have offered themselves as witnesses to his gropings. That's what evidence means.

[BubberMiley]

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

I'm curious.

Why do you root for someone you believe to have enabled her husband in committing atrocities against women?

Because the alternative is someone who has committed atrocities against women?

[WestCoastRunner]

8 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Using that logic there is also no 'evidence' Donald Trump groped anyone.

So you have no evidence.  What I thought.

[BC_chick]

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

I wouldn't say it's all lies because I have no way of knowing the absolute truth. What I see is a few people who have made careers off of discrediting Bill Clinton and who are still clearly making a living off it. I think he probably had numerous affairs and I think Hillary probably didn't think much of women who would sleep with her husband. When you sell your story about someone for a lot of money, I don't have a lot of sympathy if you whine about the wife questioning whether or not what you're saying is true. But there's little evidence Hillary even did that. I would think she would be somewhat removed from Bill's strategy of dealing with his former sex partners because she's his wife and husbands and wives rarely collaborate on such things.

All in all, I think she was faced with a very difficult, very public situation and handled it with grace.

I was watching a Trump surrogate on CNN saying how she supports Trump's policies and all these attacks on his character are just a distraction.  I don't like his policies either, but I did consider her point about policy vs. personality.

There is a tape of Trump talking badly about women, there is a history of his misogyny, therefore we believe the stuff we hear his accusers say about him groping them.

It's the same idea with Hillary Clinton - she showed herself to be by her husband's side through thick and thin, she's said things about his accusers on the record to discredit them so I believe it when the women say she was personally involved in digging up things about their past and discrediting them.

 

1 minute ago, BubberMiley said:

No, there are people who have offered themselves as witnesses to his gropings. That's what evidence means.

That link I left had MANY examples of witnesses to the Clintons' miscondcut as well.  I take it you didn't read it.

 

Just now, betsy said:

I'm curious.

Why do you root for someone you believe to have enabled her husband in committing atrocities against women?

Same reason you support a misogynist pig.

[BC_chick]

Just now, WestCoastRunner said:

So you have no evidence.  What I thought.

I believe women.  Sorry to see you don't.

[BubberMiley]

10 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Relax.

  I'm saying, it ain't over til it's over.   The results from polls show that LA Times has them as tie.  

Anyway, here's the latest from Rasmussen:

 

You wouldn't be cherry-picking to make the best of a very bad situation, would you?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/

[BubberMiley]

1 minute ago, BC_chick said:

I believe women.  Sorry to see you don't.

Certain women, obviously.

[BC_chick]

1 minute ago, BubberMiley said:

Certain women, obviously.

No I believe the Trump accusers as well.  

You still haven't read that link from the right-wing rag New York Times did you?

Edited October 13, 2016 by BC_chick
Corrected name of NYT

[overthere]

9 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

No, there are people who have offered themselves as witnesses to his gropings. That's what evidence means.

No that is not evidence.

 

Evidence is sworn testimony in court.  It does not mean it is true, it means that somebody took an oath that it was true. 'Somebody' could be a person like Lucy DeCoutere.

Edited October 13, 2016 by overthere

[BubberMiley]

6 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

No I believe the Trump accusers as well.  

You still haven't read that link from the right-wing rag New York Times did you?

I have, but there was no testimony from abused women who witnessed Hillary making backroom deals to destroy their lives, so I'm not sure what you're talking about with respect to Hillary when you say you believe them.

Edited October 13, 2016 by BubberMiley

[BC_chick]

1 minute ago, BubberMiley said:

I have, and there was nothing compelling  in there. There was also no testimony from abused women who witnessed Hillary making backroom deals to destroy their lives, so I'm not sure what you're talking about with respect to Hillary when you say you believe them.

But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign’s aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting — tactics that women’s rights advocates frequently denounce.

The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to impugn Ms. Flowers’s “character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition.”

In a pattern that would later be repeated with other women, the investigator’s staff scoured Arkansas and beyond, collecting disparaging accounts from ex-boyfriends, employers and others who claimed to know Ms. Flowers, accounts that the campaign then disseminated to the news media.

By the time Mr. Clinton finally admitted to “sexual relations” with Ms. Flowers, years later, Clinton aides had used stories collected by the private investigator to brand her as a “bimbo” and a “pathological liar.”

Mrs. Clinton’s level of involvement in that effort, as described in interviews, internal campaign records and archives, is still the subject of debate. By some accounts, she gave the green light and was a motivating force; by others, her support was no more than tacit assent.

[cybercoma]

27 minutes ago, betsy said:

I'm curious.

Why do you root for someone you believe to have enabled her husband in committing atrocities against women?

Atrocities? This is a word reserved for things like the extermination of millions of Jews, people with disabilities, homosexuals, and more during WWII and the likes.

Atrocities. Sheesh.

 

22 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

I was watching a Trump surrogate on CNN saying how she supports Trump's policies and all these attacks on his character are just a distraction.  I don't like his policies either, but I did consider her point about policy vs. personality.

Trump has no policies. He had an opportunity to talk about his policies at the debates and hasn't articulated one reasonable course of action. It's just a slew of incoherent ramblings that wouldn't qualify for a passing grade had he been given those questions on a college exam.

[WestCoastRunner]

17 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

But privately, she embraced the Clinton campaign’s aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting — tactics that women’s rights advocates frequently denounce.

The campaign hired a private investigator with a bare-knuckles reputation who embarked on a mission, as he put it in a memo, to impugn Ms. Flowers’s “character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition.”

In a pattern that would later be repeated with other women, the investigator’s staff scoured Arkansas and beyond, collecting disparaging accounts from ex-boyfriends, employers and others who claimed to know Ms. Flowers, accounts that the campaign then disseminated to the news media.

By the time Mr. Clinton finally admitted to “sexual relations” with Ms. Flowers, years later, Clinton aides had used stories collected by the private investigator to brand her as a “bimbo” and a “pathological liar.”

Mrs. Clinton’s level of involvement in that effort, as described in interviews, internal campaign records and archives, is still the subject of debate. By some accounts, she gave the green light and was a motivating force; by others, her support was no more than tacit assent.

Because of Flowers affair with BIll, she made over 500,000 selling her life story about her affiar and made 250,000 posing for playboy,  I don't get how her life was destroyed.

[cybercoma]

32 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

I believe women.  Sorry to see you don't.

Was there a problem with the Paula Jones case that was dismissed? I have to question the judgment of someone who files a sexual harassment suit then turns around and poses for Penthouse a year later. More importantly though, I have to question the judgment of someone who allegedly survived sexual harassment who then goes on to endorse Donald Trump after the tape comes out with him bragging about sexually assaulting women. You would think someone who went through harassment would be a little more concerned with putting their name behind candidate bragging about sexual assault.

I'm sorry, maybe the other women have a case, but Paula Jones at best has piss poor judgment and at worse she's a lying opportunist willing to sell out at every opportunity. I wonder if the GOP paid her the first time around during Bill's impeachment. Having Lewinsky in the media saying their relationship was consensual wasn't good enough for them to skewer him. They had to get someone else to ramp up the rhetoric. And apparently Paula Jones will take a paycheck for anything.

Edited October 13, 2016 by cybercoma

[BubberMiley]

21 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

 

Mrs. Clinton’s level of involvement in that effort, as described in interviews, internal campaign records and archives, is still the subject of debate. By some accounts, she gave the green light and was a motivating force; by others, her support was no more than tacit assent.

Exactly. So what in there suggests that questioning Hillary's involvement is not believing abused women? Or is that just a popular catchphrase that can be used to shut down debate in all circumstances related to women's abuse?

[BC_chick]

2 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Because of Flowers affair with BIll, she made over 500,000 selling her life story about her affiar and made 250,000 posing for playboy,  I don't get how her life was destroyed.

Clinton's campaign hired an investigator to delve into her past just to destroy her reputation.  What does her posing nude have to do with using such an anti-feminist tactic to disrepute a woman?

 

[BC_chick]

6 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Was there a problem with the Paula Jones case that was dismissed? I have to question the judgment of someone who files a sexual harassment suit then turns around and poses for Penthouse a year later. 

Why?  She had a right to capitalize on her notoriety.  How does that make a case for her falsely accusing him?

[BC_chick]

6 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Exactly. So what in there suggests that questioning Hillary's involvement is not believing abused women? Or is that just a popular catchphrase that can be used to shut down debate in all circumstances related to women's abuse?

The investigator said they both called to thank him.

But of course... he's lying too.

[WestCoastRunner]

3 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

Clinton's campaign hired an investigator to delve into her past just to destroy her reputation.  What does her posing nude have to do with using such an anti-feminist tactic to disrepute a woman?

 

Investigators are always hired for these types of cases.  That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.  And Hillary certainly didn't plan this.  Bill has people in place to do this sort of stuff.  They are the ones who would ultimately call the shots on how to handle it, not Hillary.