Donald J. TrumpVerified account
@realDonaldTrumpHillary Clinton has announced that she is letting her husband out to campaign but HE’S DEMONSTRATED A PENCHANT FOR SEXISM, so inappropriate!
Trump needs to be very careful about what he wishes for. Has he forgotten who he is messing with? Trump might be smart, or so he wants us to believe. He is, however, no match for Bill Clinton, who might be one of the most intelligent political minds of the past 100 years.
I am almost salivating at the thought. This latest running of the Trump Trash Trap does not serve him well. There is no overlap of base. If nothing else, if Trump keeps rattling, he will energize all the Bill Clinton lovers who might just not be as enthusiastic over Hillary. (yes I will vote for her but must I also be excited about it?) Once they see the old Bill back in action, all those warm fuzzy Bill feelings will come rushing back, despite the baggy eyes and the skinnier body.
Trump will awaken a sleeping giant. There are a lot of people out there who will vote for Hillary just to get Bill back. that even includes Republicans. yes, Hillary does have a magic bullet. Watch out, Trump. You are a foolish, foolish man.
Note: Readers are reminded of the sacred cow list.
I want to watch Trump beat the Clintons like rented mules. All he has to do is tell the truth about Billy boy’s penchant for abusing women and Hillary’s penchant for aiding and abetting him.
I don’t think you will get that opportunity. I would say that Clinton’s track record doesn’t include abuse. He enjoyed women and they obviously enjoyed him. I say that because I have seen women around Clinton. I certain don’t think Hillary aided and abetted that.
Remember he is a sacred cow here. I am not justifying his zipper problems. I don’t think they can be justified. But women do like him and he has a certain charisma that attracts them of all ages.
Trump doesn’t have what it takes to beat them. It might be intelligence. It might be wiliness.
I still think Bill manipulated Trump’s ego into running. They did meet privately before Trump announced. The Clintons are cunning. I think they are hoping for Trump to be the nominee
Apparently not all that private….
“Trump doesn’t have what it takes to beat them. It might be intelligence. It might be wiliness.”
I have decided to suspend “conventional wisdom” until such time as the GOP has decided on a nominee, and the FBI investigation into Clinton’s private email server has concluded. In the case of Trump, each and every time he says something that “conventional wisdom” dictates that should result in his support collapsing, he comes out stronger, poll-wise. “Conventional Wisdom” would also dictate that the email server controversy will go the way of White Water, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation fundrasing,Paula Jones intimidation or any of the legion of scandals Hillary has been associated with, will just slip off her like butter on teflon. As crazy as this cycle is, as unpredictable as the electorate is, who knows what will happen. Trump could get elected, and Hillary could be indicted. Hill ain’t Bill. People like Bill. Hill..not so much.
Very true. People like Bill. Hill doesn[‘t have the charisma he has. He is magical in person.
Trump can show up with an ice bucket….and tell her….”Better put some ice on that.”
” …might be one of the most intelligent political minds of the past 100 years.”
Eeeew!!! Gag!
I’m surprised you don’t see it. You don’t have to like him to acknowledge how sharp he is.
Interesting, not a single primary vote has been cast, and Trump talks as if he has already won the nomination.
How sharp he is at what?
Is Trump being set up for a Bill Clinton beat-down?
Yes… if Tump was a woman.
So you think Bill Clinton beat women? why are we even having this discussion?
Perhaps someone should ask Juanita Broaddrick.
Why would I ask her anything. I would end up with a headache from all the cognitive dissonance. He said, she said. The woman was having an affair with someone–not her husband. She continued working in the campaign.
If you have ever met Clinton, there is something about him that simply makes you disbelieve that he forces himself on women. Why would someone force themselves when there are probably 10 standing right there who would be more than willing to be his partner for the evening?
You have been reading too much “I hate Clinton” stuff. How do you feel about Jack Kennedy?
Cargo — I would say Moon has described very well Bill Clinton’s seduction technique. He looks like he is a good boy until he has a woman alone. And, even though a thousand women like Lewinsky might throw their bodies at him voluntarily, I am positing that he appears to enjoy conquests over those who would do no such thing and are ambushed by his “charms.”
I never did get that lip biting deal of his though. Must be some kind of caveman sexist instinct — sort of like: “Me tough guy. Take sex. Hurt woman. Show who be boss. Put ice on it.”
Probably because it didn’t happen. There are all sorts of women out there just waiting to tell their stories. Remember “Jackie” at UVA? My brother dated a woman like that briefly. Everyone wanted her. (only in her own mind) The higher up the better until everyone figured it out.
The most infamous “madam” in all of France died just recently at a ripe old age. She made a fortune providing expensive call girls to the famous and not so famous alike. She claimed that one of her good clients was President John F. Kennedy. Another married Dem chief executive who couldn’t keep his zipper up. Clinton idolized the guy.
Wonder what ever happened to those recent press leaks about Bill Clinton flying to Caribbean island love nests on the private planes of that rich Brit who specialized in sex with underage girls? The story must have gotten buried by our famously objective MSM. Maybe Trump can dig it up.
Well, what the heck. Hillary did very recently make a public campaign issue of women who claimed they have been raped. We have to listen to them, she said. We have to hear them out and believe their accusations, she said. War against women and all that, wot wot?
The Donald seems to be taking her up on that suggestion.
I found this comment in response to a Bruni column in the NYT – the sooner people get past the “robo-defense” of party the better for all of us. The 0.1% is has thrown us this he said-she said, FOX vs MSNBC as a distraction to allow them to carry on. OPEN YOUR MINDS. As we hurl cleverly crafted insulting quips, the real plunder in this country is going on. And it’s bi-partisan. I love the reality show analogy. But I think that is the most this intellectually bereft society can manage at the moment.
“This is reality for 320 million Americans looking for an ounce of journalistic and political leadership from those in a position of power in a 0.1%-hijacked country.
We don’t need another intellectually bankrupt reality show distraction with color commentary from the fourth estate.
What we need is journalists to step up to the corrupt political plate, take a baseball bat to political entertainment, confront the perverted dollaracracy and start hitting some shoe-leather journalistic home runs like your New York Times colleagues did yesterday in their “Richest in US Shape Private Tax System to Save Billions” article.
This country is at war – not with radical Islam and other enemies of the day – but with 0.1% economic terrorists whose winner-take-all ransom demands and economic violence for all have consistently been hand-gift-wrapped by the US Congress and Supreme Court for 35 years in one of the most underreported coups d’état in history.”
There is a daily 0.1% American Dream and a 99.9% American Nightmare occurring, where the medieval ‘droit du seigneur’ has been reestablished for the Robber Baron class entitling them to specific royal economic, taxation, legal and political rights that are denied to mere citizens.”
Bill has forgotten more about politics than Trump has ever known. He’s going to have a lot of fun making him look a fool although if I were the Clintons, I’d leave him alone unless they think their attacks on him make him more likely to be the nominee. If Trump is the nominee and the top of the GOP ticket, it is likely to get ugly.
This is a bad idea for Hillary in my opinion. The only thing it is going to do is rehash Bill’s vast history of sexual misconduct and expose it to a whole generation of young Hillary supporters who may have never known about it. It may also expose Hillary’s attacks on Bill’s victims which could turn young feminists off.
I say ‘may’ because for some reason when it comes to sexual abuse committed by Bill and some others like Roman Polanski there seems to be an odd similarity to Munchausen by proxy syndrome.
Roman Polanski? He isn’t a politician and can’t come back to this country without being arrested. Bad comparison.
Millions and millions of tax payer dollars were spent to run Bill Clinton out of office. It didn’t work. so now you think you have the magic bullet? I don’t think so. You have been reading too much from the I hate Clinton pages.
As for young feminists, they are probably better read then your or I. Do you seriously think that young feminists don’t know about accusations about Clinton? Seriously. who are they going to vote for? Hillary or a Republican? Old feminists also.
No wonder white men always end up disappointed. They are so delusional about women.
It was just my opinion Moon, I also stated that I may be wrong due to some so-called feminists propensity to share traits with those who suffer from Munchausen by proxy syndrome. One of the traits I am referring to is the complete denial of wrong doing even when faced with overwhelming evidence.
The Polanski comparison was made because a large group of people to this day still deny he did anything wrong and refuse to call him what he is, a child rapist. I’m not saying Bill is a child rapist but the similarity is there in that people refuse to admit that Bill has ever done anything wrong.
When it comes to who young feminists (or old for that matter) will vote for I have no false impression that they will overwhelming vote for Hillary. They just might not be as motivated to do so after Bill’s vast history of sexual misconduct and her attacks on his victims are rehashed. However, if ANYONE votes for Hillary thinking that she is some sort of feminist or crusader for women’s rights they are… as you say, being seriously duped.
I don’t know anyone who denies that Clinton was wrong. I think where the problem comes in is the amount of money spent to unseat him. His infidelity was seen by most women and by most Clinton supporters as a matter between him and his wife.
I think you are over emphasizing Clinton’s infidelity. In the first place, I dont think he is a rapist. A letch? Maybe. Lots of men are letches. Most people just handle letches. Its really just old news. I think most feminists, young and old, are going to vote for the person who proposes the freedom for women. In fact, this somewhat helps explain the Obama phenomena. As 2Aers aren’t going to back down, neither are the women’s rights people, especially reproductive rights.
Hillary is a feminist. She and I are contemporaries. I think she will continue to move forward on those sorts of issues as Obama has. Sanders would probably do the same, as would O’Malley.
Seriously, her feminist cred isn’t in question. The young feminists that Steve has spoken of, periodically, I am not sure. I consider them outliers.
Those who like bill Clinton aren’t going to change their minds. They have been around a long time.
Oh my, that is a rather broad brush you have there…
Actually I was referring to you but figured that would be rude.
I love the “who are they going to vote for” question.
The proper answer, when you have criminals like Hillary, running for office, is to vote for someone else or not voting for anyone in that position. That is the principled position.
Hillary is unfit for office or any position of responsibility.
If there is no candidate for you because your party is unprincipled enough to support such an unfit person, perhaps it is time to fix the party.
Cargo, I wish you would stop calling Hillary a criminal. No she isn’t. No one here wants to hear it.
@Cargosquid
+1
Interesting that, when “feminist” Hillary, who is seeking the most powerful position in the country and maybe on the whole planet, runs into a serious fight on the political battlefield, she sends out a man to fight for her. A flawed man to boot. Hmmm, isn’t that the same guy who reportedly suggested to the late Ted Kennedy in 2008 that Ted should support Hillary vice Obama because Obama was, you know, one of those guys who, not long go, would have been serving the coffee? A political sharpie, you say? Uh huh……….
I doubt that Hillary is sending her man out to do her fighting for her. Just who is her serious fight with? So far the Democrats have been fairly civil.
I certainly haven’t seen any proof that he said anything like that to Ted Kennedy. Where is the proof?
Hillary is unique in that she has been a first lady, a secretary of state, and is now running for the presidency.
All men are flawed, if we are to believe Christianity.
@Moon-howler
She criminally used unauthorized servers to handle classified documents. If I had done that, I would have been sent to prison after a very fast court martial.
General Petraeus was prosecuted and convicted.
Why do you let her slide?
Besides those actions, she has conducted herself irresponsibly and dishonestly before the American people. She has lied to Congress. She has lied to the people.
In your opinion.
Most people really don’t care.
@Moon-howler
If you want proof of that, you will have to address the query to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, authors of “Game Change.” That’s the book about the 2008 campaign. They said it was Teddy himself who related that particular Clinton gaffe to his friends and associates. Looks like everybody bought the story, including, inter alia, Huff Post, Politico, The Hill, and even Al Sharpton, who said in an interview that the remark could certainly be viewed as racist. Sounds like a major Clinton political dumb booboo to me.
I guess there is no one left to verify it. If he did say it, Clinton is one of the few who might get by with it.
How about “Candidate currently under federal investigation for indictable actions”? Would that be an accurate description? You can’t call it a “partisan witch-hunt” when the initiator of the investigation is the DOJ, of which its Chief Executive is a member of the same party.
I am tired of the media, and Hillary’s defenders just ignoring the Private Server scandal. There is enough evidence contained in the public record to charge her today, and with every State Dept. court-ordered release of documents, it is getting worse. By any reasonable measure, she has broken the law. Not violated some department policy…she’s broken the law. If it is found that her motive was to avoid FOIA…she’s broken more laws. If she worked with others to bring this about, and once discovered, to cover it up, throw in some conspiracy and obstruction charges.
What we know as indisputable fact: She ran a private server, used private email, denied both, admitted later to both, denied sending or receiving classified information, had the server wiped (like, with a cloth?), etc. etc. Just what we know, today, should be enough to disqualify her from the presidency…if national security and the rule of law actually mattered to the average Democrat voter, or the mainstream press that covers for her. Her support should be collapsing, going to Sanders or O’Mally, neither of which have violated federal law, to my knowledge.
Most people simply don’t care.
Hillary did not process classified information on her private server. That allegation is without merit
Bill didn’t get by with it. Kennedy was reportedly very incensed by that Clinton remark. It apparently didn’t help Hillary’s cause any with regard to securing Kennedy’s support in the 2008 primaries. Mighty dumb of Slick, I would say. Misjudged the other guy completely.
Care to explain that in more detail?
Since you are the one accusing Hillary of a crime, you have the duty to explain “in more detail.”@Wolve
I believe that was Cargo who called Hillary a criminal.
Dog with a bone. This won’t stop until she is out of office.
I don’t see anywhere in this thread where Wolve accused Hillary of committing a crime. I will opine, however, that, as Secretary of State, her use of a private server for official traffic was dangerous and stupid. Otherwise, I’ll wait for the FBI report.
But, anyway, having personally written, received, managed, and guarded some of the most classified information the USG produces, I am curious as to your definition of “process.”
Considering some of the recent hacks on the government, maybe the information was in a far safer place.
I’m curious about some of the most classified info the USG produces – US Govt? I would have to assume that the most classified information the US produces would be national security..what exactly does written, received, managed and guarded mean? Just curious since it was thrown out there…..I would think there would have been a segregation of those actions.
@Lyssa
It means simply being involved at some time or other in a long career in almost all aspects of the handling of classified government communications — the writing of classified documents; the reception of classified documents; the ultimate unit responsibility for the security of such documents; the actual electronic transmission of such documents (and here I do mean hands on); and direct accountability for the security of a very large library of such items at a senior command level.
Sometimes separate duties and sometimes combined duties. Depends on time and place. But never, ever could I have placed anything on a private, essentially unprotected server without facing loss of career and likely criminal charges. That is not something to be dismissed as irrelevant because of political ambitions.
@ Wolve – Thanks!
I’m frequently involved with sensitive information – certainly not in the same category – I do agree with you about managing the information. I could put myself in jeopardy in my small world – it’s not a simple mistake and a reflection of judgement.
Most Hillary supporters simply don’t care – fixed it for ya…
I didn’t need it fixed. Most people don’t care, including people who aren’t Hillary supporters. Only Hillary haters and democrat haters care.
@Lyssa
Same here as well Lyssa! I deal with the storage, processing and transfer of sensitive corporate data on a daily basis. If I were to have transferred any sensitive data via a non-secured method it would be grounds for instant termination.
If I were to ever be found storing this data on my personal computer or sending it via a non-secured email account not only could I find myself escorted out of the building by security but also face possible criminal charges.
And that is dealing with data that does not carry any national security implications at all. I think a lot of people, especially those that deal with sensitive data, are sick of hearing excuses on this subject when it comes to Hillary. Where most, if not all of us, would be fired in an instant she just skates by with apologists claiming that most people simply don’t care. People do care and it is not something to be taken lightly.
So the FBI and the intelligence community hate Hillary and democrats? Odd…
Only people interested in justice and truth care.
Hillary apologists don’t care.
Now its fixed.
As of yet, no one knows if Hilary sent Classified material from her email server – nor how it was secured on that server. She did nothing wrong if someone sent her classified material. Let the facts come out first and then we can decide if she did anything wrong. At this point, it is all speculation.
I think it is wrong for officials to use non-official email sources in their jobs – like many of the members of Congress do, many Governors (Palin, Christie, Cuomo) and others. My job, all business must be conducted on official email.
@Pat.Herve
Not sure if I believe this or not but apparently we may be getting the answer to that in the next month or two: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3387033/Former-federal-prosecutor-says-Hillary-indicted-60-days-FBI-compiles-overwhelming-evidence-against-her.html
@Jackson Bills
we will see when the evidence comes out. I am not sure how a former prosecutor gets info about an on going investigation – but let the evidence lead us, not speculation.