Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
When They Go Low We Go High.
47 Answers
"Monica, go low!". Ain't that what Bill said when he cornered onica in the Oval Office?
But I digress. We're on the Trump tapes now. OP is Hillary quoting her "friend" Michelle Obama. (When did those two last lunch together?)
Not the best start for Trump. He's sniffing again, but he's on the attack.
But I digress. We're on the Trump tapes now. OP is Hillary quoting her "friend" Michelle Obama. (When did those two last lunch together?)
Not the best start for Trump. He's sniffing again, but he's on the attack.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vetuste_ennemi. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Talbot - //The only way he can deal with it is to wait for the accuser to put up, or shut up.
She has put up ... I posted the link. Surely it is Clinton that has to shut her up? //
'Putting up' in the context I offered it means bringing evidence to a court that will enable President Clinton to be arrested, accused, charged, tried, and convicted.
Talking about it on social media is just that - talking about it.
She has put up ... I posted the link. Surely it is Clinton that has to shut her up? //
'Putting up' in the context I offered it means bringing evidence to a court that will enable President Clinton to be arrested, accused, charged, tried, and convicted.
Talking about it on social media is just that - talking about it.
This unedifying transatlantic Punch and Judy show does neither candidate any credit.
Trump, now fighting a rear-guard action, is flinging every little thing no matter its relevance, into his campaign in a desperate attempt to deflect the media-spotlight away from his own personal failings and inadequacies.
Clinton shouldn't have to spend the time left in her Presidential campaign explaining/excusing the actions of her husband. She's very guilty of standing by a man who patently doesn't deserve it but, as many couples do, doubtless they have reached their own accommodations in the marriage which have enabled them to each be an equal part of a 'power-couple'. He's had his turn at high-office and now it's her go......
Trump and Clinton are both deeply unappealing candidates but it takes a certain strength of character, complete lack of shame and the ability to remain unembarrassed whatever is thrown at you to actually throw your hat into the Presidential ring in the first place.
Trump, now fighting a rear-guard action, is flinging every little thing no matter its relevance, into his campaign in a desperate attempt to deflect the media-spotlight away from his own personal failings and inadequacies.
Clinton shouldn't have to spend the time left in her Presidential campaign explaining/excusing the actions of her husband. She's very guilty of standing by a man who patently doesn't deserve it but, as many couples do, doubtless they have reached their own accommodations in the marriage which have enabled them to each be an equal part of a 'power-couple'. He's had his turn at high-office and now it's her go......
Trump and Clinton are both deeply unappealing candidates but it takes a certain strength of character, complete lack of shame and the ability to remain unembarrassed whatever is thrown at you to actually throw your hat into the Presidential ring in the first place.
Can't argue with your points there jack.
As you point out - 'standing by your man' in the face of his obvious dreadful behaviours is not itself a bar to public office - if it were, then Mr Trump would be equally guilty, and unsuitable, given that his present wife is willing to stay with him in spite of his endless, and still being revealed, odious behaviour.
I think the electorate are faced with a vote for the candidate who repulses them the least - hardly an edifying situation for a nation, but that is where they find themselves.
Hopefully, as the die-hard Trump supporters realise that you cannot help a candidate who won't help himself, his campaign will wither and die, as it should have done months ago.
As you point out - 'standing by your man' in the face of his obvious dreadful behaviours is not itself a bar to public office - if it were, then Mr Trump would be equally guilty, and unsuitable, given that his present wife is willing to stay with him in spite of his endless, and still being revealed, odious behaviour.
I think the electorate are faced with a vote for the candidate who repulses them the least - hardly an edifying situation for a nation, but that is where they find themselves.
Hopefully, as the die-hard Trump supporters realise that you cannot help a candidate who won't help himself, his campaign will wither and die, as it should have done months ago.
Talbot - //She's not just excusing a bj though, Jack. How this woman can claim to be an advocate for women is laughable. //
As jack has pointed out, couples reach accommodations all the time - the difference with politicians, especially as high-powered and profiled as the Clintons, is that those accommodations are subject to public scrutiny, and privacy is luxury they do not enjoy in these situations.
But the fact remains - it is Mrs not Mr Clinton who is running for office, and she should be considered on that basis only.
As jack has pointed out, couples reach accommodations all the time - the difference with politicians, especially as high-powered and profiled as the Clintons, is that those accommodations are subject to public scrutiny, and privacy is luxury they do not enjoy in these situations.
But the fact remains - it is Mrs not Mr Clinton who is running for office, and she should be considered on that basis only.
Talbot - //andy-hughes
But the fact remains - it is Mrs not Mr Clinton who is running for office, and she should be considered on that basis only.
I disagree ... I know it it not a valid argument to disagree with you but there it is ... I disagree. //
Absolutely no problem here - we are all entitled to look at the information we have and reach our own conclusions. We differ on that, fine.
But the fact remains - it is Mrs not Mr Clinton who is running for office, and she should be considered on that basis only.
I disagree ... I know it it not a valid argument to disagree with you but there it is ... I disagree. //
Absolutely no problem here - we are all entitled to look at the information we have and reach our own conclusions. We differ on that, fine.
Talbot - //ndy-hughes
Talbot - // I don't believe that for one minute, ummmm //
That's for the Clintons to know, and the rest of us to speculate over - if we think it is relevant, and personally, I don't.
Me saying that I don't believe it ... is me speculating For Funks Sake //
I refer you to my previous answer - you wish to speculate and disbelieve Mrs Clinton's publicly stated view (which I suspect may be a world away from her private view!) - and I don't.
A simple difference of opinion, again, no problem at all.
Talbot - // I don't believe that for one minute, ummmm //
That's for the Clintons to know, and the rest of us to speculate over - if we think it is relevant, and personally, I don't.
Me saying that I don't believe it ... is me speculating For Funks Sake //
I refer you to my previous answer - you wish to speculate and disbelieve Mrs Clinton's publicly stated view (which I suspect may be a world away from her private view!) - and I don't.
A simple difference of opinion, again, no problem at all.
