Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump zeroes in on Hillary’s weak spot: Bill’s abuse of women

Trump zeroes in on Hillary’s weak spot: Bill’s abuse of women

A bell that can’t be unrung in 2016 given Hillary’s “War on Women” campaign theme.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/28/opinions/obeidallah-trump-sexism/

Donald Trump has a knack for finding the weakest spot in other candidates.

Trump has eviscerated Jeb with the “low energy” line. It worked because it both fit Jeb’s persona (if not reality) and also was something a lot of people were thinking but not saying. It was a weak spot for Jeb no one knew was coming.

So too, Trump’s zeroing in on Bill Clinton’s serial abuse of women hits a weak spot for Hillary even more so than “low energy” hurt Jeb.

Hillary is going all “War On Women” in her campaign. Yet her husband was the actual War on Women before Democrats reinvented the term.

How do we know it’s a sensitive spot for Hillary? Look at how the media is reacting. No one is saying Trump is wrong, but we get word games such as Clinton “allegedly” having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a young intern under the control of the most powerful man in the United States:

The NY Times has a lead story about how Ex-Ally Donald Trump Now Heaps Scorn on Bill Clinton, while at CNN Dean Obeidallah nit-picks the term “sexism,” as if Trump questioning Carly Fiorina’s looks is sexism but Bill Clinton physically abusing women is not.

If the Clintons were Republicans, Hillary’s assistance to Bill in attacking women who were abused by Bill would be a disqualifier.

The Clintons have been able to parley attacks on Bills abuse of women into success in the past. Roger Simon writes that this time it may be different:

More importantly, times have changed and morality with it. I don’t think Bill, and certainly Hillary, would want Juanita Broaddrick brought up at a time when, on our campuses, even an unwanted kiss is legally considered rape, thanks to Title IX. Can you imagine how many instances of what is called “unwanted touching” could come out of the woodwork now if Bill started to pick a fight with Trump? It’s hard to imagine Clinton making it through Georgetown or Yale Law under today’s rules, or even through his freshman year.

The truth is Bill’s relationships with women are the product of another era, one that is fading remarkably fast in the rear view mirror. There is little tolerance these days for his kind of behavior — no more winking — not in the USA anyway. Clinton’s well known hypocritical wagging of the finger at the television to swear to us that he “never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” may not have looked terrific back when he did it, but today it would seem downright repellent. Imagine it being played again and again next to a Hillary commercial.

Doubtless Donald Trump has not been a saint, but there is a big difference between him and Bill. The Donald may often be rude. He may be a thin-skinned bloviator. But he’s not a creepy hypocrite. In that sense he’s the opposite of the Clintons, both of them.

Lastly, what if Trump were to raise the Jeffrey Epstein case?…. whoa.

I think only Trump can go there. And he has. Regardless of the outcome of the primary, Trump has put Bill’s serial abuse of women in play.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Candidate Trump has consistently broken down barriers that terrify the rest of the wimpy, PC, beholden pack.

He also practices sound campaign economics which is a pretty good indicator of how a president Trump would handle the national finances.

He is imperfect, for sure; but he demonstrates leadership and it resonates.

    Ragspierre in reply to clafoutis. | December 30, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    “We have to take care of the women”.
    —Donald Trump

    If that isn’t…

    1. PC

    2. pandering

    3. sex discrimination, and

    4. BIG GOVERNMENT

    There are no such things.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 1:38 pm

      His phrasing was anti-PC really … he just needs to say “we need to recognize and fix the problems women face … like the Bill Clintons of the world, and their enablers/fixers like Hillary”

      In many ways much of most of America still believes men need to “protect” the women from the abuses of other men, like jihadists, street thugs, or military enemies. The concept that men go to war so they have a safe homeland for their families is traditional, and rather the OPPOSITE of PC.

        Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | December 30, 2015 at 1:43 pm

        He was speaking of Planned Abortionhood, but nice try on the “apologize for T-rump” score.

        “I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, we have to take care of women. We have to absolutely take care of women. The abortion aspect of Planned Parenthood should not — absolutely should not — be funded.”

        Again, showing his ignorance of both the law and economics (money is fungible, and Planned Abortionhood has NEVER segregated funds for “womens’ health and abortions).

        WHY should ANY Federal funding of Planned Abortionhood be supported?

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 2:18 pm

          there was no apology for Trump. It was awkward to use the non-PC “take care of”. That is too degrading, though traditional at heart I think.

          Just because PP doesn’t segregate funds doesn’t mean they couldn’t. Not all funding is fungible for all things, unless it is designed that way (which of course it was for hiding the PP abortion funding as “health care”).

          So he specifies he wants to defund the abortion part. That is smart, since so many are brainwashed to believe PP is “health care for women”. He likes the health part.

          Maybe in practice it really takes defunding them entirely, but that is a more difficult message. Most people don’t know what “fungible” means.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 2:25 pm

          Everything you just wrote is MORE apologia and rationalizing.

          I raised several valid questions above. Why don’t you deal with them honestly?

          I’ve always thought “leadership” was supporting “the more difficult message”. PC pandering is NOT leadership.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 2:48 pm

          Why can’t you deal honestly with issues, rather than demonize people and use straw men?

          The topic is Trump’s messaging about women’s issues. So Trump would fund some of those women’s health clinics, (afaik others provide more services but not abortions), and that is why he would only strip the funding for the abortion part of PP. Because it is broadly THOUGHT that they are only funded for the non-abortion “side”.

          Come on Rags, you’re pretty smart on many issues … you could have figured that out without all the haranguing.

          Do you really want to insist on a candidate that will promise to call abortion from inception murder, and promise to fight to make AL: abortion illegal and criminal? Cruz might push that to win Iowa, but then he gets in trouble when he tells another group that won’t be a priority for him, it’s just a states’ rights issue.

          But go ahead, demonize away … it’s what you do.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 3:07 pm

          First, you should point out any ‘straw man’ I’ve used. Otherwise, I’ll expose you for lying.

          Second, YOU are using a ‘straw man’ in suggesting I’ve EVER advocated calling all abortions a “murder”. My position has been to NOT mislabel homicide as “murder”. It’s pretty well documented. My position is that abortion should be returned to the states, where it always belonged. Why are you attempting to lie about what I’ve so often said?

          Third, who have I “demonized” by pointing out their actual positions using their own words?

          Forth, why lie about Cruz’s positions?

      Kauf Buch in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 4:56 pm

      What a wonderful example of propaganda in servitude to your IDEOLOGICAL ENSLAVEMENT.

      Such GARBAGE could have been written by the fools over at Vox, DKos, Salon, HuffPo.

      That’s YOUR “club.”

        Ragspierre in reply to Kauf Buch. | December 30, 2015 at 5:20 pm

        “We have to take care of the women”.
        —Donald Trump

        If that isn’t…

        1. PC

        2. pandering

        3. sex discrimination, and

        4. BIG GOVERNMENT

        There are no such things.

        Take that on, point by point, instead of coming here call me names, moron.

    Ragspierre in reply to clafoutis. | December 30, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    “He also practices sound campaign economics which is a pretty good indicator of how a president Trump would handle the national finances.”

    He’s pretty careful with how he spends HIS money.

    As an indicator of how he’ll spend YOUR money, see Trump, bankruptcies and shareholder lawsuits.

      For an example of how Cruz will spend our money and manage executive duties see his experience at…..er gee he doesn’t have any at all.

      He’s never built anything or ever met a payroll. His entire experience is being on the government dole.

      Oh well he could always try and copy what he thinks Trump would do. Copying Trump is his sole accomplishment so far.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 30, 2015 at 3:30 pm

        Well, since you’re posting, we know two things are true…

        1. you’re here to flack and hack for T-rump, and

        2. you’ll never hesitate to lie in doing it.

        Cruz has, of course, EARNED a living practicing law just the way you or I do, and he didn’t have a rich daddy AND a real estate portfolio handed to him, ala T-rump.

        If he was “following T-rump” he’d have sold out to the Iowa ethanol lobby. Instead, he’s showing what a conservative does.

          Must have hit a nerve. Nothing funnier than the biggest hack on LI trying to claim people who like someone other than Cruz are biased.

          Please tell us what private law firm Cruz worked for and for how many years? From what I know he spent his time as a government employee.

          Also being an employee at a law firm is not executive management experience. It is not risking ones personal savings or being resposible for meeting a payroll.

          Charlie Gasparino at Fox Business far from a Trump fan has said Trump’s business accomplishments are legendary. During the real estate market collapses in late 80s and early 90s Gasparino says Trump had negative net worth. From that point Trump through dogged determination and skill uilt up a 10 Billion net worth with little to no debt. They buy and build their properties for cash.

          It is easy for a liar and pissant like you to poo poo the accomplishments of others. Things you are not capable of doing and have never done. It is harder to do it though while trying to extoll the virtues 9f a guy like Cruz who has never risked anything. Never built anything and never managed anything.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 4:00 pm

          “Must have hit a nerve. Nothing funnier than the biggest hack on LI trying to claim people who like someone other than Cruz are biased.”

          Now, see, THIS is a good example of a “straw man”!

          For instance, I never accused you or anyone of “bias”, and certainly not for supporting someone other that Cruz. If you support someone, you are, per force, biased in their favor, and that bias can be based on perfectly sound reasons.

          So, you’re just lying. Again.

          Cruz practiced privately with Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

          Are you stupid about everything….???? Serious question.

          LOL. Do you not even read your own posts. That response was just too funny. You are either a pathological liar or one of the least self aware persons in the world.

          “Cruz practiced privately with Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.”

          How many years in total. Still ot experience in management or executive leadership.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 30, 2015 at 3:39 pm

        Also, Gari, as part of your continuing education concerning logical fallacies…

        What you just committed is the fallacy of “ad hominem tu quoque.

        It takes the form of “Oh, yeah, wul your guy does (fill in the blank)”.

        It never deals with the point made, but is designed to deflect.

          You usually prefer the fallacy of childish name calling and complete non sequiturs combined with a variation of the pithy “I know you are but what am I” form of comeback from 5th grade.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 4:03 pm

          And that is a fallacy of simple, stupid ad hominem.

          Poor Baghdad Bob of T-rump suckers. Build a muscle, and TRY to deal with facts and argument.

          Those were assertions of fact. Not ad hominem. Those facts were directly on point to the subject of tbe post to which I replied. You really don’t know what ad hominem attacks mean.

      Kauf Buch in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 4:53 pm

      What a SMARMY, WHORISH answer you gave to to Gary, Raggy.
      You probably have no shame, so none will be expected from you.

      Gary makes a legitimate point about Cruz – “your guy” if I’m right – vis a vis his support of the Trans Pacific trade Deal WHICH WILL IMPOVERISH AMERICAN WORKERS even more than NAFTA did 20+ years ago.

      That’s THE SAME as (if not worse than) “spending your money”: taking it – via your job – away and giving it to foreigners.

      Your attitude disgusts me, and you deserve every ounce of contempt possible from every decent American reader here.

        Ragspierre in reply to Kauf Buch. | December 30, 2015 at 5:24 pm

        There was nothing SMARMY or WHORISH about responding to Gari’s stupid attack on Cruz, which stated some outright falsehoods (that I’m willing to impute this time to his stupid and ignorance)?

        Where did you learn the bullshit you’re posting about NAFTA?

          I didn’t attack Cruz. I merely posted factual information about his complete lack of any executive leadership or management experience. That is a completely factual and accurate statement. The lies and falsehoods as usual were all in your posts.

          In fact it can be truthfully said that when it comes to executive leadership and management experience that Cruz is no more qualified to be president than Obama was in 2008. Less qualified on that score than Bill Clinton in 1992.

          The facts are that Cruz graduated law school in 1995. From 1995 to 2009 Cruz was a government employee, a bureaucrat in various positions. From 2009 to 2012 he was a non manager non executive employee of a law firm. In 2012 he ran for senate and resumed his life as a government employee.

          If you stop telling lies about Mr. Trump then I might stop telling the truth about Cruz.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 7:02 pm

          But, Gari, you lying SOS, I’ve NEVER lied about T-rump.

          You do constantly.

          For instance, you claim T-rump is an “entrepreneur”.

          Not really in any sense that I recognize the term. He IS, and has been, a CRONY CAPITALIST.

          As you’ve been forced to admit.

          https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/12/is-the-media-using-trump-or-is-trump-using-the-media/comment-page-1/#comment-637933

          People can follow the links.

          A true entrepreneur creates something that never existed via innovation. All T-rump has ever done is trade on his influence-peddling and build what would have been built in any case.

          As I’ve said before, he’s just Mr. Establishment, and he CERTAINLY CAN be bought…and on the cheap! See his support of the ethanol lobby in Iowa. Total sell-out.

          He’ll do it every time, and he’ll prove me right and break you puuuurrrr fanatical heart!

          Sucka…!!!

          Fortunately for the world what you think and how you choose to redefine words from their common meaning doesn’t count for squat. It is clear you are very impressed by your bullshit above. You are the only one.

          The old socrates/plato victory by definition ploy only works on the simple minded back at your grade school.

          What is glaringly absent from your post is any attempt to show Cruz has any management or executive leadership experience. I assume that your silence conceeds the point. He has none, zero, nada. Even Obama in 2008 had more executive leadership experience than Cruz does today.

          Deal with it Bitch

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 7:36 pm

          See? All you’ve got is more ad hominem.

          You just can’t deal with facts and argument.

          Or your own lies, published for all to see. It must sting!!!

          So that is a yes you concede Cruz has zero executive leadership and management experience. Glad we got that settled.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 7:55 pm

          Well, THAT’S another of your apparent LIES.

          Actually, Cruz does have executive experience in that he led the Texas Solicitor General’s office. It had a budget, staff, and accountability.

          So suck it, sucka.

          Sorry Solicitor General is a political appointee position. No P&L responsibility. A lot of the Management is really handled by administrators and functionaries. He has nothing on the line in that position. Not his money and net worth on the line, he never has to worry about the office competing, growing and being profitable. Never has to worry about whether his decisions if wrong could force firings of employees or the failure of his office to meet payroll or his office going out of business. So not at all real world executive leadership and management experience. Just a political appointee lawyer position.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 9:58 pm

          Most all of which is ALSO true of a governor OR T-rump’s position atop one of his properties.

          Remember? He has “people” for that…!!! And, when things get dicey, he can pull the pin on bankruptcy, as he’s done. Repeatedly.

          Twist some more, Baghdad Bob!

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 10:04 pm

          As I’ve said before, he’s just Mr. Establishment, and he CERTAINLY CAN be bought…and on the cheap! See his support of the ethanol lobby in Iowa. Total sell-out.

          He’ll do it every time, and he’ll prove me right and break you puuuurrrr fanatical heart!

          Sucka…!!!

        You make a good point about Cruz’s support for TPP/Obamatrade. He supports it and extolled its virtues in WSJ op ed. It was only after Trump showed how unpopular it was that Cruz made the cynical political calculation to pretend to oppose it until after the election. He said he was switching to opposing it because it was too caught up in politics. Note he didn’t say it was a bad deal and bad idea. He is free to declare after the election it is no longer caught up in politics and support it again.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 30, 2015 at 10:24 pm

          …OR he supported it in principle because conservatives support free trade.

          When he learned what’s in it, he correctly came out against it.

          Unlike T-rump, who thinks it’s his business to tell you who you MAY trade with or not, and tax you if you choose “wrong”.

          Remember; tariffs ALWAYS hurt the middle class most. They won’t touch oligarchs like T-rump.

          You are corrrect he supports it because conservatives blindly and unthinkingly support pure free trade regardless of how bad or unfair the overall trade deal is.

          But for his change in support you try to put words in his mouth. We don’t need your words we have Cruz’s words. Cruz said he was switching to opposition because it was too caught up in politics. He said nothing about his change being due to content, provisions or it being a bad monstrous multiparty deal that nobody has read. That is the point. He still likes it. He just cynically wants to wait until election is over and it isn’t caugbt up in politics any more so he can join McConnell and the democrats in passing it after the election.

          On TPP/Obamatrade Cruz is just a slick willy politician.

          As for the conservative principal that free trade no matter how bad and how unfair the deal is good for USAworkers and consumers we have been trying that for 35 years since Reagan. The devastating results on the middle class during that period are obvious. The conservative principal is wrong. Pure free trade is great for global corporations but not for middle class. It is time to recognize that free but dumb trade deals are bad and what we really need are fair trade deals that are smart deals for USA. Using the threat of tarriffs to make our trade deals better is just smart negotiating. Trump gets it. The global corp loving in the pocket of the K street chamber of commerce politicians not so much.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 31, 2015 at 10:14 am

          Where’s your cite to Cruz’s actual words, liar. ‘Cause you have no credibility here.

          We’ve all heard your blathering about foreign trade, Baghdad Bob. But, Gari, you’re an economics idiot.

          Trade hasn’t HURT the middle class. The Collectivst war on the middle class has hurt the middle class. And T-rump IS a Collectivist who LIKES fascist economics.

          As I’ve pointed out and you’ve admitted, his policy on trade is the same as Bernie Sander’s.

          Me, I’ll take my freedom, thanks!

          As to selling out to lobbyists, Dud Donald just DID. In Iowa.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 31, 2015 at 10:17 am

          “You are corrrect he supports it because conservatives blindly and unthinkingly support pure free trade regardless of how bad or unfair the overall trade deal is.”

          Now, see, THIS is a straw man.

          Along with colossally STOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooopid, AND a lie. But why break form, right, Baghdad?

          Not my responsibility to do your research Rags. You are just a liar with no credibility when you claim you don’t already know what was widely reported as Cruz’s reason for changing support for the horrible Obamatrade deal. He published a WSJ op ed extolling all the reasons why Obamatrade was a good deal and why he was for it. It was impossible for him to say 2 weeks later wait a minute I just realized it is actually a bad deal.

          Cruz said only one thing why he was changing support for Obamatrade. “It was too caught up in politics”.

          We all know if you could find a link to him saying anything else you would post it already. So you lie and try and divert by claiming it is my responsibility to do your research.

          If you have something liar post it. Otherwise stop wasting everyone’s time with your bullshit.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 31, 2015 at 12:24 pm

          Well, Baghdad, I DID research.

          Guess the ONLY reference returned using the search terms “It was too caught up in politics” and “Cruz”…???

          It was Gari, the liar, Britt. Surprise, surprise. Now you’re famous for lying, all across the interwebs.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 31, 2015 at 1:47 pm

          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/24/ted_cruz_tpp_another_manifestation_of_the_washington_cartel.html#!

          There you go, you lying sack of shit. Cruz, on with Mark Levin, in his own words, which have NO resemblance to your LIES.

          Happy to demonstrate your mendacity, once again!

          Yeah Ravs you really looked for it.

          This is from both Ted Cruz’s own website and was also published by Cruz on Breitbart.com op ed page.

          “Exclusive — Ted Cruz: Obamatrade Enmeshed in Corrupt, Backroom Dealings”

          “But TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making”

          There you have it. He witbdraws his support because it is too emeshed in back room deals (I.e. too emeshed in politics.)

          Rags you are a liar and a fool but I can’t take credit for exposing that fact. You do that all by yourself.

          Happy new year.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 31, 2015 at 3:06 pm

          “Enough is enough. I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired. And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to vote no.”

          Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420181/cruz-now-no-tpa-andrew-c-mccarthy

          Anybody who can read knows now that you LIED…again…as always…some more.

          “Cruz said only one thing why he was changing support for Obamatrade. “’It was too caught up in politics”’.”

          They can see how utterly FALSE your perfidy, and your depiction of his stance as being “cynically political”.

          What a lying sack. BUT a GREAT representative of T-rump, sell-out to Iowan rent-seeker!

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 31, 2015 at 4:00 pm

          http://michellemalkin.com/2015/12/31/cruzsessions-bill-would-stop-sneaky-obama-sabotage-of-skilled-u-s-workers/

          Just to put a pretty bow on the LIES that Baghdad Bob was telling…

          That’s Michelle Malkin…the lady that T-rump slimed when he was caught predating on other people’s property rights ala Kelo…pointing out the work Cruz is doing vis back-door immigration tampering.

          Heh…!!! Suck it, Gari.

          So to recap.

          First Cruz wries a WSJ Op Ed saying in detail why he is joining Rubio and McConnell and the democrats in supporting Obamatrade. This op ed doesn’t say anything about his support being conditional upon some Cruz/Sessions amendment being adopted. Nor does it mention anything about his support is conditional on some kind of immigration changes.

          Then later Cruz suddenly says hes changing his mind and opposing Obamatrade because it is too enmeshed in politics and suddenly requires a Cruz/Sessions amendment and he Cruz is against the Ex-Im bank being tied in to Obamatrade.

          Now we are back to the important part of the whole discussion. The important part are all the substantive reasons to be against Obamatrade that Cruz does NOT mention ever. Here are just a few of many problems that Cruz is perfectly fine with:

          1. Obamatrade is over 5,500 pages which means nobody has read it and nobody understands it.

          2. Obamatrade is a multiparty agreement between many countries on one side and the USA on the other side.

          The wrongness and badness of 1. above should be obvious to any normal person yet Cruz makes no objection for this problem and fully supports Obamatrade along with Rubio McConnell and the democrats as long as he gets to add some more pages to the 5,500 pages with his Cruz/Sessions amendment and gets what he wants on Ex-Im bank.

          The problems with doing a many party deal described in 2 above were immediately obvious to Trump (and anyone else with real world deal making and executive leadership experience) but totally eludes Cruz who has no such experience.

          There are two possible ways the USA can negotiate trade deals. They can be negotiated one country at a time (called bilateral deals) or they can be negotiated with many countries at a time (called multiparty deals). Obamatrade is a multiparty deal.

          From USA point of view Bilateral deals are much to be preferred. Because in a bilateral deal the USA has all the leverage. USA will have the leverage in a bilateral negotiation because our markets and consumer base are going to be far larger than the markets and consumer base of the country we are negotiating with. Because the other country has far more to gain (therefore far more to lose) than the USA if deal doesn’t go through.

          In a multiparty deal the USA gives up all or a huge portion of its leverage. Therefore by defin8tion the multiparty deal will not work out as well for the USA compared to doing a series of bilateral deals.

          Trump being the deal maker with tons of experience recognizes this intuitively and immediately listed both the problems in 1 and 2 above (5,500 pages and multiparty deal) as reasons to oppose obamatrade.

          Cruz on the other hand having no experience in executive leadership and deal mak8ng fails to recognize either of these two huge problems.

          The above is enough and I haven’t even got into how obamatrade is a huge globalist statist effort that maximizes crony capitalism and shrinks our national sovereignty none of which is objected to by Cruz.

          Sorry bitch Cruz just doesn’t have it compared to Trump and he has been just a slick willy politician on Obamatrade.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 31, 2015 at 5:36 pm

          …or…

          Gari, caught red-handed in yet ANOTHER set of lies…

          lies some more.

          Remember, T-rump is the guy who has promised to “honor” the Iranian deal and “make it work”.

          “Brilliant”….

          He’s ALSO the guy who can be bought for a few votes in Iowa.

          Poor, stupid, lying SOS. This is just going to keep happening, you know. But I LOVE the image of you slobbering over your keyboard for new things to lie about, and the time it takes you!

          Happy New Year to YOU, liar!

          Rags so that is a yes you admit Cruz joins with Rubio and McConnell and democrats in overlooking all of Obamatrade’s many many major flaws.

          And now for your education your post above is an example of when the following Ragisms actually apply:

          “What you just committed is the fallacy of “ad hominem tu quoque.

          It takes the form of “Oh, yeah, wul your guy does (fill in the blank)”.

          It never deals with the point made, but is designed to deflect.”

          And then there is this Ragism:

          “See? All you’ve got is more ad hominem.

          You just can’t deal with facts and argument.

          Or your own lies, published for all to see. It must sting!!!”

          Have a good time sucking your thumb tonight.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 31, 2015 at 9:57 pm

          No!, you lying sack of shit!

          I EXPRESSLY pointed out how you’d be caught red-handed LYING.

          THEN I EXPRESSLY pointed out how you were hatching a NEW set of lies. (Typical.)

          THEN I pointed out…again…how your little yellow god was selling out for a few votes from Iowa special interests.

          Glad you gave me YET ANOTHER chance to show your sack of shit lies!

          (psst… Gari, you Trump-sucker… Nobody cares! I’ll continue punking you when it matters! When MORE people can see you being made a bitch for Duh Dunald.)

          No Rags the only thing you helped point out (before you ran away crying and shouting with your Ragisms stuffed firmly up your arse) is that your pure conservative Cruz (when he isn’t slicing bread with that nose of his) is a statist globalist slick willy politician when it comes to his shifting positions on Obamatrade without the executive leadership and deal making experience to oppose Obamatrade for any of its obvious and major flaws.

          Cruz has potential but he isn’t ready yet for executive leadership. Hopefully he will get the chance to study under Mr. Trump for 4 to 8 years.

      Cruz on the other hand has never built anything, never risked anything and never met a payroll

      In fact it can be truthfully said that when it comes to executive leadership and management experience that Cruz is no more qualified to be president than Obama was in 2008. Less qualified on that score than Bill Clinton in 1992.

      The facts are that Cruz graduated law school in 1995. From 1995 to 2009 Cruz was a government employee, a bureaucrat in various positions. From 2009 to 2012 he was a non manager non executive employee of a law firm. In 2012 he ran for senate and resumed his life as a government employee.

      If you stop telling lies about Mr. Trump then I might stop telling the truth about Cruz.

        Are you characterizing all of Cruz’ government positions as that of a “bureaucrat” based on specific information, or do you label all government employees as bureaucrats?
        Was Cruz a bureaucrat when he argued before the SCOTUS on behalf of Texas?

          I was labeling all government employees bureaucrats and I will concede that it is a bit of an exaggeration for effect. However, none of Cruz’s work for the government is executive leadership management positions any way comparable to putting your personal net worth and children’s futures on the line as is the case for any businessman that owns and operates their own business.

          Arguing before the Supreme Court is quite an honor and to do it well requires a very talented lawyer with a great intellect. It doesn’t require executive leadership and management skills of the type needed by a Presiden5.

          Please keep in mind I like Cruz. He is my second choice. I jumped in on this because Rags is obsessive about attacking Trump and inserting his canned list of talking points as many times as he can over and over again. Most people don’t respond in kind because they like me also like Cruz. So Rags gets away with his annoying behavior without challenge as a result. I just got tired of him always getting away with it and thought I would point out that his boy Cruz has more windows in his house to break than does Mr. Trump.

          Ragspierre in reply to Rick. | December 30, 2015 at 7:48 pm

          “Rags is obsessive about attacking Trump and inserting his canned list of talking points as many times as he can over and over again. Most people don’t respond in kind because they like me also like Cruz.”

          BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA…gasp….HAHAHAHAHA.

          What a pack of AMAZING LIES.

          First, I oppose YOUR fan boi posts about the wonder of Duh Donald with FACTS.

          Second, if my “talking-points” are “canned” list them, you lying SOS. THEN we can explicate them for people to see.

          Step up, Baghad Bob.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | December 30, 2015 at 7:18 pm

        By your broke-dick “reasoning” Calvin Coolidge had no business being the finest conservative president in the 20th Century!

        Why, if Ronald Reagan had been defeated for the governorship of Kulhliforia, HE had no business being the leader of a great conservative movement!

        Conversely, we should only vote for Jeff Bezos, Mark Cuban, and Elon Musk. (Real entrepreneurs, and real political morons.)

        You’re an idiot.

          I am not responsible for the strawman extrapolations you create in your own mind. I never said any of the wild ass lies you post above.

          You are really spinning like a top. Can’t take it your boy Cruz has zero executive leadership and management experience.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 7:51 pm

          IF I’ve posted a straw man argument, show it.

          I CAN show yours, so I have no trouble with that. You don’t know what a straw man is, though I’ve schooled you on yours.

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | December 31, 2015 at 12:45 am

          Rags, if you can take a break from arguing with the trumpets, by my reckoning there were three conservative presidents in the 20th century: Harding, Coolidge, and Reagan. I’d be interested in hearing your analysis of their relative merits, and why you think Coolidge was the finest of them.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | December 31, 2015 at 10:00 am

          I know next to nothing about Harding. Always sort of one of the “obscure” presidents to me.

“Alleged” affair with Lowinsky? Hey bubba that ain’t mustard on her blue dress!

    Monica took a dress with mustard on it to the dry cleaners last week . He was a little hard of hearing when she told him what it was and he said ” Come again” She replied ” No just mustard this time “

    Monica took a dress with mustard on it to the dry cleaners last week . He was a little hard of hearing . When she told him what it was , he said ” Come again” She replied ” No just mustard this time “

I think Trump is only bluffing here.

He wants to take the issue off the Table. He doesn’t want the campaign to actually go in this direction.

Bill Clinton’s bad treatment of women is actually what makes Hillary’s base love her. She’s every woman who had a relationship with the sexy bad boy. Attacking Bill only rallies her base.

So Trump would actually have to be really careful of how he deploys the dirt. And, should the issue be raised, he should attack Hillary’s sexism instead of Bill’s.

Example:

What was the madame who procured underaged 13-15 year old whores for Jeffrey Epstein’s sex slave Island doing as only one of only 400 invited guests to Chelsea Clinton’s wedding?

Anyways, Trump has already beaten the war on women charge. And he should have connections with glamorous former Miss Americas, movie starlets and Apprentice Contestants to present a stylish image that no other Republican or Democrat can compete with.

Professor.

I do not know if you want to go there. but there was something that occurred to me during the Clinton presidency. i never followed up because there was one fact I could not check. Now with the internet.

In Juanita Brodericks story, the last thing that Clinton said to her was “Don’t worry I am sterile.” That was in 1978. In 1980 Chelsea was born. You do the math. I seem to remember some scandal with Clinton’s health recrods not being released.

For me, well the Clinton’s seemed rather calm when there were rumors of that illegitimate black son. I wasn’t surprised that It turned out to be false.

    Pagliaccio in reply to HandyGandy. | December 30, 2015 at 2:22 pm

    C’mon. No one can look at Chelsea’s nose and deny she’s Bill’s daughter.

      About 30 years ago I had a client who wanted to contest paternity of his 13 year old daughter. He was sure his wife had an affair and the girl wasn’t his. About a week later we were in court on a motion hearing for the divorce and mom shows up with the daughter. I swear to god the girl looked like my client the father with a wig on. I mean bless her heart this was one ugly girl cause dad was no looker and I swear if you put a blond wig on dad and took a picture of him with the daughter you would think they were twins.

      I told my client later that I was never going to ask for a blood test or ever say anything about that girl not being his daughter.

It’s not her fault for what her husband did, but it is her fault for conspiring to destroy the women who were abused by him.

    Well, it may actually be her fault – at least in part – for Bill’s behavior. We don’t know for certain her sexual proclivities. After money, sex is probably the biggest cause of divorce. However, you are right about it being her efforts to destroy Bill’s accusers that are at issue.

The abuse of women from the coyotes along the Obama/Hillary open borders trails will also fit the narrative, of “the left’s real war on women”. Of all the illegals in prison, how many are in the gangs, and how do those gangs treat women?

For that matter, those black ministers that met with Trump probably have an issue with Obama/Hillary promoting gangsters like Trayvon and Brown to be martyrs. How good are those gangsters, at being home helping Mom with the kids?

This busy mom has to fight hard against the left’s praise of BLM. We need more Giulianis, fewer Mabrys.
(mom catches son at Baltimore protest)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG11R6rdros

Megyn took her best shots at Trump already, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot more fuel for that line of attack. The commoners were exposed to a lot of Trump and mostly like him just fine. Like Gingrich, Trump changed wives rather than keep one and cheat on her routinely. (maybe they cheat too, but no evidence of that afaik)

Hillary was supposedly all upset about Bill and Monica, but I think only about the affair making national news. It’s nothing he hadn’t done since Arkansas, as I’ve heard it. How will campaign ads featuring Hillary’s abuse of Billy Bob’s victims play out?

So many skeletons … Trump will have them all singing in chorus line.

    Don’t forget female genital mutilation and honor killings by Hillary’s and the Democrat’s pet muslim minority.

    Would democrats oppose cultural training for muslims before they are allowed into our country. Things lije teaching them honor killings are a crime and so is female genital mutilation. Also teaching them they must respect christian and jewish religions on the same level as their own.

American Human | December 30, 2015 at 2:14 pm

Why do there need to be special rules for women? Why does there need to be a Violence Against Women act and etc.? Why can’t women take care of themselves. Why can women and men buy their own dad-gummed contraceptives???
If a woman is good at something, is it because she is a woman? A good engineer is a good engineer regardless of their sex. The same with much of the world. I believe it was The Gipper who said something along the lines of: “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit!”
I despise arrogant dishonesty in all its forms. Especially from people who have had the lottery-luck to win that popularity contest called “an election”.

Bill Clinton’s rapes and assaults absolutely are fair game. Of course the liberal media’s doing their damndest to provide cover for him and Hillary. CNN had their own moment that I covered yesterday on my blog: http://triggerwarningblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/cnn-asks-if-bill-clinton-just-loves.html

Great article.
Only one fact was missing…
DID YOU KNOW: Hillary IS A WOMAN!
(…since she never ceases to inject that into every speech she gives…)

😉

Trump is far, far from being perfect.

But in being the guy to destroy the oppression of the leftist media in our society as well as the treachery of the hacks hogging the leadership positions of the GOP – he’s perfect.

That corrupt, incompetent old crow is target-rich environment, if there ever was one. Clinton has more spots than a kid with measles — all of them ‘weak,’ and there for the taking.

Watch Trump ‘take’ them.

I’d like to note for the sake of posterity that tolerance of politicians engaging in this behavior was invented out of whole cloth to preserve Bill Clinton’s presidency; it didn’t exist before him, and is unlikely to exist in any meaningful way after him. And, when this blew up to the point even the awesome might of the executive branch could not suppress it further, Bill Clinton was not going to face the voting public again.

    Ragspierre in reply to JBourque. | December 30, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    For the sake of historicity, I have to take exception.

    FDR’s affair was widely know about, and never mentioned during his presidency.

    LBJ was a notorious skunk with women, and it was not publicized.

    JFK was a whore-dog of the first and worst order, and it was not publicized.

    Now, I’ll give you the FACT that the whole “character doesn’t matter” trope was fashioned to allow Dollar Bill Clinton to even BEGIN to run for national office, since his character wasn’t merely in question, but a known quantity. And it was BAD!

      Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 6:52 pm

      FDR was with his mistress when he died in Little Rock.

      Geepers, all those guys were Democrats. Are you cherry-picking data? Maybe a raghater* can do some research and show us Republican Presidents who were so lacking in basic morals. (Richard Milhouse Nixon was such a RINO. The government grew in leaps and bounds under him, and he gave us affirmative action and Title IX. I spit.)

      *Raghater: a poster who hates Ragspierre. You know who you are. Pronounced Ra-ga-tur, emphasis on the middle syllable.

      mariner in reply to Ragspierre. | December 30, 2015 at 9:44 pm

      So FDR’s, LBJ’s and JFK’s philandering were not publicized. Perhaps that’s why there wasn’t a public outcry.

      Other politicians and the news media hid these things from voters because they believed the public wouldn’t tolerate them.

    Ragspierre in reply to JBourque. | December 30, 2015 at 10:07 pm

    “I’d like to note for the sake of posterity that tolerance of politicians engaging in this behavior was invented out of whole cloth to preserve Bill Clinton’s presidency; it didn’t exist before him…”

    But that was the point I was addressing, and which you, inadvertently, agree with my statement about.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | December 31, 2015 at 1:18 am

      I don’t see how you’ve refuted that claim. Public tolerance for philandering politicians, or at least for philandering presidents, didn’t exist before Clinton. Of course the elite knew and tolerated lots of things, but the public didn’t know about them. And if they became publicly known, the person became unelectable. Even Nelson Rockefeller was considered unelectable, because of his adultery.

      It’s a little-remarked fact that the USA has never knowingly elected an adulterer to the presidency. Clinton denied all the bimbos’ allegations, and voters believed him. This is one reason I was uneasy about McCain; he would have been the first known adulterer elected. Of the current set of candidates, the only known adulterer, or at least the only one I know of, is Trump.

I am glad that Trump is bringing up Bill Clinton. I hear many “Republicans” and some “conservatives” say they will vote for Hillary over Trump. Be careful folks. Do you really want another 8 years of the Clinton’s in the White House?

Hillary has told us we should believe women who claim to be victims of sexual assault. She has done her best to stifle their voices. She has enabled her monster husband to prey on more women.

Those who voted in Obama – twice – and those who would vote in Hillary Clinton proceed not on merits but on PC demographics, the first black, the first female, etc.

Has pointing out flaws and scandals hurt either? Why do we suppose pointing them out now will hurt Hillary?

Those who would vote for Hillary despite… Hillary… will not be affected by negative ads. GOP candidate, sell yourself, sell your merits, and if you’ve nothing to sell, get out and let voters coalesce around those who do.

The Clintons have been able to parley attacks on Bills abuse of women into success in the past.
Parley as a verb means “to negotiate.” Perhaps you meant “parry,” but even that is not the right word.

    Obie1 in reply to Obie1. | December 31, 2015 at 10:51 am

    Now I get it–“parlay.” To use something to get something of greater value.

    Mercyneal in reply to Obie1. | December 31, 2015 at 11:23 am

    Something tells me by their silence that it’s not going to work this time. They’re cornered. My hope is that all of the women mentioned in today’s Washington Post, some named, others not, including ” A woman identified as a third cousin of Clinton’s supposedly told her drug counselor during treatment in Arkansas that she was abused by Clinton when she was baby-sitting at the Governor’s Mansion in Little Rock” – come forward

The wild card vis-a-vis Clinton’s history of sexual predations is less the knowns from his time as president and before, but the high likelihood his predations have only increased once he left office. Guys like that do not change. I suspect a few GOP party/campaign operatives are sitting on new accusers.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend