Love the Trumpeteers online efforts to spin the debate as anything other than calamitous for him. He may come back and do well in subsequent debates (nothing to suggest he will, or that he can right the ship in 2 weeks), this particular debate was a solid L.
i'm obviously biased, as whilst i dont really rate clinton i think trump is a buffoon, but for me there were some things we knew about trump going into the debate and some things he needed to show he was capable of
the things he supposedly did well in the debate were the things we already knew
the aspects he needed to show, that he had some depth behind the soundbites and that he could stay composed under pressure, he failed miserably
ADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.
GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.
there is a difference between collateral damage and specifically setting out to assassinate family members because "they must have known something" AND making up the justification for doing so
something i would have thought would be patently obvious
there is a difference between collateral damage and specifically setting out to assassinate family members because "they must have known something" AND making up the justification for doing so
something i would have thought would be patently obvious
i'm obviously biased, as whilst i dont really rate clinton i think trump is a buffoon, but for me there were some things we knew about trump going into the debate and some things he needed to show he was capable of
the things he supposedly did well in the debate were the things we already knew
the aspects he needed to show, that he had some depth behind the soundbites and that he could stay composed under pressure, he failed miserably
Trump needs to show discipline, and he needs to appeal to college-educated whites, specifically college-educated women. He did neither of those things. He probably didn't lose any votes, but he is failing at convincing the people he needs to vote for him. Just write of the minority vote because that's not going to happen.
according to the fact checkers she lied when she denied describing TPP as the gold standard
but i repeat its about scale and frequency, trump doesn't just deny having said things that he did, he actually just makes things up and then tries to pass them off as the truth
take one of the most offensive things he said during the whole campaign, that he would give orders to assassinate the families of terrorists as they must have "known something"
the justification he gave for that was that in the week leading up to 9/11 all the family members of the hijackers left the US, so they "must have known something" and that made them viable targets in his twisted mind
according to the CIA, Homeland Security and the official commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks there was zero evidence that any of the hijackers even had families in the US, let alone that they left the country just beforehand
do you really think someone who would explicitly want to commit war crimes AND create his own little fantasy about the justification for it to be anywhere near the sort of power he would have as president ?
Yes, when taking the words without the context in which they were given.
"In fairness to Clinton, the TPP was still under negotiation when Clinton made the "gold standard" comment. The partners only finalized the deal this year."
"In fairness to Clinton, the TPP was still under negotiation when Clinton made the "gold standard" comment. The partners only finalized the deal this year."
she still denied having said it even in that context
and if you look at the posts i have made on the subject i have been quite clear about the double standards being applied between the type of "lies" clinton has told to the whoppers trump does
Trump saying in his rally's after the debate that he went easy on her because he didn't want to embarrass her is the most blatant misogynistic moment of this campaign so far.
Think about it. If he's telling the truth about that, then he's both misogynistic for acting like that, as well as foolish. But if he's lying about that? Then yet again, he's a liar (and yet ALSO misogynistic for making that kind of statement in the first place).
Morrissey had a song once and the line was about 'America - where the president is never black, female, or gay'. We've had Obama. If Hilary follows then we might have a gay president next. One day they might even have an avowed atheist but I reckon that will be the final frontier for the US!
I very much doubt the gay President thing (at least one who was "out" beforehand) will happen within the next generation. I saw some poll the other day that something like 39% of Americans still believe homosexuality is immoral. Sure it's not a majority, but that's not only just those who admitted it to the pollsters, but also if it ever came down to a vote, the people against something usually are more dedicated to voting. And the atheist thing? Goes hand in hand with that.
The needle moved on gay marriage moved finally, but that's a more basic level before people have to contemplate a gay person "leading" them.
Trump needs to show discipline, and he needs to appeal to college-educated whites, specifically college-educated women. He did neither of those things. He probably didn't lose any votes, but he is failing at convincing the people he needs to vote for him. Just write of the minority vote because that's not going to happen.
As distasteful as it is, I'm almost hoping Trump does bring up Clinton's husband's affairs, let's air all the dirty laundry, including Trump's. I dare him... though as a woman I can tell you right now that trying to blame the wife for the sins of the husband won't earn him many points, except perhaps from some of those holier than thou types that only see it as a big deal when it's those "other" people that do it.
she still denied having said it even in that context
and if you look at the posts i have made on the subject i have been quite clear about the double standards being applied between the type of "lies" clinton has told to the whoppers trump does
I think what we're disagreeing on is just what she had said no to... this(below) is what I thought she had said no to, not that she had ever called TTIP a gold standard which is what Trump was trying to insinuate while interrupting Clinton every time she tried to respond to his initial attack about NAFTA. She definitely fell into his rabbit hole on that whole issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/
"TRUMP: Your husband signed NAFTA, which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry.
CLINTON: Well, that's your opinion. That is your opinion.
TRUMP: You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacture is down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent. NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country. And now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it. Then you heard what I was saying, how bad it is, and you said, I can't win that debate. But you know that if you did win, you would approve that, and that will be almost as bad as NAFTA. Nothing will ever top NAFTA.
CLINTON: Well, that is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in...
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen.
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are -- I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated...
TRUMP: Not.
CLINTON: ... which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn't. I wrote about that in my book...
TRUMP: So is it President Obama's fault?
CLINTON: ... before you even announced.
TRUMP: Is it President Obama's fault?"
As distasteful as it is, I'm almost hoping Trump does bring up Clinton's husband's affairs, let's air all the dirty laundry, including Trump's. I dare him... though as a woman I can tell you right now that trying to blame the wife for the sins of the husband won't earn him many points, except perhaps from some of those holier than thou types that only see it as a big deal when it's those "other" people that do it.
Everyone is fully aware of what a dirty old man Bill is di***** his bimbos, according to Colin Powell he still is too. I don't think its a "holier than thou" thing to look down on that sort of carry on, if people wish to do that then they shouldn't be in a relationship. I don't see it as Hillary's fault I just cant understand why she is still with him and they act like one big happy family either but there we go. Not the sort of first family America needs.
Everyone is fully aware of what a dirty old man Bill is di***** his bimbos, according to Colin Powell he still is too. I don't think its a "holier than thou" thing to look down on that sort of carry on, if people wish to do that then they shouldn't be in a relationship. I don't see it as Hillary's fault I just cant understand why she is still with him and they act like one big happy family either but there we go. Not the sort of first family America needs.
and you think america wants a first family where the father has said some of the things he has about his own daughter
and you think america wants a first family where the father has said some of the things he has about his own daughter
but maybe for rednecks thats not an issue ...
Your obsession with Trump is getting bad man. I never mentioned Mr Trump I was talking about what a dirty old man Bill is. Nothing wrong with thinking your daughter is beautiful.
Your obsession with Trump is getting bad man. I never mentioned Mr Trump I was talking about what a dirty old man Bill is. Nothing wrong with thinking your daughter is beautiful.
my obsession ?
lmao
and when there are two people in a race and you make the comment you did about what "america wants" its only natural to make the comparison to the alternative
I think what we're disagreeing on is just what she had said no to... this(below) is what I thought she had said no to, not that she had ever called TTIP a gold standard which is what Trump was trying to insinuate while interrupting Clinton every time she tried to respond to his initial attack about NAFTA. She definitely fell into his rabbit hole on that whole issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/
"TRUMP: Your husband signed NAFTA, which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry.
CLINTON: Well, that's your opinion. That is your opinion.
TRUMP: You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacture is down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent. NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country. And now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it. Then you heard what I was saying, how bad it is, and you said, I can't win that debate. But you know that if you did win, you would approve that, and that will be almost as bad as NAFTA. Nothing will ever top NAFTA.
CLINTON: Well, that is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in...
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen.
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are -- I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated...
TRUMP: Not.
CLINTON: ... which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn't. I wrote about that in my book...
TRUMP: So is it President Obama's fault?
CLINTON: ... before you even announced.
TRUMP: Is it President Obama's fault?"
It's this part. She was then responding to the TPP deal quite clearly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard.
(CROSSTALK) TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen.
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are -- I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated...
Clinton said when she was secretary of state, she was reserving judgment but "hoped (the Trans-Pacific Partnership) would be the gold standard."
She’s twisting her 2012 remarks a bit. Clinton said, "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements," which is a more confident claim than if she had said she "hoped" it would meet that standard. This is in contrast to more recent comments where Clinton said she had concerns about the deal and that she ultimately opposes it.
Did you know Politifact is owned by Tampa Bay Times, which endorsed Hillary?
Everyone is fully aware of what a dirty old man Bill is di***** his bimbos, according to Colin Powell he still is too. I don't think its a "holier than thou" thing to look down on that sort of carry on, if people wish to do that then they shouldn't be in a relationship. I don't see it as Hillary's fault I just cant understand why she is still with him and they act like one big happy family either but there we go. Not the sort of first family America needs.
Why's it anyone's business other than them? And I don't see them as acting "Happy Family". That's your unprovable entirely subjective impression, with absolutely no way to back it other than pointing out that they don't fight in front of people, publicly diss each other, get divorced, and that Chelsea doesn't seem all that traumatised.
And Trump is hardly Mr. Family Values. He divorces them if they show any backbone and trades younger. That he's still with Melania seems to be larger based on how she's (likely surgically) kept most of her looks, based on how often he (even still) brags about how hot his wife is. Trump has also had affairs, as well as a lot of shady alleged sexist conduct towards women in his professional environment. But here's the thing... even if the sum total of his affairs and alleged sexism has been far overstated and Bill Clinton is indeed worse... he's not RUNNING against Bill Clinton.
Did you know Politifact is owned by Tampa Bay Times, which endorsed Hillary?
That's legitimately a shame, because it does dent their inherent credibility, but I'd say it's a bit much to act like it instantly destroys it.
That said, the existence of newspaper and media company endorsements has always been a shame, and that's a party-independent thing. It gets back to the days when independent figures, media barons, did all of the owning, and while that's even still occasionally true with people like Rupert Murdoch, somehow it also stuck around even when multinationals owned them. It's a bad tradition, but we in fact it would probably behoove us to find out if Politifact has specific editorial positions and rules in place before accusing them of bias.
A few bits more which can be dug out about Politifact:
--it was originally founded in conjunction with Congressional Quarterly. It is unclear what CQ's current involvement is, but at the very least it started with their credibility behind it.
--It's won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, so it's credibility was boosted by that.
--The funding is not exclusively from Tampa Bay Times. They've assembled cost-sharing between a range of newspapers from across America, as well as from grants and underwriting from places like The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Democracy Fund, and The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Does that all mean Politifact can't be biased? Of course not. But at least it spreads the finances around enough that they deserve the benefit of the doubt a bit.
It's this part. She was then responding to the TPP deal quite clearly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard.
(CROSSTALK) TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen.
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are -- I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated...
Clinton said when she was secretary of state, she was reserving judgment but "hoped (the Trans-Pacific Partnership) would be the gold standard."
She’s twisting her 2012 remarks a bit. Clinton said, "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements," which is a more confident claim than if she had said she "hoped" it would meet that standard. This is in contrast to more recent comments where Clinton said she had concerns about the deal and that she ultimately opposes it.
Did you know Politifact is owned by Tampa Bay Times, which endorsed Hillary?
BBM1 - I disagree, that's not how it came across when I watched the debate.
BBM2 No and yes, doesn't mean they confirmed with her what she was actually responding to, at least I didn't see that anywhere in their article. Like I said, I disagree to what she was actually responding to at that moment, based upon my own impression while watching the debate. Just like trying to understand wtf Trump was talking about if you only read the transcript, a lot of it makes absolutely no sense without watching him in action... dropped sentences, strange made up words, pivoting multiple times within the same topic discussion...
A former Arkansas nursing home administrator who has accused Bill Clinton of raping her nearly 40 years ago lashed out at Chelsea Clinton on Wednesday for minimizing her father Bill's past sex scandals.
'Your father was, and probably still is, a sexual predator. Your mother has always lied and covered up for him,' Juanita Broaddrick wrote on Twitter.
Chelsea said in an interview with Cosmopolitan on Tuesday that focusing on the former president's reputation as a sex abuser was a 'distraction' from issues important to voters in the November election.
Trump said after Monday's debate that he shied away from criticizing Hillary Clinton as an enabler of her husband's past infidelities because he didn't want to embarrass Chelsea, who was sitting in the front row of the audience.
If its true and Hillary helped to cover it up, what a despicable woman she is.
If its true and Hillary helped to cover it up, what a despicable woman she is.
The thing is that as a society, we've turned to a position of a lot more respect for rape accusers than there used to be. And that's a good thing. But the flip side, and it's scary to even talk about this because of how often intimidation is used to shut accusers down, is that specifically in the area of accusing political figures, there are sometimes other agendas.
Juanita Broaddrick is a big question mark. The problem is that under oath, in an affidavit, she swore that the accusations she had (earlier) made were false.
Then again, one of Bill Cosby's accusers did a similar thing, and eventually said she only did so to receive a monetary settlement.
In Broaddrick's case however, she received no settlement. The affadavit was in fact signed as part of the Paula Jones case (the one where Clinton allegedly groped Jones). So any later recantation of it has to take into account that she didn't have a financial motive to lie when she said nothing happened.
This is being honest. The affidavit should mean something and have power over our opinions, but it would be foolish to act like it's absolute proof either. What it does is muddy things, that's all.
The problem is bringing Hillary and even Chelsea into it. Unless Juanita Broaddrick is claiming special knowledge that Hillary had specific knowledge a rape was real and buried it, what we are mainly dealing with is Hillary allegedly coming up to Broaddrick at a fundraiser, speaking to her in an allegedly "scary" voice, and saying "I know what you did for my husband". An incident that even if provably true is still pretty subjective on if it means Hillary thought she'd simply slept with Bill, or if something else had happened.
The flipside of all of this is that it's been totally un-hidable that Bill is a hound dog for decades. And Broaddrick and Paula Jones (which was allegedly "groping") are the only people who have ever claimed it wasn't consensual. Now this is that kind of icky horrible logic to use, because one rape is already too much, but at the same time Bill Clinton is SUCH a public figure it's not wrong logic to think there'd be more. When it came to Bill Cosby, after all, all people had to do was dig and it all came flowing out like sh*** out of a septic tank. To Broaddrick's credit she never cashed in (unlike Paula Jones, who got tons of money for spreading her story). That said, she's firmly politically allied with Conservatives in recent years. Whether that is an actual motive to be untruthful about anything or simply a reaction to being violated? Is definitely unknown. If we're being even remotely fair we'd have to admit both sound plausible.
I guess what it really comes down to is Hillary's state of knowledge. If asked, she's sure to say "I don't believe my husband did that". Which is a reasonable answer. The problem is that "the truth" involves not only discovering if Bill actually raped Juanita Broaddrick, but also if Hillary actually believed that was the case.
Involving Chelsea? Is kind of dirty pool. Then again, if Broaddrick really was a long-suffering rape victim and through the insanity of social media took that step? I'd understand. It would still be wrong, but understandable. If the rape accusations are false? Well... then targeting Chelsea looks like a way to invoke the scandal in such a way that it gets people talking the most.
I say revile Bill all you want. At the very least we know he's a serial cheater. There's a hell of a fuzzy line here though on Hillary's culpability based on what she allegedly said. Again, it's basically the same thing a woman would say to a mistress in that same situation. I too wonder why Hillary didn't leave Bill, but that would mostly just be for the cheating. "Hillary Rodham", under that name, could have run for Senate just as easily as "Hillary Clinton".
If its true and Hillary helped to cover it up, what a despicable woman she is.
And if it's not true - what a despicable act to blacken her name and discredit her.
It's sinking very low to bring up the sexual misdeeds of a candidates partner to make yourself appear superior. Quite frankly I think it reflects very badly on Trump that he's willing to dig up stuff like that.
Love the Trumpeteers online efforts to spin the debate as anything other than calamitous for him. He may come back and do well in subsequent debates (nothing to suggest he will, or that he can right the ship in 2 weeks), this particular debate was a solid L.
In a new NBC Poll out last night, 27% of Women said their opinion of Trump went down following the debate, only 11% said it went up. With Hillary Clinton the reverse was the case, more than twice that figure said their opinion of Hillary went up. Think this might answer that question of whether the Debate would make any difference in the polls, hard to see why it would not.
And if it's not true - what a despicable act to blacken her name and discredit her.
It's sinking very low to bring up the sexual misdeeds of a candidates partner to make yourself appear superior. Quite frankly I think it reflects very badly on Trump that he's willing to dig up stuff like that.
When he sees the NBC numbers I just posted above perhaps he will change his mind. When he talked about Hillary not having the stamina, implying she was a woman and therefore weak, it was a bit ironic considering she had just pounded him for over an hour and certainly looked as if she could have kept going for a further hour. Think he is just trying to get into her head and face to face he just wouldn't have the courage.
Comments
This pic/chart that they used on their site shows it best.
Fig. 1: Debt Under Central Estimate of Candidates' Proposals (Percent of GDP)
http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/fig%201%20debt.JPG
i'm obviously biased, as whilst i dont really rate clinton i think trump is a buffoon, but for me there were some things we knew about trump going into the debate and some things he needed to show he was capable of
the things he supposedly did well in the debate were the things we already knew
the aspects he needed to show, that he had some depth behind the soundbites and that he could stay composed under pressure, he failed miserably
there is a difference between collateral damage and specifically setting out to assassinate family members because "they must have known something" AND making up the justification for doing so
something i would have thought would be patently obvious
He was a target.
Trump needs to show discipline, and he needs to appeal to college-educated whites, specifically college-educated women. He did neither of those things. He probably didn't lose any votes, but he is failing at convincing the people he needs to vote for him. Just write of the minority vote because that's not going to happen.
the son wasn't a target, the target was a known al qaeda training camp that he happened to be in
Yes, when taking the words without the context in which they were given.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-tpp-and-gol/
"In fairness to Clinton, the TPP was still under negotiation when Clinton made the "gold standard" comment. The partners only finalized the deal this year."
she still denied having said it even in that context
and if you look at the posts i have made on the subject i have been quite clear about the double standards being applied between the type of "lies" clinton has told to the whoppers trump does
I very much doubt the gay President thing (at least one who was "out" beforehand) will happen within the next generation. I saw some poll the other day that something like 39% of Americans still believe homosexuality is immoral. Sure it's not a majority, but that's not only just those who admitted it to the pollsters, but also if it ever came down to a vote, the people against something usually are more dedicated to voting. And the atheist thing? Goes hand in hand with that.
The needle moved on gay marriage moved finally, but that's a more basic level before people have to contemplate a gay person "leading" them.
As distasteful as it is, I'm almost hoping Trump does bring up Clinton's husband's affairs, let's air all the dirty laundry, including Trump's. I dare him... though as a woman I can tell you right now that trying to blame the wife for the sins of the husband won't earn him many points, except perhaps from some of those holier than thou types that only see it as a big deal when it's those "other" people that do it.
I think what we're disagreeing on is just what she had said no to... this(below) is what I thought she had said no to, not that she had ever called TTIP a gold standard which is what Trump was trying to insinuate while interrupting Clinton every time she tried to respond to his initial attack about NAFTA. She definitely fell into his rabbit hole on that whole issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/
"TRUMP: Your husband signed NAFTA, which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry.
CLINTON: Well, that's your opinion. That is your opinion.
TRUMP: You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacture is down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent. NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country.
And now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it. Then you heard what I was saying, how bad it is, and you said, I can't win that debate. But you know that if you did win, you would approve that, and that will be almost as bad as NAFTA. Nothing will ever top NAFTA.
CLINTON: Well, that is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in...
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen.
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are -- I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated...
TRUMP: Not.
CLINTON: ... which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn't. I wrote about that in my book...
TRUMP: So is it President Obama's fault?
CLINTON: ... before you even announced.
TRUMP: Is it President Obama's fault?"
Everyone is fully aware of what a dirty old man Bill is di***** his bimbos, according to Colin Powell he still is too. I don't think its a "holier than thou" thing to look down on that sort of carry on, if people wish to do that then they shouldn't be in a relationship. I don't see it as Hillary's fault I just cant understand why she is still with him and they act like one big happy family either but there we go. Not the sort of first family America needs.
and you think america wants a first family where the father has said some of the things he has about his own daughter
but maybe for rednecks thats not an issue ...
Your obsession with Trump is getting bad man. I never mentioned Mr Trump I was talking about what a dirty old man Bill is. Nothing wrong with thinking your daughter is beautiful.
my obsession ?
lmao
and when there are two people in a race and you make the comment you did about what "america wants" its only natural to make the comparison to the alternative
It's this part. She was then responding to the TPP deal quite clearly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen.
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are -- I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated...
From a source you used earlier............
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-tpp-and-gol/
Clinton said when she was secretary of state, she was reserving judgment but "hoped (the Trans-Pacific Partnership) would be the gold standard."
She’s twisting her 2012 remarks a bit. Clinton said, "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements," which is a more confident claim than if she had said she "hoped" it would meet that standard. This is in contrast to more recent comments where Clinton said she had concerns about the deal and that she ultimately opposes it.
Did you know Politifact is owned by Tampa Bay Times, which endorsed Hillary?
Why's it anyone's business other than them? And I don't see them as acting "Happy Family". That's your unprovable entirely subjective impression, with absolutely no way to back it other than pointing out that they don't fight in front of people, publicly diss each other, get divorced, and that Chelsea doesn't seem all that traumatised.
And Trump is hardly Mr. Family Values. He divorces them if they show any backbone and trades younger. That he's still with Melania seems to be larger based on how she's (likely surgically) kept most of her looks, based on how often he (even still) brags about how hot his wife is. Trump has also had affairs, as well as a lot of shady alleged sexist conduct towards women in his professional environment. But here's the thing... even if the sum total of his affairs and alleged sexism has been far overstated and Bill Clinton is indeed worse... he's not RUNNING against Bill Clinton.
That said, the existence of newspaper and media company endorsements has always been a shame, and that's a party-independent thing. It gets back to the days when independent figures, media barons, did all of the owning, and while that's even still occasionally true with people like Rupert Murdoch, somehow it also stuck around even when multinationals owned them. It's a bad tradition, but we in fact it would probably behoove us to find out if Politifact has specific editorial positions and rules in place before accusing them of bias.
A few bits more which can be dug out about Politifact:
--it was originally founded in conjunction with Congressional Quarterly. It is unclear what CQ's current involvement is, but at the very least it started with their credibility behind it.
--It's won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, so it's credibility was boosted by that.
--The funding is not exclusively from Tampa Bay Times. They've assembled cost-sharing between a range of newspapers from across America, as well as from grants and underwriting from places like The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Democracy Fund, and The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Does that all mean Politifact can't be biased? Of course not. But at least it spreads the finances around enough that they deserve the benefit of the doubt a bit.
BBM1 - I disagree, that's not how it came across when I watched the debate.
BBM2 No and yes, doesn't mean they confirmed with her what she was actually responding to, at least I didn't see that anywhere in their article. Like I said, I disagree to what she was actually responding to at that moment, based upon my own impression while watching the debate. Just like trying to understand wtf Trump was talking about if you only read the transcript, a lot of it makes absolutely no sense without watching him in action... dropped sentences, strange made up words, pivoting multiple times within the same topic discussion...
If its true and Hillary helped to cover it up, what a despicable woman she is.
The thing is that as a society, we've turned to a position of a lot more respect for rape accusers than there used to be. And that's a good thing. But the flip side, and it's scary to even talk about this because of how often intimidation is used to shut accusers down, is that specifically in the area of accusing political figures, there are sometimes other agendas.
Juanita Broaddrick is a big question mark. The problem is that under oath, in an affidavit, she swore that the accusations she had (earlier) made were false.
Then again, one of Bill Cosby's accusers did a similar thing, and eventually said she only did so to receive a monetary settlement.
In Broaddrick's case however, she received no settlement. The affadavit was in fact signed as part of the Paula Jones case (the one where Clinton allegedly groped Jones). So any later recantation of it has to take into account that she didn't have a financial motive to lie when she said nothing happened.
This is being honest. The affidavit should mean something and have power over our opinions, but it would be foolish to act like it's absolute proof either. What it does is muddy things, that's all.
The problem is bringing Hillary and even Chelsea into it. Unless Juanita Broaddrick is claiming special knowledge that Hillary had specific knowledge a rape was real and buried it, what we are mainly dealing with is Hillary allegedly coming up to Broaddrick at a fundraiser, speaking to her in an allegedly "scary" voice, and saying "I know what you did for my husband". An incident that even if provably true is still pretty subjective on if it means Hillary thought she'd simply slept with Bill, or if something else had happened.
The flipside of all of this is that it's been totally un-hidable that Bill is a hound dog for decades. And Broaddrick and Paula Jones (which was allegedly "groping") are the only people who have ever claimed it wasn't consensual. Now this is that kind of icky horrible logic to use, because one rape is already too much, but at the same time Bill Clinton is SUCH a public figure it's not wrong logic to think there'd be more. When it came to Bill Cosby, after all, all people had to do was dig and it all came flowing out like sh*** out of a septic tank. To Broaddrick's credit she never cashed in (unlike Paula Jones, who got tons of money for spreading her story). That said, she's firmly politically allied with Conservatives in recent years. Whether that is an actual motive to be untruthful about anything or simply a reaction to being violated? Is definitely unknown. If we're being even remotely fair we'd have to admit both sound plausible.
I guess what it really comes down to is Hillary's state of knowledge. If asked, she's sure to say "I don't believe my husband did that". Which is a reasonable answer. The problem is that "the truth" involves not only discovering if Bill actually raped Juanita Broaddrick, but also if Hillary actually believed that was the case.
Involving Chelsea? Is kind of dirty pool. Then again, if Broaddrick really was a long-suffering rape victim and through the insanity of social media took that step? I'd understand. It would still be wrong, but understandable. If the rape accusations are false? Well... then targeting Chelsea looks like a way to invoke the scandal in such a way that it gets people talking the most.
I say revile Bill all you want. At the very least we know he's a serial cheater. There's a hell of a fuzzy line here though on Hillary's culpability based on what she allegedly said. Again, it's basically the same thing a woman would say to a mistress in that same situation. I too wonder why Hillary didn't leave Bill, but that would mostly just be for the cheating. "Hillary Rodham", under that name, could have run for Senate just as easily as "Hillary Clinton".
And if it's not true - what a despicable act to blacken her name and discredit her.
It's sinking very low to bring up the sexual misdeeds of a candidates partner to make yourself appear superior. Quite frankly I think it reflects very badly on Trump that he's willing to dig up stuff like that.
In a new NBC Poll out last night, 27% of Women said their opinion of Trump went down following the debate, only 11% said it went up. With Hillary Clinton the reverse was the case, more than twice that figure said their opinion of Hillary went up. Think this might answer that question of whether the Debate would make any difference in the polls, hard to see why it would not.
When he sees the NBC numbers I just posted above perhaps he will change his mind. When he talked about Hillary not having the stamina, implying she was a woman and therefore weak, it was a bit ironic considering she had just pounded him for over an hour and certainly looked as if she could have kept going for a further hour. Think he is just trying to get into her head and face to face he just wouldn't have the courage.