You know, even if this argument wasn’t an easily-debunked hoax, I never understood the logic here. Clinton has one of the most impressive track records when it comes to women’s rights there is. The Saudis are obscenely anti-women. Clearly, she’s not letting herself be influenced too much by any donations she might be getting from them. Meanwhile, there’s only one person in the race who is saying that we should be “one people, under one god”. Why should we care who donated to her campaign or her charity if it’s clearly apparent that she’s not letting them influence her policies?
I’ve had an idea rolling around in my head for a while now, and want to see what you all think about it. Suppose the race remains tight through election day and PA, NH, and NV appear to be the tipping point states that are must wins for Clinton. Would a large celebrity inspired GOTV the last few days before the election be something that would make a difference? I’m thinking something along the lines of major celebrities and politicians going door to door or holding rallies in neighborhoods favorable to Clinton. Maybe Bill holding a rally on the Vegas strip or someone like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, or Angelina Jolie holding rallies in downtown Philadelphia. Does this sort of thing already happen? If not, would it make a difference if Clinton did try this?
Sanders didnt release his Tax returns. And would not discuss some issues concerning his wife.
Dunno. Sure hope you’re right.
Any Trump interviewer from here on out, and any questioner or moderator at a debate, must have video cued up and ready to go, point by point, if Trump lies about anything, especially as to past goofy, false and/or inflammatory statements that he’s now edging (or running) away from. They have to be prepared to immediately show that he’s lying.
Indeed. Like FOX did.
Probably wouldn’t hurt.
And in doing so marginalize themselves as biased so they can be dismissed offhand.
Face it, Trump is a genius. Be so batshit crazy the country completely habituates to it allowing you basically full reign to do and say whatever you want with complete impunity as well as lowering expectations to the point you get national kudos for shit as ridiculous as admitting Obama was born in the US.
It’s brilliant. Utterly brilliant.
One of Trump’s driving desires for the last 30 years has been a high rank on Forbes’ richest people list. If he was a genius he would have cracked the top 100.
My bold.
Full rein. “The usual spelling of the phrase meaning freedom to do as one pleases is free rein, not free reign. The latter is a common misspelling, and it almost makes sense given reign‘s meaning (i.e., the exercise of sovereign power). But free rein, an allusion to horseback riding, is the original form.” Cite.
I wonder do people think that Clinton was using politician double-speech here, or was it just an unfortunate off the cuff choice of words at the end of this video when asked directly if Obama was a Muslim during the 2008 campaign? She answered no but then added “as far as I know” after saying no? I could read it both ways, but the cynic in me thinks maybe she was planting a little seed of doubt at the end of her answer.
Clinton is not above taking advantage of anything and if you read Game Change you’ll find that she was really an advocate of going after Obama on his “otherness”.
(Shortened for being too long, and stuff)
Emphasis added because I can’t trust you to get it.
The Origin Story Of The Big Lie That Hillary Clinton Started Birtherism
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/where-did-hillary-clinton-started-birtherism-myth-come-from
No, I accept that Clinton didn’t start birtherism although many Clinton supporters did and as you point out, some members of her campaign had ideas about how to exploit Obama’s “foreignness”. Clinton herself believed there was a Michelle Obama tape out there where she lashed out at “whitey” because Sid Blumenthal told her so.
You mean the book written by the hackiest of the hack journalists? Anything you pull from Halperin should have an asterisk by it labeled “HACK ALERT!”.
I’m not happy about her answer, but it’s a tough position. The ideal answer would be, “I don’t care, because it doesn’t matter,” or else “No…but it wouldn’t matter if he were.” But the sad reality is that in our society it DOES matter, so this sort of answer could be seen as an unfair or unfounded “attack” on a political opponent (which Obama more or less was at the time).
The only criticism i’ve heard about the accuracy of the book is from you. It’s regularly cited by media sources from across the ideological spectrum.
Are you kidding? There were virtually no sources cited in the book. It was like “bad SDMB post: The Book”. It was the political equivalent of a supposed Hollywood tell-all from a failed actor. It’s been criticized constantly and “across the ideological spectrum”.
There are many different media bubbles.
If you know everyone who writes for Politico and can predict who will be Wolf Blitzer’s guest based on the topic, you might have heard people cite Halperin without contempt.
But if you go a couple of steps outside the Beltway media, Halperin has a pretty terrible reputation.
Well, they can certainly do it for Hillary too - but it’s The Donald who flip-flops and denies previous statements with such sangfroid.
That’s the nature of insider accounts. Bob Woodward’s books are no different. Good journalists know how to shake people down for info and compare it to what other people have said. Your demand for cites is nonsense, since anyone who went on record would never work for a campaign again.
So, it’s mostly gossip & rumor.