So Hillary pledges to keep him away from policymaking(and women hopefully)?
Sorry, but the fact that they are a package deal has been the reality since he first ran for governor of Arkansas. No point in denying it anymore.
That’s not quite accurate. There are around 60 women accusing Bill Cosby of either outright rape or at least sexual assault/sexual harassment that could have led to sexual assault/rape. Many of them have very similar details involving their position of Cosby taking them under his wing, them drinking something supplied by Cosby, and believing themselves to have been drugged by Cosby when waking up or coming to. And Cosby’s own deposition (while denying rape) confirmed that he has given women drugs to make them relax and that he met privately with at least some of the women accusing him of rape/sexual assault, along with his own admission that he would regularly have sexual encounters with various and random models, some of whom were barely 18, from an agency that would send them to him while taping sitcoms.
Minus Monica, Bill Clinton has repeatedly denied either sexually assaulting or sexually harassing the women that Trump referred to. And the details of the Monica affair do not really resemble any of the other women’s stories since Monica has admitted that she basically sought to have an affair with Bill and certainly was not an unwilling recipient of his advances. Not that it makes his conduct with Monica right or appropriate at all.
Not to start the Cosby thing up all over again, but this is not quite accurate either. One of these women lived with him for months after her so-called rape and continued to enjoy educational and financial benefits from him even years after they stopped seeing each other. Some have spoken glowingly of him in the time since they knew him and even showed friends mementos of their time together, never mentioning their so-called rape until it became a potential money-maker. One woman took a shower at his request in his hotel room and came out finding him in bed under the covers. Next thing you know she’s lying in bed next to him and he’s using her hand to masturbate with. No one pays the least attention to the question of how she wound up lying in bed with him if at one point he was in bed under the covers and she was standing at the bathroom door. Did he levitate her there? Janice Dickinson relates how she allegedly woke up to find her pajamas in disarray. No one pays the least attention to the question of what she was doing in his hotel room in the middle of the night in her pajamas in the first place. Another woman claims he stood in front of her in the green room of a talk show with his crotch at a level with her face (is this really what qualifies as sexual assault these days?). No one pays the least attention to the fact that since she was sitting on a couch and he was standing up his crotch would naturally be at a level with her face. Another allowed him to have his way with her in the cabin of a yacht while uttering not a word of protest, and then obviously became incensed when he was rude and dismissive to her afterward. Etc., etc., etc. If you weed out all the women whose stories have holes you could drive a truck through, there probably aren’t but three or four even who might have legitimate claims, and theirs aren’t a slam-dunk.
Since Hillary Clinton has made Bill a talking point, his role in a HRC presidency is relevant.
Timemagazine:
Hillary Clinton has said she would rely on her husband for advice, especially on the economy, and may give him a specific global problem to solve—from a perch in government, as opposed to the family foundation, which he is likely to turn over to daughter Chelsea if her mother wins.
New York Times:
…Mrs. Clinton sees him as her most trusted confidant and sounding board on national security and the economy, advisers say;… Yet Mrs. Clinton is still not sure if she would give a formal position to Mr. Clinton or rely on him to help behind the scenes and keep a low profile, aides say. … At the same time, she emphasized that she and Mr. Clinton would not be co-presidents
And straight from HRC’s mouth as quoted by Newsweek…
I do think that Hillary should answer questions about what role, if any, Bill would play in an HRC administration. Whether a formal role or not, the issue is there at a level that has never really been seen before in US politics.
But such questioning would not necessarily be suited for a debate night question, since similar levels of speculation have not be raised about any other potential first spouse in this election cycle.
This debate sealed it for me: this country is heading toward darkness now. I fully expect a contested election, and I don’t mean one that’s going to be like Florida in 2000 or with hints of irregularities in Ohio in 2004. There are going to be partisans at the level and congressional levels who will refuse to accept the results. Trump will not concede. His millions of supporters (many of whom have shown violent tendencies) will not concede. I hope I’m wrong but I honestly get the sense that America’s going back to the late 19th Century, an era of hyper-partisanship, constitutional crises, and racial and political unrest.
I’d be more worried if there were Trump-style candidates downballot. This is a movement that looks like it will go away as soon as their leader is defeated.
I’m feeling slightly more relieved after reading the post-debate media coverage.
It looks like Clinton ‘won’ according to most polls. She won 57-34 according to CNN and other numbers I’ve seen have her winning as well but with less decisive margins. Pretty much similar to the 1st debate although not quite as strong for Hillary this time.
Most people believe Trump did not address the questions about the tape well, which was what he needed to do.
It also looks like no matter how well he performed in this debate, Trump may have permanently damaged his relationship with religious conservatives. Theologians have withdrawn support: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/10/09/in-a-stunning-reversal-theologian-pulls-back-support-from-donald-trump/. What few remaining Mormons there were supporting him have also now left Trump as well.
The other takeaway is that not as many people were watching this debate. There were distractions, including Sunday Night Football and MLB Baseball. The late start on the East Coast also meant that probably fewer people were watching in these states, which almost certainly hurts Trump.
I think Trump solidified his base, but that’s really all he accomplished. I think the cake is probably about baked at this point. Nevertheless, I still expect a nasty race to the finish line.
I actually was on Facebook tonight making the case that a Christian can’t support Trump. I’ve always said I wouldn’t do it unless someone else brought it up, and they did. They were saying that Trump should either show real Christian repentance or step down.
At first, it was just a response saying that he wouldn’t do it. But then I saw tons of replies vilifying Clinton and acting like you had to vote Trump, and she agreed with one of them. So I went full out. I stopped short of supporting Clinton–I said I did, and gave the Christian part of why (she’s a Christian who agrees with Jesus on the issues, and that most of the evil things you hear about her are lies) but that I’d understand if others didn’t.
I’m a bit worried about it, but I’m tired of being silent while supposed Christians rationalize why they can vote for an antichrist.
I never thought I’d find myself liking a GOP political hack but Rick Wilson and Ben Shapiro have piqued my interest. Wilson made note of the exchange between Anderson Cooper and Trump in which Cooper presses Trump to deny that he’s ever sexually assaulted anyone as he suggested on tape. Wilson’s already predicting that this on-the-record denial will be shredded in the coming days. Apparently the word on the street is that there is more – perhaps a lot more – dirt already out there circulating about Trump’s sexual behavior and that it will soon come to light.
I think Mike Pence is the only thing – the only thing – that is preserving Trump’s ever-weakening but still somewhat strong standing with religious conservatives. If that rift starts to open up publicly, it’s 100 percent over for his campaign. It probably already is now but I’m talking about election day blowout if Trump pushes Pence too far away. Pence wouldn’t have to leave the ticket - just saying “We haven’t talked”, which I take to mean (We’re not really on speaking terms right now) was pretty damn bad, IMO. Probably one of the worst moments of Trump’s debate night.
adaher, you seem to have fled from our discussion about candidates and bigotry, and I think it was a very interesting discussion. First, I’ll make it clear I’ve seen nothing from you that makes me think you have any bigoted feelings. But I do think you’re deceiving yourself if you think that candidates like Pence, and Pence in particular, have not unapologetically said very bigoted things about gay people (and trans people, for that matter). I think it’s worth looking inside yourself to see how important opposing bigotry is for you. Right now, any presidential candidate Pence will face is very likely to be non-bigoted on these positions, and unless Pence changes significantly, his positions and statements are very bigoted. I urge you to both argue for conservatives to abandon this sort of bigotry but also stop supporting bigotry with your votes, even when I know you vote in spite of these feelings rather than for them.
Agree with everything here, and with Tamerlane’s assessment that I compounded the problem; it didn’t work out the way I expected. My only quibble is that we’re not free to talk about mod attention. I’m pretty irritated at the form it took, but if I say more about it I’ll open a thread in ATMB, and also this is my last comment on the matter in this thread, due to not wanting to hijack it. 
Especially because it was completely un-necessary. All Trump had to say is “We’re aiming for the same goal but with different paths, Assad is also a threat and needs to be dealt with as well as ISIS”. Boom done, instead it looks very suspiciously like he threw his VP under the bus in order to avoid saying anything at all that conflicts with Russia’s goals in Syria (eg keeping Assad).
One wonders exactly how much debt Trump is in and how much of it is owed to Russian nationals. Because I can’t make any sense of his love affair with Putin any other way.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says that a no-fly zone would require war with Russia. There is a very real reason to avoid a war with Russia, and I’ll let you figure that out yourself.
I never mentioned a no fly zone. The US has done strikes on Assad’s forces and fed weapons to opponents of Assad for a long time now and it hasn’t lead to war with Russia. So you think the US should just accept Russia’s goals in Syria as a done deal? Do you also think that Russia should be allowed to keep Crimea?
Allowed by whom? The Crimeans? I’ll let them decide because it’s none of my business, and probably none of yours. Do you suggest going to war with Russia to return Crimea to the Ukrainian govt?
Accept them as in take no action to thwart them? Yes I accept them. In this instance they would lead to less chaos and destruction than the goals of the bizarre death cult of “Assad must go”.
War has no broken out between the US and Russia as a result of the US govt’s policies, you’re right. Do you believe these policies make war more or less likely in the future?
Do you defend Hillary Clinton’s policies in Syria that Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said would require a war with Russia?
The Irony that Trump brays on about how he’s going to make the US “winning” again and be a big tough guy and then he wants to bend over backwards for everything that Putin wants. Putin / Russia is not a friend to the US or the west, that doesn’t mean they’re an enemy it means they will pursue their own goals with no regard to our interests.
Suggesting the US should just let Russia have their way, in Crimea and in Syria is weak and not in the US or the west’s best interest. There are plenty of other ways of standing up to Russia other than going to war, and all options should be explored.
It’s not in the best interests of the US govt and its appendages and profiteers in Northern VA. It is in fact in the best interest for US society in general. If you want to stand up to Russia and be a tough guy, go ahead buy a plane ticket. Do not sit in comfy suburbia and play games with the lives of people you obviously don’t care about. I honestly don’t care if individuals egos are deflated because they are tied to “national greatness” schoolboy fantasies.
Since you decided to avoid my question on the no-fly zone, assumed to be one of the “options” to be “explored”, how can I evaluate your position since it rests on nothing but “strong” vs “weak” and “the west’s” interests (the west is a homogenous blob, right)? Basically just boilerplate warmonger rhetoric
But at some point, depending on how far Putin is wiling to go, you might have to be willing to risk war.
For example, if Putin starts using the same tactics he’s used in Ukraine against the Baltic Republics, things are going to get real serious really fast. Someone’s going to have to back down, and it won’t be Clinton.
I have no interest in a war, but the idea that Russia would risk a nuclear war for Syria is laughable. Putin is not an idiot, he is playing things up for domestic consumption in order to have an excuse to suppress dissent. It is absolutely not in the US or NATO’s interests to back down every time Putin (or China) pushes things slightly further to test our limits.