You should call Ken Starr. I’m sure he’ll be delighted to hear that someone has found some actual evidence after all these decades.
Apparently the post-groping video polls are giving Hillary a boost already. I’d have thought it would have taken longer, but 538 is claiming that’s part of the cause.
538s Polls only forecast shows Hillary over 80% again. (83.8) This is where she was after her convention. After her 9/11 collapse, she went down to the low 50s. I sleep at night when Hillary is over 80%. I want to sleep well between now and November 8th.
Point the First: Thank you for doing the job you do.
Point the Second: My suburban redneck students were strangely silent today, while the less dogmatic group was absolutely rocking with stories and observations. (OK, I’ll admit a number of them were about Mountain Man Giant stage left last night and whether he actually ate the three people around him.)
Point the Third: My debate team was, like your students, split on the judgment about style. Trump got points for direct, simple language. OTOH, Clinton won big on actually saying something. On the Gripping Hand one of my debaters observed that, when talking about national policy issues, simple isn’t good. At all. But they are all policy wonks, so the bias comes through. 
Then start following the PEC forecast which has had her over 80% most of the campaign, currently at 93%. Or the NYT upshot which has her at 86%. Or Sabato’s Crystal ball that estimates her winning with 341 electoral votes. No reason to let 538’s numbers run your sleep cycle.
This commentator at forbes seems to think (rather generously) that Trump was referring to nuclear power, not nuclear weapons and there is some truth to that.
AFAIK with respect to Nuclear weapons, Russia and China are forging ahead with new multi warhead missiles as a direct response to the US developing better anti-ballistic missile missiles. Another forbes article:
IMO, its overblown, the US has one capability no other country has, the ability to drop nuclear weapons from the B2 stealth bomber. That together with the US boomers and ground based missiles means the US still has plenty of capability to provide a nuclear deterrent. What does it matter if some of the missiles are from the 1970’s if there is still no defense against them?
I agree with you to an extent about the pacing around and such, but to be fair to Trump, in almost all of those pictures he is either standing next to his podium, sometimes with his hand on it, or walking toward and then standing next to his podium. He still shouldn’t have been pacing around while she was speaking at other parts. However, when Hillary went to the opposite side of the debate floor from her podium to sort of speak directly to that side of the audience, blaming Trump for continuing to stand next to his podium while Hillary was speaking in front of him hardly seems fair. It was his podium that he was standing next to, after all.
Hillary asked Trump if had actually sexually abused anyone (per his “bragging” bit with Billy Bush), to which he naturally said “No”. I suspect her team has a few women waiting in the wings to go public later this week to show that he lied about that. I can’t believe she would have asked that question just to ask it. It was a set-up.
First of all, spin this as hard as you like, Bill is not going to be the one taking the oath of office in January. Bill is not the one moving into the oval office in January. Bill is not the one the generals will salute in January. What Bill did is about as important to this campaign as what grade Chelsea got in art class in the 2nd grade. His supporters will cheer. but this isn’t adding anyone to his column.
Hillary is a lawyer. She knows better than to ever ask a question she doesn’t have the answer to. I think you’re right about this.
It was Anderson Cooper who asked that question, not Hillary. From the transcript:
I also think this is a potential trap for Trump to get him for not only doing such things but lying about it. But Hillary didn’t set it.
Clearly Trump was trying to avoid having to say he never did it, or else he would have denied it immediately. Given what he said and his reputation, I would be very surprised if he never had done it, and if there aren’t women waiting in the wings to testify to it as soon as the controversy dies down a bit. But Trump was boxed in enough that he had to deny it explicitly.
Dayum. Pretty and would be amazingly effective. Humility with humor on her part would go really far.
The evidence against Clinton is exactly the same as the evidence against Cosby - the word of the women involved. In Cosby’s case their word is taken as Gospel; In Clinton’s case crickets chirp and he’s treated like a rock star. Why is that, I never wonder.
Why are the claims of the three women featured by Trump more credible than the claims of the approx. sixty women accusing Cosby? Please be specific. I am not asking you to pick apart the stories of a Cosby accuser here or there. Why should three women whose stories do not seem to share very similar details or M.O.'s on the part of their alleged attacker be believed more than the stories of sixty women, many of whose stories do share common details/M.O.s and also happen to have key details confirmed by Cosby in testimony under oath? Many of Cosby’s accusers never sued or attempted to sue him, so just as with some of Bill Clinton’s accusers, there does not seem to be any real profit motive.
Ultimately, I think deep down the answer to why you find the three Bill Clinton accusers more credible is that you believe the worst about Bill Clinton already but are only ambivalent about Bill Cosby and don’t feel like you have any stake in how his civil/criminal cases turn out.
In Cosby’s case, just like Trump’s, his own words support the accusers’ case. Cosby is on record that he acquired drugs to give to women, which matches the details of many accusers. Trump is on video describing specific sexual assault actions he enjoys, and they match the details of some of the accusers.
There are no words of Clinton that support the accounts of his accusers.
Dude, time for a nap. From very early in your link:
Do you understand how the justice system works? Cosby is due to stand trial June 2017. He may be found innocent or guilty, we don’t know yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/us/bill-cosby-to-stand-trial-in-sexual-assault-case-in-june.html
In Bill Clinton’s case he has been on trial, multiple times and has not been found guilty (except for lying under oath). If Clinton’s accusers have evidence they can take to court then they should go for it.
Besides the usual problems with time line awareness that I see with many conservatives it is clear to me that people that like authoritarians do want to ignore pesky things like “double jeopardy”.
Really, Bill Clinton had to pay a lot with investigations and settlements out of court, settlements that IIUC are not being followed much by the accusers today, but that was mostly in one case in the other cases the women had their cases dismissed or the prosecutors decided that the testimony was not credible.
It is the turn of Trump to be subjected to the same grill, pointing back to the already dealt past in an attempt to distract to what is going on now only shows that Trump has no confidence on how he would fare. I don’t think he would come out of it like Bill Clinton did.
Of course, the kicker is that it is Hillary Clinton the one running, not Bill.
Like I said - ask Ken Starr. I’m sure he can easily explain to you why he didn’t pursue charges of sexual harassment against Bill Clinton on the words of Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley and Juanita Broaddrick.
Well, I mean, Broaddrick refused to testify under oath and in fact gave a deposition that Clinton didn’t touch her.
And Jones’ case was dismissed by the Judge because she couldn’t demonstrate any harm.
And Wiley gave conflicting stories about her encounter and was also caught lying about other sex stories with her boyfriend, and gave conflicting evidence at different times in the Paula Jones affair.
But details, details. I’m sure the only reason that their cases were dropped is because Ken Starr is a secret Clinton agent. It’s the only explanation that makes sense.
Glad that’s settled! And in the universe where Bill Clinton is running against Bill Cosby for president, this will be vitally important.
OK. Whoever asked it had to be thinking: I’ve got this guy right in the cross hairs, and I’m going to let 'er rip!!