2016 Election

Quote: SanchoPanza

The issue is your parent has to register you in the consulate. Obama's clearly did not. Cruz's clearly did.

Can you show me this is a requirement somewhere?

Quote: SanchoPanza

The issue is your parent has to register you in the consulate. Obama's clearly did not. Cruz's clearly did.

I am with Wizard. I don't see what this has to do with anything, nor have heard anyone mention this.

But, in watching a lot of coverage on all three cable networks tonight, consensus among so called experts, both democratic leaning as well as republican leaning, is that Cruz would be eligible to be President, so I am backing off or revising my previous position on the matter. I just don't know. I'll leave it to others (like a court) to figure out. But regardless, I do think there has definitely been a double standard among right leaning media types, like a Sean Hannity (among others), who gave credibility to the Obama birther issue, while dismissing a similar situation with Cruz.

But I do think this type of issue should be remedied (not likely to be) before any voting occurs. If a candidate is filing to be on the ballot on any state, it should be decided before he is put on the ballot, as to whether he meets the legal qualifications for the office he is running for. Otherwise you have voters that could be voting for someone who is ineligible and that disenfranchises them by rendering their vote meaningless.

Why would Obama's mother have to have registered with the consulate? Hawaii was a US state when he was born. Not the basis for any reasonable contrast between his and Cruz's circumstances.

Quote: ams288

We shall see.

I don't see it working well for the Republicans with anyone other than the base.

And Trump certainly isn't the guy to deliver that message. His record with women isn't so great. How many wifes has he had?

It doesn't have to be Trump, though there's a big difference between running through a few trophy wives and committing a string of sex crimes. Crimes Hillary allegedly helped to cover up, often by attacking the victims.

This is much bigger than Bengahzi, which nobody cares about. If Bill and Hill get put in the same bucket as Cosby, that will be hard to wash off.

This tweet by Juanita Brodderick will be seen by millions before the election. It's quite easy to process and not easy to forget or explain away. That's what sticks.

https://twitter.com/atensnut

Quote: Rigondeaux

It doesn't have to be Trump, though there's a big difference between running through a few trophy wives and committing a string of sex crimes. Crimes Hillary allegedly helped to cover up, often by attacking the victims.

This is much bigger than Bengahzi, which nobody cares about. If Bill and Hill get put in the same bucket as Cosby, that will be hard to wash off.

Dude, this battle plan has already been tried. This battle was fought and lost by the republicans during Bill Clintons re-election in 1996. The public just doesn't care. No matter what you think of Hillary or her politics, bringing up Bill's issues, allows her to be seen as a victim. People, especially women voters will be very sympathetic to the wife of a cheating husband.....period. Bringing this up again, is advantage...Hillary Clinton.

As a voter, a month away from voting republican for the first time in his life (at least in the primary season...leaving my options open in the general depending on candidates), the republicans need to stop trying to re-fight battles and wars they have already lost in the past. Some in the republican party (Rubio and Cruz) are STILL trying to fight the gay marriage battle.

There are enough winning issues for republicans, like tying Hillary to what I consider a disappointing Obama presidency, especially the foreign policy part of it. Move forward. Pick winning issues, not old issues that you have lost before and will lose again.

Quote: SanchoPanza

The issue is your parent has to register you in the consulate. Obama's clearly did not. Cruz's clearly did.

Huh? The consulate in Hawaii? That's where Obama was born. That's where his birth certificate originated.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but the cultural climate has changed a lot. The allegations against Woody Allen were just as old and, to my eye, less credible. Nonetheless, when a new generation became aware of them, a storm of controversy followed.

My understanding (might be wrong) is that allegations had surrounded Cosby for quite some time as well.

In both cases, the controversy seemed to be driven largely by regular people online, and less by authorities in the media. An impossibility in the past. The alleged victims can also have a much louder voice than in the past, if they choose to.

There's also just a different attitude about these things. Did you follow the Emma Sulkowicz case at all? This is a woman with an extremely implausible story, but it just doesn't matter. Where we used to err on the side of being critical of the alleged victim, it seems like we now err the other way. So if alleged victims start coming forward or become more vocal, it will present a problem. They can't be brushed aside and made the butt of late night jokes.

I don't know if the allegations against Billary are true, but they are basically plausible. Many people voting now have no memory of the first go around, or were too young to absorb it much. I think we're about the same age. What do you really remember about it?

Hill can say, "I'm a victim too," but then she admits it happened. If that's true, she also went after the victims.

They might be just so powerful and so well liked by their followers that it doesn't matter. Also, even if he is guilty, I think Bill's the type of guy who can get away with it on every level

Not saying it will sink them, but I think it's a bigger potential problem than Benghazi for sure. It could be more of a primary problem than a general election one.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Many people voting now have no memory of the first go around, or were too young to absorb it much. I think we're about the same age. What do you really remember about it?

Well, I was still in high school, but I sort of already mis-remembered some of it, as I just said it didn't effect Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election, when the Monica incident, or at least the knowledge of it and impeachment didn't occur until his second term. So it was the 1998 midterms that voters more or less said they didn't care and actually rejected the republican's handling of the whole thing including impeachment.

Normally mid-term elections go against the party of the President, and you would have thought with the scandal and impeachment hearing, the republicans would have had one of those elections with really big pickups in the house in 1998. They didn't. The democrats actually gained 5 seats. That tells me the public just didn't care.

Bill Clinton was already a 'known' womanizer, who had affairs before he even ran for the presidency. Again, the people just didn't care. Maybe you are right....maybe it's a different climate now, but seems to me, Bill Clinton is probably more popular now than ever.

Would Bill tell Hillary he raped a woman? Seems unlikely. Not just for them, but for any situation like that. So, they (the wives) protect them, unless they don't believe them eventually.

Don't know if she believes him or not, but I doubt she knows anything. Is not knowing for a sure a terrible crime?

Sure that's what I remember. Clinton was a horn dog. LOL. 90% of the focus was on Monica.

This has a different character:



p.s. with all the changes to the forum and site, why not a decent image feature? Pretty fundamental.