Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump Appears With Bill Clinton Accusers Before 2nd Debate Press Conference

"

Before tonight’s debate, Donald Trump held a bit of a mini-presser with Paula Jones, Kathy Shelton, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey to make statements in support of Trump and against Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. Remember, Jones, Broaddrick, and Willey have all made sexual assault and rape allegations against the former president. The only one there with no allegations against Bill Clinton was Shelton, who was there to denounce Hillary Clinton for once defending her rapist. And this happened hours before the debate.
Watch above, via Facebook.Donald Trump Appears With Bill Clinton Accusers. Ahead of US presidential debate, Donald Trump appears with women who accuse Bill Clinton of sexual assault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BPBCnuBZKQ

What I hope Trump says in his reply to the first question: "I apologized for what I SAID about
women. When are YOU going to apologize to THESE WOMEN for what Bill DID to them, and what YOU said about them, Hillary?" =^[.]^=

Not a fan of Shelton being there. As a defense attorney, it was Clinton's job to defend the man she believed a rapist. That's what defense attorneys do. Oh, and he took a plea agreement under Clinton's advisement, so it's not like he didn't get convicted... even though Hilary is on tape claiming the prosecution had no evidence. So really, the only thing to be offended by is 1. a laugh on tape, mostly directed at polygraph tests, which ARE kind of a joke and 2. Clinton doing a shitty job as a defense attorney.

Ouch! Hillary gets a Wikileak question during debate.

"Two Faced" Hillary is pretending her comments are about Abraham Lincoln? Who's buying that?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Not a fan of Shelton being there. As a defense attorney, it was Clinton's job to defend the man she believed a rapist. That's what defense attorneys do. Oh, and he took a plea agreement under Clinton's advisement, so it's not like he didn't get convicted... even though Hilary is on tape claiming the prosecution had no evidence. So really, the only thing to be offended by is 1. a laugh on tape, mostly directed at polygraph tests, which ARE kind of a joke and 2. Clinton doing a shitty job as a defense attorney.

Did she ever express remorse afterwards about having to have done such a job? (honest question - I haven't checked or heard if she has)

Or is her remorse the same as she expressed for the 19 Yazidi women who burned alive rather become ISIS sex slaves?

THEY were STRONG together - not Hillary. Neither she nor Obama made any special efforts to try and stop the repeated horrific abuse of women in the Middle East.

A farmer got pulled over by a state trooper for speeding, and the trooper started to lecture the farmer about his speed, to try to make the farmer uncomfortable.

Finally, the trooper got around to writing out the ticket, and as he was doing that he kept swatting at some flies that were buzzing around his head.

The farmer said, "Having some problems with circle flies there, are ya?"

The trooper stopped writing the ticket and said, "I never heard of circle flies".

The farmer explains, "They're called circle flies because they're almost always found circling around a horse's rear end."

The trooper says, "Are you calling me a horse's ass"

The farmer says, "Oh no, officer. Hard to fool them flies though. "

The only poll that really matters ins the one on November 8th. The rest are suspect, and here's why:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/11/media-polling-fully-exposed-about-that-nbcwsj-clinton-11-point-poll/#more-123009

Anecdotally, if you look at all the post-debate online polls, Trump was overwhelmingly declared the winner, to the point that some sites removed the poll results, saying they were skewed by Deplorable bloc-voting. What, with all her online minions, Hillary's supporters couldn't muster just as much enthusiasm to vote for her in an ONLINE poll? Doesn't say much for their turning up at an actual polling place on November 8th. =^[.]^=

They are just hoping that they can discourage some people from going to vote by making it seem like a lost cause by declaring that Hillary is so far ahead that Trump supports votes won't matter.

Little do they know that there are no brakes on the Trump Train.

"

Manocean wrote:

They are just hoping that they can discourage some people from going to vote by making it seem like a lost cause by declaring that Hillary is so far ahead that Trump supports votes won't matter.

Either that, or news outlets are too scared of low traffic and exaggerate for attention. A few days ago I was looking at headlines like "Trump in deep trouble" (and worse) then I read the actual article and Hillary's leading by 4% in polls. I mean, that trouble, okay, but it's not like it's over.

.

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Manocean wrote:

They are just hoping that they can discourage some people from going to vote by making it seem like a lost cause by declaring that Hillary is so far ahead that Trump supports votes won't matter.

Either that, or news outlets are too scared of low traffic and exaggerate for attention. A few days ago I was looking at headlines like "Trump in deep trouble" (and worse) then I read the actual article and Hillary's leading by 4% in polls. I mean, that trouble, okay, but it's not like it's over.

National polls are all but meaningless anyways due to the (largely unnecessary and currently broken) electoral college system. Polls that try to predict electoral college results state by state get so granular that they lose accuracy. All of that said I think the data right now points to a Trump campaign in trouble come November, I don't know how else you can reasonably spin it.

I don't know about the effect of polling on voter turnout either. If you know your candidate has a 10 point lead then why bother showing up to vote? She has it in the bag anyways. If you know your candidate has a 10 point deficit why bother showing up to vote? You can't dent that lead anyways. You can spin it either way.

I think you need to consider the broader context, not just "spin it either way."

Let's say I'm a Clinton supporter and I think she's going to win be a large enough margin that my vote doesn't matter. What is the chance I vote for Stein? What is the chance I vote for Hilary just to make Trump look even worse? I think the first has a moderate chance - Clinton is an unpopular candidate, but Stein isn't exactly popular either - while the second chance is high.

Now let's say I'm a Clinton supporter and I think he's going to lose be a large enough margin that my vote doesn't matter. What is the chance I vote for Johnson? What is the chance I vote for Trump just to show my protest for the establishment? I think the first had a moderate chance - defeating Hilary would be more important if Trump is losing to many, but Johnson is somewhat important and some won't vote Trump on principle - and I think the second chance is high.

So polling seems like a decent predictor in this case. But there are a lot of variables - for example, Johnson's gaffe on Aleppo - which could change things. It's a high variance thing. (Trump should really be pushing that Aleppo thing btw.)