Cruz Ad Slut Shames Trump's Wife

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump threatened to "spill the beans" about Heidi ..........

Just a prelude to what he will do with Hillary and Bill if they are both the nominees for their respective parties.

Hillary and Bill are both in the same party. The beans were spilled over a decade ago. The American people are sick and tired of hearing about the Clinton's damn beans (with apologies to Bernie).

I don't know how it will sell with the American people but it will be painful for the Clintons as evidenced by the speed with which they dropped any reference to Trump's "penchant for sexism" after he referenced Bill Clinton's own less than savory record with women.

I fully expect him to parade women who claim to have been assaulted or harassed by BC, to offer their version of what happened and Hillary Clinton's role in dealing with the "bimbo eruptions".

You are right that many are aware of the history but there is an entire generation of millenials who don't know the details - the Bernie voters - and it will not cause them to vote for Trump but they may be less inclined to vote for Hillary once they hear these details which by today's standards would be untenable for any politician. As it is they are not enthused about Hillary.

The history - proven, alleged and just rumor - is fertile ground for someone like Trump who will not hesitate to surface every detail. A Cruz or Kasich will not bring it up - Trump will have no compunction doing so. It will dominate the news cycle with every salacious tit-bit.

Lovely. I will admit, I am one of your "entire generation" (Gen X) who has only heard whispers of these details, usually from extremely biased sources. The whispers have not turned me off Hillary, but they have turned me off biased sources. If Trump starts attacking Hillary for whatever Bill may or may not have done 20 years ago, it will further turn me off Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: It will dominate the news cycle with every salacious tit-bit.

Must have been a Freudian slip!

I meant tid-bit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump threatened to "spill the beans" about Heidi ..........

Just a prelude to what he will do with Hillary and Bill if they are both the nominees for their respective parties.

Hillary and Bill are both in the same party. The beans were spilled over a decade ago. The American people are sick and tired of hearing about the Clinton's damn beans (with apologies to Bernie).

I don't know how it will sell with the American people but it will be painful for the Clintons as evidenced by the speed with which they dropped any reference to Trump's "penchant for sexism" after he referenced Bill Clinton's own less than savory record with women.

I fully expect him to parade women who claim to have been assaulted or harassed by BC, to offer their version of what happened and Hillary Clinton's role in dealing with the "bimbo eruptions".

You are right that many are aware of the history but there is an entire generation of millenials who don't know the details - the Bernie voters - and it will not cause them to vote for Trump but they may be less inclined to vote for Hillary once they hear these details which by today's standards would be untenable for any politician. As it is they are not enthused about Hillary.

The history - proven, alleged and just rumor - is fertile ground for someone like Trump who will not hesitate to surface every detail. A Cruz or Kasich will not bring it up - Trump will have no compunction doing so. It will dominate the news cycle with every salacious tit-bit.

Lovely. I will admit, I am one of your "entire generation" (Gen X) who has only heard whispers of these details, usually from extremely biased sources. The whispers have not turned me off Hillary, but they have turned me off biased sources. If Trump starts attacking Hillary for whatever Bill may or may not have done 20 years ago, it will further turn me off Trump.

It's not just a "Gen X" thing. The reality is, I think we've made some progress wrt how we think about women, "mistresses," and shaming them for what they AND the cheat-ee engaged in. Monica Lewinsky hit the talk-circuit to reclaim her voice in the scandal (it shouldn't have been a scandal in the first place, but whatever) and what "the machines" (media, political, cultural) did to relentlessly shame her. Both Clintons played a role in that shaming. And, oh yes, so did the GOP -- they were also disgusting to her. (And so were the vast majority of Americans -- Monica was the butt of thousands and thousands of jokes. Keep in mind she was still so young, defenseless against the Shame and Scandal Monster). She has (wisely) stepped out of the public eye since then. I suspect she genuinely does not relish being in the limelight. She emerged from the shadows just long enough--as a more mature 40 year old woman--to reclaim the shreds of her life and reputation. She is a very sympathetic character... now that the nation has grown up a little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's been around since Nancy Reagan. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Yes and I criticized all the first ladies since Jackie O. I think Americans are uncomfortable with royalty. If Michelle Obama really wants to support American designers, but american made labels and shop at jc penneya, sears or the gap (all of which need a boost).

Yuck, yuck and yuck. Why should she do that? People like you would just change the narrative and start bitching about FLOTUS wearing tacky ,, unattractive clothes. You will then say that she isn't representing Americans well, and the (insert anybody) represent their country so much better, fashion wise. Bunk you, and all your thoughts because people like you cannot be pleased.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how it will sell with the American people but it will be painful for the Clintons as evidenced by the speed with which they dropped any reference to Trump's "penchant for sexism" after he referenced Bill Clinton's own less than savory record with women.

I fully expect him to parade women who claim to have been assaulted or harassed by BC, to offer their version of what happened and Hillary Clinton's role in dealing with the "bimbo eruptions".

You are right that many are aware of the history but there is an entire generation of millenials who don't know the details - the Bernie voters - and it will not cause them to vote for Trump but they may be less inclined to vote for Hillary once they hear these details which by today's standards would be untenable for any politician. As it is they are not enthused about Hillary.

The history - proven, alleged and just rumor - is fertile ground for someone like Trump who will not hesitate to surface every detail. A Cruz or Kasich will not bring it up - Trump will have no compunction doing so. It will dominate the news cycle with every salacious tit-bit.

Please, the Clintons don't do or avoid doing anything because it is "painful". Every action is the result of political calculation. They will fight Trump when they are ready to fight Trump. Trump, for his part, risks going down a very deep rat hole if he follows the path that you suggest. All of those involved in the anti-Clinton industrial complex carry their own baggage. If Trump wants to hang them around his own neck, he will be doing the Clintons a tremendous favor.

More importantly, the Clintons want Trump to go where you want him to go. They want him to look like a raving lunatic talking about "bimbo eruptions" and Vince Foster. That will gain him 99.9999% of the lunatic fringe vote and destroy the Republican Party for a generation because moderates and even sane conservatives will be running so fast they will leave skid marks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Key word is "reportedly". Have you heard her talk? She barely speaks broken English after living in the US for 20+ years. By that standard, I speak 6 languages, but I couldn't get away with putting that on my resume.

So she's a thousand times better than Jeb's wife in both the looks and the English-speaking ability department, then.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (think Sophia Loren then and now). Sorry but I don't see it in Trump's wife, but mine is just one opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's been around since Nancy Reagan. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Yes and I criticized all the first ladies since Jackie O. I think Americans are uncomfortable with royalty. If Michelle Obama really wants to support American designers, but american made labels and shop at jc penneya, sears or the gap (all of which need a boost).

Yuck, yuck and yuck. Why should she do that? People like you would just change the narrative and start bitching about FLOTUS wearing tacky ,, unattractive clothes. You will then say that she isn't representing Americans well, and the (insert anybody) represent their country so much better, fashion wise. Bunk you, and all your thoughts because people like you cannot be pleased.

Why would I not be pleased by what I stated would.please me? Jcrew sales went through the roof when Michele o wore them and she looked all.american and great. I think its gross to wear a 5000 dress to get off an airplane in Cuba. Where are we headed there? To it being a playground for people in 5000 dresses? Wow. Full circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump threatened to "spill the beans" about Heidi ..........

Just a prelude to what he will do with Hillary and Bill if they are both the nominees for their respective parties.

If Trump goes after Bill Clinton, then Trump's indiscretions are fair game. Nobody is walking water. Trump can give it but can't take it. The mark of a bully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump threatened to "spill the beans" about Heidi ..........

Just a prelude to what he will do with Hillary and Bill if they are both the nominees for their respective parties.

If Trump goes after Bill Clinton, then Trump's indiscretions are fair game. Nobody is walking water. Trump can give it but can't take it. The mark of a bully.

Exactly- it's not like the guy has a great track record for being a faithful husband. If you go back to the stories about him from the late 80's/90's, it's pretty clear he's abusive, as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw Hillary in a bathing suit. That alone should get her a prison sentence of life with no parole !

See, this is more where I would expect Trump to go-- as opposed to lamenting that Bill Clinton sexually harassed women. Bill Clinton's history with women probably looks something like charity to Trump.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how it will sell with the American people but it will be painful for the Clintons as evidenced by the speed with which they dropped any reference to Trump's "penchant for sexism" after he referenced Bill Clinton's own less than savory record with women.

I fully expect him to parade women who claim to have been assaulted or harassed by BC, to offer their version of what happened and Hillary Clinton's role in dealing with the "bimbo eruptions".

You are right that many are aware of the history but there is an entire generation of millenials who don't know the details - the Bernie voters - and it will not cause them to vote for Trump but they may be less inclined to vote for Hillary once they hear these details which by today's standards would be untenable for any politician. As it is they are not enthused about Hillary.

The history - proven, alleged and just rumor - is fertile ground for someone like Trump who will not hesitate to surface every detail. A Cruz or Kasich will not bring it up - Trump will have no compunction doing so. It will dominate the news cycle with every salacious tit-bit.

Please, the Clintons don't do or avoid doing anything because it is "painful". Every action is the result of political calculation. They will fight Trump when they are ready to fight Trump. Trump, for his part, risks going down a very deep rat hole if he follows the path that you suggest. All of those involved in the anti-Clinton industrial complex carry their own baggage. If Trump wants to hang them around his own neck, he will be doing the Clintons a tremendous favor.

More importantly, the Clintons want Trump to go where you want him to go. They want him to look like a raving lunatic talking about "bimbo eruptions" and Vince Foster. That will gain him 99.9999% of the lunatic fringe vote and destroy the Republican Party for a generation because moderates and even sane conservatives will be running so fast they will leave skid marks.

Re your statement in bold, I am not sure where you got the impression that I want "Trump to go where you want him to go". I am not a Trump supporter - and cannot see myself ever voting for him but then I can't ever see myself voting for Hillary either. My choice is Sanders but that is a fading hope unfortunately.

But I will acknowledge that I am in awe of what Trump has achieved in being able to get where he is today. I am also less dismissive than many liberals about Trump's prospects in a general against HRC - I think his challenge remains getting the nomination.

The Clintons are ruthless but in Trump they have someone who is not just ruthless but is completely unconventional in his approach which makes it difficult to know how to deal with him. As William F. Buckley once said you don't debate an amateur because he does not follow the rules. Buckley's statement can be paraphrased to state you don't compete with an amateur in politics who has a remarkable ability to hit the right buttons because he does not follow the conventional script.

The one thing that Trump has in common with the Clintons is that he is just as ruthless - but whereas the Clintons approach is calculated, Trump's approach is more from the gut.

As for your dire prognosis about the future of the Republican party, I was around when Ronald Reagan was written off as "an amiable dunce" and the relish with which the Carter campaign looked to having him as the nominee they would compete against. Liberals underplay it today and offer a more complimentary view of Reagan than they did in 1980 but I, for one, don't view Trump as an easy candidate to defeat.

Time will tell ..............

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:As for your dire prognosis about the future of the Republican party, I was around when Ronald Reagan was written off as "an amiable dunce" and the relish with which the Carter campaign looked to having him as the nominee they would compete against. Liberals underplay it today and offer a more complimentary view of Reagan than they did in 1980 but I, for one, don't view Trump as an easy candidate to defeat.

Time will tell ..............

You may want to refresh your memory. When Clark Clifford referred to Reagan as an "amiable dunce", Reagan had already been in office for nearly two years. This idea that everyone wrote off Reagan has been greatly exaggerated just as most of the Reagan myth. Reagan was running against Carter who was plagued by both a collapsing economy and the Iran hostage ordeal. Carter was considered such a disappointment that he had been primaried by Ted Kennedy. Anyone who didn't think Reagan had a better than even chance of winning had their head in one of their bodily orifices.

Clinton is a vulnerable candidate with many weaknesses. However, to beat her Trump needs to massively change his approach. He may be capable of doing that and the American public has demonstrated a great capacity for amnesia. So, Trump could -- as Romney put it -- shake the Etch-a-Sketch. We saw Trump do this to some extend in his speech to AIPAC. However, what you are suggesting is not shaking the Etch-a-Sketch, but doubling down on Trumpism as we have seen it. That polarizing approach simply reminds the majority of why they hate Trump. That's fine for pulling 25 - 40 percent in a split primary but doesn't get him 50% + 1 in enough states for the General.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's not just a "Gen X" thing. The reality is, I think we've made some progress wrt how we think about women, "mistresses," and shaming them for what they AND the cheat-ee engaged in. Monica Lewinsky hit the talk-circuit to reclaim her voice in the scandal (it shouldn't have been a scandal in the first place, but whatever) and what "the machines" (media, political, cultural) did to relentlessly shame her. Both Clintons played a role in that shaming. And, oh yes, so did the GOP -- they were also disgusting to her. (And so were the vast majority of Americans -- Monica was the butt of thousands and thousands of jokes. Keep in mind she was still so young, defenseless against the Shame and Scandal Monster). She has (wisely) stepped out of the public eye since then. I suspect she genuinely does not relish being in the limelight. She emerged from the shadows just long enough--as a more mature 40 year old woman--to reclaim the shreds of her life and reputation. She is a very sympathetic character... now that the nation has grown up a little.

Based on what I see, the nation has not grown up
shame shame on the woman, hush hush for the man. Bill used her to prove his manhood and when it was time to be a man whimpered away.

[Anonymous]

Not a Trump supporter. But, I don't get why Trump is upset. Is he embarrassed that his wife posed for the picture? It's no secret. I'd be embarrassed--but then, I'd be embarrassed at most things he does.

Do I want a First Lady that posed nude? If I thought her husband would be a good President, it would not affect my vote. Do I particularly like the idea? No, but it wouldn't matter if I wanted to vote for him.

Funny, Trump takes such pride in all the stupid and outrageous things he has said, but this bothers him. I think I read she was his girlfriend at the time--he probably thought it was fine then. Just look at some of her pictures since they have been married--including the ones with her new baby. I think he is one of those men who wants others to be jealous of what he "has" at home. Look at the outfit she wore on the day he announced. It was not your typical First Lady wardrobe. As I recall, she had a bare midriff and was close to strapless.
He understands the media--he is not stupid. The pictures were out in public. Did he really think they would not come out sometime? Did he not know that the Dems would put them out there if his GOP opponents didn't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You go to the National Gallery of Art and you see boobs everywhere. Sculpture, painting. Why is a Playboy centerfold less a piece of art?

Even playboy dropped the centerfolds. So apparently they did not think it was art, either.

No, bozo, nudes in magazines are no longer profitable.

. . . or so they claim . . . You do know that Hefner and Trump are family friends, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/business/media/nudes-are-old-news-at-playboy.html?_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Media&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

Nudes are Old News at Playboy

It's executives admit that Playboy has been overtaken by the changes it pioneered. "That battle has been fought and won," said Scott Flanders, the company's chief executive. "You're now one click away from every sex act imaginable for. And so it's just pass' at this juncture."

And do you know that Hefner's son has called Trump a hypocrite:

"'Trump loves Trump over all else,' he continues in the article, which was published on Hefner's own media website, Hop. 'He loves what the presidential race can do for his brand. It’s as simple as that.
'I know this because Trump is a family friend, but regardless of his home visits, one can understand this after three minutes of watching him.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3472247/He-s-s-Playboy-founder-s-son-attacks-backwards-politics-family-friend-Donald-Trump.html

I saw that.

no different from Ronald Reagan, jr bashing his daddy