Discussion: Clinton: 'I Would Love To' Debate Trump Given His Comments On Women

[theghostofeustacetilley]

Trump does not have the smarts, intelligence, knowledge and wits when it comes to debating policy. HRC would expose him for what he is-- a spoiled brat who has never worked hard one day.

And Joe Lunchpail cares why?

[emilianoelmexicano]

Yes, yes and yes!!! Slow and steady etc., tortoise and hair , all those parables come to mind

I believe that Trump is a testosterone junkie, in a perpetual affirmation of XY and using various mechanisms to feed the fire.

Many times I have seen those types of men effectively dealt with by women who know how to read them, assess them and trip 'em up.

Often when they were unaware of the trip-up.

[runfastandwin]

“And that’s mainly because the Clintons don’t understand how the game is played but think they do.” I guess that’s why they never get elected - er - why they never make any money - er - why their kids are so maladjusted - er - derp - blee…

[runfastandwin]

Trump is going to be the nominee, she might as well take him on sooner rather than later.

[littlegirlblue]

Trump is a sexist and is let off the hook if he’s considered only a bloviating jerk doing what he always does. It’s a matter of record he beat and raped his first wife, and the $14 million settlement including property she received told her to STFU or she’d lose it. That’s not a man who respects women.

[doctorbiobrain]

It honestly scares me that anyone here assumes that Hillary beats Trump in a debate. Sure, in a rational world she would, if only because Trump is a clown that shouldn’t even be considered a presidential contender. But…we don’t live in that world. We live in the world where Trump is considered by many to be a serious presidential contender.

And so if you’re a rational person who understands issues, you’ll know that Hillary beats Trump in every debate. But…if you’re the sort of person who might consider voting for Trump at all, then Trump will most likely win the debate for you. I mean, we live in a world where many people are angry that Hillary isn’t in jail already over the dumb email thing. And no, these people won’t vote for Hillary anyway. But a big issue is that a lot of potential Trump voters don’t vote at all because they don’t like Republicans either. But Trump isn’t a Republican. He’s a talk radio monster who says all the things these people have been waiting for. And so he has the potential to get people to vote who never vote, and that’s a LOT of people. The purpose of talk radio is to convince potential Democrats that both sides suck so they don’t vote at all. But Trump can get them to vote.

But then what exactly do we have to gain by making him more legitimate by taking him seriously? We’re not going to woo his voters, and he’s actually the smartest of all the GOP candidates. I mean, seriously. His positions are actually better and smarter than any Republican in decades. And if we were stuck with a Republican as president, I honestly think I’d want it to be Trump. Seriously. Because he’s not a fool. He’s no intellectual, but he has an inborn smarts and quickness that can throw you off your game, even while he’s saying incredibly dumb things. That’s part of his charm and how he’s made it this far. He wants you to drop your jaw in disbelief, so he can keep talking.

And none of this is necessary. Republicans have almost no chance of winning the presidency no matter who we elect, so we don’t need stunt debates to show how bad Republicans are. They’re already doing that on their own. And Hillary needs to show that she’s the serious candidate with a real message, and not someone willing to play with clowns.

[thunderclapnewman]

The implacable Margaret Dumont. Best straight woman ever!

I wouldn’t use the word implacable, but she was the perfect straight woman for Groucho—because she didn’t understand why people thought it was funny.

[chammy]

And none of this is necessary. Republicans have almost no chance of winning the presidency no matter who we elect, so we don’t need stunt debates to show how bad Republicans are.

I agree with you there. I must say that while I will support her if she is our nominee, and I was starting to warm up to her especially because she is being hammered by the media over the stupid email server which is a non-issue, but listening to her at the Brookings Institute yesterday when she discussed the Iran Deal, she is a neocon war lover and she downright disappointed me with her rhetoric.

[chammy]

There aren’t enough Joe Lunchpails out there to give Trump the presidency or any of the republicans (maybe Kasich). You cannot win an election with 35% of the population. He will not get the latino or the black vote and mostly likely not democratic women so how can he win

[ralph_vonholst]

I wouldn’t use the word implacable,

Damn, I sure cocked that one up! You caught me in a “Norm Crosby malaprop” moment. My brain meant to say “imperturbable”, but for some reason “implacable” came out of my fingers.

5 points from Gryffindor.

[darrtown]

Trump’s misogyny plays well with his hoard of slavering followers. But not with thinking folks. At some point the repubs will debate democrats and I’m hoping there will be repub (figurative) blood on the stage. I’m hoping for a "John Kennedy was a friend of mine " moment.

[doctorbiobrain]

I guess that’s why they never get elected - er - why they never make any money - er - why their kids are so maladjusted - er - derp - blee…

As a reminder, Bill didn’t win a majority of the votes in either election. He won both times because of Ross Perot. Go look at the numbers and tell me that Perot didn’t cost them those elections. Similarly, Bush won in 2000 thanks to Nader. All it takes is to siphon off a few votes and the other side wins.

But Obama, on the other hand, had far larger victories than Bill, despite being a black man with a weird name. Why? Because he stays on message and doesn’t try to fight every dumb battle that comes along. He’s a counter-puncher who waits for you to make a mistake, gives you a quick smack on the nose, then gets back on message while you rub your nose and wonder what went wrong.

But Hillary likes to slug it out with everyone who comes along, which is what her supporters like about her; but it’s a terrible political strategy. Her “message” is whatever the media wants to talk about that day and she just plays along. Just like Bill did. And that’s why he didn’t pass any liberal legislation, because he was always playing the game on their turf. It was always about how much spending we were cutting, who’s taxes we were cutting, and how much we should be bombing Iraq; which were all issues Republicans wanted to talk about. And that’s why progressives HATED the Clintons until after they left office and everyone forgot how conservative his policies were.

And seriously, are we using fundraising as a sign of political acumen? In that case, Jeb must be a genius, because he’s hauling in massive amounts of cash.

[slagathor]

Yeah, I dunno. Seems like Hillary, while maybe a little late to this here party, has been talking about things the other candidates, and the media, for that matter, aren’t talking about. Like wages and women’s healthcare.

[slagathor]

Why does anyone need to?

Because there’s an old saw that goes something like this: ‘If you stand up to a bully, his testicles will shrivel up and turn into tonsils.’ His reFudiation should be quick, merciless, and very, very public. Fuckface Von Clownstick desperately needs a new set of tonsils.

[schmed]

As a reminder, Bill didn’t win a majority of the votes in either election. He won both times because of Ross Perot. Go look at the numbers and tell me that Perot didn’t cost them those elections.

Actually, there’s a lot of evidence that Perot had no effect on the elections. see http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ross-perot-myth-reborn-amid-rumors-third-party-trump-candidacy.
According to the inestimable Ms. Maddow, exit polls showed that Perot voters split evenly between Clinton and Bush when Perot was take out of the equation.

[feathered_head]

I actually do think the republicans have a chance to win the white house if there is no enthusiasm for the democratic nominee. Look what happened to Gore – AND KERRY. I’d prefer a choice for nominee other than Clinton, mainly because I think she will lose – that is, unless she starts showing more energy and smart strategy. Taking the high ground doesn’t really work against someone like Trump or Cruz – it just seems lazy or entitled. I believed Obama would be able to change the tone of politics in this country – and I love him for it – but the past years have proven him wrong. We are dealing with insanely power hungry people who don’t give a crap about good policy and will seize any chance to demagogue their way into the White House if someone doesn’t land some blows and stop them. Hillary HAS TO STEP IT UP.

[doctorbiobrain]

Yeah, I dunno. Seems like Hillary, while maybe a little late to this here party, has been talking about things the other candidates, and the media, for that matter, aren’t talking about. Like wages and women’s healthcare.

Yeah, and now she’s talking about wanting to debate Trump because he insulted the way a woman looked, which has nothing whatsoever to do with wages or healthcare. And because she’s talking about it, that’s what we’re talking about. And if she gets her wish and Trump accepts her offer to debate, then we’d be talking about the Trump v. Clinton debate instead of wages and healthcare, and even if they discuss those issues, it’ll take a backseat to the theatrics of the debate itself. See the problem? But this is what she always does, because her “message” is whatever the media wants to talk about.

The answer to any Trump question is that he’s a clown who shouldn’t be taken seriously, period. That’s all you have to say before getting back on topic of wages, healthcare, etc. The more she talks about Trump, the less she’s talking about issues.

[pluckyinky]

But Hillary likes to slug it out with everyone who comes along, which is what her supporters like about her; but it’s a terrible political strategy

HRC has weighed in on Trump, the topic of non-stop news coverage all summer long, maybe three times. I’d hardly say she’s slugging it out with everyone who comes along. She’s picking her battles carefully, pointing out where the rest of the Republicans’ policies are no different than Trump’s. That’s exactly what she and other Democratic candidates should be doing.

[slagathor]

Oh I get it. But what you’re suggesting would just be Hillary preaching to the choir. I agree that she has been somewhat of a windsock as far as her media presence on some occasions, much to the ridicule of several observers. But I believe she’s a tough lady and less likely to shrink or go on vacation when Trump pulls a Trump on her.

[doctorbiobrain]

Because there’s an old saw that goes something like this: ‘If you stand up to a bully, his testicles will shrivel up and turn into tonsils.’

And…that is just a myth. I know it’s something people say, but you’ll find that the best way to deal with a bully is to ignore them entirely, because what they want is a reaction.

Besides, there is literally nothing Hillary could do to make Trump shrivel up. He’s made a career out of bullying rich and powerful people, and he’ll continue doing that. And that’s partly because the man has no ability to self reflect or realize he’s losing. I honestly can’t imagine what you people think Hillary could say to him that wouldn’t score him points with millions of people who hate Hillary. And those are people who often don’t vote, because they don’t like Republicans either and like that Trump wants to increase taxes on the rich and whatnot. This only plays into his hands. He’s a clown who wants attention, so the worst thing you can do is give it to him.