oh dear GOD! (Hilary Ad)

[The Missing ManSpectator 342]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3804103/Is-president-want-daughters-Provocative-new-Clinton-campaign-video-plays-Trump-s-biting-sexist-insults-women-young-girls-stare-mirror.html

I cannot believe this s~~~, it is so weak and low.
I saw this on the TV and had to to change the channel.

[Anonymous 43]

I cant bring myself to push the play button

[Anonymous 25]

It’s the president we want for our sons and men.

No f~~~s given about daughters and women. You reap what you sow ladies.

[Anonymous 42]

Anonymous wrote:

I cant bring myself to push the play button

Me either…

[Nathan R. JessepParticipant 1102]

What’s the problem? Is it the President you want for your daughter?

[<<>>Participant 435]

Yes, this is very much the president I want for my daughters because I do not want a fat lazy daughters. When they are 18 they can move out and get fat until then they can work the farm just like my boys and if they start to get pudgy I will shame them and tell them they can not get a self-respecting man if they do not respect themselves. What is the point of this ad anyway? Women should not be voting let alone in any office where one is required to make decisions based on logic not feelz.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22522]

It is smears like this that help me realize the genius of Trump deciding to take the high road during the first debate.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

I have a daughter and yes, this is the president I want for her

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[ResidentEvil7Participant 9549]

It was all about little girls and making Trump look bad. What boys don’t count in her future of America? No it’s all about the oppressed girls with Hillary. She only wants to be president of female America while the other half are deplorable or living in basements that are hopeless.

Next time when she questions why she’s not 50 points ahead, it’s because she hates half the country on top of all the other things she did to the rest of the world.

https://themanszone.webs.com/

[AttonParticipant]

Don’t have a daughter never will and I don’t care for women’s interests at all. The rights of men and boys are first on my agenda, pretty s~~~ty argument she made their really s~~~ty.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[Anonymous 22]

Shouldn’t she be talking about herself, bringing out some positive things about her (if there is any) and what she would do for the country and Americans rather than concentrating on Trump?

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

Faust For Science wrote:

It is smears like this that help me realize the genius of Trump deciding to take the high road during the first debate.

If Trump goes into any sort of things regarding infidelity with Bill Clinton, as an attack, his background will be shoved right back in his face and backfire. In this campaign, I am surprised Trump could even find the high road, since he has traveled it so little.

In regards to this ad, Trump’s “colorful” past is going to catch up to him. When you had the past he has had, then it isn’t going to play with women at all. That is his past.

Also, Hillary baited him with the Ms. Universe contestant, and he has gone off on a Twitter storm, discussing the contestant, and ending up trying to get away from his comments, by speaking how bad the contestant was. His comments don’t play, and this news cycle allows Hillary to run ads like this. Had he left it alone, or came up with some sort of decent reply, and let it rest, he wouldn’t be subject to this. But he keeps going on and on and on. Trump has wasted nearly a week on the Ms. Universe, instead of economic policies and himself as an outsider. He apparently seldom, if ever, calculates anything he says. It just comes out of his mouth, without much thought to the consequences of what he will say. He does things repeatedly, without regard for the impact. Like he said he would of never did the Howard Stern interview getting him in trouble, if he knew he was running for president:

Trump Said If He’d Known He’d Run For President He ‘Wouldn’t Have Done’ Stern’s Show

You can see this also with Trump, in regards to discussing Bill Clinton:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-hillary-bill-clinton-relationship-217191

“Can you imagine how controversial I’d be? You think about him with the women — how about me with the women? Can you imagine?”

But, you can believe whatever you want, it is your life.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

Anonymous wrote:

Shouldn’t she be talking about herself, bringing out some positive things about her (if there is any) and what she would do for the country and Americans rather than concentrating on Trump?

This entire campaign for president of the United States in 2016 has almost completely involved trying to get the media to focus on the flaws of the opponent, and then run the line that you have only two choices, so the opponent is so bad you have to vote for the other one. Neither one of them really is presenting a case of what they will do, in order to do things. Hillary has run on all this “experience” which has meant for her that she had been around things, not that she really did anything. The candidate gains whenever the media focuses on the opponent’s weaknesses. In the case of Trump, he can’t help but draw attention to himself. He won’t get out of his own way on things. If the idea was to make it about Hillary, then Trump isn’t the candidate to do that.

Well, with both candidates, when you get out of the bulk of the attack ads, you get some positive spin stuff. With Hillary, it is “She has a plan for X”. With Trump it is a “believe me” and then a bunch of spin on how he is the only one who can fix America, and his greatness, without really anything behind it.

So, when it comes to an attack ad, which this is, you end up getting framing your opponent badly. I had seen other ads by Hillary. I did see a few by Trump (ok, more like one ad several times). Trump is apparently saving money for some reason.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[bladeParticipant]

I think that add did him justice .
He was been totally truthful

THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .

[Chaff/FlareParticipant 3235]

blade wrote:

I think that add did him justice .
He was been totally truthful

With you. He MIGHT buy us some time. She wins, I really am making moves fast. Not kidding.

When you find yourself in the majority, it's time to reflect.

[SamsquanchParticipant 4226]

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

tommi190 wrote:

Shouldn’t she be talking about herself, bringing out some positive things about her (if there is any) and what she would do for the country and Americans rather than concentrating on Trump?

This entire campaign for president of the United States in 2016 has almost completely involved trying to get the media to focus on the flaws of the opponent, and then run the line that you have only two choices, so the opponent is so bad you have to vote for the other one. Neither one of them really is presenting a case of what they will do, in order to do things. Hillary has run on all this “experience” which has meant for her that she had been around things, not that she really did anything. The candidate gains whenever the media focuses on the opponent’s weaknesses. In the case of Trump, he can’t help but draw attention to himself. He won’t get out of his own way on things. If the idea was to make it about Hillary, then Trump isn’t the candidate to do that.

Well, with both candidates, when you get out of the bulk of the attack ads, you get some positive spin stuff. With Hillary, it is “She has a plan for X”. With Trump it is a “believe me” and then a bunch of spin on how he is the only one who can fix America, and his greatness, without really anything behind it.

So, when it comes to an attack ad, which this is, you end up getting framing your opponent badly. I had seen other ads by Hillary. I did see a few by Trump (ok, more like one ad several times). Trump is apparently saving money for some reason.

Is this the first US presidential election you’ve followed?

[Bob ProxyParticipant 13]

When you can’t attack your opponent on substance you try to impugn their character.

Her problem is she has no character to act as a favorable comparison.

Pity is the most destructive emotion because it leads to guilt. Guilt is the second. Love is the thrid because it will make you destroy yourself. Hate is fourth because love leads to hate.

[Anonymous 22]

Samsquanch wrote:

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

tommi190 wrote:

Shouldn’t she be talking about herself, bringing out some positive things about her (if there is any) and what she would do for the country and Americans rather than concentrating on Trump?

This entire campaign for president of the United States in 2016 has almost completely involved trying to get the media to focus on the flaws of the opponent, and then run the line that you have only two choices, so the opponent is so bad you have to vote for the other one. Neither one of them really is presenting a case of what they will do, in order to do things. Hillary has run on all this “experience” which has meant for her that she had been around things, not that she really did anything. The candidate gains whenever the media focuses on the opponent’s weaknesses. In the case of Trump, he can’t help but draw attention to himself. He won’t get out of his own way on things. If the idea was to make it about Hillary, then Trump isn’t the candidate to do that.

Well, with both candidates, when you get out of the bulk of the attack ads, you get some positive spin stuff. With Hillary, it is “She has a plan for X”. With Trump it is a “believe me” and then a bunch of spin on how he is the only one who can fix America, and his greatness, without really anything behind it.

So, when it comes to an attack ad, which this is, you end up getting framing your opponent badly. I had seen other ads by Hillary. I did see a few by Trump (ok, more like one ad several times). Trump is apparently saving money for some reason.

Is this the first US presidential election you’ve followed?

No, the first was in 2004 when Mr. George W. Bush was re-elected.

But I never really paid attention to those details until now when I see that haggard almost only talking about Trump, while she should be convincing the voters why she would make a better POTUS.

[Author]

Posts