- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rand Paul demands Dems return money raised by "sexual predator" Bill Clinton
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:17 pm to TX Tiger
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:17 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
If he really intends to do what is necessary to become President, then he'll be no better than the puppets before him.
So he should take the high ground and not have a chance? Glad someone is finally playing offense instead of just constantly trying to prove they are not has bad as the democrats say they are.
1
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:19 pm to Decatur
quote:
almost 20 years later
One way of looking at it.
Of course another perspective is that its just months before the mid terms and two years before the next presidential election.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:23 pm to RidiculousHype
I don't know why Paul would rehash this old story, but I guess there must be a method to his madness. Has he poll tested this line of attack, and if so, who would be hurt by it? Hillary? The Democratic party? Perhaps it's just red meat for the Republican base to help him break out of the pack.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:23 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
dumb comment, imo. It is never smart to insult the most popular president of the 20th century.
Clinton never received as much as 50% in either election. Still today there is a sizable percentage of Americans who view him as a POS.
Going after Clinton in this manner is brilliant.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:24 pm to trackfan
its is going to eliminate the war on women meme dems always trot out. you cant see that?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:24 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
And the drama will play on and nothing will change
What specifically do you want to change?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:25 pm to C
quote:
I think it's brilliant. It's going to force Hillary to answer questions about this in the future.
Do you really think these types of attacks will hurt Hillary?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:27 pm to RidiculousHype
quote:Then the elite won't allow him any closer to the White House than they did his dad.
What if Rand will enact the same, or very similar, policies, as his dad,
quote:You've got it backwards. The elite instructs the media on what the strategies will be. If you think for one minute that Rand Paul is going to lead the media around, well.....
but just uses a different strategy with the media?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:28 pm to KCT
quote:
And, don't give me this "20 years later" bs.
Yeah ... it only matters if we're talking about a Romney dog in a pet carrier on the roof of a station wagon.
Or Ann Romney having a horse.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:28 pm to trackfan
quote:
Do you really think these types of attacks will hurt Hillary?
Depends if any of our country's crack journalists of irreproachable integrity would ask her for a response.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:28 pm to trackfan
quote:
Do you really think these types of attacks will hurt Hillary?
I do since it will neutralize the insane war on women rhetoric. Its really a perfect attack since the Clintons can't respond much less defend themselves from it.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:29 pm to trackfan
quote:
I don't know why Paul would rehash this old story,
Attempting to neutralize the "war on women" tactic. That all. It seems obvious to me.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:32 pm to trackfan
quote:
Do you really think these types of attacks will hurt Hillary?
It eliminates the whoa is me woman card.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:33 pm to trackfan
quote:Not really attacks.
Do you really think these types of attacks will hurt Hillary?
They are small doses of proper perspective.
Rand is tearing into the War on Women BS.
Insofar as Hillary is angling to lock up the women's early on for Democrats, these perspective setting comments are an effective eye opener.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:34 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:34 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Rand is tearing into the War on Women BS.
By focusing on infidelity rather than wage disparities, forced invasive ultrasounds, rapey comments from Republicans, etc. Yeah, this will work.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:35 pm to EA6B
quote:His only chance is to pander to the elite. That's how we got into this mess in the first place. Do we really want more of the same?
If he really intends to do what is necessary to become President, then he'll be no better than the puppets before him.
So he should take the high ground and not have a chance?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:35 pm to navy
quote:
Yeah ... it only matters if we're talking about a Romney dog in a pet carrier on the roof of a station wagon.
That story might have good for late night commedians, but I doubt that it cost him a single vote.
quote:
Or Ann Romney having a horse.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Why shouldn't the media talk about a potential future First Lady's Olympic quest? Don't you think her family was proud of her? Also, that was a current story when it was reported, not a 20-year old story.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:38 pm to Decatur
quote:Infidelity?
By focusing on infidelity
Is that what you call sexual predation, assault, and possibly rape?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 2:38 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Attempting to neutralize the "war on women" tactic. That all. It seems obvious to me.
As far as I know, Rand hasn't put his foot in his mouth, a la Todd Akin, so why would he be vulnerable to that line of attack?
Page 3 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News