CNN's Jake Tapper: Press treating Chelsea Clinton with 'kid gloves'

[ducks]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/press-treating-chelsea-with-kid-gloves-tapper/article/2603726

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/press-treating-chelsea-with-kid-gloves-tapper/article/2603726

Trump's children are spokespeople and prominent member's for his campaign. Chelsea has no analogous role.

[Reck]

Chelsea shouldn't even be brought up in fact.

She's part on her mothers campaign on a capacity that involves event organizing. That's behind the scenes stuff.

She's not parading her mother's policies like the Trump tards do. The Trump's outside of Ivanka have taken shots at Hillary. When Chelsea starts talking nonsense about Trump then you can trash talk her.

[boutons_deux]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trash goes after Chelsea, as he falls further behind in the polls.

[pgardn]

She works for the Clinton Foundation. She is fair game if this subject arises IMO.

"It has been suggested the Clinton Foundation be turned over to new management, especially if your Mom becomes president. Are you willing to give up your job with this foundation? Do you see why even members of your own party are calling for this handover?"

[boutons_deux]

The Clinton Foundation isn't running for Pres, and Chelsea, afaik, isn't campaigning.

Trash going after Chelsea would be in character for Trash, and the establishment Repugs, just because she's a member of the Repug-hated female class.

[FromWayDowntown]

She works for the Clinton Foundation. She is fair game if this subject arises IMO.

"It has been suggested the Clinton Foundation be turned over to new management, especially if your Mom becomes president. Are you willing to give up your job with this foundation? Do you see why even members of your own party are calling for this handover?"


Maybe it should go into the same sort of blind trust that Trump has proposed for his businesses.

You know, the blind trust where your kids maintain the operation.

[101A]

Chelsea, afaik, isn't campaigning.



https://www.willhillarywin.com/events/toledo-ohio-campaign-event-with-chelsea-clinton/

http://heatst.com/politics/penn-state-chelsea-clinton/

http://time.com/4150091/chelsea-clinton-campaigning-hillary/

http://www.9and10news.com/story/33288499/chelsea-clinton-heading-to-traverse-city-for-campaign-event

[101A]

NM

[101A]

Maybe it should go into the same sort of blind trust that Trump has proposed for his businesses.

You know, the blind trust where your kids maintain the operation.

Lol

[FromWayDowntown]

In early September, Trump's daughter Ivanka was asked to answer charges that her father is a sexist, but some have noted that Chelsea Clinton is not being asked about her father's attitudes toward women.

The unasked question about the past behavior of Bill Clinton and his attitudes on particular subjects would be perfectly reasonable if Bill Clinton was topping the ticket for a major party in the 2016 election.

[CosmicCowboy]

The unasked question about the past behavior of Bill Clinton and his attitudes on particular subjects would be perfectly reasonable if Bill Clinton was topping the ticket for a major party in the 2016 election.

You don't consider it relevant that the candidate has said she will turn over a huge part of the offices responsibility (the economy) to Bill?

[FromWayDowntown]

You don't consider it relevant that the candidate has said she will turn over a huge part of the offices responsibility (the economy) to Bill?

I don't. Frankly, I don't consider most of what gets discussed during the election cycle any more to be relevant. Up to now, we've made it such that anyone with any significant indiscretion in his or her past is functionally disqualified from being President, because no matter that person's policy positions or other qualifications to hold that office, if he or she did something stupid one time, a long time ago and it gets discovered, they're done. That's nonsensical if you're really concerned with electing the best person possible as President of your nation.

Somehow, 2016 is the through the looking glass year in presidential politics where we have two deeply flawed candidates who each have done a boatful of questionable things in the past. Even at that, the campaign is largely a race to the bottom. Many people will make their decision based upon how well one side has managed to demonize the other and the extent to which some embarrassing trump card (pun not intended) can sway the election.

I'd personally be reluctant to run for any office (not that I'd be either qualified or electable) mostly because I don't think I want to subject my family to the possibility that some youthful indiscretion of mine might turn up in a public way and cause them any embarrassment. I'm sure that there are other people who would absolutely be well-qualified and would serve people well in elective offices who have chosen against pursuing those offices because of the gotcha reality show that electoral politics as become.

So, no, I don't care about what Bill Clinton has done in the past. I care about what his wife will do in the future, and I care about how that compares with what her opponent intends to do and how those things affect me and my family.

And before you ask, I care about Trump's behavior -- his reaction to reports about the ways in which he may have treated women in the past -- far more than I care about what it is he's alleged to have said in the past. The fact that he feels obligated to take down anyone who casts any aspersions on him is telling of his demeanor and his priorities, I think, and bears directly on his qualifications to hold an office that requires diplomacy and inner strength.

[Fabbs]

So, no, I don't care about what Bill Clinton has done in the past. I care about what his wife will do in the future, and I care about how that compares with what her opponent intends to do and how those things affect me and my family.

And before you ask, I care about Trump's behavior -- his reaction to reports about the ways in which he may have treated women in the past -- far more than I care about what it is he's alleged to have said in the past. The fact that he feels obligated to take down anyone who casts any aspersions on him is telling of his demeanor and his priorities, I think, and bears directly on his qualifications to hold an office that requires diplomacy and inner strength.
This ^^^
Stuff like the Philipine president spouting off and swearing towards the US prezident. Hey, lets put aside whether any of what Fil guy says is true or not and just focus on the news grabbing swearing. Barry is playing it cool and not responding. Trump? He may well flip out and start military action. The Philipines is limited but what happens when a nation having nukes gets Trump to go on tilt? It's not out of reach to have temper tantrum Trump order a nuke because his widdle ego gets an ooouwie.

[pgardn]

Maybe it should go into the same sort of blind trust that Trump has proposed for his businesses.

You know, the blind trust where your kids maintain the operation.

This would be an especially bad idea, of course, when your mom has been in government and becomes president.
If Trump sets the standards then we are all in trouble.