Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
Kasich Fans don't vote for him now but are waiting until he runs against Hillary?
How does this make any sense?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
How does this make any sense?
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
By no business being in the White House what do you mean? You dislike their policies? They lack qualifications? Other?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Kasich is unqualified, Trump will coat it in gold, and Sanders will sell off all the fixtures to pay for local animal shelters and end up sleeping on an air mattress next to a radiator.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Boston
Footballguy
Exactly...not saying Trump is the answer but this is always the trap the GOP falls for...they get told to run a moderate like McCain or Romney and are because Independents and what is left of non-liberal dems will vote for them...than the second that person gets nominated the dems turn them into Attilla the Hun and tell you how they have suddenly turned into a conservative monster...so what you are left with is a candidate that legit conservatives don't like and no dems are gonna vote for...because they never will regardless of who the candidate is if they have an R next to their name...
Last edited by a moderator:
Riversco
Footballguy
The job of president doesn't pay enough and it also opens the person up to endless criticism. Anyone with the skill and connections to run that is also likable, experienced, normal and ethical could find a better gig. The only people who run for the office are crazy by default. That is why there are never any good candidates,
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Trap? This is the third time out of three a 'maverick' billionaire appealing to disaffected Republicans & 'Reagan Democrats' has shown up to run against the Clintons. If they had designed a cruise missile candidate in a lab it would look just like this.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you and I have vastly different views of what the word "qualified" means. If you mean she is constitutionally qualified to hold the office - then I agree.
But if you mean that you think she is qualified to be President based on her leadership skills, her ability to bridge divides, and her ability to make sound judgments - then she may be the least qualified person running for president in some time.
Having an encyclopedic knowledge of a region makes her a great candidate for a policy wonk position - not president of the country. When you are distrusted by 60% of the country - you are not in position to lead. When you refer to republicans as your enemies, and continue to bemoan the "vast right-wing conspiracy" you are not prepared to bridge differences to build consensus to move forward. When your foreign policy resume includes authorizing the war in Iraq, regime changes in Syria and Libya, and the catastrophic failures to anticipate the results - you are not fit to be commander-in-chief. When you bend campaign finance laws to your whims, you are not fit to take the moral high ground needed to make necessary changes.
Being a leader is a tough job - it means taking stands before public opinion changes. When you can't point to a single issue where Clinton stood up and defended a position, a person, a policy in the face of countervailing public opinion - she is not a leader. She is a follower. The most important aspect of the presidential job is being a leader - and she fails. The second most important aspect of the job is to be able to take information and make sound judgments - and she fails - consistently.
People often confuse experience with qualifications. She has lots of experience - but very few successful experiences.
Poppa
Footballguy
pantagrapher
Footballguy
She's going to be a good president.
Boston
Footballguy
Trump is totally different than any other candidate that has run and has definitely not been potrayed as a "mainstream" candidate that will appeal to moderates in a traditional sense...whether you like Trump or not he is a product of people tired of political correctness and a GOP that campaigns one way and governs another...
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The feelings are real, I agree, so are the reasons. My point is Trump is more apt to scuttle any expectations of change and give the disgusted and disaffected an outlet without ever having any chance or real intent of doing anything. Trump is about as far away from being a vessel for reform as could be imagined. Seriously if the "oligarchic" elite had to call someone to get into the presidential list to distract people and diffuse them Trump would be on the short list and he might be the only one on the list.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
I disagree, as I have said before, because we are at a crucial time in American history where the center of world power is shifting and technology is radically reshaping the economy. Both of these trends will threaten much of the American work force and further erode the middle class. Hillary has shown three things that almost assuredly will make her a poor President:
- She is beholden first to her own ambition and the interests of her major donors
- She has has a lackluster track record when faced with foreign policy crisis
- She doesn't understand technology and its impact
Last edited:
Boston
Footballguy
Not busting nads but I honestly don't know what this means...
Right now the Republican party is a disaster...it is run by inept fools who are looking to keep their power regardless of what that means to the "little people" who they are supposed to represent...while I wish it was someone different than Trump blowing this up I am glad these fools are being exposed for what they are...this election should be a lay-up...one of the worst candidates in modern history is about to get the nod from the dems and many of the GOP "elite" is more concerned with convention rules that will allow them to ultimately keep their cushy paychecks coming in than actually fixing up this mess...
msommer
Footballguy
Riversco
Footballguy
I disagree. Any democrat that wins the white house this cycle means gridlock because the democrats cannot win the house. That means no change, no reforms. There is a good chance of reforms if a republican wins because congress will work with that president.
If Hillary or Sanders wins the presidency, they will be forced to almost immediately pivot to foreign policy and stay there forever. Obama was forced to pivot to foreign policy in 2011 once the GOP won the house. Honestly, the choice between Hillary vs Sanders is which candidate's foreign policy you like better, because their domestic policy will be DOA.
timschochet
Footballguy
It is possible that Trump's candidacy could swing the House to the Dems. Not likely still but possible.
Riversco
Footballguy
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Well, I certainly think Sanders far reaching domestic policy is DOA no matter what. Hillary's is a lot more incremental and the seeds are there to make some type of deal on reforming the tax code and immigration with Republicans. Of course, the biggest domestic policy for either of them would be getting Scalia's replacement put on the court.
cstu
Footballguy
No one Republicans nominate is going to become President as long as they are beholden to the interests of the GOP. People will say that Trump isn't but if he was President he wouldn't stand in the way of any Republican legislation.
The Commish
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Hillary received twice as many votes on Tuesday night as Donald Trump did. Doesn't this fact refute the idea that Trump is going to compete for New York? Also, so much for the notion that the Republicans are more energized this election cycle.
Another myth shattered in New York is that, with the exception of southern blacks, Bernie Sanders is more popular among Democrats than Hillary. Hillary again lost the millennials to Bernie, and narrowly lost white men, but she won handily in every other category, including strong performances among women and Latinos.
Another myth shattered in New York is that, with the exception of southern blacks, Bernie Sanders is more popular among Democrats than Hillary. Hillary again lost the millennials to Bernie, and narrowly lost white men, but she won handily in every other category, including strong performances among women and Latinos.
You have a tendency to make broad sweeping statements on one piece of data which agrees with your viewpoint while ignoring mountains that disagree with you.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
It doesn't, which is why it's comical that people think he'd win, never mind handily. Obviously there would be plenty of people who aren't voting for him now in the primary but would when there's only 1 GOP choice in the general (he would get far more than 10% or whatever), but not nearly enough to actually win.
So what should they do, nominate a "true conservative" and get their asses handed to them since that's not what the vast majority of the county wants?
The GOP is a mess, but they are in a tough spot. They start out behind the eight ball, so they can't really afford to piss off the extreme right, which makes them pander to them to try and win the nomination. They then have to tack back towards the center to try and win back the moderates that they pissed off, without going too far so they alienate the far right for the general. It's a never ending cycle, which is why I said that I think their "least bad" scenario is to have Cruz emerge as the nominee, so we can put to rest the argument that the reason they don't win the POTUS is because they aren't nominating someone conservative enough. Either that, or somehow move more of the moderate states to the beginning of the primary schedule.
Last edited by a moderator:
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
The results of NY are indicative of what happened in New York...not "this election cycle" unless, of course, when YOU say "this election cycle" you mean Tuesday, 4/19 in New York....that's always a possibility with you.
Sand
Footballguy
Just a data point (and no telling whether this correlates to now) but in 1980 Carter at this point had a huge lead over Reagan.
skol asylum
Footballguy
Enough with the Hillary cult: Her admirers ignore reality, dream of worshipping a queen
What is it with the Hillary cult?
As a lifelong Democrat who will be enthusiastically voting for Bernie Sanders in next week’s Pennsylvania primary, I have trouble understanding the fuzzy rosy filter through which Hillary fans see their champion. So much must be overlooked or discounted—from Hillary’s compulsive money-lust and her brazen indifference to normal rules to her conspiratorial use of shadowy surrogates and her sociopathic shape-shifting in policy positions for momentary expedience.
Hillary’s breathtaking lack of concrete achievements or even minimal initiatives over her long public career doesn’t faze her admirers a whit. They have a religious conviction of her essential goodness and blame her blank track record on diabolical sexist obstructionists. When at last week’s debate Hillary crassly blamed President Obama for the disastrous Libyan incursion that she had pushed him into, her acolytes hardly noticed. They don’t give a damn about international affairs—all that matters is transgender bathrooms and instant access to abortion.
I’m starting to wonder, given the increasing dysfunction of our democratic institutions, if the Hillary cult isn’t perhaps registering an atavistic longing for monarchy. Or perhaps it’s just a neo-pagan reversion to idolatry, as can be felt in the Little Italy street festival scene of The Godfather, Part II, where devout pedestrians pin money to the statue of San Rocco as it is carried by in procession. There was a strange analogy to that last week, when Sanders supporters satirically showered Hillary’s motorcade with dollar bills as she arrived at George Clooney’s luxe fund-raiser in Los Angeles.
The gushy indulgence around Hillary in the Manhattan media was typified by Vanessa Friedman’s New York Times piece, “Hillary Clinton’s Message in a Jacket,” after last week’s debate. Evidently oblivious to how she was undermining the rote sexism plank in the Clinton campaign platform, Friedman praised Hillary for “playing the clothing card” against Sanders: Hillary’s long white jacket made her look like “New York’s white knight,” riding to the rescue.
Gee, that sure wasn’t my reaction. My first thought was: “Why is Hillary wearing a lab coat?” My second was: “Isn’t this a major gaffe—reminding people of abortion clinics?” My third was: “The big belted look is not recommended for those broad in the beam.” For all the complaints about an alleged higher scrutiny suffered by women candidates, affluent politicians like Hillary can afford glam squads of stylists and an infinite range of clothing choices, hairstyles, and cosmetic aids. Male candidates with their boring cropped hair and sober suits fade into the woodwork when the queen bee flies in.
The protective major media phalanx around Hillary certainly extends to her health issues, which only the Drudge Report has had the courage to flag. In assessing possible future occupants of the White House, the public has an inalienable right to know. I was incredulous at the passive gullibility of the media, including the New York Times, last July, when a woman internist, identified as Hillary’s doctor, released a summary letter about her health that was lacking in the specifics one would normally expect in medical records. Does anyone really think that world-renowned Hillary, whose main residence for years has been in Washington and not Chappaqua, has as her primary physician an obscure young internist in Mount Kisco, New York? It’s ludicrous on the face of it.
And what about that persistent cough? “Allergy season,” the hacking Hillary claimed on a New York radio show this week. (“You all right? Any mouth to mouth CPR?” joked a host.) I’m just a Ph.D., not an M.D., but I’ll put my Miss Marple hat on here. Am I the only one who noticed Hillary’s high-wrap collar, pallid, puffy face, and bulging eyes during her choleric New Hampshire primary concession speech in February? (Another unusually high collar followed the next morning.)
My tentative theory is that Hillary may have sporadic flare-ups of goiter, worsened under stress. Coughing is a symptom. High collars mask a swollen throat. In serious cases, an operation may be necessary. Is this chronic thyroid condition disqualifying in a presidential candidate? Certainly not in my view, but I don’t like being lied to—by candidates, campaign staffs, or their media sycophants.
Hillary’s road map to the Democratic nomination was written by “Tricky ****” Nixon, who after his acrimonious defeat in the 1962 California gubernatorial race doggedly restored his standing in the GOP by doing the “rubber-chicken circuit,” building up the grass-roots connections that allowed him to win the White House six years later. Similarly, Hillary has spent the years since her 2008 loss to Obama in deepening and tightening her relationships with state and local Democratic politicians, community leaders, and urban ministers nationwide—for whom she has assets of infinite largesse.
When pro-Hillary media taunt Bernie Sanders about what his campaign has or has not financially contributed to lower-level Democratic races, they are foolishly exposing Hillary’s modus operandi. Nixon’s rubber chicken has turned into one mighty gilded bird.
What is it with the Hillary cult?
As a lifelong Democrat who will be enthusiastically voting for Bernie Sanders in next week’s Pennsylvania primary, I have trouble understanding the fuzzy rosy filter through which Hillary fans see their champion. So much must be overlooked or discounted—from Hillary’s compulsive money-lust and her brazen indifference to normal rules to her conspiratorial use of shadowy surrogates and her sociopathic shape-shifting in policy positions for momentary expedience.
Hillary’s breathtaking lack of concrete achievements or even minimal initiatives over her long public career doesn’t faze her admirers a whit. They have a religious conviction of her essential goodness and blame her blank track record on diabolical sexist obstructionists. When at last week’s debate Hillary crassly blamed President Obama for the disastrous Libyan incursion that she had pushed him into, her acolytes hardly noticed. They don’t give a damn about international affairs—all that matters is transgender bathrooms and instant access to abortion.
I’m starting to wonder, given the increasing dysfunction of our democratic institutions, if the Hillary cult isn’t perhaps registering an atavistic longing for monarchy. Or perhaps it’s just a neo-pagan reversion to idolatry, as can be felt in the Little Italy street festival scene of The Godfather, Part II, where devout pedestrians pin money to the statue of San Rocco as it is carried by in procession. There was a strange analogy to that last week, when Sanders supporters satirically showered Hillary’s motorcade with dollar bills as she arrived at George Clooney’s luxe fund-raiser in Los Angeles.
The gushy indulgence around Hillary in the Manhattan media was typified by Vanessa Friedman’s New York Times piece, “Hillary Clinton’s Message in a Jacket,” after last week’s debate. Evidently oblivious to how she was undermining the rote sexism plank in the Clinton campaign platform, Friedman praised Hillary for “playing the clothing card” against Sanders: Hillary’s long white jacket made her look like “New York’s white knight,” riding to the rescue.
Gee, that sure wasn’t my reaction. My first thought was: “Why is Hillary wearing a lab coat?” My second was: “Isn’t this a major gaffe—reminding people of abortion clinics?” My third was: “The big belted look is not recommended for those broad in the beam.” For all the complaints about an alleged higher scrutiny suffered by women candidates, affluent politicians like Hillary can afford glam squads of stylists and an infinite range of clothing choices, hairstyles, and cosmetic aids. Male candidates with their boring cropped hair and sober suits fade into the woodwork when the queen bee flies in.
The protective major media phalanx around Hillary certainly extends to her health issues, which only the Drudge Report has had the courage to flag. In assessing possible future occupants of the White House, the public has an inalienable right to know. I was incredulous at the passive gullibility of the media, including the New York Times, last July, when a woman internist, identified as Hillary’s doctor, released a summary letter about her health that was lacking in the specifics one would normally expect in medical records. Does anyone really think that world-renowned Hillary, whose main residence for years has been in Washington and not Chappaqua, has as her primary physician an obscure young internist in Mount Kisco, New York? It’s ludicrous on the face of it.
And what about that persistent cough? “Allergy season,” the hacking Hillary claimed on a New York radio show this week. (“You all right? Any mouth to mouth CPR?” joked a host.) I’m just a Ph.D., not an M.D., but I’ll put my Miss Marple hat on here. Am I the only one who noticed Hillary’s high-wrap collar, pallid, puffy face, and bulging eyes during her choleric New Hampshire primary concession speech in February? (Another unusually high collar followed the next morning.)
My tentative theory is that Hillary may have sporadic flare-ups of goiter, worsened under stress. Coughing is a symptom. High collars mask a swollen throat. In serious cases, an operation may be necessary. Is this chronic thyroid condition disqualifying in a presidential candidate? Certainly not in my view, but I don’t like being lied to—by candidates, campaign staffs, or their media sycophants.
Hillary’s road map to the Democratic nomination was written by “Tricky ****” Nixon, who after his acrimonious defeat in the 1962 California gubernatorial race doggedly restored his standing in the GOP by doing the “rubber-chicken circuit,” building up the grass-roots connections that allowed him to win the White House six years later. Similarly, Hillary has spent the years since her 2008 loss to Obama in deepening and tightening her relationships with state and local Democratic politicians, community leaders, and urban ministers nationwide—for whom she has assets of infinite largesse.
When pro-Hillary media taunt Bernie Sanders about what his campaign has or has not financially contributed to lower-level Democratic races, they are foolishly exposing Hillary’s modus operandi. Nixon’s rubber chicken has turned into one mighty gilded bird.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Bernie fans referring to Hillary supporters as a cult is really...
Well let's just say it's like rain on your wedding day.
Well let's just say it's like rain on your wedding day.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I agree. It's not ironic, but idiots who listen to Alanis Morrissette think it is.
Yeah, not analogous at all IMO. 1976 is closer, and they didn't give the nomination to the 3rd place finisher- they gave it to the 1st place guy who happened to be the sitting POTUS, and he still lost in the general to a nobody.
Last edited by a moderator:
skol asylum
Footballguy
I know. Supporting a candidate who has enumerated a number of important issues that our broken system needs fixed is the very definition of cultish following. Not like the Hillary side where it's simply about being her turn damnit. #i'mwithher
Epic fail Tim.
squistion
Footballguy
skol asylum
Footballguy
Be honest. You typed that wearing your gold nehru jacket didn't you.Yeah, I know...you can't make this stuff up.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
From a % of registered voters in each party the turnout was pretty much identical, both in the low 30s. There are 5.2M registered Democrats and 2.5M registered Republicans and the primaries were closed as you well know. I really have no idea if Trump can compete in New York but I'm pretty sure the number of eligible voters in the state is way higher than the 7.7M that were eligible to vote in the primary.
Boston
Footballguy
That is such a crock and anyone who is over the age of 40 has been hearing it for years...the GOP has had a President in power 20 of the past 36 years...when they have lost they have had a bad candidate and usually that candidate is not too conservative...
Boston
Footballguy
Yes...a conservative that does not go to the well with religion...it is the easy answer...the biggest example of what they need is a candidate like Scott Brown the first time he ran in Mass...he ran as a mainstream conservative and ended up pulling off one of the biggest upsets in politics in recent memory in one of the bluest of blue states...when he thumbed his thumb at conservatives he got his butt kicked because there was zero enthusiasm for him...Charlie Baker is doing the same exact thing and he is going take a beating in his next election...the formula is not difficult...
Lol . Scott Brown won in an incredibly unique situation. He never was a conservative, the GOP just backed him because he gave them the best chance to pick up a seat and stop Obamacare.
Let's be specific with your "formula"- what GOP candidate(s) do you feel would win the POTUS right now?
The Commish
Footballguy
CBusAlex
Footballguy
G
Guest
Guest
The thing you're missing is that Bernie could only muster the illusion of real competition, but what he proved was that people WANTED real competition that the DNC ensured was not present. Congrats on a candidate that has proven the the creme de la creme of corruption will rise even in a nation that's begging for reform.
- Status
Similar threads
