What's new
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)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well except for the fact Hillary thought she had ensured no one would ever see her emails.
Click to expand...
Except for whomever she sent them to. Emails aren't like a private diary; they're a 2 way street or more. Ultimately Hillary can't destroy ANY emails because the person on the other end always has a copy. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
Some truths about the Clintom Foundation: 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/08/25/clinton_foundation_scandal_aids_relief_work_is_a_success.html

The attacks against this foundation are beginning to remind me of the attacks last year against Planned Parenthood, which were made by many of the same people and turned out to be just as false. 
Click to expand...
Well except PP doesn't have employees and founders doing double duty in the White House.
Click to expand...


Sand said:
Triple duty.  Teneo certainly has been paying WH folks, as well.
Click to expand...
On June 13, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote her and Secretary of State John Kerry asking why Abedin, the deputy chief of staff at the State Department under former Secretary Hillary Clinton, was granted status as a "special government employee" after the birth of her son.

That  title allowed her to work from home as a part-time consultant to State, earning $135,000 as a government employee -- while also earning  $355,000 as a consultant for Teneo, where former President Bill Clinton is a board member.
Click to expand...

 
timschochet said:
Some truths about the Clintom Foundation: 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/08/25/clinton_foundation_scandal_aids_relief_work_is_a_success.html

The attacks against this foundation are beginning to remind me of the attacks last year against Planned Parenthood, which were made by many of the same people and turned out to be just as false. 
Click to expand...


The Associated Press published an investigation Tuesday, alleging that Hillary Clinton gave donors to her family’s charity, the Clinton Foundation, special access to the State Department during her tenure as secretary of state.
Click to expand...
- Worth noting.

During his presidency, Bill Clinton made little effort to combat AIDS in developing countries, where the disease takes the most lives.
Click to expand...
Oh.

He hoped to make up for this shortcoming after leaving the White House by putting AIDS relief at the forefront of his new charity. This effort turned out to be an astonishing success. Through his foundation, Clinton launched AIDS initiatives in more than two dozen developing countries, placing nurses in rural clinics, training hospital managers, purchasing drugs, and negotiating huge price cuts for critical AIDS medications.
Click to expand...
The linked article is from 2006.

This is what has been going on more recently in Rwanda.

 
Alan Smithee ‏@ActualFlatticus 15h15 hours ago
1. Ok, let me see if I have this right. The Clinton Foundation and Sir Tom Hunter enter into the Clinton Hunter Development Initiative.
2. That appears to consist of Hunter giving the foundation $20,000,000 primarily. The CHDI uses that money to build a coffee factory.

3. The coffee factory is owned by RFCC, Rwandan Farmers Coffee Company. Which is a joint venture between CHDI and other shareholders.

4. The shareholders include the National Agricultural Export Board, the Rwandan government, and a bank.

5. The coffee factory starts a brand, Gorilla Coffee. The plan is for 16% of the retail value on the coffee to go to CHDI, then farmers.

6. There is no clear statement on just how CHDI is going to help farmers.

7. Gorilla Coffee then immediately gets picked up by McDonald's UK and others. Presumably easy to arrange given they also work with CFdn.

8. There are other, legitimately independent coffee coops in Rwanda focusing on fair trade.

9. But CHDI is purchasing direct from farmers, and using their only hard asset, apparently, a processing machine, and then exporting.

10. So the only apparent benefit evidently offered in Rwanda is that CHDI is buying and packing their coffee and selling it to McDonalds.

11. The claim of altruism is the same one they use over and over: "Helping farmers get to market". Which is great.

12. But it would appear CHDI is at least reaping the only actual charitable giving from this coffee brand, and profit as a shareholder too?

13. At the same time the Rwandan government gets great PR and, I assume, also a share of the profits.

14. The same PR benefit is reaped by CHDI, McDonald's, Sir Tom Hunter, all sort of people.

15. But the only apparent benefit to farmers seems to be a slightly higher per-kilo price for coffee from RFCC than they used to get.

16. By becoming the coop instead of funding one of the already existing ones, I cannot see who CHDI is benefitting here but the greedy.

17. As is the case seemingly throughout, this is at the very best a bad way to help others and at worst a way to use them to help yourself.

And I'm pretty sure the McDonald's Alliance for a Healthier Generation with the Foundation just took sodas off the happy meal menu display.

The Clinton Foundation, among many other things, is a public relations firm. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/press-releases/mcdonalds-and-alliance-healthier-generation-announce-progress-commitment-promote …

Cheryl Mills emails Hillary an article about CHDI working with Kagame mostly by obtaining State/USAID aid. https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/Clinton_Email_November_Release/C05791403.pdf …
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Except for whomever she sent them to. Emails aren't like a private diary; they're a 2 way street or more. Ultimately Hillary can't destroy ANY emails because the person on the other end always has a copy. 
Click to expand...
You have brought this up from day one, but Saints has never had a adequate response to it. Hillary, apparently, really is this evil genius who can not only destroy her own emails, but also for those of any recipient. :hophead:

 
squistion said:
You have brought this up from day one, but Saints has never had a adequate response to it. Hillary, apparently, really is this evil genius who can not only destroy her own emails, but also for those of any recipient. :hophead:
Click to expand...
This is because Tim's comment makes Hillary seems stupid. Remember WWII?  Neither side stopped communicating with their troops.  They made sure information ended up in the right hands and encoded messages as a safeguard.

Ultimately Hillary can't destroy ANY emails because the person on the other end always has a copy.

 
squistion said:
Don't give another effing link, I am not going to click on it and a find YouTube clip. Post what you have to post in a succinct form if you want me to read it.
Click to expand...
What a petulant little punk you are acting like in this post. Seriously.  Saints  can be relentless and hit hard sometimes but always is respectful. I've never seen him sour with another poster . Not once.  You should be ashamed of your childishness  in your response.

 
squistion said:
I am not clicking on your links. If you want a response don't direct me down the rabbit hole. Been there, done that.
Click to expand...


squistion said:
Saints has never had a adequate response to it.
Click to expand...


SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
Except for whomever she sent them to. Emails aren't like a private diary; they're a 2 way street or more. Ultimately Hillary can't destroy ANY emails because the person on the other end always has a copy. 
Click to expand...
In that example the email was to Chelsea. Her emails were also on Hillary's server, under a pseudonym no less.
Click to expand...
So Squiz yes I have answered this many times but Tim was talking about a specific example in which Chelsea - who is on Hillary's server - emails Hillary - on her own server, about a public issue. So no the proposed response from you and Tim does not cover all scenarios where a public record would exist. Other examples are any other email on a private server or outside State's email exchange. Those examples are countless.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee said:
What a petulant little punk you are acting like in this post. Seriously.  Saints  can be relentless and hit hard sometimes but always is respectful. I've never seen him sour with another poster . Not once.  You should be ashamed of your childishness  in your response.
Click to expand...
From the guy who posted that crap nonsense that took forever to scroll through about Huma's Mom editing some journal 20 years ago. Please.

 
HellToupee said:
What a petulant little punk you are acting like in this post. Seriously.  Saints  can be relentless and hit hard sometimes but always is respectful. I've never seen him sour with another poster . Not once.  You should be ashamed of your childishness  in your response.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
Rohn Jambo said:
This is because Tim's comment makes Hillary seems stupid. Remember WWII?  Neither side stopped communicating with their troops.  They made sure information ended up in the right hands and encoded messages as a safeguard.

Ultimately Hillary can't destroy ANY emails because the person on the other end always has a copy.
Click to expand...
The hard part is figuring out who that other person might be,

 
squistion said:
From the guy who posted that crap nonsense that took forever to scroll through about Huma's Mom editing some journal 20 years ago. Please.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you are having a bad weekend or something but you should reevaluate how you are acting here . You really should. Believe me Squistion .

any apology to everyone from you seems in order 

 
HellToupee said:
I don't know if you are having a bad weekend or something but you should reevaluate how you are acting here . You really should. Believe me Squistion .

any apology to everyone from you seems in order 
Click to expand...
Wait, you post some poorly formatted lengthy article about Huma's mom in a thread for Hillary supporters when you have your own Crooked Hillary thread?

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/742411-official-crooked-hillary-clinton-thread/

And this is after you start numerous safe zone threads that negative comments about your idol Donald Trump are not allowed?

Believe me, Hell Toupee, you own an apology to everyone here. Stay out of this thread unless you have something positive to say about Hillary. There are two threads for Hillary bashers and this is not one of them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Fine have people quit posting this nonsense that no one cares about that takes forever to scroll through and everyone will be happy.

I only want people to post things that Hillary told me are true.  I can't face anything else.
Click to expand...
FYP, again.  This is getting silly.  I just wish you would post what you actually believe instead of trying to fool everyone.

 
squistion said:
Fine have people quit posting this nonsense that no one cares about that takes forever to scroll through and everyone will be happy.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:  

Yeah.  Like those endless posting of tweets from political operatives with their ridiculous spin.  I am with you buddy.  Everybody would be happier without those. 

 
Megaton said:
:goodposting:  

Yeah.  Like those endless posting of tweets from political operatives with their ridiculous spin.  I am with you buddy.  Everybody would be happier without those. 
Click to expand...
Not me. I really enjoy reading those. Seriously, squistion does a tremendous job with that. 

 
timschochet said:
Except for whomever she sent them to. Emails aren't like a private diary; they're a 2 way street or more. Ultimately Hillary can't destroy ANY emails because the person on the other end always has a copy. 
Click to expand...
ummmm.....wut?

Did Beatrice take over the Tim account again?  While there is a sender and receiver in every transaction, that's not how this works.  It's not how any of this works.  If you don't know the origin of the email, you don't know the destination so unless you plan on collecting all the emails ever sent ever in the whole world, then this is an exercise in futility and the ultimate strawman.  That said, I am confident when I scroll down through the rest of this thread, squis will have given you two big thumbs up as if this is a fantastic point or some such.  I'm happy to discuss this more if you'd like.

 
The Commish said:
ummmm.....wut?

Did Beatrice take over the Tim account again?  While there is a sender and receiver in every transaction, that's not how this works.  It's not how any of this works.  If you don't know the origin of the email, you don't know the destination so unless you plan on collecting all the emails ever sent ever in the whole world, then this is an exercise in futility and the ultimate strawman.  That said, I am confident when I scroll down through the rest of this thread, squis will have given you two big thumbs up as if this is a fantastic point or some such.  I'm happy to discuss this more if you'd like.
Click to expand...
That's not the point. I was responding to the idea that, if Hillary was truly corrupt, she would have been so foolish enough to put evidence of that corruption on an email which she could never ultimately destroy because somebody else would always have a copy. 

 
timschochet said:
That's not the point. I was responding to the idea that, if Hillary was truly corrupt, she would have been so foolish enough to put evidence of that corruption on an email which she could never ultimately destroy because somebody else would always have a copy. 
Click to expand...
I think you meant to say "wouldn't have been so foolish enough to"

Can't fix stupid....no matter how corrupt one is :shrug:    It's not either our when it comes to intelligence and corruption.  I've been told ad nauseum how inept she is/was with technology.  Can't have it both ways Tim.

NOTE:  I am NOT trying to make the point that she's corrupt.  The email situation continues to be an example of a lot of poor judgment and questionable smarts.  Yeah, I have my theories as to why she took the action she did, but those don't really matter because if they were true they just show HOW poor her judgment is and how lacking she is in the smarts department when it comes to the 21st century and information.....that's scary enough for me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
I think you meant to say "wouldn't have been so foolish enough to"

Can't fix stupid....no matter how corrupt one is :shrug:    It's not either our when it comes to intelligence and corruption.  I've been told ad nauseum how inept she is/was with technology.  Can't have it both ways Tim.

NOTE:  I am NOT trying to make the point that she's corrupt.  The email situation continues to be an example of a lot of poor judgment and questionable smarts.  Yeah, I have my theories as to why she took the action she did, but those don't really matter because if they were true they just show HOW poor her judgment is and how lacking she is in the smarts department when it comes to the 21st century and information.....that's scary enough for me.
Click to expand...
And again, I think ineptness with this sort of thing has nothing to do with the sort of executive decision making she'll be required to do as President, for which IMO she is as well prepared as any candidate ever. Lacking in the smarts department? Give me a break. 

 
timschochet said:
And again, I think ineptness with this sort of thing has nothing to do with the sort of executive decision making she'll be required to do as President, for which IMO she is as well prepared as any candidate ever. Lacking in the smarts department? Give me a break. 
Click to expand...
Opening your country's intelligence information to potential hackers unnecessarily isn't very smart, no matter how you try to spin it. :shrug:   If one "doesn't know any better" that makes it worse not better.  Unlike you, the higher up the ladder we go in our nation, the MORE (not less) I expect.  Going the other route and lowering expectations is what produces Hillary vs Trump.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Opening your country's intelligence information to potential hackers unnecessarily isn't very smart, no matter how you try to spin it. :shrug:   If one "doesn't know any better" that makes it worse not better.  Unlike you, the higher up the ladder we go in our nation, the MORE (not less) I expect.  Going the other route and lowering expectations is what produces Hillary vs Trump.
Click to expand...
I guess we'll never agree on this. I'm amazed you think the way you do, frankly. It's very rare that we get a candidate with Hillary's level of smarts. By nominating her the nation has actually raised our expectations, not lowered them. She is the opposite of Trump in every way. 

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
Opening your country's intelligence information to potential hackers unnecessarily isn't very smart, no matter how you try to spin it. :shrug:   If one "doesn't know any better" that makes it worse not better.  Unlike you, the higher up the ladder we go in our nation, the MORE (not less) I expect.  Going the other route and lowering expectations is what produces Hillary vs Trump.
Click to expand...
I guess we'll never agree on this. I'm amazed you think the way you do, frankly. It's very rare that we get a candidate with Hillary's level of smarts. By nominating her the nation has actually raised our expectations, not lowered them. She is the opposite of Trump in every way.
Click to expand...
You're twisting my words again Tim.  For whatever reason you're trying to make more of what I said than what I actually said.  It's tiresome.

 
The Commish said:
You're twisting my words again Tim.  For whatever reason you're trying to make more of what I said than what I actually said.  It's tiresome.
Click to expand...
No what's tiresome is your continual accusations that I twist your words. As ALWAYS, I responded to EXACTLY what you wrote. You wrote that Hillary doesn't have a lot of smarts. You wrote that she is lowering our expectations and that's what produces Hillary vs Trump, which is a direct comparison of the two. I'm sure you see Trump as worse, yet you never fail to bring up how bad you think Hillary is whenever Trump is discussed. 

And I haven't even mentioned the "Beatrice" thing; I don't even know what the #### that is, maybe it's some kind of "Commish-speak" like the nonsensical "goat rodeo" phrase you're always using. But you've brought it up twice now today in two different threads, apparently as an attempt to slur me, I'm assuming as a fear monger. Which is pretty laughable. Sure I'm afraid of Trump: what rational person isn't? But in general I've been on the opposite side of the fearful types in this forum- for example the NSA discussion, in which I stated time and again that I didn't think the NSA threatened our liberties, or this election cycle in which I've stated time and again that our country is in better shape than it's ever been and we needn't be afraid of our future. 

But if you want please go on falsely labeling my views. It's entertaining, to a point. 

 
timschochet said:
I guess we'll never agree on this. I'm amazed you think the way you do, frankly. It's very rare that we get a candidate with Hillary's level of smarts. By nominating her the nation has actually raised our expectations, not lowered them. She is the opposite of Trump in every way. 
Click to expand...
Having second thoughts on my drug legalization position after reading this post.

 
timschochet said:
No what's tiresome is your continual accusations that I twist your words. As ALWAYS, I responded to EXACTLY what you wrote. You wrote that Hillary doesn't have a lot of smarts. You wrote that she is lowering our expectations and that's what produces Hillary vs Trump, which is a direct comparison of the two. I'm sure you see Trump as worse, yet you never fail to bring up how bad you think Hillary is whenever Trump is discussed. 

And I haven't even mentioned the "Beatrice" thing; I don't even know what the #### that is, maybe it's some kind of "Commish-speak" like the nonsensical "goat rodeo" phrase you're always using. But you've brought it up twice now today in two different threads, apparently as an attempt to slur me, I'm assuming as a fear monger. Which is pretty laughable. Sure I'm afraid of Trump: what rational person isn't? But in general I've been on the opposite side of the fearful types in this forum- for example the NSA discussion, in which I stated time and again that I didn't think the NSA threatened our liberties, or this election cycle in which I've stated time and again that our country is in better shape than it's ever been and we needn't be afraid of our future. 

But if you want please go on falsely labeling my views. It's entertaining, to a point. 
Click to expand...
This is a perfect illustration of your confirmation bias and twisting of my words.  I'll break it down for you one last time:

To the blue:  I wrote that she doesn't have a lot of smarts as it pertains to information and the 21st century.  I made a specific qualification.  Funny thing about this is you've said a million times this sort of knowledge is beneath her and she doesn't/shouldn't need to know about these sorts of things.  That was your defense early in this thread when I brought up how ill-informed one would have to be to decide setting up a server in this manner was ok.  

To the red:  I wrote that YOU (we if you prefer) are lowering our expectations and we have.  Any time we have two choices that don't meet a standard and we vote for them anyway we effectively lower our standard.  There isn't a President of these United States (during my lifetime) except GWB that would make me consider voting for Hillary over them, and GWB it would have been his second term only after everything suspected was confirmed.  Usually, I am content with standing on my own in my pessimism of our political candidates.  This time, it doesn't seem like I am standing alone.  The two worst approval ratings marks in history are being trotted out there as the "options" for our next President.  Now, the good news here is that if you wait long enough, her approval ratings will go up.  They probably already are, I have no idea.  But it stands to reason that they will given her opponent is Trump and you aren't alone in falling for the fear mongering.  As we get closer to election and people settle for the lesser of two evils, her approval numbers can't do anything but go up.  Of course you have said that you will not attribute that to her being likable.  I'll take you at your word, but that remains to be seen.  I'm pretty confident as soon as they start going up, they will be brought up here often.

To the purple:  I've explained this to you several times.  Even posted a youtube for you to watch.  There's no other way to say it.  Until you pay attention to it, I'll let your mischaracterization of my words be dismissed as willful ignorance.  

To the orange:  Plenty of rational people aren't.  This has been covered many times as well.

To the green:  I have no idea what this is talking about.  People weren't discussing the topic as a matter of fear.  They were discussing it as a matter of right/wrong.  What they should be allowed to do vs what they shouldn't.  What is required to do it and what isn't. 

To the bold:  Probably the best example of :potkettle:  mixed with the heaviest dose of deflection ever achieved on this board.  Well done.

 
By the way...any time you feel I've twisted your words, I'm happy to discuss it.  It's a benefit to all of us to understand what you're trying to say.

 
Well Commish, all I can say is that people here will have to read this conversation and decide who is more accurate (Though I have no doubt that my critics will side with you regardless of the facts; I can only hope that others will take a more even handed approach.) 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
1K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
197K
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
1K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top