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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope you guys can go tell your children that being a deplorable person is okay as long as someone else has their emails investigated is being able investigated by the FBI for mishandling classified material and putting her political aspirations above our nation's security.
And PS: There are more than 2 candidates on the ballot.

 
It is cute how some of you state mishandling of emails as if they are the same ones you send to your friends about dinner or the movies. Intentionally mishandling secret documents is a more telling description.
Do you honestly believe she used a private email server to "intentionally" put classified info at risk? If so, what her the motive for such intentions?

 
Is calling Hillary a despicable person still over the top, or is it pretty much common knowledge at this point?  Asking for a friend.

 
Jeffery Dahmer wasn't a bad guy...  I don't get why he was vilified for seeking alternative food sources. 

 

 
Do you honestly believe she used a private email server to "intentionally" put classified info at risk? If so, what her the motive for such intentions?
I dont believe setting up an illegal private server was an accident. I dont believe sending private emails over those servers was an accident. 

 
Do you honestly believe she used a private email server to "intentionally" put classified info at risk? If so, what her the motive for such intentions?
I think she intentionally skirted the required protocols for reasons which may have been as benign as convenience or as sinister as hiding her personal unethical (or even criminal) dealings, which then put the classified materials at risk.

 
Do you honestly believe she used a private email server to "intentionally" put classified info at risk? If so, what her the motive for such intentions?
No, but for me (not being an American), the issue is one of judgment.  I think she has questionable judgment, and the email scandal is just some evidence of that.  I also think she is fake and untrustworthy.

Having said that, I would have to vote for her.  Trump is completely unfit for the office.  In almost every way.

 
Not sure why Hillary's team didn't get to this approach right away:

Campaigning in Kent, Ohio, on Monday, Clinton brushed away the investigation, saying voters have already made up their minds on the email issue.

"I think most people have decided a long time ago what they think about all this," Clinton said. "Now, what people are focused on is choosing the next president and commander and chief of the United States of America."

 
Not sure why Hillary's team didn't get to this approach right away:

Campaigning in Kent, Ohio, on Monday, Clinton brushed away the investigation, saying voters have already made up their minds on the email issue.

"I think most people have decided a long time ago what they think about all this," Clinton said. "Now, what people are focused on is choosing the next president and commander and chief of the United States of America."
:shrug: The presser was unnecessarily aggressive and attacking.

 
Do you honestly believe she used a private email server to "intentionally" put classified info at risk? If so, what her the motive for such intentions?
No excuse for stupid and given her position it is criminal whether intentional or not.  I wouldn't want her as my President.

 
No, but for me (not being an American), the issue is one of judgment.  I think she has questionable judgment, and the email scandal is just some evidence of that.  I also think she is fake and untrustworthy.
Also, if you've read the emails, people actually in the know who have worked with her, have your same exact opinion.

 
I dont believe setting up an illegal private server was an accident. I dont believe sending private emails over those servers was an accident. 
Answer the damn question.  So tired of this bull####.

He didn't ask if it was intentional to set it up, he asked if it was intentional to put the info at risk. Simple question deserves a straight forward answer. The constant avoidance of even simple questions is why so many of us call instant BS on the crap that is being thrown from the Trump and anti-Hillary camps. 

 
Sure.  Trump's campaign is the subject of a federal investigation into ties to Russian hacking efforts (none directly linking Trump thus far but investigation is ongoing).  Also, Trump IS currently under investigation, by the NY Attorney General, for fraud related to his charity.  And don't forget that Trump was not only investigated by the Justice Department previously for racial discrimination, but that unlike Clinton that investigation actually resulted in a decision to litigate, in this case a civil liability lawsuit that Trump eventually settled but then was dragged back into court by Justice for violating the terms of the settlement (basically, still discriminating).

If your criteria is "which candidate has been the subject of fewer law enforcement investigations," the winner is Hillary Clinton by a landslide.
No.  There is no evidence that Trump's campaign is subject to an open investigation into Russian hacking.

 
Given that we're apparently doing this whole "character comparison" thing, a reminder that Clinton has dedicated a good part of her life to helping children.  Donald Trump once rolled up to a big ceremony for a nursery school for kids with AIDS, took another donor's seat on the podium, pretended he was a big donor, posed for pictures and danced and sung with the kids and real donors, and left without giving them a dime.

A NURSERY SCHOOL FOR KIDS WITH AIDS.

He also one time served as "principal for a day" for a high school in the Bronx, promised to wow the chess team (at the time they were $5000 short of what they needed for a tournament), handed them a fake million dollar bill, gave them just $200, and left. 

That one had a happy ending though- someone else made the $5000 donation, saying that she was "ashamed to be the same species" as Trump.  Welcome to the club, lady.

But Huma Abedin has some email exchanges with Clinton that were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop, so, you know, that's pretty bad too I guess.

 
Answer the damn question.  So tired of this bull####.

He didn't ask if it was intentional to set it up, he asked if it was intentional to put the info at risk. Simple question deserves a straight forward answer. The constant avoidance of even simple questions is why so many of us call instant BS on the crap that is being thrown from the Trump and anti-Hillary camps. 
LOL at how mad you keep getting because you can't control people's responses here. You act like you're done open minded poster seeking to educate yourself but you already have your mind made up and come across like you just want an iFight.  Get a grip man. 

Also learn the rules of handling classified information and stop making your own lines in the sand. 

 
Answer the damn question.  So tired of this bull####.

He didn't ask if it was intentional to set it up, he asked if it was intentional to put the info at risk. Simple question deserves a straight forward answer. The constant avoidance of even simple questions is why so many of us call instant BS on the crap that is being thrown from the Trump and anti-Hillary camps. 
Not hard. If she did, who knows (or cares) for the motivation. Bottom line: she was intentionally wreckless with sensitive material. If it wasn't intentional, then she's wrecklessly ignorant.

Either way, two characteristics unbecoming of a presidential candidate.

 
Answer the damn question.  So tired of this bull####.

He didn't ask if it was intentional to set it up, he asked if it was intentional to put the info at risk. Simple question deserves a straight forward answer. The constant avoidance of even simple questions is why so many of us call instant BS on the crap that is being thrown from the Trump and anti-Hillary camps. 
Is it bull####? If you do something that isnt an accident, it was on purpose. No idea why you get irate because something isnt spelled out. I answered the question fine, just not the way you wanted. I think Jayrod summed it pretty nicely:

I think she intentionally skirted the required protocols for reasons which may have been as benign as convenience or as sinister as hiding her personal unethical (or even criminal) dealings, which then put the classified materials at risk.

 
Interesting that Michelle Obama just deleted all of her tweets since 2013

https://twitter.com/MichelleObama
FLOTUS account still active

How certain are you that Michelle Obama's personal account was just culled to 2013?


The First LadyVerified accounthttps://twitter.com/help/verified



@FLOTUS


This account is run by the Office of First Lady Michelle Obama. Tweets from the First Lady are signed –mo. Tweets may be archived. More at http://wh.gov/privacy 

 Washington, DC
whitehouse.gov
 Joined January 2013
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Given that we're apparently doing this whole "character comparison" thing, a reminder that Clinton has dedicated a good part of her life to helping children.  Donald Trump once rolled up to a big ceremony for a nursery school for kids with AIDS, took another donor's seat on the podium, pretended he was a big donor, posed for pictures and danced and sung with the kids and real donors, and left without giving them a dime.

A NURSERY SCHOOL FOR KIDS WITH AIDS.

He also one time served as "principal for a day" for a high school in the Bronx, promised to wow the chess team (at the time they were $5000 short of what they needed for a tournament), handed them a fake million dollar bill, gave them just $200, and left. 

That one had a happy ending though- someone else made the $5000 donation, saying that she was "ashamed to be the same species" as Trump.  Welcome to the club, lady.

But Huma Abedin has some email exchanges with Clinton that were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop, so, you know, that's pretty bad too I guess.
You should stick with her political experience. Comparing her character to anyone doesn't look good. 

But kudos for the spin anyway. You should be on her payroll. 

 
Given that we're apparently doing this whole "character comparison" thing, a reminder that Clinton has dedicated a good part of her life to helping children.  Donald Trump once rolled up to a big ceremony for a nursery school for kids with AIDS, took another donor's seat on the podium, pretended he was a big donor, posed for pictures and danced and sung with the kids and real donors, and left without giving them a dime.

A NURSERY SCHOOL FOR KIDS WITH AIDS.

He also one time served as "principal for a day" for a high school in the Bronx, promised to wow the chess team (at the time they were $5000 short of what they needed for a tournament), handed them a fake million dollar bill, gave them just $200, and left. 

That one had a happy ending though- someone else made the $5000 donation, saying that she was "ashamed to be the same species" as Trump.  Welcome to the club, lady.

But Huma Abedin has some email exchanges with Clinton that were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop, so, you know, that's pretty bad too I guess.
:lmao: Off the rails

 
Answer the damn question.  So tired of this bull####.

He didn't ask if it was intentional to set it up, he asked if it was intentional to put the info at risk. Simple question deserves a straight forward answer. The constant avoidance of even simple questions is why so many of us call instant BS on the crap that is being thrown from the Trump and anti-Hillary camps. 
Setting up a private server to funnel department communications (including confidential information taken off of secure systems) obviously put information at risk.  You are free to believe that Hillary and her team were unaware of this risk, but I find that very hard to believe.  The nature of the communications are why they are on a secure system.

 
FLOTUS account still active

How certain are you that Michelle Obama's personal account was just culled to 2013?


The First LadyVerified accounthttps://twitter.com/help/verified



@FLOTUS


This account is run by the Office of First Lady Michelle Obama. Tweets from the First Lady are signed –mo. Tweets may be archived. More at http://wh.gov/privacy 

 Washington, DC
whitehouse.gov
 Joined January 2013
I think we're both making the mistake of assuming Dodds gives a #### about the truth.  

 
Major Wikileaks release.   October 2015, Podesta attached an AFL-CIO memo claiming Hillary's public position on TPP is a front to "get labor off her back", and that she will reverse position once in the White House.  Nothing that will shock anyone, but still.  To have it documented...

Squiz can find a link.  It's blowing up Twitter.

 
Last edited:
I guess I did not get the memo that she only uses the one account now.  Why would she have two accounts (both with 5M people)?
Both accounts are run by different people - one is run by her FLOTUS office (This account is run by the Office of First Lady Michelle Obama), that started in 2013.  The other one was run by "This account is run by Organizing for Action staff."  It appears she just moved from one to the next.

 
LOL at how mad you keep getting because you can't control people's responses here. You act like you're done open minded poster seeking to educate yourself but you already have your mind made up and come across like you just want an iFight.  Get a grip man. 

Also learn the rules of handling classified information and stop making your own lines in the sand. 
Not mad, frustrated. It's disingenuous of you all at best... and honestly, pretty cowardly.  All you need to do is actually answer a direct question or two. 

As to your newest false and baseless accusation, I've been known to change my mind not only on certain issues/policy points, but as a direct result of conversations I've had on this very board.  Again, why you are afraid to answer direct questions (which, if answered, would at the least change or challenge my perspective) I don't know. :shrug:

 
Yep SF has a point, but IMO it really is not clear. Within a month they had destroyed all data off the server.
And the evidence regarding who initiated and conducted that scrubbing was erased by the Justice Department via the destruction of the laptops used by Hillary's aides.  That's why the Huma laptop is such a big deal.  None of the aides were given immunity for destroying evidence.  They are fair game for anything on that laptop regarding destruction of evidence.

 
Major Wikileaks release.   October 2015, Podesta attached and AFL-CIO memo claiming Hillary's public position on TPP is a front to "get labor off her back", and that she will reverse position once in the White House.  Nothing that will shock anyone, but still.  To have it documented...

Squiz can find a link.  It's blowing up Twitter.
Yeah it's out there. Of course we all knew this right?

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top