Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread

Recommended Posts

For me, I want one or more of the conservatives replaced with a liberal. I want it to be 5-4 the other way for a while. I don't want any more Citizens United decisions.

Stop. You have no idea what Citizens United means, does or doesn't do, or why it matters.

Edit: I'm not trying to be insulting here. I really think you're simply buying into the soundbite, rather than doing any thinking on this. I think you always say you want "the money out of politics", but you haven't thought through what that means or how that would work. Not to mention that it's fairly rich irony for someone to be against "money in politics" and for Hillary, the queen of big money politics.

YOU need to stop putting words in my mouth. Who said anything about wanting "money out of politics"? I didn't.

I don't want money out of politics. But as in so many other issues, I want reasonable restrictions to contributions. I want the system we had before Citizens United. I have thought about what that means and how it would work because I lived through it. It was better than what we have now.

If you aren't one of the ones beating that horse (the "we need to get money out of politics" horse), then I misremembered and I apologize. With regard to limited contributions, it just makes no sense. If contributions are limited, that gives the rich more power rather than less. The rich (read: Trump) can still spend their own money, and if others have less opportunity to solicit contributions, then the money of the rich is effectively worth more. Worse, IMO, limits on direct contributions increases the power of indirect contributions such as editorials, media coverage, etc. If we're limiting contributions, then the New York Times and New York Post, for example, should be prohibited from endorsing candidates, as those endorsements are certainly worth plenty of money.

If a rich person were limited to a maximum donation (not sure if that maximum donation is still more than a middle class person could reasonably afford), wouldn't that reduce the influence of a rich person since they couldn't drop millions of dollars into a campaign?

I'm thinking of someone like, say, Trump or Clinton, with enough money to self-fund their own campaign.

That is a good point; Trump could run, and not be impacted by having less money to spend, and it would be hard to compete against someone who can self-fund.

What other negatives would come from a limitation on campaign donations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you calculate the value of endorsements, editorials, TV interviews, Facebook posts, etc.? All of those have value to the candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Hillary being self-serving: she has a tremendous ego. But so does everybody else who is seriously running for President. I'm not sure that it's possible to be elected President without a huge ego. Hillary wants to be President because she believes she will be the best President. Again, nothing wrong with that, and that's no different from anyone else running.

I believe that in the reaction to this, and to everything about Hillary, there is a bit of sexism involved. It's not overt, and it's not deliberate for most people. But we as a society are not trained to think of women in the same way that we think of men. A man who seeks to rise is called ambitious, which is a compliment; a woman who seeks to rise is called aggressive, which is not. A man who believes he is the best at what he does is confident; a woman is arrogant. A man who seeks high office is thought of as a leader; a woman is considered pushy. And so on.

Hillary did not accept the demure role afforded to most First Ladies, so she was resented from the first. That resentment has never gone away. As a product of women's liberation, Hillary represents a threat to a lot of stereotypes which are still in place. I honestly believe that this is a big chunk of the antagonism that has always surrounded her.

So, if you don't support Obama, you're a racist.

if you don't support Hillary, you're a sexist.

If you support Trump (or most other Republicans), you're a bigot, racist, etc

Where does it end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Hillary being self-serving: she has a tremendous ego. But so does everybody else who is seriously running for President. I'm not sure that it's possible to be elected President without a huge ego. Hillary wants to be President because she believes she will be the best President. Again, nothing wrong with that, and that's no different from anyone else running.

I believe that in the reaction to this, and to everything about Hillary, there is a bit of sexism involved. It's not overt, and it's not deliberate for most people. But we as a society are not trained to think of women in the same way that we think of men. A man who seeks to rise is called ambitious, which is a compliment; a woman who seeks to rise is called aggressive, which is not. A man who believes he is the best at what he does is confident; a woman is arrogant. A man who seeks high office is thought of as a leader; a woman is considered pushy. And so on.

Hillary did not accept the demure role afforded to most First Ladies, so she was resented from the first. That resentment has never gone away. As a product of women's liberation, Hillary represents a threat to a lot of stereotypes which are still in place. I honestly believe that this is a big chunk of the antagonism that has always surrounded her.

So, if you don't support Obama, you're a racist.

if you don't support Hillary, you're a sexist.

If you support Trump (or most other Republicans), you're a bigot, racist, etc

Where does it end?

With a Hillary victory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Hillary being self-serving: she has a tremendous ego. But so does everybody else who is seriously running for President. I'm not sure that it's possible to be elected President without a huge ego. Hillary wants to be President because she believes she will be the best President. Again, nothing wrong with that, and that's no different from anyone else running.

I believe that in the reaction to this, and to everything about Hillary, there is a bit of sexism involved. It's not overt, and it's not deliberate for most people. But we as a society are not trained to think of women in the same way that we think of men. A man who seeks to rise is called ambitious, which is a compliment; a woman who seeks to rise is called aggressive, which is not. A man who believes he is the best at what he does is confident; a woman is arrogant. A man who seeks high office is thought of as a leader; a woman is considered pushy. And so on.

Hillary did not accept the demure role afforded to most First Ladies, so she was resented from the first. That resentment has never gone away. As a product of women's liberation, Hillary represents a threat to a lot of stereotypes which are still in place. I honestly believe that this is a big chunk of the antagonism that has always surrounded her.

So, if you don't support Obama, you're a racist.

if you don't support Hillary, you're a sexist.

If you support Trump (or most other Republicans), you're a bigot, racist, etc

Where does it end?

:lmao: This is why you can't take anything they say serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From the Trump thread)

I'll ask the question then since I have made no assertions and because I think it's a good question. What's the evidence that Hillary was a big part of these decisions outside her book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From the Trump thread)

I'll ask the question then since I have made no assertions and because I think it's a good question. What's the evidence that Hillary was a big part of these decisions outside her book?

Ive seen interviews with other people involved, including Gates, the CIA guy, and Obama himself discussing Hillary's role.

By her own admission she was sometimes overruled. But there's no foundation that she was ever "blocked out" of decision making as Saints noted.

For the rest of this campaign, I fully anticipate that Hillary will be blamed for every foreign policy decision that went wrong (on those she led the way) and a non-participant for every decision that went right (on those she was overruled or blocked out). It's par for the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From the Trump thread)

I'll ask the question then since I have made no assertions and because I think it's a good question. What's the evidence that Hillary was a big part of these decisions outside her book?

Ive seen interviews with other people involved, including Gates, the CIA guy, and Obama himself discussing Hillary's role.

By her own admission she was sometimes overruled. But there's no foundation that she was ever "blocked out" of decision making as Saints noted.

For the rest of this campaign, I fully anticipate that Hillary will be blamed for every foreign policy decision that went wrong (on those she led the way) and a non-participant for every decision that went right (on those she was overruled or blocked out). It's par for the course.

I want to stay on my question....not what Saints was saying (no offense Saints).

I'd like to see/read the discussion of her role by the outside parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From the Trump thread)

I'll ask the question then since I have made no assertions and because I think it's a good question. What's the evidence that Hillary was a big part of these decisions outside her book?

Ive seen interviews with other people involved, including Gates, the CIA guy, and Obama himself discussing Hillary's role.

By her own admission she was sometimes overruled. But there's no foundation that she was ever "blocked out" of decision making as Saints noted.

For the rest of this campaign, I fully anticipate that Hillary will be blamed for every foreign policy decision that went wrong (on those she led the way) and a non-participant for every decision that went right (on those she was overruled or blocked out). It's par for the course.

I want to stay on my question....not what Saints was saying (no offense Saints).

I'd like to see/read the discussion of her role by the outside parties.

Im sure if you search hard enough you'll find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From the Trump thread)

I'll ask the question then since I have made no assertions and because I think it's a good question. What's the evidence that Hillary was a big part of these decisions outside her book?

Ive seen interviews with other people involved, including Gates, the CIA guy, and Obama himself discussing Hillary's role.

By her own admission she was sometimes overruled. But there's no foundation that she was ever "blocked out" of decision making as Saints noted.

For the rest of this campaign, I fully anticipate that Hillary will be blamed for every foreign policy decision that went wrong (on those she led the way) and a non-participant for every decision that went right (on those she was overruled or blocked out). It's par for the course.

Well, what, in your opinion - are "Clinton" policy decisions that you think she got right?

You seem to take the exact opposite tack - any policy decision you like, Hillary was responsible for, any policy that went south, was a result of Obama over-ruling her...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Sinn Fein, I have criticized Hillary for several decisions. Again, stuff like this make me wonder if people really read my posts before they respond to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From the Trump thread)

I'll ask the question then since I have made no assertions and because I think it's a good question. What's the evidence that Hillary was a big part of these decisions outside her book?

Ive seen interviews with other people involved, including Gates, the CIA guy, and Obama himself discussing Hillary's role.

By her own admission she was sometimes overruled. But there's no foundation that she was ever "blocked out" of decision making as Saints noted.

For the rest of this campaign, I fully anticipate that Hillary will be blamed for every foreign policy decision that went wrong (on those she led the way) and a non-participant for every decision that went right (on those she was overruled or blocked out). It's par for the course.

I want to stay on my question....not what Saints was saying (no offense Saints).

I'd like to see/read the discussion of her role by the outside parties.

Im sure if you search hard enough you'll find it.

I've found plenty of discussion....none of it supports you assertion, but I am digging still :crossfingers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far it appears she was overruled quite a bit. It's probably disingenuous to say she was 'blocked out' as she was sitting there, but it doesn't appear they cared much for what she was saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From the Trump thread)

I'll ask the question then since I have made no assertions and because I think it's a good question. What's the evidence that Hillary was a big part of these decisions outside her book?

Ive seen interviews with other people involved, including Gates, the CIA guy, and Obama himself discussing Hillary's role.

By her own admission she was sometimes overruled. But there's no foundation that she was ever "blocked out" of decision making as Saints noted.

For the rest of this campaign, I fully anticipate that Hillary will be blamed for every foreign policy decision that went wrong (on those she led the way) and a non-participant for every decision that went right (on those she was overruled or blocked out). It's par for the course.

I want to stay on my question....not what Saints was saying (no offense Saints).

I'd like to see/read the discussion of her role by the outside parties.

No problem, I totally agree and await the backup from Tim or anyone else.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far it appears she was overruled quite a bit. It's probably disingenuous to say she was 'blocked out' as she was sitting there, but it doesn't appear they cared much for what she was saying.

Thank you. I'm not saying she was excluded from all the sweet sixteen parties because they were hating on her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From the Trump thread)

I'll ask the question then since I have made no assertions and because I think it's a good question. What's the evidence that Hillary was a big part of these decisions outside her book?

Ive seen interviews with other people involved, including Gates, the CIA guy, and Obama himself discussing Hillary's role.

By her own admission she was sometimes overruled. But there's no foundation that she was ever "blocked out" of decision making as Saints noted.

For the rest of this campaign, I fully anticipate that Hillary will be blamed for every foreign policy decision that went wrong (on those she led the way) and a non-participant for every decision that went right (on those she was overruled or blocked out). It's par for the course.

I want to stay on my question....not what Saints was saying (no offense Saints).

I'd like to see/read the discussion of her role by the outside parties.

Im sure if you search hard enough you'll find it.

I've found plenty of discussion....none of it supports you assertion, but I am digging still :crossfingers:
I haven't made any assertion. I was responding to Saints' assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From the Trump thread)

I'll ask the question then since I have made no assertions and because I think it's a good question. What's the evidence that Hillary was a big part of these decisions outside her book?

Ive seen interviews with other people involved, including Gates, the CIA guy, and Obama himself discussing Hillary's role.

By her own admission she was sometimes overruled. But there's no foundation that she was ever "blocked out" of decision making as Saints noted.

For the rest of this campaign, I fully anticipate that Hillary will be blamed for every foreign policy decision that went wrong (on those she led the way) and a non-participant for every decision that went right (on those she was overruled or blocked out). It's par for the course.

I want to stay on my question....not what Saints was saying (no offense Saints).

I'd like to see/read the discussion of her role by the outside parties.

Im sure if you search hard enough you'll find it.

I've found plenty of discussion....none of it supports you assertion, but I am digging still :crossfingers:
I haven't made any assertion. I was responding to Saints' assertion.

I think we know this classic internet roadblock.

I've posted information which indicates that Hillary has completely different policy concepts than Obama. She seems to indicate in that Atlantic piece that she was completely ignored, if she was heard or in the room at all. She is openly criticizing the president.

We know what Biden said about Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I've stated my position that the record shows an absence of her presence or influence. Now your position is the classic 'show me that which does not exist.' At that point it is incumbent upon you to show where it does exist. You know that, Internet Convo 301 here.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm no. You made the assertion that she was blocked out of decision making. All you have demonstrated is that at times there were differences of opinion. Never once in that Atlantic article did she ever indicate that she was "completely ignored" as you just claimed.

It would be extremely unusual for a US Secretary of State to be blocked out or ignored on foreign policy decisions. If you want to make that claim its on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(From the Trump thread)

I'll ask the question then since I have made no assertions and because I think it's a good question. What's the evidence that Hillary was a big part of these decisions outside her book?

Ive seen interviews with other people involved, including Gates, the CIA guy, and Obama himself discussing Hillary's role.

By her own admission she was sometimes overruled. But there's no foundation that she was ever "blocked out" of decision making as Saints noted.

For the rest of this campaign, I fully anticipate that Hillary will be blamed for every foreign policy decision that went wrong (on those she led the way) and a non-participant for every decision that went right (on those she was overruled or blocked out). It's par for the course.

I want to stay on my question....not what Saints was saying (no offense Saints).

I'd like to see/read the discussion of her role by the outside parties.

Im sure if you search hard enough you'll find it.

I've found plenty of discussion....none of it supports you assertion, but I am digging still :crossfingers:
I haven't made any assertion. I was responding to Saints' assertion.

ok...comment.....none of it supports your comment....better??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Sinn Fein, I have criticized Hillary for several decisions. Again, stuff like this make me wonder if people really read my posts before they respond to them.

I imagine it's the gushing posts like "Hillary is our bestest and only chance at not destroying the whole country!!!" that make people think you don't criticize her? Or, perhaps it's the slew of disclaimers on your critiques, like "well, if that's what really happened, and I'm not sure it is, maybe some portion of blame could be assigned to Clinton, although there weren't really any good options, so what she did may well have been the best possible course anyway". And then there's the in-one-ear-and-out-the-other, here-today-gone-tomorrow quality to a lot of your agreements of criticism of her.

:shrug: Just some thoughts...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Sinn Fein, I have criticized Hillary for several decisions. Again, stuff like this make me wonder if people really read my posts before they respond to them.

I imagine it's the gushing posts like "Hillary is our bestest and only chance at not destroying the whole country!!!" that make people think you don't criticize her? Or, perhaps it's the slew of disclaimers on your critiques, like "well, if that's what really happened, and I'm not sure it is, maybe some portion of blame could be assigned to Clinton, although there weren't really any good options, so what she did may well have been the best possible course anyway". And then there's the in-one-ear-and-out-the-other, here-today-gone-tomorrow quality to a lot of your agreements of criticism of her.

:shrug: Just some thoughts...

But not GOOD thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....I'm not seeing what Tim is talking about that refutes what Saints said....So for now, I'd concede she wasn't "locked out" of the discussions, but it's pretty clear few were paying much attention if she ever gave input. Is that a win for anyone? I really don't know. :oldunsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm no. You made the assertion that she was blocked out of decision making. All you have demonstrated is that at times there were differences of opinion. Never once in that Atlantic article did she ever indicate that she was "completely ignored" as you just claimed.

It would be extremely unusual for a US Secretary of State to be blocked out or ignored on foreign policy decisions. If you want to make that claim its on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

Tim you know this perfectly well - this is your request to prove the negative. Hillary has no fingerprints on mideast policy outside of Egypt and Libya.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....I'm not seeing what Tim is talking about that refutes what Saints said....So for now, I'd concede she wasn't "locked out" of the discussions, but it's pretty clear few were paying much attention if she ever gave input. Is that a win for anyone? I really don't know. :oldunsure:

I'm on board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Fox so take it or leave it or await confirmation from WaPo or NYT or Politico:

Sources: Review affirms Clinton server emails were 'top secret,' despite department challenge

EXCLUSIVE: An intelligence community review has re-affirmed that two classified emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Hillary Clinton’s unsecured personal server despite a challenge to that designation by the State Department, according to two sources familiar with the review.

The sources described the dispute over whether the two emails were classified at the highest level as a “settled matter.”

The agencies that owned and originated that intelligence – the CIA and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or NGA – reviewed the emails to determine how they should be properly stored, as the State Department took issue with their highly classified nature. The subject matter of the messages is widely reported to be the movement of North Korean missiles and a drone strike. A top secret designation requires the highest level of security, and can include the use of an approved safe.

The sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News that while the emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” to this day -- and must be handled at the highest security level. The second email is still considered classified but at the lower “secret” level because more information is publicly available about the event.

The findings have been transmitted to the State Department, which continues to challenge the intelligence community’s conclusions about the classification of all the emails. But the department has no authority to change the classification since it did not originate the information.

Earlier this month, Politico reported that the intelligence community was retreating from the “top secret” classification, a development that could have helped Clinton’s presidential campaign deflect allegations about mishandling classified material. Fox News can confirm it is true the handling of one email has changed since it was drafted and sent, but this change has no bearing on the “top secret” nature of the emails when first received on Clinton’s server. And this is what matters to the FBI probe.

While the classification finding is important, the central issue is whether the FBI investigation concludes there was or was not a criminal violation.

Fox News reported earlier this month that two top Republican senators have written directly to Secretary of State John Kerry and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about possible leaks from their departments on their review of Clinton’s emails -- wrongly leaving the impression that the two “top secret” messages were not that sensitive.

The letter was sent by Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Richard Burr, who heads the powerful Intelligence Committee, on Nov. 13, with copies sent three days later to the intelligence community and State Department watchdogs known as inspectors general. The IGs were asked to conduct an independent review of the process.

While the senators’ letter is not public, Fox News has confirmed that the senators cited the Politico report from Nov. 6 where unnamed sources claimed the two “top secret” emails had been downgraded after a second review. While hailed by Clinton’s supporters as evidence she did not break the law and send classified information on her personal email account, the Politico story was later updated to reflect the fact that Clapper’s office said the review was ongoing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/15/sources-review-affirms-clinton-server-emails-were-top-secret-despite-department-challenge.html

- To reemphasize:

The State Department "has no authority to change the classification since it did not originate the information."

eta - Note also - that one of the emails has been downclassified (albeit still "Secret"), which makes sense, because information can become more public over time, but Hillary's version of events that information can become upclassified makes zero sense, information does not enter the public sphere and then somehow magically become "classified" once it is marked years later.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To date the FBI has seized data, drives, servers and other hardware from these sources:

  • Hillary Clinton, personally
  • Brian Pagliano, personally - represented by counsel
  • Brian Pagliano's data at State - currently missing
  • David Kendall, her attorney, personally and from his office
  • Platte River, Hillary's IT vendor in Colorado
  • Datto, the backup vendor for Platte River, in Connecticut
  • State Department, at least four servers, in DC/Foggy Bottom
  • Huma Abedeen, personally - her data was on Hillary's server- represented by counsel
  • Cheryl Mills, personally- represented by counsel

There may be others, such as aides like Philipe Reines.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....I'm not seeing what Tim is talking about that refutes what Saints said....So for now, I'd concede she wasn't "locked out" of the discussions, but it's pretty clear few were paying much attention if she ever gave input. Is that a win for anyone? I really don't know. :oldunsure:

I'm on board.

Of course you are.

So both of you are now convinced that Hillary really had nothing to do with major foreign policy decisions while she was Secretary of State. I guess she was too busy using her emails in order to pursue corruption; she just didn't have the time for it.

It would be laughable except that I know you want so badly to believe this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone needs a reason to support Hillary Clinton, just turn on CNN tonight at around 6pm pst. if within 15 minutes you're not convinced that Hillary will be the best person running to lead this country, you're a lost cause, impervious to good sense.

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....I'm not seeing what Tim is talking about that refutes what Saints said....So for now, I'd concede she wasn't "locked out" of the discussions, but it's pretty clear few were paying much attention if she ever gave input. Is that a win for anyone? I really don't know. :oldunsure:

I'm on board.

Of course you are.

So both of you are now convinced that Hillary really had nothing to do with major foreign policy decisions while she was Secretary of State. I guess she was too busy using her emails in order to pursue corruption; she just didn't have the time for it.

It would be laughable except that I know you want so badly to believe this stuff.

Link to where I said I was convinced of anything as it pertains to this matter :mellow:

All I've done is gone looking for "evidence" towards whether she was "locked out" or "a big part" of these decisions. I've already said it doesn't appear she was locked out. There's also evidence that suggests she wasn't well received on topics. That's all I know :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone needs a reason to support Hillary Clinton, just turn on CNN tonight at around 6pm pst. if within 15 minutes you're not convinced that Hillary will be the best person running to lead this country, you're a lost cause, impervious to good sense.

"The GOP sucks so it has to be Hillary".....is that what I'm reading here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.

But why are you interested Commish? Is there anything at this point that could cause you to change your mind and support Hillary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone needs a reason to support Hillary Clinton, just turn on CNN tonight at around 6pm pst. if within 15 minutes you're not convinced that Hillary will be the best person running to lead this country, you're a lost cause, impervious to good sense.

"The GOP sucks so it has to be Hillary".....is that what I'm reading here?

Yes and let's not forget she is a woman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone needs a reason to support Hillary Clinton, just turn on CNN tonight at around 6pm pst. if within 15 minutes you're not convinced that Hillary will be the best person running to lead this country, you're a lost cause, impervious to good sense.

'Vote for me, the other guy is worse' is not a compelling argument. My biggest issue is who will reign in the size and power of government the most. I am pretty sure Hillary is not that person. Your idea of 'good sense' is agreeing with your values and opinions. This campaign is making you pretty extreme, or perhaps it is just terrible shtick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone needs a reason to support Hillary Clinton, just turn on CNN tonight at around 6pm pst. if within 15 minutes you're not convinced that Hillary will be the best person running to lead this country, you're a lost cause, impervious to good sense.

"The GOP sucks so it has to be Hillary".....is that what I'm reading here?

Yes and let's not forget she is a woman!

:link:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The GOP sucks so it has to be Hillary".....

This is pretty much the 2016 Presidential election in a nutshell.

Hillary Clinton: At least she's not bat**** crazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Vote for me, the other guy is worse' is not a compelling argument. My biggest issue is who will reign in the size and power of government the most. I am pretty sure Hillary is not that person. Your idea of 'good sense' is agreeing with your values and opinions. This campaign is making you pretty extreme, or perhaps it is just terrible shtick.

There is no one running on either side that will reign in the size and power of government once elected.

It's one of those things politicians talk about, but absolutely never do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.

But why are you interested Commish? Is there anything at this point that could cause you to change your mind and support Hillary?

I'm interested purely from a sociological perspective. I am fascinated by the knots people twist themselves up in when it comes to politics. Justifications and rushing to defense know no bounds in politics so I like to go, read about the topic form an opinion then watch. It's my version of bad reality television :bag:

To answer your question, no. There isn't. There isn't anything any liar could do to change my opinion of them because I'll never know if it's genuine or not. That's the foundation of my issues with her. Then I throw her lack of concern for national security on top of it and she's done while making me a spokesman against her. I've never really said much about her positive or negative until this election cycle. It's best for people to form their own conclusions about our elected officials. I wish more people did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The GOP sucks so it has to be Hillary".....

This is pretty much the 2016 Presidential election in a nutshell.

Hillary Clinton: At least she's not bat**** crazy

And the reason this country is circling the drain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, separate question - what do you think are the best aspects of Hillary's role in Syrian policy decision making?

This sounds suspiciously like the same question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone needs a reason to support Hillary Clinton, just turn on CNN tonight at around 6pm pst. if within 15 minutes you're not convinced that Hillary will be the best person running to lead this country, you're a lost cause, impervious to good sense.

She may be better than most of the GOP candidates. She may be better than all of the GOP candidates with a legitimate chance to win. She's definitely not better than Bernie. Regardless, that she's a better choice than some or all of the current GOP candidates does not make her a good choice. She's a horrible choice to be POTUS. She's simply an awful, awful candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The GOP sucks so it has to be Hillary".....

This is pretty much the 2016 Presidential election in a nutshell.

Hillary Clinton: At least she's not bat**** crazy

And the reason this country is circling the drain.

Completely agree.

Unfortunately for the GOP, they have been driven waaaaaaay too far to the right.

At this point, a Republican can only get the nomination if they are extremely conservative.

The problem is, once they get into a national election they get trounced by a moderate democrat.

Hillary has to be loving all this Trump madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment about the Republican debate was a little tongue in cheek (obviously) but it really cracks me up

that all of you concede the point. The only argument I'm getting is "yeah we know they suck but that's no reason to support Hillary!" Where is the defense of the Republicans? lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the people arguing that Hillary sucks have been saying that the GOP is part of the problem. Why would I, Slapdash, The Commish, et. al. defend the GOP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment about the Republican debate was a little tongue in cheek (obviously) but it really cracks me up

that all of you concede the point. The only argument I'm getting is "yeah we know they suck but that's no reason to support Hillary!" Where is the defense of the Republicans? lol.

Why would I defend the GOP if they don't represent what I want to see in Washington? This lesser of two evils bull#### is what has this country in the position it's in. Why would I contribute to that?

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment about the Republican debate was a little tongue in cheek (obviously) but it really cracks me up

that all of you concede the point. The only argument I'm getting is "yeah we know they suck but that's no reason to support Hillary!" Where is the defense of the Republicans? lol.

Why would I defend the GOP if they don't represent what I want to see in Washington? This lesser of two evils bull#### is what has this country in the position it's in. Why would I contribute to that?
I wasn't referring to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment about the Republican debate was a little tongue in cheek (obviously) but it really cracks me up

that all of you concede the point. The only argument I'm getting is "yeah we know they suck but that's no reason to support Hillary!" Where is the defense of the Republicans? lol.

Why would I defend the GOP if they don't represent what I want to see in Washington? This lesser of two evils bull#### is what has this country in the position it's in. Why would I contribute to that?

Are you going to vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.