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.

The Hillary Clinton thread. 'Done' but not going away. (2 Viewers)

Hilts

Footballguy
"I'm done. I'm not running for office," Clinton said. But for those, including Democrats, who would like her to just go away? "Well, they're going to be disappointed,"

It looks like Hillary is getting herself in position to become an elder statesman within the party. That's not the same as running for office but if she succeeds in her latest goals it's still a pretty influential position within the party and she hasn't been shy expressing her disdain for the Bernie branch of the party. 

Clinton plots her role in 2018 midterms, ready to hit campaign trail.

ETA I know there used to be a long Hillary thread but search just showed something from Dodds about her running for mayor. :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Going to be fascinating to watch how this unfolds. I'm hoping that my party can withstand our version of tea party populism, but I'm not nearly as confident of that as I was 2 years ago before I watched progressives demonize HRC.  

The only thing worse than only having 1 party run by adults (currently situation) is having no parties run by adults.  

 
Going to be fascinating to watch how this unfolds. I'm hoping that my party can withstand our version of tea party populism, but I'm not nearly as confident of that as I was 2 years ago before I watched progressives demonize HRC.  

The only thing worse than only having 1 party run by adults (currently situation) is having no parties run by adults.  
:rolleyes:  

 
Going to be fascinating to watch how this unfolds. I'm hoping that my party can withstand our version of tea party populism, but I'm not nearly as confident of that as I was 2 years ago before I watched progressives demonize HRC.  

The only thing worse than only having 1 party run by adults (currently situation) is having no parties run by adults.  
Yes, when Sanders and Hillary are in a room together everyone thinks it's the lying, corrupt one that is the adult in the room.

 
Yes, when Sanders and Hillary are in a room together everyone thinks it's the lying, corrupt one that is the adult in the room.
This is a great post.  Not only are you utilizing tea party tactics, you're also literally repeating their BS talking points.  
Well played.  

 
This is a great post.  Not only are you utilizing tea party tactics, you're also literally repeating their BS talking points.  
Well played.  
:lmao:   Come on dude.   Really?   Of all the years of your posting and perspective I never thought you'd be the progressive/liberal to hitch your wagon the establishment DNC party and the political mainstay.  I thought you were more independent than that.

 
:lmao:   Come on dude.   Really?   Of all the years of your posting and perspective I never thought you'd be the progressive/liberal to hitch your wagon the establishment DNC party and the political mainstay.  I thought you were more independent than that.
IMO Gunz was pretty clearly talking about the supporters when he referred to adults in the room, not the politicians themselves. The words preceding the comment about adults in the room referenced the "progressives who demonize HRC," and he draw a parallel to tea party populism, also a grassroots movement. Pretending he was referring to Sanders (who he didn't mention at all and who never really demonized Clinton) rather than those supporters just to take another cheap shot at her is, presumably, the sort of childish stuff he was talking about.  Although in AAA's defense and yours, it could have just been an honest mistake.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO Gunz was pretty clearly talking about the supporters when he referred to adults in the room, not the politicians themselves. The words preceding the comment about adults in the room referenced the "progressives who demonize HRC." Pretending he was referring to Sanders (who he didn't mention at all and who never really demonized Clinton) rather than those supporters just to take another cheap shot at her is, presumably, the sort of childish stuff he was talking about.  Although in AAA's defense and yours, it could have just been an honest mistake.
No honest mistake - Gunz wants to make a post in a Hillary thread about establishment DNC being the adult in the room I think it's safe to interpret what he means.  And calling her a liar and corrupt isn't a cheap shot, it's the truth.  And this has nothing to do with the orange man so let's not go there.

 
IMO Gunz was pretty clearly talking about the supporters when he referred to adults in the room, not the politicians themselves. The words preceding the comment about adults in the room referenced the "progressives who demonize HRC," and he draw a parallel to tea party populism, also a grassroots movement. Pretending he was referring to Sanders (who he didn't mention at all and who never really demonized Clinton) rather than those supporters just to take another cheap shot at her is, presumably, the sort of childish stuff he was talking about.  Although in AAA's defense and yours, it could have just been an honest mistake.
So the adults in the room are the ones supporting the corrupt liar? Sounds about right.

 
This is a great post.  Not only are you utilizing tea party tactics, you're also literally repeating their BS talking points.  
Well played.  
What talking point?  There's no tactic here.  Unlike you I really don't care about sides.  I care about what I think is best for the country - if I thought that was a Libertarian or a Green party person I'd vote for them.  I'm not going to vote for someone just because they have a 'D' by their name.

 
tommy is right on the key issue, which has nothing to do with personal ethics. It's about policy. Bernie Sanders' anti-trade, populist positions on policy are immature and simplistic. Hillary's pro-free trade, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, and yes, pro-corporate policies are mature and realistic. tommy is also right, unfortunately, that this has become the minority POV.

 
IMO Gunz was pretty clearly talking about the supporters when he referred to adults in the room, not the politicians themselves. The words preceding the comment about adults in the room referenced the "progressives who demonize HRC," and he draw a parallel to tea party populism, also a grassroots movement. Pretending he was referring to Sanders (who he didn't mention at all and who never really demonized Clinton) rather than those supporters just to take another cheap shot at her is, presumably, the sort of childish stuff he was talking about.  Although in AAA's defense and yours, it could have just been an honest mistake.
I'm talking about the TGunz I knew pre 2016 election crapfest.  

 
No honest mistake - Gunz wants to make a post in a Hillary thread about establishment DNC being the adult in the room I think it's safe to interpret what he means.  And calling her a liar and corrupt isn't a cheap shot, it's the truth.  And this has nothing to do with the orange man so let's not go there.
He didn't mention the DNC either.  You're reading stuff into his post that's not there, which I think is telling.  He can explain his own post, but I think it's fairly obvious that the people he was calling childish are the people who demonized Clinton beyond all reason and evidence, borrowing language and tactics from right-wing talk radio. 

As for the bolded- that's a subjective evaluation, not "the truth." I don't think she's corrupt. She's never been charged with criminal corruption, never been admonished for a violation of regulations or guidelines related to corruption.  The best example of any sort of quid pro quo was that Russian uranium thing that immediately fell apart on closer inspection. You're free to think she's a corrupt liar if you want if that's your impression of her, but you don't get to pretend your opinion is fact. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He didn't mention the DNC either.  You're reading stuff into his post that's not there, which I think is telling.  He can explain his own post, but I think it's fairly obvious that the people he was calling childish are the people who demonized Clinton beyond all reason and evidence, borrowing language and tactics from right-wing talk radio. 

As for the bolded- that's a subjective evaluation, not "the truth." I don't think she's corrupt. She's never been charged with criminal corruption, never been admonished for a violation of regulations or guidelines related to corruption.  The best example of any sort of quid pro quo was that Russian uranium thing that immediately fell apart on closer inspection. You're free to think she's a corrupt liar if you want if that's your impression of her, but you don't get to pretend your opinion is fact. 
Who are the parties he was referring to?

 
The hatred against Hillary Clinton is emotional, deep set, and irrational. AAA Batteries offers a good example when he calls her corrupt without any clear evidence of her corruption.

Another example, prevalent in the internets, is that Hillary "stole" the nomination from Bernie Sanders with the help of the DNC. Whenever I have asked for specific proof of this accusation, I have been given two arguments:

1. Hillary was notified in advance about one of the questions she received in a debate. The fact that this question was obvious, of no surprise to anyone watching, is overlooked.

2. The debates were scheduled at the same time as football games. No evidence that this was done deliberately.

And that's it. That's the ENTIRETY of the evidence that Hillary "stole" the election. Yet apparently millions of Americans believe it.

 
Is she really a "liar"?  Her politifact scorecard is basically a carbon copy of Bernie Sanders' who people think is as pure as the driven snow.  Yeah, you can find examples of her lying, but it's quite a bit less than most politicians.  I feel like the narrative that she's a compulsive liar is more perception than reality.  It's especially rich coming from Trump supporters, who clearly don't value the truth whatsoever.

 
He didn't mention the DNC either.  You're reading stuff into his post that's not there, which I think is telling.  He can explain his own post, but I think it's fairly obvious that the people he was calling childish are the people who demonized Clinton beyond all reason and evidence, borrowing language and tactics from right-wing talk radio. 

As for the bolded- that's a subjective evaluation, not "the truth." I don't think she's corrupt. She's never been charged with criminal corruption, never been admonished for a violation of regulations or guidelines related to corruption.  The best example of any sort of quid pro quo was that Russian uranium thing that immediately fell apart on closer inspection. You're free to think she's a corrupt liar if you want if that's your impression of her, but you don't get to pretend your opinion is fact. 
He said party - maybe I shouldn't use them interchangeably but that's how I read it.  And look, he's the one coming in call progressives the tea party left and children.

You are right - I was stating my opinion based on my reading of things but when I say corrupt I don't mean she's done anything criminal - I'm saying she's taken sides of issues (and sometimes changed sides) to do what she considers to be in her best interest.  But do we really need to rehash all the Hillary stuff - we aren't going to change each others minds and I'm fine with that. 

 
The hatred against Hillary Clinton is emotional, deep set, and irrational. AAA Batteries offers a good example when he calls her corrupt without any clear evidence of her corruption.

Another example, prevalent in the internets, is that Hillary "stole" the nomination from Bernie Sanders with the help of the DNC. Whenever I have asked for specific proof of this accusation, I have been given two arguments:

1. Hillary was notified in advance about one of the questions she received in a debate. The fact that this question was obvious, of no surprise to anyone watching, is overlooked.

2. The debates were scheduled at the same time as football games. No evidence that this was done deliberately.

And that's it. That's the ENTIRETY of the evidence that Hillary "stole" the election. Yet apparently millions of Americans believe it.
So in the same post you admit the DNC was helping Hillary, while berating people for believing the same?

Hard to ignore the fact that Debbie became campaign manager as soon as she was ousted from the DNC.

Go away Hillary.

You're a sore loser and are just giving ammo to the GOP who would love nothing more than to talk about Hillary and Obama for the next 4-8 years.

 
The hatred against Hillary Clinton is emotional, deep set, and irrational. AAA Batteries offers a good example when he calls her corrupt without any clear evidence of her corruption.

Another example, prevalent in the internets, is that Hillary "stole" the nomination from Bernie Sanders with the help of the DNC. Whenever I have asked for specific proof of this accusation, I have been given two arguments:

1. Hillary was notified in advance about one of the questions she received in a debate. The fact that this question was obvious, of no surprise to anyone watching, is overlooked.

2. The debates were scheduled at the same time as football games. No evidence that this was done deliberately.

And that's it. That's the ENTIRETY of the evidence that Hillary "stole" the election. Yet apparently millions of Americans believe it.
Probably my last post on this as I'm really not interested in rehashing all this yet again.  Corrupt - having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain - I'm not saying she's a criminal, I say she's done stuff to further her own interests that I find dishonest and shady and unfortunately a lot of people agreed with me and hired a clown to run our country.

I don't think she stole anything - she won the nomination fair and square.

 
He said party - maybe I shouldn't use them interchangeably but that's how I read it.  And look, he's the one coming in call progressives the tea party left and children.

You are right - I was stating my opinion based on my reading of things but when I say corrupt I don't mean she's done anything criminal - I'm saying she's taken sides of issues (and sometimes changed sides) to do what she considers to be in her best interest.  But do we really need to rehash all the Hillary stuff - we aren't going to change each others minds and I'm fine with that. 
My take was that he was referring to the Dem and GOP "parties" and saying the GOP is obviously being run by children these days (although referring to Trump supporters as children is a huge insult to children), and he hopes the Dems aren't taken over by a similarly juvenile group of voters.  He can speak for himself, though.

Also, unfair demonization of Clinton aside, I think the far left progressives have been pretty responsible and fair at this early point in their "revolution." They're exerting a positive push on the leadership, as seen by the recent run of Senators coming out in favor of single payer. Single payer is not only good policy, it's now good politics. A couple people go overboard in search of ideological purity and have gone after people like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker with unfair attacks (and the bit about the Clintons owning slaves because felons worked at the governor's mansion was absurd), but mostly I think it's been a healthy process for the Dems/left.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
She's a "net negative". Likability favorables are abhorrent, very polarizing for middle Americans. Let her opinions hold what weight they will. I'd like to see her get more progressive on several issues like single payer to help pull the party.  

 
:lmao:

neighborhood rally 
You know, all you'd have to do to make the whole "New Hampshire voter fraud" thing go away is own it.  Pretty simple.  You wouldn't have to lash out at people and things you know nothing about just to deflect attention any more. Think of the freedom!  And it's not even a big deal- people say untrue things all the time.

Just something to think about, GB.

 
I have not been able to believe her since her story on forgetting that the Rose Law Firm Records were kept under the bed in the Lincoln bedroom and she just sort of forgot about that for a while, through multiple inquiries backed by legal process.  No attorney would believe that an attorney forgot their storage of their law firm records, none.

I found her many iterations of her story about being under enemy fire laughably bad lies.    Here is the thing, when someone has multiple and various accountings of the truth, and when an intelligent person wants to explain that partly by saying they do not understand the nuance and implications of their own words and it was all a nutty coincidence that it put them in a good rather than negative light, I don't believe them and I do not listen to those who try to sell that snake oil.  I emotionally handle snake oil salespersons with the aplomb of Josie Wales, I dismiss them by metaphorically spitting tobacco juice on their lapels. 

I did not buy anything she said on Benghazi or on her server. The truth may not be what her enemies were hoping to sell, but she clearly lied throughout.

 
I have not been able to believe her since her story on forgetting that the Rose Law Firm Records were kept under the bed in the Lincoln bedroom and she just sort of forgot about that for a while, through multiple inquiries backed by legal process.  No attorney would believe that an attorney forgot their storage of their law firm records, none.

I found her many iterations of her story about being under enemy fire laughably bad lies.    Here is the thing, when someone has multiple and various accountings of the truth, and when an intelligent person wants to explain that partly by saying they do not understand the nuance and implications of their own words and it was all a nutty coincidence that it put them in a good rather than negative light, I don't believe them and I do not listen to those who try to sell that snake oil.  I emotionally handle snake oil salespersons with the aplomb of Josie Wales, I dismiss them by metaphorically spitting tobacco juice on their lapels. 

I did not buy anything she said on Benghazi or on her server. The truth may not be what her enemies were hoping to sell, but she clearly lied throughout.
Pretty much this. Tgunz will now waltz in here and admonish you for having such a stringent purity test.

To the topic of the thread she will now be the albatross of the party until someone has the balls to cut her loose. 

 
Pretty much this. Tgunz will now waltz in here and admonish you for having such a stringent purity test.

To the topic of the thread she will now be the albatross of the party until someone has the balls to cut her loose. 
I don't agree with the specific criticism of the Benghazi stuff (the biggest nothingburger in modern political history) or the server (a sloppy mistake followed by sloppy defense, but not a nefarious one and it should not have been a fatal one by any stretch).

But I do agree that she needs to be cut loose just because she's such an easy target due to the years of attacks, fair or not, and the fact that she lost an election to a moron.  And I think she will be, fairly quickly. She has a right to tell her story and sell books, but candidates don't want anything to do with her and when the time comes they'll tell her as much.

 
"You made up a lie about voter fraud in the context of defending the election of a racist misogynistic moron you helped elect!"

"Yeah, well you attended a neighborhood rally in support of women's rights and equality!"

Wow, consider me humbled. You won this round, HT.
:rolleyes:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't agree with the specific criticism of the Benghazi stuff (the biggest nothingburger in modern political history) or the server (a sloppy mistake followed by sloppy defense, but not a nefarious one and it should not have been a fatal one by any stretch).

But I do agree that she needs to be cut loose just because she's such an easy target due to the years of attacks, fair or not, and the fact that she lost an election to a moron.  And I think she will be, fairly quickly. She has a right to tell her story and sell books, but candidates don't want anything to do with her and when the time comes they'll tell her as much.
I tend to agree with this.

BUT- in her absence somebody has got to take the leadership of the pro-business, pro-trade Democrats. Not sure yet who that will be- perhaps Corey Booker, perhaps, by default, Kamala Harris. (Harris comes off as more progressive but she seems to be distrusted by the Bernie wing, so that's why I think maybe she'll take over the mantle by default). But somebody's got to do it.

 
I don't agree with the specific criticism of the Benghazi stuff (the biggest nothingburger in modern political history) or the server (a sloppy mistake followed by sloppy defense, but not a nefarious one and it should not have been a fatal one by any stretch).

But I do agree that she needs to be cut loose just because she's such an easy target due to the years of attacks, fair or not, and the fact that she lost an election to a moron.  And I think she will be, fairly quickly. She has a right to tell her story and sell books, but candidates don't want anything to do with her and when the time comes they'll tell her as much.
One thing I want to add to this, on a bit of a historical note: prior to last year's election, the biggest upset in modern American history was Truman over Dewey in 1948. And just as now with Hillary, Republicans didn't want anything to do with Dewey.

But Dewey did not go away. In fact, he did become an elder statesman and a behind the scenes mover for the GOP, and he was extremely influential in the selection of the moderate Dwight Eisenhower over some extremist candidates that the base preferred (such as MacArthur.) I think this may very well be the role that Hillary envisions for himself.

 
Here is the thing, when someone has multiple and various accountings of the truth, and when an intelligent person wants to explain that partly by saying they do not understand the nuance and implications of their own words and it was all a nutty coincidence that it put them in a good rather than negative light, I don't believe them and I do not listen to those who try to sell that snake oil.  

I did not buy anything she said on Benghazi or on her server. The truth may not be what her enemies were hoping to sell, but she clearly lied throughout.
good summary

 
But I do agree that she needs to be cut loose just because she's such an easy target due to the years of attacks, fair or not, and the fact that she lost an election to a moron.  And I think she will be, fairly quickly. She has a right to tell her story and sell books, but candidates don't want anything to do with her and when the time comes they'll tell her as much.
She's already got a a PAC going for 2018. In Republican held territories where she won, it's going to be awfully enticing for the local Democrat candidates to bring her in and try helping the turnout.

If nothing else, the candidates will want her money and connections. 

 
But Dewey did not go away. In fact, he did become an elder statesman and a behind the scenes mover for the GOP, and he was extremely influential in the selection of the moderate Dwight Eisenhower over some extremist candidates that the base preferred (such as MacArthur.) I think this may very well be the role that Hillary envisions for himself.
History is full of politicians becoming a voice in the party once their time comes to a close for larger ambitions. Nixon is the biggest one that comes to mind, but in recent times we've had Kerry and Howard Dean. Some are welcome back sooner than others, but if you have money and connections somebody will want your influence. And Hillary has tons of both. 

 
She's already got a a PAC going for 2018. In Republican held territories where she won, it's going to be awfully enticing for the local Democrat candidates to bring her in and try helping the turnout.

If nothing else, the candidates will want her money and connections. 
As long as it's up to them, I guess. I hope she keeps a low profile. She was treated unfairly and that sucks, but she's pretty far down the list of people who've been treated unfairly in the era of voter suppression and the Trump-led GOP. If her presence helps them keep power and keep suppressing and scapegoating people, she needs to defer for the greater good.

 
This was interesting.

Instead we got someone who won because he promised a ####### wall.

"On page 239 of What Happened, Hillary Clinton reveals that she almost ran a very different campaign in 2016. Before announcing for president, she read Peter Barnes’s book With Liberty and Dividends for All, and became fascinated by the idea of using revenue from shared natural resources, like fossil fuel extraction and public airwaves, alongside revenue from taxing public harms, like carbon emissions and risky financial practices, to give every American “a modest basic income.”

Her ambitions for this idea were expansive, touching on not just the country’s economic ills but its political and spiritual ones. “Besides cash in people’s pockets,” she writes, “it would be also be a way of making every American feel more connected to our country and to each other.” 

This is the kind of transformative vision that Clinton was often criticized for not having. It’s an idea bigger than a wall, perhaps bigger even than single-payer health care or free college. But she couldn’t make the numbers work. Every version of the plan she tried either raised taxes too high or slashed essential programs. So she scrapped it. “That was the responsible decision,” she writes. But after the 2016 election, Clinton is no longer sure that “responsible” is the right litmus test for campaign rhetoric. “I wonder now whether we should’ve thrown caution to the wind, embraced [it] as a long-term goal and figured out the details later,” she writes."

 
Pretty much this. Tgunz will now waltz in here and admonish you for having such a stringent purity test.

To the topic of the thread she will now be the albatross of the party until someone has the balls to cut her loose. 
TGunz will get a respectful listen from me should he decide to do so.

 
Hillary's pro-free trade, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, and yes, pro-corporate policies
Apart from free trade (which is a loaded term to begin with), none of those things need champions in Federal government at this point. Quite the opposite in fact. If that's her platform, she should be a Republican and stop attempting to be a representative of the more liberal of the two major parties.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't agree with the specific criticism of the Benghazi stuff (the biggest nothingburger in modern political history) or the server (a sloppy mistake followed by sloppy defense, but not a nefarious one and it should not have been a fatal one by any stretch).

But I do agree that she needs to be cut loose just because she's such an easy target due to the years of attacks, fair or not, and the fact that she lost an election to a moron.  And I think she will be, fairly quickly. She has a right to tell her story and sell books, but candidates don't want anything to do with her and when the time comes they'll tell her as much.
Calculating lawyers and career politicians do not make sloppy defenses.  Their defenses are well advised and very calculated.  If lying includes deliberately and calculating misleading to try to create an untrue, favorable, and self serving impression, she lied.  The import of the lie I leave to others.  Myself I was not horrified by her fulfilling all of my expectations, but she lied.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, I do not know of a politician who has not lied, repeatedly and even habitually, and in insulting terms demeaning to the electorate.  I also acknowledge that sometimes, in politics, we want and need our politicians to lie.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top