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. (1 Viewer)

So this is where we pretend we were talking about the Jones case and not the Monica case?  Ok....that was a civil case.  Describing the ruling there as "convicted of perjury" is disingenuous at best.  

 
The Commish said:
So this is where we pretend we were talking about the Jones case and not the Monica case?  Ok....that was a civil case.  Describing the ruling there as "convicted of perjury" is disingenuous at best.  
Click to expand...
Actually Clinton's testimony was in the Jones case about his relationship with Monica.

The judge found him guilty of contempt for "giving false testimony"- which is considered perjury in any court proceeding, even a civil case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a fun idea. We should spend time debating the exact nature of the alleged criminal activity of a former politician's husband a quarter-century ago, and whether that somehow makes her entirely accurate and relevant tweet hypocritical, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on its obvious accuracy and relevance!

Oops, looks like you guys already have it covered. Great work :thumbup:

 
TobiasFunke said:
I have a fun idea. We should spend time debating the exact nature of the alleged criminal activity of a former politician's husband a quarter-century ago, and whether that somehow makes her entirely accurate and relevant tweet hypocritical, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on its obvious accuracy and relevance!

Oops, looks like you guys already have it covered. Great work :thumbup:
Click to expand...
No one makes you click the thread. Just saying 

 
TobiasFunke said:
I have a fun idea. We should spend time debating the exact nature of the alleged criminal activity of a former politician's husband a quarter-century ago, and whether that somehow makes her entirely accurate and relevant tweet hypocritical, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on its obvious accuracy and relevance!

Oops, looks like you guys already have it covered. Great work :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Or maybe Hillary should just sit this one out.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I have a fun idea. We should spend time debating the exact nature of the alleged criminal activity of a former politician's husband a quarter-century ago, and whether that somehow makes her entirely accurate and relevant tweet hypocritical, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on its obvious accuracy and relevance!

Oops, looks like you guys already have it covered. Great work :thumbup:
Click to expand...
We shoot the GOP messenger all the time because it's inappropriate to come from those people.  I see no reason that this shouldn't happen to the Dem side either.  Sorry that bothers you :shrug:

It would stand to reason that if your ultimate goal is to get rid of Trump, you'd want the clearest, concise message and messenger.  She's not it and will never be it.

 
The Commish said:
you keep digging :thumbup:  
Click to expand...
Giving false testimony before a court is not perjury? To my understanding it is in every court in every jurisdiction in this country. But if you say it isn't perjury, I am not going to continue to argue with you over this especially with your condescending attitude.

Have a good day sir.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Big loss for them, because if anybody knows cyber security it’s Hillary Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton withdrew from the cybersecurity conference where she was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, citing an “unforeseen circumstance,” according to an email from the FireEye Cyber Defense Summit.

Clinton — who infamously transmitted classified information over a homemade server once housed in her bathroom — was the centerpiece of the October 9-10 summit in Washington, where Clinton was to have “engage[d] in a Q&A discussion with FireEye CEO, Kevin Mandia on the geopolitical landscape and its implications for global cyber security today.”

The FireEye “Cyber Defense Summit brings together many of the world’s leading security experts, frontline heroes, government leaders, and executives from various industries to address the challenges of today’s threat landscape,” its website says.

An email from FireEye sent Tuesday said “Due to an unforeseen circumstance, Secretary Clinton will no longer be able to participate in this year’s conference. Additional speakers will be announced as confirmed. We look forward to hosting attendees in October with a comprehensive program at our 10th annual event.”

FireEye did not immediately respond to a request for more information from the Daily Caller News Foundation, nor did Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill.

The email was published by Nate Cain, an IT professional and federalwhistleblower. A source close to FireEye confirmed that “something is up” with the Clinton speech, and there is no mention of the keynote on the conference’s website.

Clinton ran an insecure homemade server that she used for official business while secretary of State. A congressman said the Intelligence Community Inspector General found that the server was hacked by China.

As investigators began scrutinizing the server, some of its contents were deleted. When a reporter asked if she wiped the server, she responded, “What, like with a cloth or something? I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
Click to expand...
https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/04/hillary-clinton-cybersecurity-conference/

 
TobiasFunke said:
I have a fun idea. We should spend time debating the exact nature of the alleged criminal activity of a former politician's husband a quarter-century ago, and whether that somehow makes her entirely accurate and relevant tweet hypocritical, which of course has no bearing whatsoever on its obvious accuracy and relevance!

Oops, looks like you guys already have it covered. Great work :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Serious question toby, where do we draw the line on what is ok to discuss? 

I mean look at all the debate about some tweets and 13 seconds of chanting. How dare anybody be discussing that when we have a homeless woman that was stabbed 11 times by a man that a judge determined was no longer a risk because he was too old. Oh yeah she was stabbed in front of her two boys that are 11 and were also on the streets with her. 

Maybe after our lengthy discussions about criminal justice, child welfare (us citizen child welfare since non citizen child welfare is already front and center), and homelessness we can move on to tweets. 

(I am not saying we cant be discussing tweets, i am simply using this as an example of how there is always a worse or more relevant topic to dismiss almost anything. So dismissing criticism of the tweet as if it is unimportant is really silly since discussing the tweet is obviously so far below other issues) 

I just think lately that you are relying a bit too much on sarcastic dismissals rather than posts that have solid criticisms backed up with good links. There are few posters on here that i look forward to posts that have hyperlinks. I pretty much read every link i ever see you post and i just click in it without checking what the url says. I am sure other people do too whether they would admit it or not. Take it for what it is worth. 

 
Mystery Achiever said:
I don't know if this clears anything up, but Evergreen is/was her Secret Service code name
Click to expand...
right, i caught that part. just wasn't sure if it was an inside joke to the guy he was replying too, some non-sequitur, or an insinuation that HRC was somehow tied to Epstein in all of this.

all the "Q" tweets in there made me a little skeptical of the latter.

 
Quint said:
right, i caught that part. just wasn't sure if it was an inside joke to the guy he was replying too, some non-sequitur, or an insinuation that HRC was somehow tied to Epstein in all of this.
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't see it was in the comments til just now. Jake probably enjoys being cryptic.

 
Sheriff Bart said:
Refuting a false claim, defending yourself against an unjust attack or calling out the POTUS's lies isn't trolling. 
Click to expand...
There is certainly a lot of that, there's also a lot of people - politicians and otherwise - who are making a living or building a campaign trying to contradict literally everything he says.  

 
Smack Tripper said:
But can you imagine if she was dealing with the presidency?
Click to expand...
If she kept Trump's schedule she'd be just fine. Dude watches TV all morning, tweets a bit on the can. Then golfs on his 4 day weekend. Gives a pep rally speech every month or so to feed his tiny little heart.

 
The General said:
If she kept Trump's schedule she'd be just fine. Dude watches TV all morning, tweets a bit on the can. Then golfs on his 4 day weekend. Gives a pep rally speech every month or so to feed his tiny little heart.
Click to expand...
I don't know whether its the speed but he's remarkably vital for all his obvious health question marks or red flags.  She looks like homer trying to get disability 

 
Smack Tripper said:
I don't know whether its the speed but he's remarkably vital for all his obvious health question marks or red flags.  She looks like homer trying to get disability 
Click to expand...
He does seem to feed on attention and is impervious to the pressure and stress normal humans would feel lying for days on end in public eye. He seriously spends more time on his makeup than a Kadashian though and doesn't really do anything most days so he is able to just put on his hair hat and get freshly painted every morning.

When he went to Europe a couple of weeks ago he looked like death warmed over for the next week.

 
DNC should just put up the stop sign and tell her no.  She helped give us what we have now.  She had her shot and blew it.  

 
I'll be the contrarian here...I would not rule this out categorically.

I think she would have a better chance than some of the current candidates for a variety of reasons - most of which relate to comparing her to Trump.

I was anti-Hillary in 2016, I would at least be neutral if she ran in 2020.  I think many people who were against Clinton, would now see her in a different light after 3+ years of Trump.  And "emails" seems so 2016 right now, that I don't think it matters.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I'll be the contrarian here...I would not rule this out categorically.

I think she would have a better chance than some of the current candidates for a variety of reasons - most of which relate to comparing her to Trump.

I was anti-Hillary in 2016, I would at least be neutral if she ran in 2020.  I think many people who were against Clinton, would now see her in a different light after 3+ years of Trump.  And "emails" seems so 2016 right now, that I don't think it matters.
Click to expand...
This would be exactly the scenario where I'd vote third party again :shrug:   

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
She does him a favor just by tweeting this. 
Click to expand...
Yep, and serves as a perfect example of why she shouldn't run again. The game has passed her by and she's tone deaf.

I mean, she got beat once already, there's really no reason to think it ends differently a second time.

 
IF she did enter the race and IF she somehow garnered a substantial amount of support to become nominee again, I’d more than likely not vote at all.  I already despise party politics as a general rule, but a rehash of failure that would be nothing more than a stance of “anything but Trump” rather than embracing the young faces with ideas and goals to push us forward would have me abandon voting all together.  One party already is party/power over country, if the other embraces it then I’m just done...that said, I don’t think this is a real possibility 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
810
jm192
jm192
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
454
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
OP/ED: GEKKO WAS WRONG, 2016 POTUS Results Were Clearly Not The Product Of A "Free And Fair" Election (10/6/22 02:43 PST)
Replies
9
Views
462
The Dude
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top