squistion
Footballguy
Not to mention equating the actions of one person with all Democrats or those who voted for Hillary.
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 Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
So the person whom was nominated as their presidential candidate and is speaking to their troops in no way represents the Democratic party? I guess I could point to House leadership like Jerry Nadler who is already beating the drums for Kavanaugh impeachment. But Hillary is still out there as a Democrat standard-bearer making stadium tours speaking to her Dem followers.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Hillary Clinton hasn't been even up for an election in two years. Is Mitt Romney the representative of the Republican Party? The conversation was about the Democrat leadership. No, Hillary Clinton is not a leader of the Democratic Party. The Party is essentially leaderless right now, which is part of the conversation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Won't matter if they just get choked out. Then its a one-party system.parasaurolophus said:
Wow....two whole years since she was a candidate...that is like a whole half of a presidential election cycle. I wonder why she hasn't run since then? So Democrats have no leadership? That is one way to try to win the argument that their leadership is bad, I suppose. Not a great way.
-fish-
Footballguy
It's pretty accurate. Hillary Clinton is not the leader of the Democratic party nor its standard-bearer. I imagine that most Democratic candidates would like her to fade into the sunset. Continually demonizing her is just lazy, but I guess repeating Kellyanne Conway's talking points is about what we have come to expect.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'm not trying to win an argument about bad leadership. I'm just not of the opinion that someone who holds no office, no official party position, and hasn't won an election since 2006 is a leader of the party. Is John Kerry "Democratic Leadership"? He was Secretary of State more recently than she was.
Feinstein and Pelosi are probably leaders right now, though Harris, maybe Booker, and a few others are right up there pushing to take over. None of them have any real control over things. The DNC is headed by Mary Beth Cahill. Clinton is a celebrity in the party, unfortunately, but she isn't "party leadership."
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I think Henry Ford should lead the party with Saints as his consigliere.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Henry Ford gave you a totally reasonable, non-partisan response to your pointed questions about Dem leadership. Yet you continue to ramble on with negative and aggressively partisan nonsense about Hillary Clinton and the party, for purposes that are not remotely clear beyond wanting to weaponize one sentence uttered by one woman against every person who disagrees with you about politics.
When people call you a partisan troll, this is what they mean.
Insomniac
Footballguy
The party that does not control the Presidency is nearly always perceived as leaderless at this point in the election cycle. Losing POTUS candidates may as well have leprocy. The GOPers wouldn't have agreed that Mitt Romney was a leader of their party prior to the 2014 midterms.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Like, what does this accomplish? You're a smart guy. You know I can dozens of examples of Trump saying more egregiously partisan and nasty things in less time than it will take me to write this post, and dozens of examples of right-leaning people doing far more destructive and hateful things than vandalizing a truck just as easily. So why bother?
The point was no one is behaving like mature intelligent adults....as you claimed.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I can't help but wonder what the the GOP and it's apologists are going to do when Hillary Clinton dies. How many decades will they continue to bring her up? That has to be an exhausting life.
-fish-
Footballguy
They still have the Deep State. Generations of Clinton-controlled plants deep within the government, taking direction from Chelsea Clinton and Colin Kaepernick.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
If you are trying to make a point about how "everyone" is behaving, you have to point to more than two people.
And you almost certainly know that Dems/liberals/progressives don't consider Hillary Clinton to be anything close to their leader. People have been saying this in one form or another since November 10, 2016. You've likely heard it at least 50 times, just on this message board alone. So why pretend otherwise? And then why continue argue with people, and tell them you know better than they do who represents their interests, when you hear it yet again?
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If I were ever a major political figure, the scandal/gotcha news reports would make the current Trump news cycle look like 2015 media coverage of the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You know those people who insist Tupac is still alive and pulling the strings on hip hop even today?
You can disclaim the dog crud on your shoe isn't yours, but it still smells and it is still on your shoe until next presidential election.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Tom Hagen
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Like I said before ... when people call you a partisan troll, this is exactly what they mean.
Next time you throw a fit about how unfairly you're treated, about how you're a fair-minded guy interested in respectful dialogue, you can remember this juvenile nonsense. Several people gave patient, respectful answers to your aggressively partisan posts attempting to define other people's beliefs and affiliations for them.And then, instead of reading and replying thoughtfully, you just plowed ahead with more of the same. Why? What do you think this obviously flawed, idiotic analogy accomplishes?
And it's even worse that it's coming from a conservative who consistently tries to distance himself and his beliefs from the actual current Republican President. It's beyond hypocritical.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You're half right.Your google search history must be a strange and wonderful place.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
For it to be hypocritical Clinton would have to be the actual de facto leader of the party. He's trying to lie his way into being merely hypocritical.
I don't think he's lying. Jon believes what he writes, he'll make any excuse for anyone who has a R after their name. He's just another dolt who thinks Politics is a Sporting Event.
Unfortunately two years of Trump has turned you into a partisan troll. I properly took issue with an absurd statement declaring Democrats at the intelligent mature adults. I could have picked dozens of examples, but Hillary is the highest profile Democrat there is. Democrats picked her knowing full well who she is. Her stadium tour will attrak tens of thousands of Democrats. She still represents views and actions held by majority of Dems, who will behave exactly like the Republicans did during the Obama years. No one is acting like an adult. Sorry if some colorful analogies offended you.
Pardon me. I don't excuse Republican behavior, especially Trump. My point is they both behave terribly, not that my side is good and yours stinks.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
-fish-
Footballguy
Yes, you're well known for your criticism of Republicans and Trump. It's really strange that everyone thinks you're a partisan troll when you have such an evenhanded track record.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The analogy doesn't offend me, it's just a flawed analogy.
Looks like once again you've decided you're qualified to speak to how people across the aisle feel about things, while making no effort to actually understand them or address what they've actually said.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unlike what goes on here daily, I am not speaking for the other side. I am taking issue with the claim that Democrats are the mature intelligent adults in the room. It is quite funny that people are getting their underwear in a bind over this. Whether it is Hillary, the arsonists, the protestors, Feingold, online posters, those making death threats against Kavanaugh and his family....neither side has a claim at acting like adults.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
You are claiming that Hillary Clinton speaks for the party and the left despite the fact that everyone here who actually is a Dem or left of center is telling you that's simply not true.
And now you're lying about it.
It would take some serious mental gymstatics to show where I even remotely claimed that Hillary speaks for all Democrats. Hillary has her supporters, which are still a significant part of the Democrat party, but I never said what you claim.
squistion
Footballguy
toshiba
Footballguy
I am curious what you think is Bush bashing. I am not saying you are wrong, but what are some of the Obama Bush bashing highlights?
toshiba
Footballguy
What's this about? Why bring a decent discussion into the gutter? Seemed like TF was actually trying to have a conversation.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Saying things like Bush drove the economy into a ditch and complaining about the disastrous Bush policies while at the same time continuing virtually all of Bush's ecinimic policies.
toshiba
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
LOL. I'm pretty sure the "But Trump" posts will last a lot longer than any Clinton stuff. And the goalposts will shift when Trump isn't President.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I said you were "claiming that Hillary Clinton speaks for the party." You called her the "standard-bearer" for the party. You also repeatedly used her (along with some random guy setting fire to a truck) as your only support for what you claim was the entire party's immaturity.
timschochet
Footballguy
So I have a question that's been on my mind for a few weeks, and it remains unresolved:
Prior to the Ford accusation, there were many witnesses who spoke on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh, praising his decision-making, and calling him "perhaps the most qualified jurist ever to be named to the Supreme Court." Some of these witnesses were liberal professors of law. Indeed, he seemed to be universally respected.
On the other hand, I also heard detractors, some of them legal experts, refer to Kavanaugh as an unqualified partisan hack.
Both statements can't be true. I'm sure there are shades of gray here. But which answer is closer to the truth?
Prior to the Ford accusation, there were many witnesses who spoke on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh, praising his decision-making, and calling him "perhaps the most qualified jurist ever to be named to the Supreme Court." Some of these witnesses were liberal professors of law. Indeed, he seemed to be universally respected.
On the other hand, I also heard detractors, some of them legal experts, refer to Kavanaugh as an unqualified partisan hack.
Both statements can't be true. I'm sure there are shades of gray here. But which answer is closer to the truth?
The policies which lead to the financial crisis were not Bush's. The biggest issue were the securitizing of mortgages which was supported by Clinton and passed by a GOP Congress. It all came to a head under Bush. Bush actually warned of the oncoming problems, but no one had a will to change it and Bush did not take enough initiative to stop it.
The Commish
Footballguy
Time will tell I suppose. What do you mean by the bold? Which goalposts?
I am confident we'll be talking about Trump and his policies, ESPECIALLY around the economy, trade etc for years after he's gone.
