What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ghost Rider said:
Exactly.  It's all about power and the prestige of being the first woman president.

And the sad thing is, that moment won't be nearly as impactful as Obama being the first black president.  Obama's moment was powerful because he was well liked at the time, the base was excited about him, and the moment itself, of him becoming the first black president, was euphoric. 

On the flip side, Clinton becoming the first woman president will be viewed by many as a major let down.  Instead of being excited about her, the vast majority, by and large, views her as unlikable and merely the lesser of two evils in this election.  Her moment won't be anything nearly anyone remembers. 
Click to expand...
I would have agreed with that a month ago, but Clinton overcoming the misogyny  /sexual aggression of Trump over the past month will put her triumph in a much better light for a whole bunch of women who weren't totally behind her.

 
shader said:
I have a serious question. So imagine that this thing got really, really nasty.  Like to the point where a bunch of stuff came out in the days leading up to the election that 100% disqualified both candidates?  What would happen?  
Click to expand...
Well you don't really vote for a candidate. You vote for electors. Those electors then vote for the candidate that won their state. If both were disqualified at this late date, voting has already started, the Electoral College would vote for someone probably the VPs of the candidates. Then it woudl go to the House. If one VP had enough electors he would be put through by the House as normal. If neither did then the House would decide who would be president.

 
NCCommish said:
Well you don't really vote for a candidate. You vote for electors. Those electors then vote for the candidate that won their state. If both were disqualified at this late date, voting has already started, the Electoral College would vote for someone probably the VPs of the candidates. Then it woudl go to the House. If one VP had enough electors he would be put through by the House as normal. If neither did then the House would decide who would be president.
Click to expand...
:loco:

 
cstu said:
What's Hillary motivation for going through all of this, her entire life dragged through the mud, her husbands mistresses being shoved in her face?  Just to collect more money that she's not going to spend before she dies?
Click to expand...
The ego stroke of being the first female president 

 
cobalt_27 said:
I've actually worried about worse.  Organized homicide, outright advocated by Trump, seems almost inevitable at this point.  
Click to expand...
Wait until he loses and claims it was because of fraud. That's when you have to really worry about violence. I also wouldn't rule out election day violence at polling stations. He has been prepping to lose for a while and has his drooling followers thinking he can only lose if he is somehow robbed of the win, by "those" people in certain areas. They know who he is talking about. The other.

 
shader said:
I have a serious question. So imagine that this thing got really, really nasty.  Like to the point where a bunch of stuff came out in the days leading up to the election that 100% disqualified both candidates?  What would happen?  
Click to expand...
War with Russia?

 
cstu said:
What's Hillary motivation for going through all of this, her entire life dragged through the mud, her husbands mistresses being shoved in her face?  Just to collect more money that she's not going to spend before she dies?
Click to expand...

“I always asked the question, ‘Am I the most powerful person in the room?’  The answer needed to be yes. To this day I still ask that question. And the answer is still yes. In every room in the entire world, the answer IS yes. With the exception of one…or two. And that drives me. I intend to leave a legacy, the standard of which was set by God when he created the Earth and man after his own image. Anything less is not worth mentioning.”
Click to expand...

why do billionaires keep working ?  

 
tommyGunZ said:
Not a fan of the Free thought project but I've seen that part from the speech leaked elsewhere and it's disappointing.  Like when Obama was running and was against gay marriage, this is something I hope she evolves on, although I'm not sure it really matters at this point.  Horse is out of the barn.
Click to expand...
Looking like legal pot is going to pass in at least most, if not all, the places it is up for a vote. She will evolve when it will cause a problem for her not to. And not before. So I would guess not before she has to run again.

 
So Hillary is doing her happy shimmy somewhere.

Despite a ton of leaked emails that don't look at all good for her Trump is sucking up all the air. 4 women have come forward today saying he groped them. One of them on an airplane she had to go hide with the stewardesses to get away.

Then it's been confirmed by multiple contestants that he liked to walk in on Miss Teen USA, some of whom were as young as 15, when they were getting changed. And it was announced the case against him for raping an underage girl would be in court in December. Sadly that is only a civil case. Lastly, for today, CBS released video of Trump ogling a ten year old and saying he would be dating her in 10 years. Pattern anyone?

So once again running against Trump is saving Hillary from herself.

 
NCCommish said:
Then it's been confirmed by multiple contestants that he liked to walk in on Miss Teen USA, some of whom were as young as 15, when they were getting changed. And it was announced the case against him for raping an underage girl would be in court in December. Sadly that is only a civil case. Lastly, for today, CBS released video of Trump ogling a ten year old and saying he would be dating her in 10 years. Pattern anyone?
Click to expand...
I really hope Tiffany Trump isn't another Matt Sandusky.

 
Jayrod said:
The Clintons takes millions in their foundation from governments and people who are seeking influence with the US government.  She has a clear cut conflict of interest that she both refused to acknowledge nor alleviate.  I'm pretty ####### sick and tired of everyone acting like it's not a big deal.  Just because you can't prove pay to play doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  That's why every other professional organization and governmental agency in the country has conflict of interest rules in place.  One of my estimators got a phone call that a report was being filed because she had brought lunch to a federal employee on a job we had already been awarded.  A CPA can't receive any gifts whatsoever from a company they are doing an audit for.  Yet our Secretary of State and likely President can take in literally millions of dollars from other countries into a foundation that she has direct control over and we don't even bat an eye.  It's ridiculous and everyone that voted for her in the primary should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.  She is a dirty, crooked politician and doesn't deserve a seat on a local school board, much less the Presidency of the United States.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand, and never will, is how Conservatives are going sideways over this issue specifically, yet are perfectly OK with leaving big money in politics, support Citizen's United, etc.

Not a fan of people buying access to the Clintons by donating to their charity. I do think that stinks. But how is it any different from Corporations buying access by donating millions to Super-Pacs dedicated to their candidate? It's functionally and morally the same to me. No...actually I'd rather see the access "bought" via charitable donations, if it has to be bought at all.

Big money in politics is THE problem, not this stupid foundation BS. That's nothing but one of the more benign examples of it, and IT is hardly limited to the Clintons. It's a stupid thing to fight over or whine about.

 
I watched Schwarzenegger during his run as California governor and the news cycle went into the gutter with him too.  He wound up divorced from Shriver, with a kid from the housekeeper, and he was getting labeled a sexual predator at the end there.  Once he was out of politics, all of it was magically washed away, forgiven, and forgotten and he went back to acting in Terminator genisys and Maggie like it never happened.  

I'm curious to see if the same thing happens to Trump when he loses.  

 
Riversco said:
I watched Schwarzenegger during his run as California governor and the news cycle went into the gutter with him too.  He wound up divorced from Shriver, with a kid from the housekeeper, and he was getting labeled a sexual predator at the end there.  Once he was out of politics, all of it was magically washed away, forgiven, and forgotten and he went back to acting in Terminator genisys and Maggie like it never happened.  

I'm curious to see if the same thing happens to Trump when he loses.  
Click to expand...
Dont recall that. Just an adulterer.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Dont recall that. Just an adulterer.
Click to expand...
There were stories coming out about how Schwarzenegger was a sexual predator during his peak years as a bodybuilder, how Arnold would aggressively go up to women and grope them.  The second Schwarzenegger stopped being a politician, all of this magically went away.  Just wodnering if the same thing happens to Trump.  This article came about on october 3rd, just a few days before the election to make him governor on October 7th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger

During his initial campaign for governor, allegations of sexual and personal misconduct were raised against Schwarzenegger, dubbed "Gropegate".[86] Within the last five days before the election, news reports appeared in the Los Angeles Times recounting allegations of sexual misconduct from several individual women, six of whom eventually came forward with their personal stories.[87]

Three of the women claimed he had grabbed their breasts, a fourth said he placed his hand under her skirt on her buttock. A fifth woman claimed Schwarzenegger tried to take off her bathing suit in a hotel elevator, and the last said he pulled her onto his lap and asked her about a sex act.[86]

Schwarzenegger admitted that he has "behaved badly sometimes" and apologized, but also stated that "a lot of [what] you see in the stories is not true". This came after an interview in adult magazine Oui from 1977 surfaced, in which Schwarzenegger discussed attending sexual orgies and using substances such as marijuana.[88] Schwarzenegger is shown smoking a marijuana joint after winning Mr. Olympia in the 1975 documentary film Pumping Iron. In an interview with GQ magazine in October 2007, Schwarzenegger said, "[Marijuana] is not a drug. It's a leaf. My drug was pumping iron, trust me."[89] His spokesperson later said the comment was meant to be a joke.[89]

British television personality Anna Richardson settled a libel lawsuit in August 2006 against Schwarzenegger, his top aide, Sean Walsh, and his publicist, Sheryl Main.[90] A joint statement read: "The parties are content to put this matter behind them and are pleased that this legal dispute has now been settled."[90] Richardson claimed they tried to tarnish her reputation by dismissing her allegations that Schwarzenegger touched her breast during a press event for The 6th Day in London.[91] She claimed Walsh and Main libeled her in a Los Angeles Times article when they contended she encouraged his behavior.[90]

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/oct/02/local/me-women2


Women Say Schwarzenegger Groped, Humiliated Them


The acts allegedly took place over three decades. A campaign aide denies the accusations.

October 02, 2003|Gary Cohn, Carla Hall and Robert W. Welkos | Times Staff Writers


ix women who came into contact with Arnold Schwarzenegger on movie sets, in studio offices and in other settings over the last three decades say he touched them in a sexual manner without their consent.

In interviews with The Times, three of the women described their surprise and discomfort when Schwarzenegger grabbed their breasts. A fourth said he reached under her skirt and gripped her buttocks.

A fifth woman said Schwarzenegger groped her and tried to remove her bathing suit in a hotel elevator. A sixth said Schwarzenegger pulled her onto his lap and asked whether a certain sexual act had ever been performed on her.

According to the women's accounts, one of the incidents occurred in the 1970s, two in the 1980s, two in the 1990s and one in 2000.



"Did he rape me? No," said one woman, who described a 1980 encounter in which she said Schwarzenegger touched her breast. "Did he humiliate me? You bet he did."

 
BassNBrew said:
Who the #### is Ken Griffin and Joy Reid?

Do you ever have a thought of your own?
Click to expand...
The great thing about this Tweeter shtick is you can post the most ignorant and obnoxious crap and then when called out on it just claim it wasn't you it's just a guy you were quoting.  I think everyone else can agree (with the exception of maybe Tim) is if we wanted to read ignorant tweets from obnoxious jerks we would signup and be on Twitter. 

 
NCCommish said:
What a load of ####. Hillary knows what's in her donors interest. And her interest. She doesn't give a rats ### what's in my interest unless it happens to cross over into one of those two areas.

These people are no smarter than you and i. In fact most of them aren't as smart. And they are very, very self interested.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:  

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
They were more than happy if the man you and many others around here fear to be the GOP nominee.  That's WORSE than the people actively voting for someone other than him.  They were happy that he'd be the opponent, which means they were more than comfortable taking the risk.  You can excuse/dismiss this?  
Click to expand...
I neither excuse it nor condemn it. I think they underestimated the danger, but so have a lot of people. 
Click to expand...
But you'll condemn/admonish (whatever term you want to use) people for not voting for Hillary and take the time to subscribe some sort of "your vote means x...." shtick because of your fear of Trump.  You say the system is fine, but it produced Trump which scares you to death.  You've assigned blame to the electorate yet you do your best tap dance NOT to assign blame to the people pulling the strings of our political process.

At a bare minimum you should be holding them accountable for their incredible lack of judgment if you really believe they "underestimated" the danger.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Not a fan of the Free thought project but I've seen that part from the speech leaked elsewhere and it's disappointing.  Like when Obama was running and was against gay marriage, this is something I hope she evolves on, although I'm not sure it really matters at this point.  Horse is out of the barn.
Click to expand...
You don't have to worry about an evolution.  She'll flip as soon as she realizes it's politically wise to do so.  We've seen this a hundred times already.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
I didn't doubt that there were some stories, just that the "he's a predator" was never a running trend.
Click to expand...
I don't know if Arnold was a predator -- I have to admit that I don't have total recall of that era.  Maybe he's just getting a raw deal.  What I do know is that when he was running for governor, he was a running man who was plagued by these sorts of issues, any one of which could have been the terminator of his fledgling political career.  

 
The Commish said:
But you'll condemn/admonish (whatever term you want to use) people for not voting for Hillary and take the time to subscribe some sort of "your vote means x...." shtick because of your fear of Trump.  You say the system is fine, but it produced Trump which scares you to death.  You've assigned blame to the electorate yet you do your best tap dance NOT to assign blame to the people pulling the strings of our political process.

At a bare minimum you should be holding them accountable for their incredible lack of judgment if you really believe they "underestimated" the danger.
Click to expand...
Well let's go over this: 

1. I haven't condemned or admonished anyone for not voting for Hillary. I think you should, and hope you will. But if Trump wins (and I'll concede that doesn't seem likely at this point) the only ones to blame will be the people that voted for him. Period. 

2. We'll be discussing what produced Trump for years, but it was not the system I was defending. 

3. As I wrote earlier, I see no evidence that anyone on the Democrat side is able to "pull the strings" for the Republican side (actually, and this is a very important point: in the case of a populist candidate like Trump, NOBODY can pull the strings, including himself. Populism is a wave that one can ride like a surfer but can never control.) 

4. I'd hold them accountable if they had anything to do with it. 

 
Riversco said:
I watched Schwarzenegger during his run as California governor and the news cycle went into the gutter with him too.  He wound up divorced from Shriver, with a kid from the housekeeper, and he was getting labeled a sexual predator at the end there.  Once he was out of politics, all of it was magically washed away, forgiven, and forgotten and he went back to acting in Terminator genisys and Maggie like it never happened.  

I'm curious to see if the same thing happens to Trump when he loses.  
Click to expand...
Am I to infer that the news cycle made him screw his house keeper? :loco:

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't know if Arnold was a predator -- I have to admit that I don't have total recall of that era.  Maybe he's just getting a raw deal.  What I do know is that when he was running for governor, he was a running man who was plagued by these sorts of issues, any one of which could have been the terminator of his fledgling political career.  
Click to expand...
Arnold also played it differently...basically admitted he was a womanizer and he was sorry.  It's not the act so much, but contrition versus hubris. 

There's also the fact that the 90s and the first part of the 2000s were a vastly different time with respect to both public perceptions about sex/sexual assault (this goes for both Arnold and Clinton) and the fact that both of them are (for the majority of the public) positive people who don't seem predators.  Trump just screams the bad boss who would do stuff like this to people (and he has himself to blame for that from his public persona during the 90s-00s and the whole Apprentice schtick).  The overall narrative of who someone is matters and Trump's is the daddy-figure who can do whatever he wants whenever he wants to whoever he wants (and don't say that's a media creation since that's how he has portrayed himself for 30 years).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't know if Arnold was a predator -- I have to admit that I don't have total recall of that era.  Maybe he's just getting a raw deal.  What I do know is that when he was running for governor, he was a running man who was plagued by these sorts of issues, any one of which could have been the terminator of his fledgling political career.  
Click to expand...
Nicely done. Funny that Arnold came up here, was just thinking about him in the midst of this Trump fiasco.  It's like you and I are twins.  Who would have ever imagined that?  Must be the end of days.

Anyway, back in the 1990s I dated the daughter of an actress of Arnie's generation and she told me was that he was incredibly sexually aggressive. She said he'd do things like sneak up behind women and grab them by the hips and start dry-humping them- not like at the club or something, just in the middle of the afternoon on set. She never shared any other Hollywood gossip with me, this was the one thing she told me about. So I assume it was pretty over the top. I was amazed when he ran for governor that he was able to overcome that past.

 
timschochet said:
3. As I wrote earlier, I see no evidence that anyone on the Democrat side is able to "pull the strings" for the Republican side (actually, and this is a very important point: in the case of a populist candidate like Trump, NOBODY can pull the strings, including himself. Populism is a wave that one can ride like a surfer but can never control.) 

4. I'd hold them accountable if they had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...
It's not any more than being part of the political process Tim.  If I can accept that my actions contribute to the outcomes in elections, it should be easy to see that those who create/mold the process would contribute as well.  We are all part of the system.  That system produced Trump.  It's produced all our candidates.  The question is, are you ok with a system that allows the possibility of Trump to begin with?  I'm not.  You are.  We're never going to agree if we are that far apart.  

 
Can Biden and Romney please step in for Clinton and Trump? This is getting incredibly bad for both sides and the country.

 
For those who have asked before about reasons to support Clinton other than the awfulness of her opponent, the Post's endorsement today makes the case
.

Hillary Clinton for President

Some of the Trump-free text:

It is fair to read Ms. Clinton’s career as a series of learning experiences that have prepared her well for such an environment. As first lady, she failed when she tried to radically remake the American health-care system. Instead of retreating, she reentered the fray to help enact a more modest but important reform expanding health-care access to poor children.

Her infamous “reset” with Russia offers a similar arc. We have not hesitated to criticize the Obama administration’s foreign policy, including its lukewarm support for Ukraine in the face of a Russian invasion, but criticism of the “reset” is off-base. When Ms. Clinton launched the policy, Dmitry Medvedev, not Vladimir Putin, was president of Russia, and nobody — maybe not even Mr. Putin — knew how things would play out. It was smart to test Mr. Medvedev’s willingness to cooperate, and in fact the United States and Russia made progress under Ms. Clinton’s leadership, including in nuclear-arms control and in facilitating resupply of U.S. troops in Afghanistan across Russian territory. As Mr. Putin reasserted himself and Russia became more hostile, Ms. Clinton was clear-eyed about the need to adjust U.S. policy.

She was similarly clear-eyed after winning election to the Senate in 2000. You might have expected her to hold some grudges, especially toward Republican legislators who had lambasted her husband in the most personal terms during his then-recent impeachment and Senate trial. But colleagues in both parties found her to be businesslike, knowledgeable, intent on accomplishment, willing to work across the aisle and less focused than most on getting credit.
Professionals in the State Department offer similar testimonials about her tenure as secretary during Mr. Obama’s first term: She reached out, listened to diverse points of view and, more than many politicians who come to that job with their own small teams, was open to intelligent advice. She was respected by employees and by counterparts overseas. She set priorities, including ensuring that “women’s rights are human rights” would rise from slogan to policy.

Her 2016 presidential campaign offers one more case study of lessons learned — a model of efficiency and of large egos subordinated to a larger cause — after her far less disciplined 2008 effort.

Ms. Clinton, in other words, is dogged, resilient, purposeful and smart. Unlike Mr. Clinton or Mr. Bush when they ascended, she knows Washington; unlike Mr. Obama when he ascended, she has executive experience. She does not let her feelings get in the way of the job at hand. She is well positioned to get something done.

So what would she do? Her ambitions are less lofty than we would like when it comes, for example, to reforming unsustainable entitlement programs, and than many in her party would like, in their demand, for example, for free college tuition. But most of her agenda is commendable, and parts may actually be achievable: immigration reform; increased investment in infrastructure, research and education, paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy; sounder family-leave policies; criminal-justice reform. In an era of slowing growth and growing income inequality, these all make sense, as do her support for curbing climate change and for regulating gun ownership.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider said:
Exactly.  It's all about power and the prestige of being the first woman president.

And the sad thing is, that moment won't be nearly as impactful as Obama being the first black president.  Obama's moment was powerful because he was well liked at the time, the base was excited about him, and the moment itself, of him becoming the first black president, was euphoric. 

On the flip side, Clinton becoming the first woman president will be viewed by many as a major let down.  Instead of being excited about her, the vast majority, by and large, views her as unlikable and merely the lesser of two evils in this election.  Her moment won't be anything nearly anyone remembers. 
Click to expand...
Thanks, saved for posterity.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't know if Arnold was a predator -- I have to admit that I don't have total recall of that era.  Maybe he's just getting a raw deal.  What I do know is that when he was running for governor, he was a running man who was plagued by these sorts of issues, any one of which could have been the terminator of his fledgling political career.  
Click to expand...
I liked due to the Easter egg. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Nicely done. Funny that Arnold came up here, was just thinking about him in the midst of this Trump fiasco.  It's like you and I are twins.  Who would have ever imagined that?  Must be the end of days.

Anyway, back in the 1990s I dated the daughter of an actress of Arnie's generation and she told me was that he was incredibly sexually aggressive. She said he'd do things like sneak up behind women and grab them by the hips and start dry-humping them- not like at the club or something, just in the middle of the afternoon on set. She never shared any other Hollywood gossip with me, this was the one thing she told me about. So I assume it was pretty over the top. I was amazed when he ran for governor that he was able to overcome that past.
Click to expand...
If you want to sexually assault women and get away with it you had better look like Arnold.

 
Leeroy Jenkins said:
Am i missing something in these emails?  They dont seem bad to me.   
Click to expand...
No my point was the Right is shouting WIKILEAKS...GOLDMAN SPEECHES!!!!!!!!!!!111111we45tr42gt 

Well there's the text of a speech and guess what, it lines up with what she's saying publically.  Hell, Clinton should want that speech out there.  

 
Sammy3469 said:
No my point was the Right is shouting WIKILEAKS...GOLDMAN SPEECHES!!!!!!!!!!!111111we45tr42gt 

Well there's the text of a speech and guess what, it lines up with what she's saying publically.  Hell, Clinton should want that speech out there.  
Click to expand...
To be fair, i think that was the point of the email communication there. But they also say that the other speeches, while not preferred to be leaked or provided at later dates, have nothing to hide either. 

This just goes to prove that despite all the efforts to pin something on Hillary, there really is not anything. She turns out to be the most vetted (if not qualified) candidate we have had in the modern era.  All this actually makes me more comfortable with her as president. 

 
NCCommish said:
Multi-billionaires don't stop trying to hoard up more money. Why would the Clintons? They have "only" picked up around a hundred million personally. And 3.2 billion for the fund. Money and power. Power and money.
Click to expand...
This same criticism about money and power can be leveled at Trump's feet, as well. So this argument is a zero sum game. What it comes down to is intelligence and demeanor. IMO, Clinton wins both categories with ease. Do I wish I had better choices from both parties? Certainly. But I don't so I will opt with the candidate with more knowledge and experience. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top