If want you serious responses, try spending less time trolling and making stuff up.
Last edited by a moderator:
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 (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Calling someone a troll over and over again kind of makes you look like a troll.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Team Hillary has been putting out some seriously great ads this week. I just watched the one with the mom of the deaf kid and thought it was very powerful. The one with the Khans was also great.
Unlike you, I don't argue everything from some predetermined narrative. With the NSA in particular, you wrote hundreds of posts about why the metadata program was legal and moral without even knowing what metadata was. You did the same thing with the "boring" classified email issue.
You have repeatedly professed your ignorance and closed-mind on both issues, so you cannot claim it is just a matter of opinion
The Commish
Footballguy
That wasn't the idea put forth though Tim....do what you will my man. It doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I shouldn't have spent the time to point it out I suppose. All I am saying is that what you posted in the NSA thread is what you knew (which wasn't much....technically or otherwise) or it was trolling because you really DO know more than what you posted. It can't be both. That's all.....carry on.I'm rejecting the idea that unless I know the details of the technology behind what the NSA is doing, or in the case of Hillary's emails, the details about classified materials, that somehow I know "less" on these subjects than those who disagree with me, especially Slapdash. This is the typical argument of the technocrat and it's crap. I KNOW I Know more than Slapdash because all of his conclusions are based on his paranoid belief that this nation is ruled by a one party plutocracy. I don't need to know technical details to know that's wrong.You trapped yourself TimI had nothing to do with it. I don't know what premise you are rejecting....again, not established by me, rather yourself.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah, you've written this before. Yet it seems like every time I write something you disagree with, your response is to insult me, call me a troll or a clown. You seem to be unwilling to have a serious discussion in any event. I have tried to be respectful in my responses to you, not only because I agree with Joe's admonition to be excellent to each other, but also because when I read your posts (the ones that have nothing to do with me, anyhow) you seem like an intelligent guy with thoughtful opinions- I don't agree with a lot of them but I don't care about that. What I do care about is that as a result of your insults you make it exceedingly difficult to have any kind of fruitful conversation, and that does make me sad.
That is fair.
Personally, I'm way past the point of checking into threads seeing Tim spout the same close-minded arguments as a means to provoke reactions with people taking it seriously. A lot of us, like Saints and Politician Spock, have spent way too much time debating issues with Tim taking him at face-value. Hate to see other people make that mistake.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
A serious discussion takes at least two parties and, as your posts note, I'm more than happy to have them. You have repeatedly proven to be an unreliable party. That is the opposite of respectful
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
First off I'd like to think I'm not close-minded on anything. I changed my thoughts on several aspects of the NSA issue, thanks to some compelling arguments by Politician Spock and Rich Conway. Many of my convictions about gun control have been altered as well as a result of this forum, thanks mainly to Ditkaless Wonders and Icon. And I've changed my thoughts on a number of other issues as well.
Second, the arguments I made in the NSA thread were not originated by me- I repeated arguments made by experts that I happened to find compelling. I did not do it, as you just accused me of, in order to "provoke reaction" but because I thought many of you were going overboard. I still do. I never pretended to be knowledgeable on the technical details and if you want to call me ignorant on those, that's fine. But larger issues than just the technical ones were being discussed in that thread, such as whether or not what the NSA was doing was a violation of the 4th Amendment, etc., and on those issues I offered an opinion. The email issue was somewhat similar in this regard.
Finally, yes you DO appear to make many of your arguments from a predetermined narrative which I've already described. That, anyhow, is my strong impression.
The Commish
Footballguy
We need some of them down here. All I get to see most of the time is the one where she seems to think our 5 year olds are all sitting around watching Trump act like an idiot. Would be a nice change of pace. The Trump ones are terrible, but I HAVE seen some decent anti-Hillary ones around here, but not surprising, they weren't from the Trump campaign. Probably the most powerful one and the one I agree with the most is the Clinton Foundation accepting money from groups who abuse women and children (the people the foundation is fighting for). I forget who the group is.
timschochet
Footballguy
It isn't, at least not IMO. You and others convinced me that several of the points I made about the NSA were incorrect, and I became honestly worried about what they were doing. The post you cited is a result of your compelling arguments. Thank you for that.
Nonetheless, there were larger issues being argued in this thread on which I disagreed with you and still do. Namely dealing with the deliberateness of the NSA's activities, and whether or not the whole idea of collecting bulk information was a violation of individual privacy. We don't need to address those here, yet again. My point to Slapdash was that, in arguing those larger issues (which was the main thrust of my concern in that thread) I didn't need to know the technical details.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yeah, I only see them online. I've seen a few Trump ads on TV during football games but not a lot.
CNBC is really loving this immigrant telling everyone to vote Republican to stop socialism. See that one once a half-hour
timschochet
Footballguy
At least we agree on the bolded. Which of us is the "unreliable party" is certainly open to opinion, but I would note that only one of us has repeatedly called the other person a troll.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I just call it like I see it. Several people have pointed out the ways you troll and fish before. You're welcome to change.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
What's your background and experience related to classified information and security clearances?
In both instances this clown understands a little better than you do.
I'd guess that 95% of American voters haven't looked into these e-mails (in any depth at least), and 95% of those who have wouldn't change their vote regardless of their contents.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
It took hundreds of pages of your closed mindedness before you admitted you were wrong. First of all that's ridiculous. But to now equate what Slapdash was saying in that thread to 1984 analogies shows you are obsessed with categorizing anyone who disagrees with you as conspiracy theorists. Slapdash is right that our country is a plutocracy, but he's never from what I've seen insinuated that one party is running it. The rich are running our elections with their money.... but even they disagree on what they want. They don't have one political platform they are pushing. They are just pushing for what benefits them.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
I was watching an episode of Cyberwar, a show on Viceland, yesterday that was focused on the Sony Hack. The focus on the show was how it is generally accepted that North Korea hacked into Sony but that the evidence that it was really North Korea is pretty light. The hacker experts they had on there talked about how the hack itself didn't need to be at all sophisticated and there are lots of ways to make it appear that it was coming from North Korea despite that not really being the case. It does make me question whether the whole Putin/Russia connection with the Podesta/DNC hacks is being accepted as fact but might be really overblown.
I also caught a bit of the Cyberwar episode on Anonymous. I like the show.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Thanks I will look for these on DVR. - Fwiw I've based my conclusions on pieces in technical magazines like Motherboard. I don't doubt it's possible to alter, mask or cloud metadata but these hacks have really been piling up since at least 2013.
cstu
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Is there ANY doubt he's going to spin up his own cable TV station? It's just a matter of time.....and it will make Fox and MSNBC look sane.
JerseyToughGuys
Tough Guy
Boy that Clinton Foundation Morocco thing sure isn't a good look for Clinton.
But, Trump is Trump and it won't matter in the end.
But, Trump is Trump and it won't matter in the end.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
For anyone who wants a follow up on this, I have posted some articles in the DNC thread which I think are pretty convincing because of the source. Not the USGov or the DNC but people I consider great technical and security experts like Thomas Rid:
I will be glad to post some more, though I have largely been keeping this in the DNC thread.
timschochet
Footballguy
The Foundation thing that bothered me the most is the stuff about Haiti. That's the closest evidence to real corruption that I've seen. I heard Bob Woodward talk about it yesterday.
But I'm torn about what to do about it.
But I'm torn about what to do about it.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You don't have to do anything about it. This whole thread you've been campaigning instead of just looking at the reality of the situation, one way or the other. It can be true and you can still vote for her, because: the the Trump.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
The foundation is, in my opinion, no more and no less than the typical bull#### crap that goes on everyday. It's unsavory, it's something we need to address, but it happens literally at every level of government in a subtle and insidious way. The reality is, there are things that are important to each of us as individuals. If we happen to be in a position of power, others are going to find those levers and use them. Whether that means a quid pro quo, some influence but consciously, not conscious influence but influence none the less, no influence at all or perhaps no influence but it can buy access (albeit without breaking the law nor really ethics, even if it's not 100% clean) - we don't know.
Some places it's about donating to a certain charity - being seen at the big gala for example. Some places it's about hiring the "right" law firms. For others its an expectation that while there's no quid pro quo, if you want to be in the game (or just have access to talk to politicals/electeds off the record and in a social construct) then you need to be at paid fundraisers.
It's insidious, but it's also everywhere. And from all I know, the Clinton Foundation does a LOT of really good work. It does not seem at all to be a quid pro quo, but there's certainly some acknowledgement that helping the CF is a "good thing" to do if you want to iingratiate yourself to the Clintons... just don't see this as rising to anything above that, and I see far, far worse, as listed above, just about every day of my life. I'd love to know how many throwing stones at the CF indeed live in (far more fragile) glass houses built of their own hypocrisy.
timschochet
Footballguy
It goes beyond that. Let's suppose that all the charges are true. First, you're correct, Hillary needs to be elected, and it looks like she will.
But what then? If she didn't do anything criminal, then we ought to leave it alone. If she DID do something criminal (and I'm skeptical of this) then she ought to be investigated, except that we both know any investigation will be highly partisan and designed to impede her Presidency. I don't think that's good either. That's the part I'm torn about.
timschochet
Footballguy
I agree with most of this. But if actual crimes were committed, they shouldn't be ignored. I doubt however that actual crimes were committed. The Clintons NEVER commit actual crimes; they're always on the edge of what is permissible.
Koya
Footballguy
Call me tired of the tens of millions of dollars, countless resources and partisan division that has been lost due to 30 years trying to pin something on the Clintons. Enough already with the ####### investigations. Get to ###### governing already.
timschochet
Footballguy
Agree with this too. Unfortunately, though, the House will very likely remain Republican, and you just know the Tea Party types will be pressuring for all kinds of new investigations. So we'll see..
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is arguably an explanation - in the absence of Trump - of why she should not be president. What you are talking about is part and parcel of the Clintons, it comes with the package. We're returning to the 90s, we're going backward. But if it makes you feel any better the Clintons and Gop crafted a lot of conservative legislation together.
Last edited by a moderator:
JerseyToughGuys
Tough Guy
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
There's going to be Congressional hearings on something starting January 21. May as well fire up the thread now.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You and I are both institutionalists. We disagree on a lot but we agree on that. And to me to do that we need independent, reliable institutions. If we trust the FBI and if the FBI wants to investigate let them do that, let the chips fall where they may and the public should be allowed to know and discuss the details. To me the issue has always been ethics and conflict of interest. I'd feel better if they spun off or shut down the Foundation and call it a day.
G
Guest
Guest
Appreciate your awakening to her MO, Tim. And it is an MO. The newest O'Keefe stuff simply isn't on a scale I'd expect to lead to derailment and charges, but it's the same thing. She knows the laws. She breaks them openly. She has trust in the insular staff around her to keep it under wraps. They know they are committing crimes. They do it, rationalize it as the pragmatic thing to do and speak about it in hushed tones. The only anomaly with the stuff O'Keefe recorded is that it was caught. But no matter, it will be buried and despite video evidence it will be dismissed as inuendo and never prosecuted. And some will still have straight faces when they say that this stuff couldn't possibly happen, because you'd never be able to maintain ranks if so many knew about it. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Regardless of what happens on the other side, and I am sure it does, Hillary is rotten to her very core.
Even if you think the crimes committed here were minor, they were crimes -- and the DOJ should be compelled to prosecute. But good ####### luck! We the People are suckers and there is nothing we can do. Nothing.
Last edited:
Koya
Footballguy
I agree completely. One of the primary reasons Hillary turns me off, and why the Dems failed us by anointing their queen her destiny rather than someone who is not such a part of the problem rather than a new face and a solution.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
But this would arguably be allowing the politics of smear tactics and false accusations to triumph. "Who cares if there's evidence of wrongdoing? Just throw the kitchen sink at them and voters will reject them anyway!" Giving in to that simply insures that they'll be even more mudslinging and unfounded accusations in our politics in the future.
I don't really get the second part of your statement, about returning to the 1990s. Clinton is not her husband- in fact defining women that way seems kinda sexist. She was a liberal US Senator from 2000-2008, a liberal primary candidate in 2008, a moderate, too-hawkish-for-my-tastes Secretary of State from 2010-2013, and a liberal to moderate presidential candidate in 2016. We have plenty of more recent evidence of her political leanings, and she'll also be our first ever female president if she wins. We're not going back to the 90s in any identifiable way other than the name on the White House mailbox.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well it is happening and we know there will be investigations and they will start almost immediately. That's all I'm saying. If you want to put it 100% on the Republicans, fine, but it will be around the clock drama.
A note about one of your comments there - I wouldn't define a woman by her husband. However Hillary made claim for years to being a partner in her husband's administration, and taking her at her word I am sure he will be one in hers as well.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Fair point here. I still don't get the back to the 90s stuff though. If they've shown openness to progress- as she has with for example gay marriage and sentencing reform- I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
James Daulton
Footballguy
Hilldog up 5 in latest CNN poll. I think this should be a pretty huge advantage but I'm so used to hearing double digits (or close), that 5 points feels like a close race.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
