Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Good morning. All of you who despise the idea of Donald Trump as President, be of good cheer. It's tightened up, but he's not going to win. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It is a caricature and its a disingenuous disservice to our nation and it's resources.  I bought into that same picture, painted by the hard right, and accepted and forwarded even by many on the left.  

Doesn't make it true.   Surprised how many buy into the image that was created to achieve this very aim (including myself, upon realizing that I was buying into the negative hype, and actually forwarding it as well... doesn't mean I like her, nor that I will vote for her. But I did take a step back and gain a different perspective).

That said, my whole point is that Hillary's camp let this happened, and never really took the offensive in terms of promoting a different image.  Even if you do buy into / agree with the worst portrayals of her, you have to admit her team has done just an awful job trying to change the conversation or at least its tone.

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating.  The Wikileaks emails paint a very clear picture here.  Time and again, Hillary's staff gives good advice.  Time and again, she ignores it.  The problem is not "Hillary's camp" or "Hillary's team."  The problem is the candidate.

 

[timschochet]

Mr Tim, do you believe Mrs. Clinton has violated any federal laws? If so which ones. 

Don't know, really don't care. 

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I do agree with the worst portrayals of her and since you and about half the country don't I'd say her team has done a masterful job.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

This is a good summary of the Fox report last night.

- You can not believe but fwiw the reporting is from Catherine Herridge who was pretty much right on almost every report last spring and winter just a week to a month ahead of WaPo & NYT in most instances.

- I think the report that at least 5 foreign intelligence services hacked/accessed Hillary's server is important, new and almost certainly true.

Where do you get the reporting is from Herridge? I read this article earlier and thought to myself I would give it more validity if it was coming from her instead of Baier.

 

[Koya]

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating.  The Wikileaks emails paint a very clear picture here.  Time and again, Hillary's staff gives good advice.  Time and again, she ignores it.  The problem is not "Hillary's camp" or "Hillary's team."  The problem is the candidate.

That's a more than valid point. 

Much like I said when the shoe was on the other foot and people were killing Trump's PR team... like you can control a maniacal narcissist.

Her base personality faults likely can be the cause as well... but we at least saw Trumps team TRY to get him to pivot and there are things you can do in terms of commercials and messaging that I've just never seen from the Clinton camp. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Where do you get the reporting is from Herridge? I read this article earlier and thought to myself I would give it more validity if it was coming from her instead of Baier.

They cut to her after Baier during the Fox report last night. He was just reading the summary. I'd agree with you on that, I'll see if I can confirm it. This isn't Lou Dobbs/Hannity stuff at any rate. - eta - But you could be right there might be some editoriolization there.

 

[Sammy3469]

This is a good summary of the Fox report last night.

- You can not believe but fwiw the reporting is from Catherine Herridge who was pretty much right on almost every report last spring and winter just a week to a month ahead of WaPo & NYT in most instances.

- I think the report that at least 5 foreign intelligence services hacked/accessed Hillary's server is important, new and almost certainly true.

Serious question...how are indictments "imminent" for the Clinton Foundation if neither the DOJ, state corruption prosecutors, or senior FBI officials pursuing a case?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

CNN confirming good part of the WSJ report here.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

In addition for my disdain for the DNC for picking Hillary, her teams job has been AWFUL in terms of positioning and branding her campaign.  

IMO, ONE thing had to be done by Hillary to have broken through the negativity was to humanize herself.  Whether it was more focus on her and family, her early years literally risking wellbeing working on civil rights in the South, just more interviews like between two ferns.

Instead, she continually retreats which only reinforces the worst caricatures of herself, makes her seem all the more distant, aloof and "above" the rest of us.  Combined with playing prevent defense... which FURTHER reinforces this same issue... her team let the opposition paint her picture, without even so much as trying to take control of the brush.

Agreed. The last 2 weeks she should have been pro-Hillary and what she's going to do. Instead she's been yelling about Trump. They better have some high profile positive messages on tap for the end here. Poorly run campaign, bad candidate.

 

[Koya]

Don't know, really don't care. 

Honestly, I don't know how you can say this.  And even if you believe it, stating as such certainly does not help your cause.

How can you NOT CARE? Now, it may not rise to the level of immorality or carelessness or whatever standard you have, but you have to care.  It may pale in comparison to what the other candidate has done during his 7 years on earth... but you have to care.

I think it's a 20 year politically motivated and destructive to our national fabric witchunt, but that doesn't mean I "Don't Care" - I do.  She's at the least done some really stupid ####, it's quite likely she's done things that are, at best, questionable from a legal standpoint and its absolutely possible those actions rise to legitimate legal offenses. 

That doesn't mean I buy the 20 year bull#### shtick (if anything, the fact Clinton still has not been proven - as in really proven - do have done something that rises to the levels so many claim as outright fact says something to me... they've been trying actively to jail her and have not been able to) - but neither does it mean I "dont care" either.

Not caring is scary. As scary as Trumpeters that don't care about his pattern of behavior either.

 

[Koya]

Agreed. The last 2 weeks she should have been pro-Hillary and what she's going to do. Instead she's been yelling about Trump. They better have some high profile positive messages on tap for the end here. Poorly run campaign, bad candidate.

When they go low.... we cower, throw some negative ads out there and don't even try to reinforce (or posit) a positive alternative in our candidate.

 

[timschochet]

That's a more than valid point. 

Much like I said when the shoe was on the other foot and people were killing Trump's PR team... like you can control a maniacal narcissist.

Her base personality faults likely can be the cause as well... but we at least saw Trumps team TRY to get him to pivot and there are things you can do in terms of commercials and messaging that I've just never seen from the Clinton camp. 

So far as I can see all of Hillary's weaknesses with the public are based on events that took place before the campaign started, so I really disagree with the idea that she should have "pivoted" somehow. I've personally found her commercials and messaging to be very effective. 

I'm not saying she's run a perfect campaign, but I've frankly never seen a candidate so impervious to what normally takes people down as Donald Trump. That's part of what makes him so terrifying. But she's still going to win this. 

 

[timschochet]

Honestly, I don't know how you can say this.  And even if you believe it, stating as such certainly does not help your cause.

How can you NOT CARE? Now, it may not rise to the level of immorality or carelessness or whatever standard you have, but you have to care.  It may pale in comparison to what the other candidate has done during his 7 years on earth... but you have to care.

I think it's a 20 year politically motivated and destructive to our national fabric witchunt, but that doesn't mean I "Don't Care" - I do.  She's at the least done some really stupid ####, it's quite likely she's done things that are, at best, questionable from a legal standpoint and its absolutely possible those actions rise to legitimate legal offenses. 

That doesn't mean I buy the 20 year bull#### shtick (if anything, the fact Clinton still has not been proven - as in really proven - do have done something that rises to the levels so many claim as outright fact says something to me... they've been trying actively to jail her and have not been able to) - but neither does it mean I "dont care" either.

Not caring is scary. As scary as Trumpeters that don't care about his pattern of behavior either.

As I've written before, if she's broken any laws I will care on November 9. Until Donald Trump has been defeated It's irrelevant to me. After Hillary wins if there is evidence of bad behavior or crimes of course I'll care. But not right now. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Serious question...how are indictments "imminent" for the Clinton Foundation if neither the DOJ, state corruption prosecutors, or senior FBI officials pursuing a case?

I don't know. Good point especially on the DOJ side of things.

First of all there may be some editorializing by Fox. I trust Herridge but like BS pointed out that was a summary by Baier.

Secondly the CNN report says it's the white collar corruption division running the probe, so that is new.

It sounds like US Attorney offices in NYC & No. VA are involved right now. 

To be frank I'm very skeptical of the 'imminent indictment' part but the other stuff rings true.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is a good summary of the Fox report last night.

- You can not believe but fwiw the reporting is from Catherine Herridge who was pretty much right on almost every report last spring and winter just a week to a month ahead of WaPo & NYT in most instances.

- I think the report that at least 5 foreign intelligence services hacked/accessed Hillary's server is important, new and almost certainly true.

I've been staying away from this nonsense because it's mostly absurd and at this point is blinding people to awfulness of Trump, which seems to get obfuscated every time people like you try to push this crap. But this seems irresponsible and I'm bored so lemme give this one a shot before I return to restocking my Trump victory emergency bunker.

We can agree that if this were true, sharing it is a significant breach of FBI protocol, right? Both in terms of leaking information about an ongoing investigation and timing it in such a way as to impact an election.

So then we're already talking about "FBI sources" who are motivated enough by something to take this sort of action.  And I think it's fair to assume that a likely explanation- perhaps the most likely explanation- is that they intend to impact the election.  Still agree with me?

If that's the case ... and I see absolutely no reason to think it isn't ... what evidence do you or anyone else have that this is anything other than a couple rogue anti-Clinton FBI agents, perhaps Breitbart types who get their news from questionable sources  like for example that ridiculous Clinton Cash book, who got a hard-on for taking her down based on stuff they read, and are now anonymously leaking this false information about a possible future indictment because their calls for an investigation were rebuffed?

That seems plausible, yes?  Well hey, guess what?  It matches exactly with this New York Times report from two days ago:

In August, around the same time the decision was made to keep the Manafort investigation at a low simmer, the F.B.I. grappled with whether to issue subpoenas in the Clinton Foundation case, which, like the Manafort matter, was in its preliminary stages. The investigation, based in New York, had not developed much evidence and was based mostly on information that had surfaced in news stories and the book “Clinton Cash,” according to several law enforcement officials briefed on the case.

The book asserted that foreign entities gave money to former President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, and in return received favors from the State Department when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton has adamantly denied those claims.

In meetings, the Justice Department and senior F.B.I. officials agreed that making the Clinton Foundation investigation public could influence the presidential race and suggest they were favoring Mr. Trump. But waiting, they acknowledged, could open them up to criticism from Republicans, who were demanding an investigation.

They agreed to keep the case open but wait until after the election to determine their next steps. The move infuriated some agents, who thought that the F.B.I.’s leaders were reining them in because of politics.

 

[timschochet]

When they go low.... we cower, throw some negative ads out there and don't even try to reinforce (or posit) a positive alternative in our candidate.

If she had done that, the polls would still be tightening and people would say why isn't she hitting back? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've been staying away from this nonsense because it's mostly absurd and at this point is blinding people to awfulness of Trump, which seems to get obfuscated every time people like you try to push this crap. But this seems irresponsible and I'm bored so lemme give this one a shot before I return to restocking my Trump victory emergency bunker.

We can agree that if this were true, sharing it is a significant breach of FBI protocol, right? Both in terms of leaking information about an ongoing investigation and timing it in such a way as to impact an election.

So then we're already talking about "FBI sources" who are motivated enough by something to take this sort of action.  And I think it's fair to assume that a likely explanation- perhaps the most likely explanation- is that they intend to impact the election.  Still agree with me?

If that's the case ... and I see absolutely no reason to think it isn't ... what evidence do you or anyone else have that this is anything other than a couple rogue anti-Clinton FBI agents, perhaps Breitbart types who get their news from questionable sources  like for example that ridiculous Clinton Cash book got a hard-on for taking her down based on stuff they read, and are now anonymously leaking this false information about a possible future indictment because their calls for an investigation were rebuffed?

That seems plausible, yes?  Well hey, guess what?  It matches exactly with this New York Times report from two days ago:

I don't know. But I do think it's a good idea to look at the NYT, WSJ & now CNN reports together. It is contradictory to say that indictments are imminent and also say the DOJ is putting its thumb on the investigation. 

 

[Slapdash]

Mr Tim, do you believe Mrs. Clinton has violated any federal laws? If so which ones. 

Don't know, really don't care.

You're a complete joke

 

[RCon]

As I've written before, if she's broken any laws I will care on November 9. Until Donald Trump has been defeated It's irrelevant to me. After Hillary wins if there is evidence of bad behavior or crimes of course I'll care. But not right now. 

You didn't care back when there was an opportunity to elect Sanders or Biden. You won't care ever.  End justifies the means.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good morning. All of you who despise the idea of Donald Trump as President, be of good cheer. It's tightened up, but he's not going to win. 

Hillary will win but unfortunately it may be more like the traditional blue/red divide that Tobias described yesterday which I don't think is good.

The main disturbing trend from this election I'd like to see die is the behavior of treating political opponents as enemies. That's stuff from the 1850s and 1950s. We need a country that is unified with strong institutions. My sincere hope is that when Hillary wins she turns to this as her message. The politicization of *everything has to end.

 

[RCon]

How can you NOT CARE? Now, it may not rise to the level of immorality or carelessness or whatever standard you have, but you have to care.  It may pale in comparison to what the other candidate has done during his 7 years on earth... but you have to care.

I knew it!  Trump is an alien sent here after Obama was elected!

 

[timschochet]

You're a complete joke

Why should I care about this now? We're facing a binary choice: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Given that I am not going to care about anything bad about Hillary Clinton. After November 9 I'm open to whatever you or anyone else wants to say about her. But first things first.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't know. But I do think it's a good idea to look at the NYT, WSJ & now CNN reports together. It is contradictory to say that indictments are imminent and also say the DOJ is putting its thumb on the investigation. 

I disagree. I think it's a good idea to disregard stuff like this until there's something of substance, like a charge or at least an announcement from the bureau. Because if we don't we effectively put the US presidential election in the hands of a couple anonymous FBI agents who for all we know could be hard core Trumpkins, dyed in the wool Republicans or Dodds-like anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists. There's certainly plenty of evidence that law enforcement attracts people like that.

 

[BassNBrew]

Don't know, really don't care. 

This is why Hillary has this election locked up.  The low information and uninformed voters who don't care are strongly on her side.

 

[Slapdash]

This is why Hillary has this election locked up.  The low information and uninformed voters who don't care are strongly on her side.

Useful idiots

 

[Sammy3469]

In some real news, it looks like if current trends continue as they have for the rest of the early voting period, NV may effectively be decided today for Clinton.  Trump needs a big day to close the gap.  

If she wins NV, he needs to flip one of CO + NH, PA, VA, WI, MI, or MN while winning NC and FL, both states where early voting is favoring Hillary.  

 

[timschochet]

You didn't care back when there was an opportunity to elect Sanders or Biden. You won't care ever.  End justifies the means.

I did care then, Rich. But I didn't believe the accusations against Hillary were true then. Part of me still doesn't, though I'm at least more open to the possibilities. But it doesn't matter now.

I have concluded, over the years, that sometimes the ends justify the means in politics, and sometimes they don't. It all depends on what the ends are and what the means are. I believe it's important at all times to be pragmatic.

 

[BassNBrew]

When they go low.... we cower, throw some negative ads out there and don't even try to reinforce (or posit) a positive alternative in our candidate.

It's 100% negative ads from the Hillary camp her in NC.  They are so bad they seem like a skit.  

Trump is running mostly positive ads while the NRA is doing their best to stoop below the Clinton camp.

 

[timschochet]

This is why Hillary has this election locked up.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I disagree. I think it's a good idea to disregard stuff like this until there's something of substance, like a charge or at least an announcement from the bureau. Because if we don't we effectively put the US presidential election in the hands of a couple anonymous FBI agents who for all we know could be hard core Trumpkins, dyed in the wool Republicans or Dodds-like anti-Clinton conspiracy theorists. There's certainly plenty of evidence that law enforcement attracts people like that.

Well as you may suspect I'm more of a transparency guy. I have zero fear of information in our democracy. I'd like to say that at the end of the day we rely on the FBI's recommendations like we did in July. If there's no 'there' there then no problem, but if the FBI does eventually recommend indictment let's trust their judgement as well.

 

[BassNBrew]

Useful idiots

Yup, total morons.  I don't have disdain for them since they are keeping the loons at bay.

 

[The Commish]

It is a caricature and its a disingenuous disservice to our nation and it's resources.  I bought into that same picture, painted by the hard right, and accepted and forwarded even by many on the left.  

Doesn't make it true.   Surprised how many buy into the image that was created to achieve this very aim (including myself, upon realizing that I was buying into the negative hype, and actually forwarding it as well... doesn't mean I like her, nor that I will vote for her. But I did take a step back and gain a different perspective).

That said, my whole point is that Hillary's camp let this happened, and never really took the offensive in terms of promoting a different image.  Even if you do buy into / agree with the worst portrayals of her, you have to admit her team has done just an awful job trying to change the conversation or at least its tone.

I have no idea who let this happen for sure, but this really seems like "you can lead a horse to water, but can't make them drink" situation.  After reading some of the wikileaks stuff, I learned something others don't talk much about.  I learned that her camp basically begged, pleaded, warned, and advised Hillary to no avail.  She was going to do her thing.  This gives us insight into her tendencies.  They aren't flattering.  There's nothing the "team" can do if they aren't on the same page as her.

 

[beavers]

It's 100% negative ads from the Hillary camp her in NC.  They are so bad they seem like a skit.  

Trump is running mostly positive ads while the NRA is doing their best to stoop below the Clinton camp.

Ohio resident here and to say Trump is running mostly positive ads is ?. 99% of what that man says is a conspiracy bash against Clinton.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

 Back to the rogue agents Schtick?  I totally get anyone that favors her against Trump but am baffled at the handful of you that can't recognize some serious issues regarding her and treat her like she's a victim. 

Or maybe you're all just trolling. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

In some real news, it looks like if current trends continue as they have for the rest of the early voting period, NV may effectively be decided today for Clinton.  Trump needs a big day to close the gap.  

If she wins NV, he needs to flip one of CO + NH, PA, VA, WI, MI, or MN while winning NC and FL, both states where early voting is favoring Hillary.  

Did you read something new on Nevada?  The New Hampshire poll for Trump was mildly concerning, I'm starting to think there's a real chance of Trump losing the popular vote by 2 points or so but winning the electoral college with a surprise win in one of the Clinton firewall state.  Nevada would at least take New Hampshire of the list of possible surprise flips that could turn the election.

 

[timschochet]

It's 100% negative ads from the Hillary camp her in NC.  They are so bad they seem like a skit.  

Trump is running mostly positive ads while the NRA is doing their best to stoop below the Clinton camp.

I'm not in North Carolina but I think you're full of complete bull#### here- I base this on your previous statements throughout this election cycle, which have been almost uniformly ridiculous, and on every ad and statement I have ever seen from Donald Trump, none of which were positive.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

LOL Tim wakes up fired up again. Relax man it's a long day. 

 

[RCon]

It's 100% negative ads from the Hillary camp her in NC.  They are so bad they seem like a skit.  

Trump is running mostly positive ads while the NRA is doing their best to stoop below the Clinton camp.

I'm not in North Carolina but I think you're full of complete bull#### here- I base this on your previous statements throughout this election cycle, which have been almost uniformly ridiculous, and on every ad and statement I have ever seen from Donald Trump, none of which were positive.

When I watched the last four innings of the game last night, NYC broadcast, Trump's ads were positive (pro-Trump) while Clinton's were all negative (anti-Trump).

 

[Politician Spock]

I haven't seen a positive ad from any of the candidates in such a long time, I don't even remember what a positive ad is. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well as you may suspect I'm more of a transparency guy. I have zero fear of information in our democracy. I'd like to say that at the end of the day we rely on the FBI's recommendations like we did in July. If there's no 'there' there then no problem, but if the FBI does eventually recommend indictment let's trust their judgement as well.

Quotes from anonymous sources that seem pretty clearly to be worded and timed to influence an election by presenting a one-sided picture is not something most people would describe as "transparency."  Most people would call that "propaganda."

 

[Sammy3469]

Did you read something new on Nevada?  The New Hampshire poll for Trump was mildly concerning, I'm starting to think there's a real chance of Trump losing the popular vote by 2 points or so but winning the electoral college with a surprise win in one of the Clinton firewall state.  Nevada would at least take New Hampshire of the list of possible surprise flips that could turn the election.

Not polls...actual vote...after today they are going to be close to 65-70% of the actual vote in...Dems are leading Rep in ballots by +6 (crushing it in Las Vegas which is why that NV poll showing Trump +1 in Clark County was bad data yesterday).  These numbers "predicted" the Reid win (polls had him losing) in 2010, Obama's big win in 2012 (polls had it closer), and the Rep's winning everything in 2014.  

Just an aside, but I won't be too surprised if we look back at the "Live" polls after the election and realize they are all underreporting her Latino support.  NV, CO, FL, NC, and even AZ (not that I think she'll win there) all fall into that category.    

 

[RCon]

I did care then, Rich. But I didn't believe the accusations against Hillary were true then. Part of me still doesn't, though I'm at least more open to the possibilities. But it doesn't matter now.

I have concluded, over the years, that sometimes the ends justify the means in politics, and sometimes they don't. It all depends on what the ends are and what the means are. I believe it's important at all times to be pragmatic.

I don't think you can claim to have cared when you have never cared enough to actually investigate any of the details.  In every single case, you stated that the topic bored you and didn't want to bother reading the details.  That's not caring.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'm not in North Carolina but I think you're full of complete bull#### here- I base this on your previous statements throughout this election cycle, which have been almost uniformly ridiculous, and on every ad and statement I have ever seen from Donald Trump, none of which were positive.

It's been a shift over the last week.  Of course you have to separate the ads the candidates are running from the ads their PACS are running.

LOL at you accusing anyone of being ridiculous.  That's like Hitler calling someone a dictator.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJ868DHrwk&feature=youtu.be  No mention of Clinton.

 

[timschochet]

When I watched the last four innings of the game last night, NYC broadcast, Trump's ads were positive (pro-Trump) while Clinton's were all negative (anti-Trump).

Well, you're much more credible to me than Bass is, but I still have trouble believing it (perhaps because I fail to see ANYTHING positive about Trump.)

 

[The Commish]

It's 100% negative ads from the Hillary camp her in NC.  They are so bad they seem like a skit.  

Trump is running mostly positive ads while the NRA is doing their best to stoop below the Clinton camp.

I'm not in North Carolina but I think you're full of complete bull#### here- I base this on your previous statements throughout this election cycle, which have been almost uniformly ridiculous, and on every ad and statement I have ever seen from Donald Trump, none of which were positive.

Don't know where I sit in your hierarchy of information sources, but he isn't wrong.  A good number of his ads in this area have been the typical empty platitude (promise everything to everyone) sort of ads we typically get.  Don't mention Clinton.  In the last few days, after the reopening of the investigation was announced, there have been some negative ads, but not as many as we typically see when something like this comes out.  Take that FWIW  

 

[BassNBrew]

I haven't seen a positive ad from any of the candidates in such a long time, I don't even remember what a positive ad is. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZJ868DHrwk&feature=youtu.be

 

[Sammy3469]

When I watched the last four innings of the game last night, NYC broadcast, Trump's ads were positive (pro-Trump) while Clinton's were all negative (anti-Trump).

You must have missed the NRA ads against Hillary then.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think you can claim to have cared when you have never cared enough to actually investigate any of the details.  In every single case, you stated that the topic bored you and didn't want to bother reading the details.  That's not caring.

You and Saints made too much of that comment. I wrote that I was bored and didn't want to read any more, but that was after reading every detail that Saints had posted, day after day week after week. And the truth is that even though I wrote that, I ended up reading tons of more details anyhow. I think I'm pretty well informed about the scandals.

 

[BassNBrew]

You must have missed the NRA ads against Hillary then.

I specifically mentioned them and that they were as bad if not worse than the Hillary ads.