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 (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
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.
Click to expand...
They don't run local ads in Maryland, but on the World Series last night, I saw a positive trump ad and a negative one. Only negative from Hillary. 

 
BassNBrew said:
I specifically mentioned them and that they were as bad if not worse than the Hillary ads.
Click to expand...
They must have been national ads then...all I can say is that I think it was moronic for either side to run ads during that game...no one wanted them and all it does is piss people off.  

 
So we have emails from the DOJ's Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik to Podesta giving him a heads up on House hearings, sent via his gmail account, but FBI agents providing leaks to the media are the only ones looking to tip the scales?  Seems like a ton of politics going on between Justice and the FBI by both sides right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sammy3469 said:
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.  
Click to expand...
Thanks.  This guy seems to be on it. 

This is mildly reassuring for two reasons.  One, the obvious one about balancing out a possible loss elsewhere. Two, if the polls are underestimating Nevada for Clinton, that's good news because it suggests maybe they're also doing so nationally (like in 2012 for Obama) and specifically among Hispanics, who historically have low turnout numbers but that could change thanks to Trump.

 
If this SEPTA strike continues through the weekend, Hillary will lose PA.  She might anyway.

Would be ironic if a union cost her the election.  The attitude of the union is souring people here in the suburbs too.  Not good for Hillary at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
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."
Click to expand...
Is this is a serious conversation?

Calling reporting 'propaganda' is a pretty dangerous thing. That's the stuff of political dogma and ideology before reality. I don't like it when our country starts going that way.

If you want to bang out the facts of what we know, I'm happy to, but nearly all the reporting from last spring and winter turned out to be true. At the end of the day Comey did get up and make that presentation and he and the FBI notes confirmed them, they just did not amount to a prosecutable crime.

What facts can we agree on?

Officials at FBI headquarters decided the Clinton Foundation probe should be consolidated in New York. They ordered that agents in Los Angeles, Little Rock and Washington, D.C., turn over their files to the FBI New York office, which appeared to have the strongest case to make.
Click to expand...
- CNN

You agree that the Foundation is under investigation, right? How about we agree on a single thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Thanks.  This guy seems to be on it. 

This is mildly reassuring for two reasons.  One, the obvious one about balancing out a possible loss elsewhere. Two, if the polls are underestimating Nevada for Clinton, that's good news because it suggests maybe they're also doing so nationally (like in 2012 for Obama) and specifically among Hispanics, who historically have low turnout numbers but that could change thanks to Trump.
Click to expand...
I made that point above...Clinton's team is also turning out first time Hispanic voters in FL.  There's plenty of evidence at this point that this support shown in actual voting isn't getting picked up in polls.  There's also plenty of historical evidence especially in NV and CO that pollsters don't pick up this support.

FWIW this guy at 538 also wrote about this 2 days...he doesn't sound like he believes 538s odds on NV.  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-early-vote-in-nevada-suggests-clinton-might-beat-her-polls-there/

 
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.)
Click to expand...
Come on, man.  I don't see anything positive about him either, but at least admit that in political terms, an ad by candidate X saying that candidate X will create jobs and improve the economy is what we refer to as a "positive" ad.

 
Sammy3469 said:
I made that point above...Clinton's team is also turning out first time Hispanic voters in FL.  There's plenty of evidence at this point that this support shown in actual voting isn't getting picked up in polls.  There's also plenty of historical evidence especially in NV and CO that pollsters don't pick up this support.

FWIW this guy at 538 also wrote about this 2 days...he doesn't sound like he believes 538s odds on NV.  http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-early-vote-in-nevada-suggests-clinton-might-beat-her-polls-there/
Click to expand...
Yep, Latinos are going to decide this election. 

 
All right Enough of you have posted so I'll concede the point about positive ads.

Bass I apologize for questioning you. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Is this is a serious conversation?

Calling reporting 'propaganda' is a pretty dangerous thing. That's the stuff of political dogma and ideology before reality. I don't like it when our country starts going that way.

If you want to bang out the facts of what we know, I'm happy to, but nearly all the reporting from last spring and winter turned out to be true. At the end of the day Comey did get up and make that presentation and he and the FBI notes confirmed them, they just did not amount to a prosecutable crime.

What facts can we agree on?

- CNN

You agree that the Foundation is under investigation, right? How about we agree on a single thing.
Click to expand...
I wasn't calling the reporting propaganda.  I was calling the leak propaganda. I have no problem with them reporting it, although it is irresponsible not to include the Times' information about the whole thing basically being a wild goose chase based on some crap in a book written by a discredited Breitbart reporter that turned up nothing. 

And no, I don't agree that "the Foundation is under investigation."  Sounds to me like they did some preliminary digging based on the book, found absolutely nothing, and as a result decided to cease activity until after the election and revisit the possibility of continuing the investigation at that time.

OK, I'm checking back out.  I'm gonna worry about beating Trump for the next five days. You can worry about what words to use to accurately describe leaks from law enforcement about a shuttered investigation of a non-profit if you want

 
Rich Conway said:
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.
Click to expand...
He didn't care before.  Doesn't care now.  And, if Hillary wins, he will find another reason not to care.

 
timschochet said:
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. 
Click to expand...
In that case, don't do yourself a disservice - you do care, it is just not the top priority right now.  Big difference there. 

 
My wife said "Clintons ads say nothing about what she wants to do to help the country and what she is is going to do.... only don`t vote for Trump"  I thought one of them was a SNL skit for a minute.   Clinton has a horrible reputation to begin with and needs to be more positive in her ads.

 
timschochet said:
Yep, Latinos are going to decide this election. 
Click to expand...
I live in NM and I supervise approx 250 employees.  Being in NM I would say that approx 75% of those employees are "Latino" of "Hispanic" and 75% of those are male..

During the Obama elections, I would safely say that just about everyone I supervise were for Obama.  If anyone in the lounge spoke against Obama, they were chastised and shut up.

THIS YEAR it is exactly the same...except they are in favor of Trump.  These "Latino" employees absolutely hate Hillary  

Believe it not, people of the "Hispanic" persuasion put a huge priority on truth and HONESTY.  They expect it from their family members and especially from their children.  They look at Hillary as the one person that they do not want their daughters to emulate.

Oh...and don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.  I grew up in NM.  I know and am friends with many more Hispanics than any other people, and I am married to one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
I live in NM and I supervise approx 250 employees.  Being in NM I would say that approx 75% of those employees are "Latino" of "Hispanic" and 75% of those are male..

During the Obama elections, I would safely say that just about everyone I supervise were for Obama.  If anyone in the lounge spoke against Obama, they were chastised and shut up.

THIS YEAR it is exactly the same...except they are in favor of Trump.  These "Latino" employees absolutely hate Hillary  

Believe it not, people of the "Hispanic" persuasion put a huge priority on truth HONESTY.  They expect it from their family members and especially from their children.  They look at Hillary as the one person that they do not want their daughters to emulate.

Oh...and don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.  I grew up in NM.  I know and am friends with many more Hispanics than any other people, and I am married to one.
Click to expand...
LOL at truth and honesty and Trump being used in the same sentence...

 
BassNBrew said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA   Role Models

The reality is that it's like choosing between smashing my right nut or my left nut with a hammer.
Click to expand...
It's really not though, which is my point. Bad as Hillary is, as pretty much is summed up in the Atlantic, she's establishment shady, but not to the level of hyperbole and character assassination we've seen.

It's more like putting ice on your bruised left nut, which is something you instinctively don't want to do, but in the end it's not going to do you harm (and possibly some good)... vs. this nice smelling gel stuff here, which looks and smells much better than that cold ice, even feels good when I put a little on my hands.

Yeah, let me go with the gel, and screw it, I'll put it on both nuts!

Ooh, tingly, that might help the ... oh, ouch... WTF?  THAT'S SUPER ICY-HOT !!! IT BURNS IT BURNS!!!

 
A lot of the information coming out about the email/foundation investigations are being leaked, so many may not be true. Appears the end game was really a money laundering scheme, allegedly, to spread the contributions back to the Hillary's campaign in several paths. But it seems Hillary was so ambitious that she has sold her soul to whomever in the world would pay and as a result would have to answer to so many people that she is not her own person any longer. She has simply become a clearing house for the self interests of the many contributors.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LittlePhatty said:
The more Hillary emails I read, the more I'm convinced she will make an excellent president. She actually knows what she's talking about. A Trump email would just say "Do something terrific, make it great again."
Click to expand...
These emails make me feel better about her as President.  I honestly expected something terrible in them.

 
Koya said:
It's really not though, which is my point. Bad as Hillary is, as pretty much is summed up in the Atlantic, she's establishment shady, but not to the level of hyperbole and character assassination we've seen.

It's more like putting ice on your bruised left nut, which is something you instinctively don't want to do, but in the end it's not going to do you harm (and possibly some good)... vs. this nice smelling gel stuff here, which looks and smells much better than that cold ice, even feels good when I put a little on my hands.

Yeah, let me go with the gel, and screw it, I'll put it on both nuts!

Ooh, tingly, that might help the ... oh, ouch... WTF?  THAT'S SUPER ICY-HOT !!! IT BURNS IT BURNS!!!
Click to expand...
I don't want bruised nuts to begin with.

 
Man, this Wikileaks stuff is just brutal.  Have you guys seen this one? 

What an embarrassment for Clinton. I know we all love to talk about how awful both these candidates are, but I bet you'd never catch Donald Trump doing anything like that! 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya said:
WTF, now GOD is rigging the election against Trump, too?

I'd expect it from MOTHER nature, but doesn't she need to pass it by the big guy for major decisions like this?
Click to expand...
Yes, if public transportation is affected by the strike, weather would play a role in people getting out to vote when they don't have transportation. Nothing in that exchange mentioned rigging. 

Maybe im missing your sarcasm. 

 
Clinton's go from financially broke after Bill's presidency to having "$1/4 billion now". But they don't make anything or sell anything except their access/speeches?  Seems  like a lot of money for two government employees.

 
BassNBrew said:
I don't want bruised nuts to begin with.
Click to expand...
I hear ya good buddy... but sometimes we deal with the knee in the groin we are dealt.

Or, we walk into the arm of the couch, and blame it on "the establishment" while we've sat on our collective asses blaming everyone but ourselves. 

 
Phil Elliott said:
A lot of the information coming out about the email/foundation investigations are being leaked, so many may not be true. Appears the end game was really a money laundering scheme, allegedly, to spread the contributions back to the Hillary's campaign in several paths. But it seems Hillary was so ambitious that she has sold her soul to whomever in the world would pay and as a result would have to answer to so many people that she is not her own person any longer. She has simply become a clearing house for the self interests of the many contributors.  
Click to expand...
And? Not therefore Trump, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
avoiding injuries said:
Yes, if public transportation is affected by the strike, weather would play a role in people getting out to vote when they don't have transportation. Nothing in that exchange mentioned rigging. 

Maybe im missing your sarcasm. 
Click to expand...
Um, my "sarcasm" was suggesting that GOD Him/Her/Itself was in on the rigging... unless Mother Nature went rogue and didn't consult with him/her/it first.

Didn't think I needed to actually label that as sarcasm... rest assured though, I've reached out to God to clarify, but only got voicemail.  (that's also sarcasm)

 
cobalt_27 said:
####### Hillary.  ####### Hillary fanboys.  Put the fate of the country on the belief in magic and fairy tales.  And they're the ones looking down on the "uneducated" when they themselves can't even see--or worse, deliberately refuse to see--the obvious

Excellent job, everyone.  Thanks for putting all of us at grave risk of a President Trump.
Click to expand...
Women, amirite?

In the Iowa caucuses, Clinton won a majority of the women’s vote, capturing the support of 53 percent of women, according to the exit poll.

That’s not the gender gap; the gap is between how well she did among men versus how well she did among women. According to those polls, only 44 percent of male Democratic caucus-goers went for Clinton, giving her a nine-point gender gap. That nine points measures how much better she did among women than among men.

Even in New Hampshire, Clinton did better among women than men. There her gender gap was even larger: 12 percentage points. Clinton won the votes of 44 percent of women and only 32 percent of men. The gap was the same in the Nevada caucuses: 13 points, with 57 percent of female and 44 percent of male Democratic voters saying they chose Clinton.
Click to expand...
There’s been less research, however, into gender among primary voters, although we know that Clinton’s gap between male and female voters was sizable in 2008. And that gap has widened even further in 2016 in the states that have voted thus far, according to a comparison of CNN exit polls. On average, Clinton’s performance with women in those states was 7.5 percent better than it was with men in 2008. This year, that gap has reached 10.5 percent.

In Virginia, which voted on Super Tuesday and will be a swing state this fall, Clinton won 70 percent of women to Sanders’s 30 percent. She also won among men, but by a smaller 57 to 42 percent margin. In the 2008 Virginia contest, Clinton lost both voting segments handily to Obama. And her gender gap was narrower—getting the support of 39 percent of women voters and 30 percent of men.

In the Michigan election earlier this week, Clinton beat Sanders among women voters by a 5-point margin. But she lost men by a wider 11 points and the race by just 1.5 percent. It’s unclear what is driving this widening gap in Clinton’s performance between women and men. There’s plenty of speculation that male voters are angrier than women voters, and that’s why they’re turning to candidates like Sanders and Trump, who’ve both promised to challenge the establishment. But there’s little evidence that anger is what’s driving the gender gap in the Democratic primary. In fact, one of the few surveys to break out voters’ anger levels by gender, a January online poll from NBC News, Survey Monkey and Esquire, found that “women slightly edge out men in their outrage, 53 percent to 44 percent.”

It’s also worth noting that the “angry electorate” meme is a bit overplayed in general. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday found that the number of voters who report being angry about the way government works has actually been dropping for the last several years—it’s down 11 points from a high of 32 percent in October 2013.

Carroll wonders if the growth in Clinton’s gender gap is because, unlike in 2008, she is “openly talking about being a woman and appealing to women voters.” That, she says, could both draw more female support while turning off some men. “I don’t think there are big ideological differences there that can explain why Bernie Sanders is getting more support” from white male voters, says Carroll. “Is there something going on with white men there?”
Click to expand...
Carroll, no offense, but you're a ####ing idiot.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top