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 (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Future Champs said:
I think Evan McMullen will be #3, and I will be happy to get behind Mr. Magic Underpants.
Click to expand...
Only if he can win Utah - which seems to be a long shot now, after he closed the gap a week or 2 ago.

Its not the number of votes you get - its the number of Electoral College votes you get.  Realistically the only way to get to 3 candidates receiving Electoral College votes in this election is to have a "Faithless Elector" or two

 
Sinn Fein said:
Only if he can win Utah - which seems to be a long shot now, after he closed the gap a week or 2 ago.

Its not the number of votes you get - its the number of Electoral College votes you get.  Realistically the only way to get to 3 candidates receiving Electoral College votes in this election is to have a "Faithless Elector" or two
Click to expand...
OK fine, I've been in with Bernie for a long time.   But I think Evan takes Utah, and that makes him my fall back "Hail Mary".

 
So, we have this to look forward to when Clinton wins:

Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election.

Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record, have described a chaotic internal climate that resulted from outrage over director James Comey’s July decision not to recommend an indictment over Clinton’s maintenance of a private email server on which classified information transited.

“The FBI is Trumpland,” said one current agent.

This atmosphere raises major questions about how Comey and the bureau he is slated to run for the next seven years can work with Clinton should she win the White House.

The Hillary Clinton email controversy explained: what we know so far

The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”

 
TheAristocrat said:
We have proof of Hillary completely violating all law with respect to classified information coded as Confidential OR HIGHER to American interests.  And it certainly looks to only get worse as she has never cared about the law.

So you go first.
Click to expand...
You choose to define "criminal" as someone who has evidence against them but have not been charged with or convicted of a crime. That's fine, I guess.

But if you're going to use such a low threshold to define "criminal", then I'm going to use a similar method to define Trump -- citing his own words as evidence that he has committed sexual assault, tax fraud, labor law violations, perjury, and many other crimes over the course of 30+ years. Trump isn't going to win that comparison.

 
Quez said:
Everyone needs to watch this ASAP.  I have been saying this since we went into Libya, that it was all bs for western financial gain.  Everything going on in the middle East is because of money. 
Click to expand...
Yeah....no.  Pretty sure no one should be listening to a foreign national holed up in an Ecudorian embassy, but that's me.

 
Sammy3469 said:
Lotta people in this thread seem pretty pleased with an FBI "coup" in this thread...let that sink in.
Click to expand...
meh.

People were pretty pleased when the "Patriots" overthrew the British government in America, and people seemed pretty pleased when Lincoln took the country into a civil war to prevent a splintered country.

Democracy is not always clean and pretty.

If everyone just went along with the establishment - we would be Canada.  Let that sink in.

 
Sinn Fein said:
meh.

People were pretty pleased when the "Patriots" overthrew the British government in America, and people seemed pretty pleased when Lincoln took the country into a civil war to prevent a splintered country.

Democracy is not always clean and pretty.

If everyone just went along with the establishment - we would be Canada.  Let that sink in.
Click to expand...
Comparing rogue FBI agents shut down by career prosecutors and senior FBI leaders to the Founding Fathers is really something else, but par for the course these days

 
Sammy3469 said:
Comparing rogue FBI agents shut down by career prosecutors and senior FBI leaders to the Founding Fathers is really something else, but par for the course these days
Click to expand...
Just curious - but how do you think the Founding Fathers were perceived by the ruling class?

They were not seen as Patriots - but would have been considered - at best - rogue agents.  The "Founding Fathers" did not like they way the government was treating them - so they led an armed insurrection against the lawful government.  We look back now, and say they were patriots fighting for a just cause.  But at the time - they were the terrorists, overthrowing a government.

The "rogue" FBI agents still must play within a legal framework.  They are not taking up arms against the government.

 
Clinton signed an ethics agreement governing her family's globe-straddling foundation in order to become secretary of state in 2009. The agreement was designed to increase transparency to avoid appearances that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by wealthy donors.

:lmao:   :lmao:

 
Sammy3469 said:
Comparing rogue FBI agents shut down by career prosecutors and senior FBI leaders to the Founding Fathers is really something else, but par for the course these days
Click to expand...
I support Hillary fans on several things. One is rejecting Trump fans when they start denigrating the integrity of the FBI when they attack Comey for 'fixing' the result in Hillary's favor last July. Now it's Hillary fans turn to start talking about rogue agents. It doesn't seem helpful to what should be best about supporting Hillary.

Now where it really gets weird is Trump supporters starting to use the word 'coup' - favorably, which is nuts - and Hillary fans using the word - negatively, but also still nuts.

Meanwhile it's core Hillary supporters who claim WL is just a Russian plot, and yet the real Russian 'plot' is to make us denigrate our democracy so that we view it cynically and then our allies and the developing world view it cyncically. So don't.

 
Sammy3469 said:
Yeah....no.  Pretty sure no one should be listening to a foreign national holed up in an Ecudorian embassy, but that's me.
Click to expand...
Ok, don't watch it then.  Go watch your your Saturday morning cartoons instead of being a good American and doing your homework. ???

 
So it looks like Nevada is blue per the last batch of early voting numbers. Almost no way for Trump to overcome the margin. 

That really opens up a lot of paths. If she nabs Florida or NC early then the rest of the map doesn't matter. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
meh.

People were pretty pleased when the "Patriots" overthrew the British government in America, and people seemed pretty pleased when Lincoln took the country into a civil war to prevent a splintered country.

Democracy is not always clean and pretty.

If everyone just went along with the establishment - we would be Canada.  Let that sink in.
Click to expand...
When this is all over and the FBI has laid it all on the table....on which side of history will you find yourself?  Let that sink in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quez said:
I don't doubt she will win some areas where the majority of the electorate is uneducated.  However, the electoral college isn't going to let a criminal like Hillary take office.  Neither will the FBI. 
Click to expand...
The FBI has no control over Hillary's ability to take office. Most students learn that in high school civics class.

Now, the Electoral College certainly could choose to ignore the law and vote for someone else. But this is something that has only happened 82 times in history (out of tens of thousands of votes). And it would take more than just one faithless elector to derail Hillary's election (there's no realistic scenario where she ends up with exactly 270 EV).

And even if multiple electors refuse to vote for Hillary, it wouldn't automatically end her chances --

- faithless Republican electors could vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

- Congress could refuse to certify the vote.

- the House Of Representatives could choose to honor the will of the people.

If Hillary wins the popular vote and 272 electoral votes (with 3 electors going rogue), I wouldn't be surprised if the House elects her to be President anyway. All she would need is ~8 Republican Representatives to vote for her over Trump.

 
[scooter] said:
The FBI has no control over Hillary's ability to take office. Most students learn that in high school civics class.

Now, the Electoral College certainly could choose to ignore the law and vote for someone else. But this is something that has only happened 82 times in history (out of tens of thousands of votes). And it would take more than just one faithless elector to derail Hillary's election (there's no realistic scenario where she ends up with exactly 270 EV).

And even if multiple electors refuse to vote for Hillary, it wouldn't automatically end her chances --

- faithless Republican electors could vote for Hillary instead of Trump.

- Congress could refuse to certify the vote.

- the House Of Representatives could choose to honor the will of the people.

If Hillary wins the popular vote and 272 electoral votes (with 3 electors going rogue), I wouldn't be surprised if the House elects her to be President anyway. All she would need is ~8 Republican Representatives to vote for her over Trump.
Click to expand...


Based on the closing gap - I'd say the FBI does have some control over Hillary's ability to take office...

I doubt any faithless elector will cross party lines.  A faithless democrat would vote for a democrat, and a faithless republican would vote for a republican

Congress refusing to certify the vote does not somehow make it revert back to the "announced" totals.  The electoral vote - is the vote.

The House vote is done by state - its not a straight up vote by all representatives - that favors the republican candidate significantly - GOP representatives control more states than DEM representatives.  That is how they are likely to vote.  Bigger picture is at play here - control of one of the pillars of Government.  

 
[scooter] said:
Posting tinfoil hat stuff destroys your credibility as a thoughtful political poster.
Click to expand...
Why is that tinfoil hat?  I Wiki'd the guys name, and he seems like a very accomplished guy.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik

I will admit though, that trying to follow these wikileaks has made me stumble on many new news sources.  I'm looking for analysis of the latest leaks as soon as they drop.  It is all being crowd sourced by people all of the globe, so the quickest way to find stuff is twitter.  It would be really cool if there was a media organization like fox, CNN, CBS, ABC, nbc that would devote a team to analyze these leaks asap, but it hasn't happened.  They do eventually talk about the leaks sometimes, but hours after.  Usually by the time the next batch is being released.  I estimate talk radio is about 24hrs behind, and the TV news channels are about 12.

 
[scooter] said:
Posting tinfoil hat stuff destroys your credibility as a thoughtful political poster.
Click to expand...
The guy thinks the electoral college "won't let Hillary become president"

Credibility has LONG gone out the window for most of the folks that either reply with :lmao:  , snide comments without any substance nor objective evidence or incessant posting of conspiratorial links from questionable at best, and just partisan propaganda machines more often, sources.

I've come to a point where I've stopped reading the posts of folks like this (well, in the FFA. for one of these posters in particular he seems at least capable of putting emotion aside and looking at something objectively, fact based with evidence to back it up... just as it pertains to free or not so free fantasy advice. Politics? Nattasomooch).

 
Quez said:
I don't doubt she will win some areas where the majority of the electorate is uneducated.  However, the electoral college isn't going to let a criminal like Hillary take office.  Neither will the FBI. 
Click to expand...
So all the educated people need to vote for Trump?

 
Trey said:
So it looks like Nevada is blue per the last batch of early voting numbers. Almost no way for Trump to overcome the margin. 

That really opens up a lot of paths. If she nabs Florida or NC early then the rest of the map doesn't matter. 
Click to expand...
The stuff I've seen has Trump doing worse with Indies than Romney and worse with key white demos. He's doing worse with blacks and Hispanics. He's got a significant portion of the GOP base not going for him. I still just don't see it. But supposedly there are positive signs for Trump in early voting results in CO & NH and his supporters seem to think MI & PA are in play. It feels like a replay of 2012 but with less data to back up the enthusiasm. If I woke up won Wed am and Hillary had 325 EVs it would not surprise me. the only way he wins is if a huge number of disaffected, previously non-voting whites show up (and he has made clear he has no GOTV to get them there, they are just supposed to show up).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The stuff I've seen has Trump doing worse with Indies than Romney and worse with key white demos. He's doing worse with blacks and Hispanics. He's got a significant portion of the GOP base not going for him. I still just don't see it. But supposedly there are positive signs for Trump in early voting results in CO & NH and his supporters seem to think MI & PA are in play. It feels like a replay of 2012 but with less data to back up the enthusiasm. If I woke up won Wed am and Hillary had 325 EVs it would not surprise me.
Click to expand...
There is no early voting in NH.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The stuff I've seen has Trump doing worse with Indies than Romney and worse with key white demos. He's doing worse with blacks and Hispanics. He's got a significant portion of the GOP base not going for him. I still just don't see it. But supposedly there are positive signs for Trump in early voting results in CO & NH and his supporters seem to think MI & PA are in play. It feels like a replay of 2012 but with less data to back up the enthusiasm. If I woke up won Wed am and Hillary had 325 EVs it would not surprise me. the only way he wins is if a huge number of disaffected, previously non-voting whites show up (and he has made clear he has no GOTV to get them there, they are just supposed to show up).
Click to expand...
325 would surprise me.

She is capable of getting there - but it would surprise me.  325 requires her to get Florida and North Carolina.  Doable, but I still think she will do well to get one of them.

 
Koya said:
The guy thinks the electoral college "won't let Hillary become president"

Credibility has LONG gone out the window for most of the folks that either reply with :lmao:  , snide comments without any substance nor objective evidence or incessant posting of conspiratorial links from questionable at best, and just partisan propaganda machines more often, sources.

I've come to a point where I've stopped reading the posts of folks like this (well, in the FFA. for one of these posters in particular he seems at least capable of putting emotion aside and looking at something objectively, fact based with evidence to back it up... just as it pertains to free or not so free fantasy advice. Politics? Nattasomooch).
Click to expand...
:lmao:  

The butthurt is real

 
James Daulton said:
Hispanics coming out in droves to vote.  Who'd have thunk it?
Click to expand...
If we actually look to have some serious conversation, this is a good one worth having.

For a decade now, we've been talking about the coming rush of the Latino vote.  How the long term trends point toward a nation that is majority-minority and a third latino in what, 50 years or something...

That said, it's always been a case where the talk about "the silent latino vote may finally show", but instead the reality pushed things until at least the next election.

Perhaps now, that Latino vote is coalescing.  Personally, I see three reasons why this would happen now, especially.

1. Still growing Latino population - More numbers overall will provide higher numbers at the polls, one way or another. Especially if

2. The first generation american Latino population & Latino Millennials/X'ers are coming of age for eligibility to vote, and in the case of the younger Gen Xers, no longer in their 20's and not caring about stuff.  Basically, this demographic is aging INTO voting age/eligibility (while my guess is old whites are dying out of it, as well)

3. There is far more motivation with Trump and the divisive but very passionate (albeit negative passion and passion against the other candidate more than passion for one, for many) campaign that has been going on.  With Trump words igniting a fuse, you now have people who may have not voted before, or were on the fence, to get off their ###, register and vote.  Double down on this with concerted registration drives in Latino communities and this becomes even more of a factor.

3.5 While far more limited in total scope overall, I think Trumps rhetoric has also reached across the spectrum of Hispanic and Latino voters.  Be it more established Puerto Rican's vs. Mexican Immigrants vs. Central and South American (which can be further divided) and, especially Cubans, who have been far more Conservative and Republican than any of the above.  If the Cuban population decides it can't vote Trump and either doesn't vote, or votes Hillary, that could be a significant factor in Florida, which makes it have far more profound national impacts that is somewhat apart from the general trends... just fueled by this one candidate in Trump. 

So, you have more Latino's in the voting pool overally due to growth of that demographic, compounded by many who have been here for 5, 10, 15 years, but are just not old enough to vote, or old enough to have started caring about this ####.  Combine that with motivation to register and actually vote and suddenly "the latino rush" that we thought might happen 4 years ago, and could possibly have been delayed until for years from now, becomes energized to coalesce now. The perfect storm of more Latinos, aging into eligibility and motivation.

Now, this is just postulation, but I do work a good deal in majority-minority communities, have a wife who is part Latino and, well, my dad DOES own a factory, so there's that.   Not like im pulling this from no where at all, and it's worthy of discussion. They say polls are based on past behavior, this could (COULD) be on factor that almost by definition, the polls can't recognize, because it is happening as we speak, this will be the first historical record for the polls to utilize going forward. 

 
Fails to Disclose $1m From Qatar

Think this one through.  Hillary and staff purposefully withheld this disclosure. Hillary doesn't care about $1m to the Foundation.    Why take the risk and ignore the vow to avoid conflicts?  Because accepting the cash was a nod that she was accepting money for influence to strengthen her position and support for 2016.  It was a political move in exchange for cash.  Pure and simple.  Why else take steps to hide it?

 
BTW, if Pro-Hill and Anti-Trump camps want some silver lining (since there's not much Nate Silver lining... amirite), there are two big factors that might not be picked up by the polls, which work in Hill's favor:

1. The potential of a big and perhaps not before seen Latino voice in the election, perhaps one that by definition would be underestimated by many polls

2. The ground game.  Day of election, the Democratic machine is just so much more prepared and, in many cases, with natural advantages. 

- Organizationally, we know the Dems have huge and tested networks for the day of election, especially in targeted communities.  

- Human resources in terms of both trained people and existing networks (your black church's that will have two buses in their parking lot, and have been doing so for years type thing to your typical phone banks and door to door knocking)

- Financial resources since in this particular election, there's been such an advantage. While Trump's personality and, well, Clinton's personality can even out that advantage through national media, Trump's ability to con folks into trusting him while Clinton helps to convince folks she actually is evil personified does not parlay to any structural GOTV advantage (although it does arguably motivate more trump voters to do so on their own, but that's not what this post is about)

 
jon_mx said:
Actually his companies act criminally, not technically him.  A bit of a nit, but when you say 'literally', you need to be precise.  
Click to expand...
No, I mean him.  Three reasons:

1. The fact that someone's not been charged doesn't make him not a criminal;

2. Doesn't matter, he was personally named in the racism complaint, he is personally named in enough fraud and lobbying violation type cases to span his career.  He has acted criminally for about 40 years.

3. Read my wording. "His whole business career he has used crimes to make money." Why would you change my phrasing while trying to play a game of semantic "gotcha" with a lawyer? Come on, man.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
What's the point of that stat?  Don't most large companies get sued?  Walmart gets like 5k lawsuits yearly.
Click to expand...
Well yes and no. Want to be honest about this?

Yes, large corporations get sued.  Not 3,500 lawsuits generally speaking.  Not in the types of business that Trump is in.  And even so, not sure using Walmart (known for, well, unsavory workplace practices) where you have god knows what, billions of transactions and interactions a year.  Namely, when you have half of america stepping into and shopping around then purchasing stuff from one store on a near weekly basis, just going to be more bad stuff that happens... or is made up to happen.

Also, most companies don't have the reputation as Trump does in business circles of a complete fraud, a self promoting shyster and someone they'd never do business with.  Why do you think Trump transitioned from being an actual real estate developer, for example, into becoming simply a brand that he rents out for a fee? Trump's genius was his recognition that both he was not a good business person, but was a force of personality... a force that could convince people he had far more value to give than he could ever deliver personally, but one that also was perfectly suited to be a public brand master and entertainer.  The guy was made for reality TV, and he used media outlets to then build upon his brand and promise. But again, it was merely his brand and his promise that became more valuable, not the underlying tenets of any actual business of his. Which is why Trump branded properties did well (before the name itself became tarnished over the last year), but Trump's actual involved businesses became, quite literally, frauds (Trump U.)

 
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
261K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top