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 (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The General said:
Posting this guy is endorsing Clinton and that he's going to be voting for Trump on race is the classic Rove! fishing trip. 
Click to expand...
And again it's the same thing I always say. You don't have to make #### up to attack Hillary. And when you do you make it so very easy for people to dismiss you.

Stick to the facts they are plenty damning enough.

 
NCCommish said:
I like Shep. I think Hannity is gone sooner rather than later. His Trump love is making him unpopular there if rumors are to be believed.
Click to expand...
Can count on one hand the people in the history of broadcasting with worse schtick than Hannity. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
This seems a little one-sided.  Trump has certainly engaged in his share of scare tactics- one might say that scaring people is the central theme of his campaign, whether it's fear of illegal immigrants, Muslims, "the inner cities," "globalists," or whatever the scapegoat of the week might be.  And Clinton's ads aren't entirely negative- here's her closing statement ad today, no mention of Trump or anything negative.

I think maybe your bias is showing here.
Click to expand...
Or the TV I'm watching maybe which is basically just football these days.

 
So purely anecdotal and non-scientific early voting millennial poll. Every millennial I know that has early voted cast their ballot for Hillary. None of them seemed excited about it but they held their nose. This is 10 voters so again meaningless statistically. And I would say based on those talks with those voters if she wins she is already ripe for someone to primary her next cycle.

 
NCCommish said:
Well here you go:

Article
Click to expand...


So when you say that Citibank "essentially chose" Obama's cabinet, what you actually mean is one particular Citibank exec, Michael Froman, who had previously served a variety of roles in the Clinton administration and who had been advising his former classmate Barack Obama since his 2004 Senate campaign according to Wikipedia, and who was part of Obama's 12-person transition advisory team (again, according to Wikipedia) sent an email (supposedly- your article does not link to it, which keeps us from seeing the context) in which he "essentially chose" the cabinet.

In this email, Froman- whom you have conflated with the entirety of Citibank and by extension all of "Wall Street" because Froman spent seven years at the bank during the Bush presidency- advises that Obama keep the current Secretary Defense and make a handful of other hires, including five of the fifteen Cabinet positions that Obama eventually filled (for one of which he merely proposed a list of candidates).

Is that accurate?  If anything I've said here is untrue please feel free to correct me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
He is not voting Clinton. The group he says he represents has clearly endorsed Trump. This was just saying something to cause a stir. You know that or should.
Click to expand...
So when a kkk guy says he's voting for Trumpmits legit, but when they say to vote for Clinton they are just causing a stir?  Got it.

 
TobiasFunke said:
So when you say that Citibank "essentially chose" Obama's cabinet, what you mean is that one particular Citibank exec, Michael Froman, who had previously served a variety of roles in the Clinton administration and who had been advising his former classmate Barack Obama since his 2004 Senate campaign according to Wikipedia, and who was part of Obama's 12-person transition advisory team (again, according to Wikipedia) sent an email (supposedly- your article does not link to it, which keeps us from seeing the context).

In this email , Froman- whom you have conflated with the entirety of Citibank and by extension all of "Wall Street" because Froman spent seven years at the bank during the Bush presidency- advises that Obama keep the current Secretary Defense and make a handful of other hires, including five of the fifteen Cabinet positions that Obama eventually filled (for one of which he merely proposed a list of candidates).

Is that accurate?  If anything I've said here is untrue please feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...
I'm a big dummy when it comes to unraveling this stuff, Wikileaks, etc. but this is a pretty good deconstruction of the "Obama was in the pocket of big banking from the get" meme that I have heard. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
So when you say that Citibank "essentially chose" Obama's cabinet, what you mean is that one particular Citibank exec, Michael Froman, who had previously served a variety of roles in the Clinton administration and who had been advising his former classmate Barack Obama since his 2004 Senate campaign according to Wikipedia, and who was part of Obama's 12-person transition advisory team (again, according to Wikipedia) sent an email (supposedly- your article does not link to it, which keeps us from seeing the context).

In this email , Froman- whom you have conflated with the entirety of Citibank and by extension all of "Wall Street" because Froman spent seven years at the bank during the Bush presidency- advises that Obama keep the current Secretary Defense and make a handful of other hires, including five of the fifteen Cabinet positions that Obama eventually filled (for one of which he merely proposed a list of candidates).

Is that accurate?  If anything I've said here is untrue please feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the guy who ran Citigroup has had Obama in his pocket for even longer then I thought is that right? And got to pick the Secy of Treasury which led to not one person being brought to trial for what happened in this country? is that accurate?

None of your spin really changes anything and in fact it digs the hole a little deeper.

 
Henry Ford said:
Okay.
Click to expand...
Aside from the KKK thing, which we see can be political gamesmanship or outright stupidity ( let's face it, these guys are not the brightest bulbs, for sure), you fail to address Hillary's racist statements, comments and policy positions over the years.  

 
Rove! said:
So when a kkk guy says he's voting for Trumpmits legit, but when they say to vote for Clinton they are just causing a stir?  Got it.
Click to expand...
When official outlets of the KKK, Neo-Nazi movement, etc. come out and endorse trump yes that is pretty legit. When some guy decides to mess with some journalist that's different especially given his organization officially endorsing trump. This is not the hill you want to die on.

 
Rove! said:
Aside from the KKK thing, which we see can be political gamesmanship or outright stupidity ( let's face it, these guys are not the brightest bulbs, for sure), you fail to address Hillary's racist statements, comments and policy positions over the years.  
Click to expand...
And by bringing this ludicrous KKK thing up you allow them to discount you on those very real things.

 
NCCommish said:
So purely anecdotal and non-scientific early voting millennial poll. Every millennial I know that has early voted cast their ballot for Hillary. None of them seemed excited about it but they held their nose. This is 10 voters so again meaningless statistically. And I would say based on those talks with those voters if she wins she is already ripe for someone to primary her next cycle.
Click to expand...
I know some who are voting Republican. One, who is a nice enough kid (ok, like 30 or 31), has been part of the local GOP machine his entire life here and is running for a local seat. I've all but told him that the direction of his party in the last year has so disgusted me, his Party has likely lost me for good, or at least an extended period of time.  But he does try to reason out his policy choices.

Another, who is a friend of this guy, is not dumb, but is so blinded by his affiliations that he just spouts red herring party lines. i.e. I comment on the need to make sure there is no voter intimidation and he goes on a tirade about how there IS a need for Voter ID. Im like, that may be, but it's not the issue here.  He continually uses these tactics, not just politically.  I've blocked his posts on my facebook because he's so inane, but still see when he comments on mine.

That group probably represents a decent chunk of folks raised in suburban GOP homes, and there's a decent amount of that here on Long Island. That said, this group almost never discussed social issues because even they can't accept their parents bull#### on these issues any long... so it's the usual immigration, voter ID and taxation type stuff.  But many are willingly looking the other way in terms of what Trump is and represents (which, as I've mentioned, is more well known in this region than just about any other) because of their Party allegiance. 

 
Koya said:
I know some who are voting Republican. One, who is a nice enough kid (ok, like 30 or 31), has been part of the local GOP machine his entire life here and is running for a local seat. I've all but told him that the direction of his party in the last year has so disgusted me, his Party has likely lost me for good, or at least an extended period of time.  But he does try to reason out his policy choices.

Another, who is a friend of this guy, is not dumb, but is so blinded by his affiliations that he just spouts red herring party lines. i.e. I comment on the need to make sure there is no voter intimidation and he goes on a tirade about how there IS a need for Voter ID. Im like, that may be, but it's not the issue here.  He continually uses these tactics, not just politically.  I've blocked his posts on my facebook because he's so inane, but still see when he comments on mine.

That group probably represents a decent chunk of folks raised in suburban GOP homes, and there's a decent amount of that here on Long Island. That said, this group almost never discussed social issues because even they can't accept their parents bull#### on these issues any long... so it's the usual immigration, voter ID and taxation type stuff.  But many are willingly looking the other way in terms of what Trump is and represents (which, as I've mentioned, is more well known in this region than just about any other) because of their Party allegiance. 
Click to expand...
Team before country and it happens on both sides.

 
NCCommish said:
So you are saying that the guy who ran Citigroup has had Obama in his pocket for even longer then I thought is that right? And got to pick the Secy of Treasury which led to not one person being brought to trial for what happened in this country? is that accurate?

None of your spin really changes anything and in fact it digs the hole a little deeper.
Click to expand...
I said what I said.  It doesn't need to be mistakenly paraphrased by you or anyone else.  If any part of it is false feel free to correct it.  If however it is true it seems to me to suggest that you are misleading people by saying that "Citigroup picked the cabinet" when in fact the email in question (which we still haven't seen) is from a single person who happened to be a Citigroup employee at the time but was also a longtime Democratic executive branch insider with a wealth of experience and knowledge who was doing exactly what you'd expect a person on a transition team to do ... and in any event names only a third of the eventual cabinet  as far as we know (still haven't seen the actual email).

My question still stands.  Is any word of my post- or for that matter this one- incorrect?

If not, why did you provide incomplete information in your post?  Why not mention that the email in question seems to be from an Obama political advisor dating back at least to 2004 and a member of his transition team?  Why mislead readers into thinking it came from the entire bank?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
When official outlets of the KKK, Neo-Nazi movement, etc. come out and endorse trump yes that is pretty legit. When some guy decides to mess with some journalist that's different especially given his organization officially endorsing trump. This is not the hill you want to die on.
Click to expand...
Yup. It's ridiculous. Very Rovian! 

The guy who turned John Kerry's Vietnam record into a bad thing against a faux macho draft dodger.

 
Koya said:
I know some who are voting Republican. One, who is a nice enough kid (ok, like 30 or 31), has been part of the local GOP machine his entire life here and is running for a local seat. I've all but told him that the direction of his party in the last year has so disgusted me, his Party has likely lost me for good, or at least an extended period of time.  But he does try to reason out his policy choices.

Another, who is a friend of this guy, is not dumb, but is so blinded by his affiliations that he just spouts red herring party lines. i.e. I comment on the need to make sure there is no voter intimidation and he goes on a tirade about how there IS a need for Voter ID. Im like, that may be, but it's not the issue here.  He continually uses these tactics, not just politically.  I've blocked his posts on my facebook because he's so inane, but still see when he comments on mine.

That group probably represents a decent chunk of folks raised in suburban GOP homes, and there's a decent amount of that here on Long Island. That said, this group almost never discussed social issues because even they can't accept their parents bull#### on these issues any long... so it's the usual immigration, voter ID and taxation type stuff.  But many are willingly looking the other way in terms of what Trump is and represents (which, as I've mentioned, is more well known in this region than just about any other) because of their Party allegiance. 
Click to expand...
I don't know anyone that is outwardly supporting Clinton, but I'm sure a decent chunk are.  I know a lot of people that are voting for Trump and the general consensus seems to be that they will never vote for Clinton, and at least Trump will have a good cabinet because they like many of the other GOPers.

I've actually basically shut down all of my social media to anyone that has posted anything having to do with this election, am changing my voter registration records, and will never again support this GOP until it is completely cleared of the current leadership and everyone who had a hand in this fiasco - but you would have to pay me a decent amount of money to vote for Hillary Clinton.

So, I'm on the 3rd party train alone in my social circles.  Fine by me.  At least I'll be able to sleep tomorrow night.

 
Rove! said:
Aside from the KKK thing, which we see can be political gamesmanship or outright stupidity ( let's face it, these guys are not the brightest bulbs, for sure), you fail to address Hillary's racist statements, comments and policy positions over the years.  
Click to expand...
Okay.

 
NCCommish said:
So you are saying that the guy who ran Citigroup has had Obama in his pocket for even longer then I thought is that right? And got to pick the Secy of Treasury which led to not one person being brought to trial for what happened in this country? is that accurate?

None of your spin really changes anything and in fact it digs the hole a little deeper.
Click to expand...
Also this is a lie. Michael Froman (assuming that's who sent the email) was never the chairperson or CEO of Citigroup. 

My point here, by the way, isn't to belittle you or claim that the executive branch is completely free of Wall Street influence.  My point is (1) chill out on the global elite conspiracy stuff, everyone, and (2) don't get your news from the World Socialist Web Site, or if you do at least double-check their work.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
I don't know anyone that is outwardly supporting Clinton, but I'm sure a decent chunk are.  I know a lot of people that are voting for Trump and the general consensus seems to be that they will never vote for Clinton, and at least Trump will have a good cabinet because they like many of the other GOPers.

I've actually basically shut down all of my social media to anyone that has posted anything having to do with this election, am changing my voter registration records, and will never again support this GOP until it is completely cleared of the current leadership and everyone who had a hand in this fiasco - but you would have to pay me a decent amount of money to vote for Hillary Clinton.

So, I'm on the 3rd party train alone in my social circles.  Fine by me.  At least I'll be able to sleep tomorrow night.
Click to expand...
As I've stated, I've WAY softened on my former hatred of all things Hillary.  Still can't stand her, but in the context of the lunatic witch hunt right, I sound like I'm far more in her camp than is reality... it's just I had enough of the over the top even with the legitimate issues of real concern. Regardless, my desire to find a place in the moderate wing of the Republican party is far more likely to end in a legitimate alternative ala someone like a Bill Weld outside of the Republican structure than within it - and i've let that be known.

That said, I am very much alone (other than in the FFA) as to voting third party.  But would vote for Hillary without the smallest pain in my conscience if I were in FL or OH. 6-8 months ago, no way, but I would as of today.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Also this is a lie. Michael Froman (assuming that's who sent the email) was never the chairperson or CEO of Citigroup. 

My point here, by the way, isn't to belittle you or claim that the executive branch is completely free of Wall Street influence.  My point is (1) chill out on the global elite conspiracy stuff, everyone, and (2) don't get your news from the World Socialist Web Site, or if you do at least double-check their work.
Click to expand...
You're right my bad he just ran a huge part of Citigroup:

He was President and Chief Executive Officer of CitiInsurance and head of Emerging Markets Strategy at Citigroup, managing infrastructure and sustainable development investments.[2] He received more than $7.4 million from January 2008 to 2009 alone.[12]
Click to expand...
And he has still had Obama in his pocket. Not completely free? Not even pretending to be free of it. And lastly that is just a place that had the story in print none of which you refuted in any way regardless of the source. Shooting the messenger isn't going to save anyone this time around. No one is buying that the corporate mediaaren't lapdogs to power anymore. At least no one being honest is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Fwiw Thomas Frank has made a pretty good explanation of the sort of chumminess and classism we have seen in Wikileaks.
Click to expand...
God...so where's the criticism of Trump's team for this:

Among the names being considered, according to conversations with three campaign advisers who requested anonymity to speak freely: Rudy Giuliani for attorney general, Newt Gingrich for secretary of state, retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn for defense secretary or national security adviser, Trump finance chairman Steve Mnuchin for Treasury secretary, and Republican National Committee finance chair Lew Eisenberg for commerce secretary.
Click to expand...
You want chumminess, classism with crony capitalism...that's it, but CLINTON.  

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/gingrich-giuliani-priebus-eyed-top-jobs-trump-white-house-sources-n678881

 
TobiasFunke said:
Also this is a lie. Michael Froman (assuming that's who sent the email) was never the chairperson or CEO of Citigroup. 

My point here, by the way, isn't to belittle you or claim that the executive branch is completely free of Wall Street influence.  My point is (1) chill out on the global elite conspiracy stuff, everyone, and (2) don't get your news from the World Socialist Web Site, or if you do at least double-check their work.
Click to expand...
Froman was CEO of two of Citigroup's divisions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
You're right my bad he just ran a huge part of Citigroup:
Click to expand...
Cool, thanks.

Now how about correcting the rest of the wildly misleading information you've conveyed when you suggested that Citibank itself was picking cabinet members instead of one dude who was simply doing exactly what you'd expect a longtime political advisor and White House transition team member to do?

Or, you know, maybe stop digging?  I've said my piece, so have you. I've given you a chance to correct anything I said you thought was unfair or incorrect, you haven't.  I'm fine with leaving it at that if you are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Cool, thanks.

Now how about correcting the rest of the wildly misleading information you've conveyed when you suggested that Citibank itself was picking cabinet members instead of one dude who was simply doing exactly what you'd expect a longtime political advisor and White House transition team member to do?

Or, you know, maybe stop digging?  I've said my piece, so have you. I've given you a chance to correct any of it, you haven't.  I'm fine with leaving it at that if you are.
Click to expand...
I don't feel there is anything to correct. A person who was very high up in Citigroup, CEO of a major division or two, in the employ of Citigroup at the time, making millions from Citigroup at the time, picked a huge number of cabinet officers including his buddies for Treasury. This admin then let everyone on Wall Street off the hook for what happened. Not sure what you think I need to change or correct. Oh and now he is of course back in the admin as Trade Rep. I wonder where he'll land next? Oh yeah he is a Clintonite he'll be fine.

 
NC,do you believe that those who have high positions in Wall Street, as a general rule, were happy about Dodds-Frank, which passed under Obama's watch? 

 
Koya said:
As I've stated, I've WAY softened on my former hatred of all things Hillary.  Still can't stand her, but in the context of the lunatic witch hunt right, I sound like I'm far more in her camp than is reality... it's just I had enough of the over the top even with the legitimate issues of real concern. Regardless, my desire to find a place in the moderate wing of the Republican party is far more likely to end in a legitimate alternative ala someone like a Bill Weld outside of the Republican structure than within it - and i've let that be known.

That said, I am very much alone (other than in the FFA) as to voting third party.  But would vote for Hillary without the smallest pain in my conscience if I were in FL or OH. 6-8 months ago, no way, but I would as of today.
Click to expand...
I hear you.  I'm not part of the witchhunt.  I just can't stand her.  But she certainly would be better at the job than him.  There is no doubt in my mind on that.

 
NCCommish said:
I don't feel there is anything to correct. A person who was very high up in Citigroup, CEO of a major division or two, in the employ of Citigroup at the time, making millions from Citigroup at the time, picked a huge number of cabinet officers including his buddies for Treasury. This admin then let everyone on Wall Street off the hook for what happened. Not sure what you think I need to change or correct. Oh and now he is of course back in the admin as Trade Rep. I wonder where he'll land next? Oh yeah he is a Clintonite he'll be fine.
Click to expand...
No, he didn't. He recommended about a third of the Cabinet members eventually picked at the start of the first Obama administration (we assume- again your article did not bother to include a link to the email itself). Recommending people for the cabinet and other administrative positions is what members of transition teams do. Obama picked them. 

This basically comes down to you having a problem with a high-ranking Citigroup exec being on Obama's transition team. Which, fine, complain about that all you want, even if they guy was clearly qualified and had executive branch experience. If you think only lifelong public servants should be permitted in government, you can feel free to make that case. But don't make it out to be something it's not, misrepresent the relationship between Wall Street and Obama's cabinet choices, or suggest corruption where you have zero evidence of it.  That kind of crap is how we end up dangerously close to a Trump presidency.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
I hear you.  I'm not part of the witchhunt.  I just can't stand her.  But she certainly would be better at the job than him.  There is no doubt in my mind on that.
Click to expand...
Never claimed you were, GB. But that's a big part of what has motivated me to actively counter what I see as unfair and unfounded attacks at her, even though at root, she's someone I really don't much like.

 
timschochet said:
NC,do you believe that those who have high positions in Wall Street, as a general rule, were happy about Dodds-Frank, which passed under Obama's watch? 
Click to expand...
Sure.  The vast majority of Dodd-Frank consists of provisions that improve the advantage of larger firms over smaller/regional ones.  Other pieces, like the Volker Rule, have been delayed/gutted significantly since passage. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Related- does anyone have any recommendations for watching the returns tomorrow?  CNN is out, I can't stand their 47 person NFL pregame show-style panel with campaign surrogates and whatnot.
Click to expand...
I'm going to be tuned in to Slate. com all day tomorrow.

Election Day will be different—regardless of how it ends. This time, for the first time, you won’t have to wait until the polls close to find out what happened while they were open. In partnership with the data startup VoteCastr, Slate will be publishing real-time projections of which candidate is winning at any given moment of the day in seven battleground states, any of which could decide who is the next president of the United States.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/follow_slate_and_votecastr_for_real_time_election_day_turnout_tracking.html

 
Slapdash said:
Sure.  The vast majority of Dodd-Frank consists of provisions that improve the advantage of larger firms over smaller/regional ones.  
Click to expand...
This inevitably ends up being true of almost all government regulations on businesses. But that  is almost never the intent of the authors. 

 
cosjobs said:
I'm going to be tuned in to Slate. com all day tomorrow.

Election Day will be different—regardless of how it ends. This time, for the first time, you won’t have to wait until the polls close to find out what happened while they were open. In partnership with the data startup VoteCastr, Slate will be publishing real-time projections of which candidate is winning at any given moment of the day in seven battleground states, any of which could decide who is the next president of the United States.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/follow_slate_and_votecastr_for_real_time_election_day_turnout_tracking.html
Click to expand...
I don't support this type of thing.  It seeks to influence voters that have yet to cast their vote.  12 hours really isn't that long to wait for real results.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
That's not a liberal POV. The progressive mindset is to create competition not cement in monopoly.
Click to expand...
I know what their intent is. But when you try to force that to happen through regulation, monopoly is often the result. Which is why I've always thought the Bernie Sanders types of the world were wrongheaded, though well meaning. 

 
timschochet said:
Slapdash said:
Sure.  The vast majority of Dodd-Frank consists of provisions that improve the advantage of larger firms over smaller/regional ones.  
Click to expand...
This inevitably ends up being true of almost all government regulations on businesses. But that  is almost never the intent of the authors. 
Click to expand...
Except protecting the largest firms (and their largest donors) was absolutely the intent of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top