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 (7 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gr00vus said:
No? Please direct me to her statements/policies on how she's going to reduce our current military engagement commitments. All I've heard from her is how she might extend those, or maybe even create new ones.
Click to expand...
Please direct me for where she has called for "forever war" as you have claimed.

 
timschochet said:
Yes. If the RNC follows Christie's lead, it makes Trump seem like a legitimate candidate. That allows people who haven't paid attention up to this point (millions of Americans) to consider Trump as a legitimate conservative alternative to Hillary rather than the demagogue he actually is. 
Click to expand...
Is Trump "conservative"? He has conservative elements and positions for sure, but he seems to be destroying the conservative wing much more than he's killing the RNC.

I think we agree on populist. Then maybe (for the first time ever) nationalist. But this seems like a hybrid Reform Party 2000 nominee, more of the Jesse Ventura variety, whatever that is.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Yes. If the RNC follows Christie's lead, it makes Trump seem like a legitimate candidate. That allows people who haven't paid attention up to this point (millions of Americans) to consider Trump as a legitimate conservative alternative to Hillary rather than the demagogue he actually is. 
Click to expand...
I wonder if this is some kind of play for the VP spot.  Regardless, I hope Christie pays a political price for this within the GOP and that others don't follow his lead.

 
squistion said:
Please direct me for where she has called for "forever war" as you have claimed.
Click to expand...
You're right, multiple decade policing activities like she's suggesting the U.S. should engage in in Libya aren't quite war. At least not initially. We've had a really pleasant experience playing police in Islamic nations so far, I'm sure that will go down flawlessly.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Here I was thinking, do Democrats voting for Hillary hear what she's saying? Do they read her quotes in the transcripts and reports afterwards? Did you read that piece and what Hillary actually said?
Click to expand...
In fairness, other than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, when has Hillary ever supported sustained military action against another country?  

 
squistion said:
That will never happen. It has never been done and if she would do it, even Democrats would asking for her resignation or would be involved in an impeachment process.
Click to expand...
Is it really that large a leap from "pardoning campaign donors" to "pardoning campaign staff"?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Here I was thinking, do Democrats voting for Hillary hear what she's saying? Do they read her quotes in the transcripts and reports afterwards? Did you read that piece and what Hillary actually said?
Click to expand...
Not if it was among the half dozen lengthy articles you cut-and-paste here on a daily basis (and have for about the last year). I told you months ago that you had overplayed your hand because Hillary Scandal Fatigue Syndrome had set in long ago with the general public. You can't constantly bombard people with worthless speculation from anonymous sources that always turns out to be nothing and then expect people to keep paying attention to each new daily news revelation that you breathlessly provide us. It is red meat to the Hillary haters, but they are the only ones that care anymore.  

 
squistion said:
Not if it was among the half dozen lengthy articles you cut-and-paste here on a daily basis (and have for about the last year). I told you months ago that you had overplayed your hand because Hillary Scandal Fatigue Syndrome had set in long ago with the general public. You can't constantly bombard people with worthless speculation from anonymous sources that always turns out to be nothing and then expect people to keep paying attention to each new daily news revelation that you breathlessly provide us. It is red meat to the Hillary haters, but they are the only ones that care anymore.  
Click to expand...
It was an article documenting an exchange from the most recent town hall meetings. Hillary's own words.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
It was an article documenting an exchange from the most recent town hall meetings. Hillary's own words, unedited.
Click to expand...
And she called for "forever war" as you claimed? Must have missed that, which is odd as I would consider such a statement big news that should have noted by all the pundits I follow on Twitter, but maybe this bombshell revelation that Hillary supposedly made also escaped their notice.

 
If it comes down to Trump vs. Hillary, I think Trump not only beats her, I think he crushes her.  I thought last night was his best debate in that it was the first time I believed that he would do whatever he thought was the right thing to do to for the good of the country regardless of how the politics play.  Now, I don't agree with him on a lot of it but unlike Hillary and most everyone else in the rae sans Bernie he's someone that doesn't give a #### about doing something even if it goes against the party line or hurts him politically. His line about Planned Parenthood helping women last night shocked me, as did his line about negotiating with Palestine.  He's going to call out Hillary's BS with brutal honesty and really there's nothing she's going to be able to do to combat that. He'll bait her to get down into the mud with him and once she inevitably does, he can't lose because she'll be playing the game the way he wants her to play it.

 
squistion said:
Not if it was among the half dozen lengthy articles you cut-and-paste here on a daily basis (and have for about the last year). I told you months ago that you had overplayed your hand because Hillary Scandal Fatigue Syndrome had set in long ago with the general public. You can't constantly bombard people with worthless speculation from anonymous sources that always turns out to be nothing and then expect people to keep paying attention to each new daily news revelation that you breathlessly provide us. It is red meat to the Hillary haters, but they are the only ones that care anymore.  
Click to expand...
Uhm, ok. Have a good day! Best wishes, Squizz, truly. I do always enjoy your POV though.

 
squistion said:
And she called for "forever war" as you claimed? Must have missed that, which is odd as I would consider such a statement big news that should have noted by all the pundits I follow on Twitter, but maybe this bombshell revelation that Hillary supposedly made also escaped their notice.
Click to expand...
Why would she need to say it? It's what she's done already while in office. And everything she has said indicates we can expect more of the same.

In case you missed it @IvanKaramazov covered this more eloquently than I a few posts up.

 
Gr00vus said:
Why would she need to say it? It's what she's done already while in office. And everything she has said indicates we can expect more of the same.

In case you missed it @IvanKaramazov covered this more eloquently than I a few posts up.
Click to expand...
Um, I dunno...if you claim she said something, she should have, you know, actually have said it - not asking for too much here.

And Ivan starts every conversation about Hillary from the standpoint that she is evil and corrupt, so I pay no attention to whatever his is currently ranting about her.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Um, yes. A huge leap, like if Nixon had pardoned G. Gordon Liddy or John Mitchell before he left office as opposed to someone who contributed to his reelection campaign.
Click to expand...
It would be funny though, Bill Clinton pardoning on the way out and Hillary pardoning on the way in.

Bill Clinton pardoned Henry Cisneros and John Deutch who were in his cabinet.

And he pardoned Susan McDougal and Chris Wade who were involved in, uh, well, er, a common enterprise with Bill at one point.

If Hillary granted clemency/pardons to Mills, Sullivan, Abedin or Pagliano that would be sort of a combination of those two things.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Um, I dunno...if you claim she said something, she should have, you know, actually have said it - not asking for too much here.

And Ivan starts every conversation about Hillary from the standpoint that she is evil and corrupt, so I pay no attention to whatever his is currently ranting about her.
Click to expand...
I didn't claim she said anything. Here's what I said:

Hillary - the candidate for forever war and all the costs that entails.
Click to expand...
It's an impression based on her actions. Her words (we should have more Korea like occupations of other countries for example) are just extra confirmation. But the above would be my take regardless of what she said or didn't say.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It would be funny though, Bill Clinton pardoning on the way out and Hillary pardoning on the way in.

Bill Clinton pardoned Henry Cisneros and John Deutch who were in his cabinet.

And he pardoned Susan McDougal and Chris Wade who were involved in, uh, well, er, a common enterprise with Bill at one point.
Click to expand...
I don't recall the Cisneros or Deutch pardons but I doubt that he pardoned them for crimes they committed at this direction. Hardly in the same league as Watergate and the coverup. And McDougal had already served her time which I believe was for refusing to testify, not for any criminal acts she committed akin to clearing her name, but having no effect on any prison sentence. Chris Wade I don't recall at all. But anyway, Hillary is not going to do any pardoning of herself or the others regarding the emails (unless it is going out the door as are most pardons issued by presidents).

 
squistion said:
Um, yes. A huge leap, like if Nixon had pardoned G. Gordon Liddy or John Mitchell before he left office as opposed to someone who contributed to his reelection campaign.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess it's progress that you can admit that the actions of Abedin and Mills put them in the same realm as Liddy and Mitchell.

 
squistion said:
I don't recall the Cisneros or Deutch pardons but I doubt that he pardoned them for crimes they committed at this direction. Hardly in the same league as Watergate and the coverup. And McDougal had already served her time which I believe was for refusing to testify, not for any criminal acts she committed akin to clearing her name, but having no effect on any prison sentence. Chris Wade I don't recall at all. But anyway, Hillary is not going to do any pardoning of herself or the others regarding the emails (unless it is going out the door as are most pardons issued by presidents).
Click to expand...
McDougal refused to answer questions which could have implicated Bill Clinton for multiple felonies.  How is that any better? 

 
Rich Conway said:
Well, I guess it's progress that you can admit that the actions of Abedin and Mills put them in the same realm as Liddy and Mitchell.
Click to expand...
Never said that or suggested that. Really sad that you have to mischaracterize what someone has to say rather than respond to their actual words, but at this juncture, I expect no less from you.

 
jon_mx said:
McDougal refused to answer questions which could have implicated Bill Clinton for multiple felonies.  How is that any better? 
Click to expand...
They were trying to get her to make false statement against the Clintons or go to jail and she refused to do so (or that is what she claimed or her not testifying - unless I am confusing her with Julie Hyatt-Steel).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
They were trying to get her to make false statement against the Clintons or go to jail and she refused to do so (or that is what she claimed or her not testifying - unless I am confusing her with Julie Hyatt-Steel).
Click to expand...
That makes no logical sense, but that is the Democratic spin.  She was given full immunity. She could answer questions and have zero fear of going to jail.  The spin is total bs. 

 
squistion said:
I don't recall the Cisneros or Deutch pardons but I doubt that he pardoned them for crimes they committed at this direction. Hardly in the same league as Watergate and the coverup. And McDougal had already served her time which I believe was for refusing to testify, not for any criminal acts she committed akin to clearing her name, but having no effect on any prison sentence. Chris Wade I don't recall at all. But anyway, Hillary is not going to do any pardoning of herself or the others regarding the emails (unless it is going out the door as are most pardons issued by presidents).
Click to expand...
You don't remember Deutch?

Let me help here:

Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996[1] and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials designated as unclassified.[clarification needed] In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance.[7] President Clinton pardoned Deutch on his last day in office.[8] Deutch had agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling government secrets, but President Clinton pardoned him before the Justice Department could file the case against him.[9]
Click to expand...



 
jon_mx said:
That makes no logical sense, but that is the Democratic spin.  She was given full immunity. She could answer questions and have zero fear of going to jail.  The spin is total bs. 
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense if she didn't want to lie. Full immunity was promised only if she said what the prosecutors wanted her to say that was if she implicated the Clintons. If she testified the Clintons did nothing wrong, the immunity deal was off, it was a condition of the immunity deal that she tell the truth but only if the truth agreed with the prosecutors version of events.

 
squistion said:
They were trying to get her to make false statement against the Clintons or go to jail and she refused to do so (or that is what she claimed or her not testifying - unless I am confusing her with Julie Hyatt-Steel).
Click to expand...
Wait, Hillary told me that they got McDougal for jay walking when Hillary pushed she and Mother Teresa out of the way of that bus.  Or was that Julie Hyatt-Smee lying to your face?

 
squistion said:
It makes perfect sense if she didn't want to lie. Full immunity was promised only if she said what the prosecutors wanted her to say that was if she implicated the Clintons. If she testified the Clintons did nothing wrong, the immunity deal was off, it was a condition of the immunity deal that she tell the truth but only if the truth agreed with the prosecutors version of events.
Click to expand...
That is not how the law works and it is an utterly absurd accusation.  She had immunity.  They can't just pull it because they don't like her answers.  

 
jon_mx said:
That is not how the law works and it is an utterly absurd accusation.  She had immunity.  They can't just pull it because they don't like her answers.  
Click to expand...
It was conditional immunity, she had to testify the way they wanted, but if she didn't they would charge her with perjury, or making false statements to a grand jury - whatever, similar to Julie Hyatt Steel being prosecuted for lying to the FBI or obstruction of justice because she didn't answer the questions the way Ken Starr wanted them answered.

Being granted immunity doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. If it did, everyone would take a grant of immunity and testify however they wanted without any penalty for a false answer or lying once they got on the stand.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wait, let's all hold up for a minute here.  There appears to be a complete misunderstanding of the McDougal case on both sides going on.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Wait, let's all hold up for a minute here.  There appears to be a complete misunderstanding of the McDougal case on both sides going on.  
Click to expand...
I was going off of memory here, didn't look it up. I am more familiar with Julie Hyatt Steel rather than McDougal so if I got the facts wrong or am confusing the two, I apologize.

 
squistion said:
I was going off of memory here, didn't look it up. I am more familiar with Julie Hyatt Steel rather than McDougal so if I got the facts wrong or am confusing the two, I apologize.
Click to expand...
No, not at all, I'm just trying to figure out what people think happened here.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

 
squistion said:
Not if it was among the half dozen lengthy articles you cut-and-paste here on a daily basis (and have for about the last year). I told you months ago that you had overplayed your hand because Hillary Scandal Fatigue Syndrome had set in long ago with the general public. 
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with you, GB. If Trump wins the nomination I believe he will be able to bring it up and make it more relevant than any other person has or will this election cycle.

 
I mean, you can't get immunity for future perjury.  It's not a matter of conditional immunity, they were granting her immunity from prosecution if she had perjured herself during her previous trial, as I recall.  But if she testified in accordance with her testimony at her trial, she was concerned they would decide she had committed perjury in front of the grand jury, because she was contradicting the other witnesses.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Wait, let's all hold up for a minute here.  There appears to be a complete misunderstanding of the McDougal case on both sides going on.  
Click to expand...
The point of McDougal is that she and Bill were involved in the same partnership with Bill and Hillary.

I wouldn't write off Wade either, he worked for the Clintons and the McDougals.

I thought the point by Squiz was that Hillary and her aides would be involved in the same investigation, akin to Nixon/Halderman/Liddy, and the suggestion was Hillary would supposedly pardon then or grant them clemency, hence the comparison.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No judging.

Here's a good summary from back in the day of the Whitewater deal. CNN, 1997.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/whitewater/ak.roots.html

Jim McDougal was Bill Clinton's gubernatorial aide - he was the original Doug Band. And now Cheryl Mills is following in McDougal's and Band's path apparently.

I'm not gonna get too pasty at Squizz's request. But it's really sketchy stuff. At any rate Chris Wade who was selling the lots for the Clintons and the McDougals went to jail eventually. and the McDougals went to jail, but the Clintons did not.

I know, what a witch hunt, right? Read the article.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SIDA! said:
Not sure I agree with you, GB. If Trump wins the nomination I believe he will be able to bring it up and make it more relevant than any other person has or will this election cycle.
Click to expand...
I don't see how or why he would get more mileage out of it than anyone else, and, at the time of debates if the emails are brought up it should be met with same collective yawn by the public as they are now (what will have changed?). However, I am expecting him to play the "Hillary is living under a cloud of indictment by the FBI" card, but don't expect much traction with that either as we have been hearing about charges being filed against Hillary "anytime now" since the Ken Starr days in the 90s.

 
Henry Ford said:
I mean, you can't get immunity for future perjury.  It's not a matter of conditional immunity, they were granting her immunity from prosecution if she had perjured herself during her previous trial, as I recall.  But if she testified in accordance with her testimony at her trial, she was concerned they would decide she had committed perjury in front of the grand jury, because she was contradicting the other witnesses.  
Click to expand...


Witnesses iften contradict other witnesses, that does not make a perjury case unless there is clear evidence.  

 
jon_mx said:
Witnesses iften contradict other witnesses, that does not make a perjury case unless there is clear evidence.  
Click to expand...
Well, she did later settle a case regarding malicious prosecution - so the question of whether she'd have been prosecuted without "clear evidence" is still pretty up in the air, but I'm aware of the general idea. But that's what she said she was concerned about.  Point being, it's not about whether she was given "qualified immunity" based on the content of her testimony per se, but rather a legitimate immunity offer that she refused and then refused to testify, leading to contempt of court charges.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some Hillary tweets from last night, as she watched the GOP debate:

Let's break down barriers. Let's not build new walls.

We should build a path to citizenship, not a wall on the border.

We will not rip families apart. We will defend President Obama's actions on immigration and go further to keep families together. 

 
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
263K
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