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 (9 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Turns out my Twitter feed is much gayer than this board. People are going mental over there about the Hillary comment on Reagan and HIV.

I did love this one tweet:

It's almost as if being an ideology-free weathervane who will say anything to ingratiate themselves to an audience has negative consequences

 
I know it's not your point but your post got me thinking - @squisition why would Bernie being called a Socialist be worse than Hillary being called one - especially if the voters aren't educated on it?
He's be called a "self-professed Socialist."  Whether that distinction matters is up for debate.  I'm not afraid of the S-word. I remember when you weren't supposed to call yourself liberal.  But I recognize that some are still antsy.

 
Turns out my Twitter feed is much gayer than this board. People are going mental over there about the Hillary comment on Reagan and HIV.

I did love this one tweet:

It's almost as if being an ideology-free weathervane who will say anything to ingratiate themselves to an audience has negative consequences
The LBGT community is just one of many Clinton panders to - it's hard to remember what to say and when, isn't it Hillary?

 
He's be called a "self-professed Socialist."  Whether that distinction matters is up for debate.  I'm not afraid of the S-word. I remember when you weren't supposed to call yourself liberal.  But I recognize that some are still antsy.
Exactly. I can't think of a better person to have representing the liberal side of things than Sanders if this is going to turn into a referendum on the word socialism, particularly when you look at who he'd likely be dealing with for opposing "arguments." I think Bernie would turn the whole thing around on them to be honest, take all venom out of the word.

 
So Hillary uses someone's death to pander for votes and it backfires.  Meanwhile Bernie has been walking the walk since he was mayor of Burlington.

In 1983, two years into Sanders’ run as mayor of Burlington, VT, local gay rights leaders planned the city’s first ever pride parade and called on the Board of Aldermen to designate June 25 Lesbian and Gay Pride Day.

Those opposing the designation were as committed as they were vitriolic. The Vermont branch of the Maranatha Christian Church wrote at the time:


“We will express our sympathy with the sick humanity that is involved in this sin but can in no way on God’s earth and in light of His scripture condone or even sit back and not voice God’s word.”



Sanders threw in his full support at the meeting, and the board voted 6 to 5 to pass the resolution.


“In our democratic society, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights — especially the freedom of speech and expression,” Sanders wrote later in a memo. “In a free society, we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others [sic] lifestyle.”

“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well.”

and recently



Bernie Sanders has refused to accept the donation of a pharmaceutical CEO who controversially raised the price of an AIDS medication.

Instead, the presidential hopeful has donated the sum — $2,700, the maximum amount allowed from a private donor — to Whitman-Walker Health, a Washington, D.C.-based clinic that specializes in the treatment of HIV patients and the LGBT community

 
OK so I  was wrong on the winner take all which is why I asked. 

So let's revisit this Wednesday morning then. If Bernie upsets Hillary in Ohio ( which based on Michigan wouldn't be too much of a surprise) does better than expected in Florida and North Carolina, then maybe we got ourselves a ballgame. If she does as expected, then we don't. Either way we'll know next week...

 
I dunno. Maybe she was wrong. 

I saw Andrea Mitchell say the same thing so I was going by that. I do know that Hillary and Nancy had a warm relationship based on what I've read. 
Strange bird that Hillary... in this election cycle, she has said her own enemies are Republicans, yet she embraces Kissinger's foreign policy and Nancy Reagan's AIDS record, which to Dems were memes before memes existed in terms of entities contrary to the purpose.  And if we took a foreign policy and fiscal Pepsi challenge with the GOP, you would struggle to guess who is who. 

 
Strange bird that Hillary... in this election cycle, she has said her own enemies are Republicans, yet she embraces Kissinger's foreign policy and Nancy Reagan's AIDS record, which to Dems were memes before memes existed in terms of entities contrary to the purpose.  And if we took a foreign policy and fiscal Pepsi challenge with the GOP, you would struggle to guess who is who. 
You do have to admire her though.  Even in commenting on death she sees an opportunity for votes.  The end of life does not get in the way of pandering.  It may have backfired but you can't say she has no chutzpah.

 
60 million people would, but they don't think he can win.
This is kind of how it seems. I voted for him in the Michigan primary and was pleased to see the results. My hope is people in the states to come see the Michigan turnout and get energized to have hope and keep it going.

 
She's not apologizing for a "factual error", her remarks were presented as her opinion.  She's apologizing for garnering this reaction
Sorry, it was a factual error saying that "And because both President and Mrs. Reagan, in particular Mrs. Reagan, we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it."  Neither of the Reagans started a national conversation about AIDS (Ronnie didn't even utter the word publically several years into the epidemic) and saying that they did is not an opinion because it didn't happen.

 
Sorry, it was a factual error saying that "And because both President and Mrs. Reagan, in particular Mrs. Reagan, we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it."  Neither of the Reagans started a national conversation about AIDS (Ronnie didn't even utter the word publically several years into the epidemic) and saying that they did is not an opinion because it didn't happen.
:evolving:

 
Why are we talking about AIDS and Ronald Reagan in here now?  Serious question.  I don't have the 12 hours it takes to keep up with the 50 different arguments in here.

 
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
Not really, no. At this point I'm only interested in the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Everything else is irrelevant. Since the stuff you're talking about will never make news beyond internet conspiracy theories, it's not interesting to me at all. 
Back to one of my earlier points.  You're willing to ignore all of Hillary's failings, all in the name of defeating Trump.  In other words, the end justifies the means.

For those of us concerned with, say, integrity, we actually look at things like this, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/5-times-hillary-clinton-has-played-fast-and-loose-with-the-facts-on-bernie-sanderss-record/, and we don't like what we see.
The best part is, his head explodes if he uses the "ends justify the means" shtick on Trump.  Tim's on record saying what Hillary does in the primaries doesn't matter because it's what she has to do to get to the general, then we'll see the "real" Hillary.  What's to stop us from saying this about Trump as well?

 
Why are we talking about AIDS and Ronald Reagan in here now?  Serious question.  I don't have the 12 hours it takes to keep up with the 50 different arguments in here.
short version:

HRC said Nancy did good work on AIDS/HIV as 1st Lady
Reagan Era policies towards AIDS/HIV were [severely] lacking in that regard, so HRC's comments weren't accurate
some people, including prominent LBGTQs get angry about it
HRC apologies for the remarks

tl;dr version:

Conservatives = "Nice Pandering Grandma!"
Progressives = "She made a mistake, admitted it, no big deal."

 
short version:

HRC said Nancy did good work on AIDS/HIV as 1st Lady
Reagan Era policies towards AIDS/HIV were [severely] lacking in that regard, so HRC's comments weren't accurate
some people, including prominent LBGTQs get angry about it
HRC apologies for the remarks

tl;dr version:

Conservatives = "Nice Pandering Grandma!"
Progressives = "She made a mistake, admitted it, no big deal."
Thank you (seriously).  

Seems a dumb thing to argue about either way.

 
Take it with a grain - but rumors from sources close to the investigation have so far been accurate...  ie leaks.  Fox News reporting that a source close to the investigation says that Pagliano has provided testimony "devastating" to Clinton and / her aides.

 
Take it with a grain - but rumors from sources close to the investigation have so far been accurate...  ie leaks.  Fox News reporting that a source close to the investigation says that Pagliano has provided testimony "devastating" to Clinton and / her aides.
May it be so...

 
Take it with a grain - but rumors from sources close to the investigation have so far been accurate...  ie leaks.  Fox News reporting that a source close to the investigation says that Pagliano has provided testimony "devastating" to Clinton and / her aides.
A source close to Pagliano did not dispute the basic details of what was provided to the FBI, but said the highly skilled former State Department IT specialist had met with the bureau on a "limited basis" and was at best a "peripheral" player in the investigation.

 
it is amazing how much hatred that some have for such a classy apolitical person for being a first lady over 30 years ago.  

 
it is amazing how much hatred that some have for such a classy apolitical person for being a first lady over 30 years ago.  


I can't tell if you are describing Nancy Reagan or how Hillary sees herself :oldunsure:

I do seem to recall the gay community not liking the Reagans over the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the US response, and Nancy generally did herself no favor, with the war on drugs.  Just Say No may have been a catchy marketing phrase, but it was a failed policy from the start.  Having said that, I don't see any reason to hate, or otherwise care about a first lady from 30 years ago.

 
Take it with a grain - but rumors from sources close to the investigation have so far been accurate...  ie leaks.  Fox News reporting that a source close to the investigation says that Pagliano has provided testimony "devastating" to Clinton and / her aides.
I sure hope so. Probably the only way Bernie gets the nom.  

 
This is a good article. Pretty much every security and military expert I've read has stated this. The consequences for any normal human caught at what Hillary is doing would be life altering, jail time & career ended.
I have some friends with clearance and I guess if you're in that world you're just beside yourself. It's like being a nurse and knowing you don't reuse the same needle or pilot who knows you don't fly drunk.  There is no ambiguity in some things; they're just inexcusable and warrant a severe reaction.  

 
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/11/clinton-email-server-technician-described-as-a-devastating-witness/

"Information provided by Pagliano could also help investigators determine whether there are any gaps in Clinton’s email records. The former secretary of state, who says she paid Pagliano for his services out of her own pocket, has claimed that she turned all of her work-related emails over to the State Department in December 2014. But that claim has come into question since it was revealed in June that Clinton failed to turn over at least 15 emails she exchanged with her friend Sidney Blumenthal.

Clinton has not said whether she deleted other work-related emails while she was in office."

Investigators have surely cross referenced the emails that Romanian hacker "Guccifer" posted in 2013, and found that 3/4 of them were authentic -- but the 4th may not have been turned over.  I don't think Hillary imagined this investigation would be as exhaustive, and it's apparent she held some things back.  The timeline will be pieced together.  I disagree with Tim on the assumption she "did nothing wrong."  And I have faith that each of these things will be discovered and that her aides and then Hillary will be in a perjury trap around them.  It's quite possible that Hillary would have to take the 5th in the midst of winning the nomination. 

VERY curious to me the timing of Guccifer's extradition to the US, and certainly begs the question...  Was he brought to the US to testify?

 
I have some friends with clearance and I guess if you're in that world you're just beside yourself. It's like being a nurse and knowing you don't reuse the same needle or pilot who knows you don't fly drunk.  There is no ambiguity in some things; they're just inexcusable and warrant a severe reaction.  
Petraeus?

 
The assertion that she did nothing wrong is just silly, unless one is using the definition that "wrong" = "criminal and provable beyond a reasonable doubt".  In that case, we can't yet be sure.

Using any more common definition, it's absolutely clear that what she did was wrong.  She has said herself that it was a mistake.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top