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.
Mr. Ham said:
Let's make no mistake about it...  Trump is far worse.  Although Hillary has proven she will serve her own interests before the nation's, often those issues overlap with those of the Democrat Party--which needs to at least pretend to do some public good.  She'll more or less maintain a broken status quo (but probably make it a bit worse while leaving middle class victims in her wake).

Trump will lead with negative emotion and ignorance.  He'll set the entire country back 20 years.  His view of policies are akin to coconut radio.  Nothing he'll do will work, no one will work with him, the world will isolate us and we'll fall deeper into debt.

So congratulations.  We've allowed a corrupt process to so define our future.  

I will not vote for either of them.  
Click to expand...
Clinton has a few issues she believes in that are definitely not just her self interest.  They're women's rights/health and children.  The difference between Clinton and Trump on those issues and the opportunity to appoint multiple SCOTUS justices makes it absolutely necessary to vote Clinton in a Clinton v Trump or Cruz scenario in my opinion, but it's certainly your right to abstain.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Let's make no mistake about it...  Trump is far worse.  Although Hillary has proven she will serve her own interests before the nation's, often those issues overlap with those of the Democrat Party--which needs to at least pretend to do some public good.  She'll more or less maintain a broken status quo (but probably make it a bit worse while leaving middle class victims in her wake).

Trump will lead with negative emotion and ignorance.  He'll set the entire country back 20 years.  His view of policies are akin to coconut radio.  Nothing he'll do will work, no one will work with him, the world will isolate us and we'll fall deeper into debt.

So congratulations.  We've allowed a corrupt process to so define our future.  

I will not vote for either of them.  
Click to expand...
That wasn't my point...it was that there are people saying Hillary is being treated badly and it's not fair but those same people are doing the exact same thing to other candidates (especially Trump) and that's OK...I just get so tired of the hypocrisy...

 
It's worth mentioning that Kendall has been the Clintons' attorney for a long time.  He just happens to be also representing her for this issue.  It's different from running out and hiring a lawyer for a specific purpose.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
(Scratches chin trying to think of counterexamples...)

Ok how about in FBI interviews?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wouldn't walk into an FBI interview without consulting with a lawyer who has been involved with them before.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Gosh where does all that ugliness come from? Poor woman.
Click to expand...
You've made your point. Hillary and her people certainly bear some responsibility for the ugly divisive tone that this campaign has taken. 

However, my original comment about how much I disliked this election had to do with the issues people were focusing on as much as the tone: on the Republican side, the focus on illegal immigration, Muslims, and free trade; on the Democratic side, the attacks on big business and free trade. There's a lot of scapegoating going on these days and so find myself in opposition to the majority on most of these issues. 

 
Henry, question: Hypothetically - not Hillary - let's say there's *allegedly a crime, say someone is shot. Say maybe there was a good reason for it, maybe not.

Attorney, family friend, shows up, advises person X what to do with the gun, suggests X hide it. Later, 6 months later, the police show up, demand the gun, X hands it over.

What is the lawyer's duty here? Any reason the lawyer is compromised in any way?

 
timschochet said:
You've made your point. Hillary and her people certainly bear some responsibility for the ugly divisive tone that this campaign has taken. 

However, my original comment about how much I disliked this election had to do with the issues people were focusing on as much as the tone: on the Republican side, the focus on illegal immigration, Muslims, and free trade; on the Democratic side, the attacks on big business and free trade. There's a lot of scapegoating going on these days and so find myself in opposition to the majority on most of these issues. 
Click to expand...
You & I might agree on these things, but my position from the beginning is that Hillary's presence in the race was bound to exacerbate these things because it only ignites the people's suspicions that things are rigged and politicians are dirty. It has.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Henry, question: Hypothetically - not Hillary - let's say there's *allegedly a crime, say someone is shot. Say maybe there was a good reason for it, maybe not.

Attorney, family friend, shows up, advises person X what to do with the gun, suggests X hide it. Later, 6 months later, the police show up, demand the gun, X hands it over.

What is the lawyer's duty here? Any reason the lawyer is compromised in any way?
Click to expand...
The bolded is becoming an accessory after the fact, aiding and abetting, and/or and providing legal advice specifically to be used to commit a crime and impede a criminal investigation.  An attorney who did this should be disbarred.

 
Henry Ford said:
The bolded is becoming an accessory after the fact, aiding and abetting, and/or and providing legal advice specifically to be used to commit a crime and impede a criminal investigation.  An attorney who did this should be disbarred.
Click to expand...
"The right thing to do is turn the gun over to the police. Unfortunately, a lot of my clients hide the gun and get away with the crime."

 
Quint said:
I'm guessing worst case result for Hillary, IF the FBI recommends an indictment, is "admonished but not charged" and she still strolls into the White House.
Click to expand...
I think somewhere in here I put down 5% as the chance for actual indictment and no it's not just because of politics.

I do point out that this thing has only lurched forward, which it has, and that the rank and file, as opposed to the political elite referenced in the WaPo & Politico articles, would have been fired, lost clearance, been banned from future federal work and likely prosecuted for much less. The server recovery, FBI interviews, Pags & Guccifer are definitely possible game changers though IMO. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
He was also personally involved in this little episode.
Click to expand...
Yeah, perhaps the FBI is giving him a pass.  Things will be getting interesting once the interviews start. :popcorn:  

Will Hillary be advised to take the 5th?  Unthinkable for most politicians in the mist of a campaign, but the spin from Team Hillary has no shame so I could actually see her taking the 5th.  

 
jon_mx said:
Yeah, perhaps the FBI is giving him a pass.  Things will be getting interesting once the interviews start. :popcorn:  

Will Hillary be advised to take the 5th?  Unthinkable for most politicians in the mist of a campaign, but the spin from Team Hillary has no shame so I could actually see her taking the 5th.  
Click to expand...
"I don't remember. I don't recall."

 
Quint said:
"I don't remember. I don't recall."
Click to expand...
Isn't that what they got Scotter Libby on?  That is a bit dangerous.  Taking the 5th is the correct legal move and is what Hillary should do.  Seeing the defense of her actions so far, I doubt if it impacts her supporters.  

 
Boston said:
I just wish the anti-Hillary crowd would treat her with the same respect that crowd treats Trump...
Click to expand...
There's no reason to go that low with her.  She has more brain capacity than a gnat.  She should be treated as such.  The irony of this whole election cycle, to me anyway, is that it requires an idiot like Trump to be her potential "foe".  Someone that bad has to be the person against Hillary for to be the choice and even then many of her votes will be of the "hold my nose" variety.

 
timschochet said:
You've made your point. Hillary and her people certainly bear some responsibility for the ugly divisive tone that this campaign has taken. 

However, my original comment about how much I disliked this election had to do with the issues people were focusing on as much as the tone: on the Republican side, the focus on illegal immigration, Muslims, and free trade; on the Democratic side, the attacks on big business and free trade. There's a lot of scapegoating going on these days and so find myself in opposition to the majority on most of these issues. 
Click to expand...
It's not because of scapegoating that you find yourself in opposition to the majority, it's because you think everything is acceptable as it is.  Most others can see things aren't acceptable.  Some want to jerk things left to adjust, some want to jerk things right to adjust.  Apparently people like you seem to think doing the same things we've been doing will all of a sudden yield a different result.  One of these three is the definition of insanity.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think somewhere in here I put down 5% as the chance for actual indictment and no it's not just because of politics.

I do point out that this thing has only lurched forward, which it has, and that the rank and file, as opposed to the political elite referenced in the WaPo & Politico articles, would have been fired, lost clearance, been banned from future federal work and likely prosecuted for much less. The server recovery, FBI interviews, Pags & Guccifer are definitely possible game changers though IMO. 
Click to expand...
If her "personal" emails have been recovered, then no one knows where the focus of the investigation lies.  She took extreme steps to bury them, and her office tried to subtly get the company holding the backups to reduce the backup by narrowing the period they wanted saved down to 3 days.  Outside of calling and saying, "Please wipe the server," this was the best approach if you wanted them gone. Presumably the space on the servers used to archive them would be released and written over.  May even be the reason they chose a small private firm instead of a giant firm with infinite drive capacity and forensics to recover data.  A smal firm will have less recovery tools and will maintain less unused resources, meaning they aren't apt to hang onto something they aren't being paid to preserve. There are two problems however:

1. Internal emails at the private company reveal that staff were  concerned that Hillary Co. was attempting to hide something based on the requests to narrow the backup window (may have preserved then because of this)

2. The FBI has the will and sophisticated recovery tools 

It's likely that the suspicious of the firm coupled with the FBI's determination to devote resources to the investigation recovered all or part of what was wiped.  

(Side note, an IT firm will generally have a redundancy scheme--whether saving parity bits to multiple drives attached to different arrays or to tape, to geo-redundant servers elsewhere or a combination of the above.  Bet it makes everyone feel great that "above top secret data" was hanging out in these places.

Regardless, the fact the FBI shows no signs of rushing the investigation to accommodate the election cycle could be because the FBI (which took several months to go through the 50k "work" emails) could be going as patiently through the 31k "private" ones.)

The point is... All bets are off if the FBI has those emails, because they could be investigating Clinton Foundation business, things we don't know about -- or illegal Yoga routines.

 
Last edited:
The Commish said:
There's no reason to go that low with her.  She has more brain capacity than a gnat.  She should be treated as such.  The irony of this whole election cycle, to me anyway, is that it requires an idiot like Trump to be her potential "foe".  Someone that bad has to be the person against Hillary for to be the choice and even then many of her votes will be of the "hold my nose" variety.
Click to expand...
I wish this election cycle people would refrain from the 'hold my nose' tactic.  It may appear to be the smart choice, but I think that is short-sighted.  Long-term it just means we will continue to not have a good choice from either of the major parties.  This election cycle, both parties are failing miserably and giving us absolute #### to choose from.  I think it is time to revolt and vote elsewhere.  Either libertarian or even green party.  

 
The Commish said:
There's no reason to go that low with her.  She has more brain capacity than a gnat.  She should be treated as such.  The irony of this whole election cycle, to me anyway, is that it requires an idiot like Trump to be her potential "foe".  Someone that bad has to be the person against Hillary for to be the choice and even then many of her votes will be of the "hold my nose" variety.
Click to expand...
If anyone still doesn't think the system is broke they aint paying attention...

 
jon_mx said:
I wish this election cycle people would refrain from the 'hold my nose' tactic.  It may appear to be the smart choice, but I think that is short-sighted.  Long-term it just means we will continue to not have a good choice from either of the major parties.  This election cycle, both parties are failing miserably and giving us absolute #### to choose from.  I think it is time to revolt and vote elsewhere.  Either libertarian or even green party.  
Click to expand...
You would just love it if people did that and allowed Republicans to run wild with total control of the government and nominating a bunch of conservative Supreme Court Justices.

 
Mr. Ham said:
If her "personal" emails have been recovered, then no one knows where the focus of the investigation lies.  She took extreme steps to bury them, and her office tried to subtly get the company holding the backups to reduce the backup by narrowing the period they wanted saved down to 3 days.  Outside of calling and saying, "Please wipe the server," this was the best approach if you wanted them gone. Presumably the space on the servers used to archive them would be released and written over.  May even be the reason they chose a small private firm in stead of a giant firm with infinite drive capacity and forensics to recover data.  A smal firm will have less recovery tools and will maintain less unused resources, meaning they aren't apt to hang onto something they aren't being paid to preserve. There are two problems however:

1. Internal emails at the private company reveal that staff were  concerned that Hillary Co. was attempting to hide something based on the requests to narrow the backup window 

2. The FBI has the will and sophisticated recovery tools 

It's likely that the suspicious of the firm coupled with the FBI's sexism to devote resources to the investigation recovered all or part of what was wiped.  

(Side note, an IT firm will generally have a redundancy scheme--whether saving parity bits to multiple drives attached to different arrays or to tape, to geo-redundant servers elsewhere or a combination of the above.  Bet it makes everyone feel great that "above top secret data" was hanging out in these places.

Regardless, the fact the FBI shows no signs of rushing the investigation to accommodate the election cycle could be because the FBI (which took several months to go through the 50k "work" emails) could be going as patiently through the 31k "private" ones.)

The point is... All bets are off if the FBI has those emails, because they could be investigating Clinton Foundation business, things we don't know about -- or illegal Yoga routines.
Click to expand...
Hillary is a smart lawyer.  I doubt if she would put anything incriminating in an email.  There might be embarrassing stuff in those personal emails, but I doubt it is criminal.  The only thing criminal is she was probably over-agressive in the emails she deleted, which could bring obstruction charges.  

 
jon_mx said:
The Commish said:
There's no reason to go that low with her.  She has more brain capacity than a gnat.  She should be treated as such.  The irony of this whole election cycle, to me anyway, is that it requires an idiot like Trump to be her potential "foe".  Someone that bad has to be the person against Hillary for to be the choice and even then many of her votes will be of the "hold my nose" variety.
Click to expand...
I wish this election cycle people would refrain from the 'hold my nose' tactic.  It may appear to be the smart choice, but I think that is short-sighted.  Long-term it just means we will continue to not have a good choice from either of the major parties.  This election cycle, both parties are failing miserably and giving us absolute #### to choose from.  I think it is time to revolt and vote elsewhere.  Either libertarian or even green party.  
Click to expand...
fear is a powerful tool in politics and used aggressively by the establishment seeking to keep control in the two party system.

 
cstu said:
You would just love it if people did that and allowed Republicans to run wild with total control of the government and nominating a bunch of conservative Supreme Court Justices.
Click to expand...
I would perfer the current balance on the court remain, which is largely divided and with a moderate libertarian as the swing vote.  I think tipping the court one way or the other is a huge negative.  Freedoms are on the line in any major shift.  A tip to the left will put an already over-powerful federal government even more in control and endanger economic freedoms.  A tip to the right will endanger some individual freedoms, but I think that cat is really already out of the bag and can not be put back. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
It's not because of scapegoating that you find yourself in opposition to the majority, it's because you think everything is acceptable as it is.  Most others can see things aren't acceptable.  Some want to jerk things left to adjust, some want to jerk things right to adjust.  Apparently people like you seem to think doing the same things we've been doing will all of a sudden yield a different result.  One of these three is the definition of insanity.
Click to expand...
I want change as much as anybody else, but I want it to be gradual. I'm not looking for revolutions. Revolutions have unintended negative consequences. 

 
RBM said:
Yeah I was mostly referring to the first line with the liberal this and liberal that nonsense. 
Click to expand...
I've always been a social liberal and what I believed to be a fiscal conservative. Because I put fiscal items first, I often voted Republican in the past. 

But now the Republican party has moved away from me on fiscal issues. They are rejecting the Chamber of Commerce model of free trade and open immigration. They have no ideas about how to grow the economy other than to cut taxes, which to me is not sufficient in itself. So what further reason do I have to be for Republicans? None. 

But that doesn't mean I'm at home in the Democratic party. I'm closest right now to Hillary because at least she seems to understand something about business and trade. But the Dems are moving away from that too and forcing her to go with them. So pretty soon people who think like me will be completely isolated. 

 
jon_mx said:
I would perfer the current balance on the court remain, which is largely divided and with a moderate libertarian as the swing vote.  I think tipping the court one way or the other is a huge negative.  Freedoms are on the line in any major shift.  A tip to the left will put an already over-powerful federal government even more in control and endanger economic freedoms.  A tip to the right will endanger some individual freedoms, but I think that cat is really already out of the bag and can not be put back. 
Click to expand...
If you're worried about your economic freedom, you're free to move where there are no taxes. It's funny to me that conservatives place so much emphasis on 'economic freedom' but so little on 'real freedom' (marriage, drugs, voting, abortion, etc.)

 
timschochet said:
I want change as much as anybody else, but I want it to be gradual. I'm not looking for revolutions. Revolutions have unintended negative consequences. 
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that most of your arguments in these threads indicate otherwise, the truth is we have hard issues affecting this country (and the world) right now which can't be dealt with using the status quo; we are going to have to make drastic, revolutionary change to salvage the environment, for example. Another area calling for a revolution is campaign financing. Another is income inequality and a moral economy. People around the world are calling for change on this and the fact of the matter is that the people in power, who have the money and drive the policy, know that incremental change means more of the same. They laugh when they hear arguments like yours, because your fear guides you and secures them. 

As for unintended consequences, I have a hard time thinking of things going on in our foreign, fiscal and social policies over the last 30 years that don't have some serious unintended consequences. Casino style banking, check; crime reform, check; welfare reform, check; war on drugs, check; foreign intervention and empire building, check. And the list goes on...

You might want to start thinking about the intended consequences and worry less about all the potential collateral damage.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
You're taking this out of context.  The lying, evil witch part was quoted.  It did not originate with me.
Click to expand...
I apologize - my mistake.  It was late at night, I quickly scanned the thread for an over-the-top comment, and saw yours.   I missed that you were responding to a previous comment.

 
cstu said:
If you're worried about your economic freedom, you're free to move where there are no taxes. It's funny to me that conservatives place so much emphasis on 'economic freedom' but so little on 'real freedom' (marriage, drugs, voting, abortion, etc.)
Click to expand...
That's b/c economic conservatives threw in with social conservatives (aka the religious right) to create the modern GOP.    It's been a pretty solid combination.

 
The Future Champs said:
I apologize - my mistake.  It was late at night, I quickly scanned the thread for an over-the-top comment, and saw yours.   I missed that you were responding to a previous comment.
Click to expand...
No problem.  My opinion about her integrity (and that of the system around her) is hardly subtle -- but I've gone out my way not to insult her on superficial grounds like appearance, and I haven't called her names.  Regret that my response to that comment implicitly does.

Precisley because there is so much substance to criticize, it's important not to dilute it in ways that beg rightful sympathy.  

 
Last edited:
timschochet said:
I want change as much as anybody else, but I want it to be gradual. I'm not looking for revolutions. Revolutions have unintended negative consequences. 
Click to expand...
Like invasions of foreign countries, and pursuing regime changes?  Those kind of unintended consequences?  

Seems like Hillary and her supporters would be all for those kind of unintended consequences.

 
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
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Back
Top