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.
Baloney Sandwich said:
Interesting back and forth between old friends this morning on ABC:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/05/stephanopoulos_grills_hillary_clinton_will_you_accept_report_saying_your_email_server_broke_rules.html
Click to expand...
"It was a mistake, I would not do it again, but I think that the rules were not clarified until after I had left."

"Everybody in the department knew that I was emailing from a personal address. Hundreds of people knew it. People around the government knew it."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
That article is complete nonsense.  We have a big role to play in world affairs.  It was non-interventionist thinking that led to WW2.  As for Hillary's Iraq vote, it was a mistake but she was lied to by the Bush administration.
Click to expand...
If we are going to play a big role - we need different people making those decisions.  Going in and forcing regime changes, when we have no plans for afterwards simply replaces one mess with another.  We, quite simply, are not very good at nation building.  I am not sure anyone is - nation building is best when it comes from within - organically.

We have so many other things we can/should be focused on domestically, the world won't fall apart if we stop meddling in others' affairs.  We have massive infrastructure projects we can focus on.  We can devote more resources towards cleaner, renewable energy.  The fact that we are propping up the economy on the strength of petro dollars is no reason to continue to support an unsustainable bubble.  We have to be better strategic planners, and not always focus on tomorrow.  Sometimes we need to focus on 20 years down the road.

We need to figure out healthcare - getting everyone covered, providing appropriate levels of care, and reducing the overall cost of healthcare.

We need to figure out education.  We are basically trying to educate our kids the same way our grandparents were taught - as the world is evolving, we need to put resources into education - making sure we are educating properly, and focused on the right areas.  And, if that means we need a potential workforce with 16 years of education, or 12 years of book learning, and 4 years in an apprentice-type situation - then we need to spend that money - invest in our future.

Our galavanting around the globe, costly, both in terms of treasury, and in terms of image - which has an impact on how we can influence others in the world.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Again, the anger against me is just a tiny part of the Republican problem from their leadership (Paul Ryan) on down: they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to say, "Hey, we don't like Donald Trump's bigotry and ignorance any more than the rest of you, but we're going to vote for him because of this or that and we don't want Hillary yada yada". And then they want us to treat them just the same when this is all over with, after Trump gets crushed. 

Well sorry, but it's not going to happen. If you vote for Trump, you're going to have to live with that shame for the rest of your life. That goes for Paul Ryan, and all the Republicans who have now endorsed him, and every conservative in this forum who votes for him. 
Click to expand...
Here's a tip.  Paul Ryan doesn't give a crap about you.  Paul Ryan doesn't know who you are.  Paul Ryan nor the Republican party are angry at you because neither know you.  You aren't half as important as you think you are.

Here's a 2nd tip.  Until I have a better reason, I'll vote for Trump over Clinton because I think that's the fastest way to get rid of this abortion called Obamacare, which was a total BS policy from the beginning.  It has nothing to do with Muslims or Mexicans.  Do you know why?  Because Trump could never pass such legislation and I doubt he would try anyway.  But keep spouting your ignorant, bigoted comments that everyone that votes for trump supports bigotry.  

 
cstu said:
"It was a mistake, I would not do it again, but I think that the rules were not clarified until after I had left."
Click to expand...
Yes, now the question was do you accept the conclusion of the IG report that said you broke the rules.  Hillary's answer which you posted above is that she doesn't accept their report.

 
cstu said:
"It was a mistake, I would not do it again, but I think that the rules were not clarified until after I had left."

"Everybody in the department knew that I was emailing from a personal address. Hundreds of people knew it. People around the government knew it."
Click to expand...
She is still lying she's not even reading Podesta's own memo on this.

 
The problem for Hillary as opposed to Podesta or her campaign acknowledging the fact it wasn't authorized is that Hillary is still under investigation and a statement against interest like that has real world consequences.

 
timschochet said:
Again, the anger against me is just a tiny part of the Republican problem from their leadership (Paul Ryan) on down: they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to say, "Hey, we don't like Donald Trump's bigotry and ignorance any more than the rest of you, but we're going to vote for him because of this or that and we don't want Hillary yada yada". And then they want us to treat them just the same when this is all over with, after Trump gets crushed. 

Well sorry, but it's not going to happen. If you vote for Trump, you're going to have to live with that shame for the rest of your life. That goes for Paul Ryan, and all the Republicans who have now endorsed him, and every conservative in this forum who votes for him. 
Click to expand...
By the same token, when Hillary gets indicted, you have to live with the shame that the person you not only endorsed but we're so staunchly in support of jeopardized the party and the country.  That's on you.  The writing was on the wall, we all were telling you not to bury your head in the sand on her and you did it anyway.  Shame on you, Tim.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
If we are going to play a big role - we need different people making those decisions.  Going in and forcing regime changes, when we have no plans for afterwards simply replaces one mess with another.  We, quite simply, are not very good at nation building.  I am not sure anyone is - nation building is best when it comes from within - organically.

We have so many other things we can/should be focused on domestically, the world won't fall apart if we stop meddling in others' affairs.  We have massive infrastructure projects we can focus on.  We can devote more resources towards cleaner, renewable energy.  The fact that we are propping up the economy on the strength of petro dollars is no reason to continue to support an unsustainable bubble.  We have to be better strategic planners, and not always focus on tomorrow.  Sometimes we need to focus on 20 years down the road.

We need to figure out healthcare - getting everyone covered, providing appropriate levels of care, and reducing the overall cost of healthcare.

We need to figure out education.  We are basically trying to educate our kids the same way our grandparents were taught - as the world is evolving, we need to put resources into education - making sure we are educating properly, and focused on the right areas.  And, if that means we need a potential workforce with 16 years of education, or 12 years of book learning, and 4 years in an apprentice-type situation - then we need to spend that money - invest in our future.

Our galavanting around the globe, costly, both in terms of treasury, and in terms of image - which has an impact on how we can influence others in the world.
Click to expand...
Yes we would have a much more profound and positive impact on the world if we focused more internally on education, research and development, and other non militaristic avenues where we actually can development technologies to improve other counties infrastructure rather than bombing it.

 
cstu said:
"It was a mistake, I would not do it again, but I think that the rules were not clarified until after I had left."

"Everybody in the department knew that I was emailing from a personal address. Hundreds of people knew it. People around the government knew it."
Click to expand...
Same bull#### that's been summarily decimated.  If she thinks this helps her in the court of public opinion good luck.  Her future hinges more on the FBI than on public perception now.  She is totally ####ed because none of this is going to fly with the Feds.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Here's a 2nd tip.  Until I have a better reason, I'll vote for Trump over Clinton because I think that's the fastest way to get rid of this abortion called Obamacare, which was a total BS policy from the beginning.  It has nothing to do with Muslims or Mexicans.  Do you know why?  Because Trump could never pass such legislation and I doubt he would try anyway.  But keep spouting your ignorant, bigoted comments that everyone that votes for trump supports bigotry.  
Click to expand...
Anyone that believes a President is repealing the ACA without a 2/3rds majority in the Senate is ignorant of how our government works.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I apologize in advance for the edits that misrepresent this portion of your post as something intelligent and honest.

While the authorization vote was several month's earlier, and Hillary was pretty damn foolish expecting that the W administration was going to act in good faith, there is no rational way to conclude that the State of the Union speech and Powell's "painful" performance at the UN was in any way shape or form honest.  if for no other reason stating things what they "hoped and believed" to be true was absolute facts - kind of like this thread.
Click to expand...
So, let me get this straight - NOW you're asking me to believe that Powell and GWB LIED to the American people without any absolute proof?  You're basing your "proof" that GWB lied on a "painful" performance, yet you have no absolute proof which is what you're asking those who oppose Hillary to produce (which we actually do have in the form of the State Dept. IG report)?

I want to make sure I understand this correctly coming from someone who has been defending HRC since the beginning of this thread and asking others to not to believe that she's a lying snake.  Basically, giving HRC the benefit of the doubt in the absence of absolute proof she lied (see above mentioned IG report), but NOT giving that same benefit to GWB and Bush.  THAT'S what you're asking me to do? Right?  Do I understand that correctly?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Good for you Max.  :thumbup:

What if I were to put forward the argument that this is the single most important issue in the election and that, despite your detestation of Hillary Clinton and everything else she stands for, you should probably vote for her anyhow? 
Click to expand...
But I'm not so sure The Donald would make us isolationists.  I mean, the progressive posters in this thread have been scaring everyone into thinking that he is going to drop The Bomb if elected, so that doesn't sound like someone who is an isolationist to me.

If you are talking about a choice between HRC and Sanders and I had no choice to vote for one or the other based on this issue alone then I would side with HRC.

 
MaxThreshold said:
So, let me get this straight - NOW you're asking me to believe that Powell and GWB LIED to the American people without any absolute proof?  You're basing your "proof" that GWB lied on a "painful" performance, yet you have no absolute proof which is what you're asking those who oppose Hillary to produce?

I want to make sure I understand this correctly coming from someone who has been defending HRC since the beginning of this thread and asking others to not to believe that she's a lying snake.  Basically, giving HRC the benefit of the doubt in the absence of absolute proof she lied (which we actually do have in the form of the State Dept. IG report), but NOT giving that same benefit to GWB and Bush.  THAT'S what you're asking me to do? Right?  Do I understand that correctly?
Click to expand...
The reason I say he 'lied' us into war is that I don't think he believed the so-called evidence that he used as the justification to start the war.  If you want to argue that he failed to consider any evidence to the contrary that Iraq had WMD's and took the intelligence community's incorrect conclusions as gospel when there was plenty of reason to question them, then fine, I won't disagree. 

And let me be clear - Democrats - including Hillary - were guilty as well of going along with him as anybody and were swept up in populist anger over 9/11 as well.  Shame on them as well.

http://theweek.com/articles/555921/george-w-bush-didnt-just-lie-about-iraq-war-what-did-much-worse

For the moment I want to focus on the part about the lies. I've found over the years that conservatives who supported the war get particularly angry at the assertion that Bush lied us into war. No, they'll insist, it wasn't his fault: There was mistaken intelligence, he took that intelligence in good faith, and presented what he believed to be true at the time. It's the George Costanza defense: It's not a lie if you believe it.

Here's the problem, though. It might be possible, with some incredibly narrow definition of the word "lie," to say that Bush told only a few outright lies on Iraq. Most of what he said in order to sell the public on the war could be said to have some basis in something somebody thought or something somebody alleged (Bush was slightly more careful than **** Cheney, who lied without hesitation or remorse). But if we reduce the question of Bush's guilt and responsibility to how many lies we can count, we miss the bigger picture.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.
Click to expand...

 
Clinton is going to be so close to the number after these PR numbers that her camp is going to need to make sure that no Supers declare for her in the next 48 hours.

 
Trey said:
Clinton is going to be so close to the number after these PR numbers that her camp is going to need to make sure that no Supers declare for her in the next 48 hours.
Click to expand...
Voter suppression in Puerto Rico was predictable and will be on a scale greater than we've seen yet in this election. This isn't surprising with our Congress about to pass a (not reported in the MSM) bill that will impose neocolonial control over Puerto Rico; what is surprising is that the guys responsible for closing the polling stations and suppressing the vote in additional ways are these dudes. Or perhaps not...

Also not surprising that it's being tweeted that MSNBC is coming up with a story that the Sander's campaign requested the polling station cuts. I imagine this will end up like the mythological violence that took place in Nevada, which MSNBC lapped up in loving spoonfuls.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Willie Neslon said:
The speech never trended on twitter. Most websites have it as about the 8th story, somewhere in between Chewbacca mom/family getting scholarships and stories about what fentanyl is. Meanwhile positive stories about Trump are tops on cbs and nbc news sites. If this is the best she's got, it's over.  Someone made a great point earlier.  She basically just did the same thing Jindal and Romney did in the primaries. That's her big campaign strategy: do like Jindal.
Click to expand...


squistion said:
That means nothing. :hophead:
Click to expand...
I agree, only a complete idiot would spend a lot of time paying attention to what's posted on Twitter.

 
Willie Neslon and Sinn Fein both posted here that Hillary's speech meant nothing, that it would have no effect. That turned out to be EXTREMELY premature, as it turns out. After Muhammad Ali, it was the number one topic on the Sunday morning shows. Four days later it continues to dominate all of the political discussion, along with Trump's idiotic Mexican judge comments (which only reaffirms what Hillary was saying). 

Last week will be remembered as a turning point in this election cycle. 

 
This Reuters poll (Hillary up +11) was discussed this past weekend I believe but looking at it more closely it shows "Other, Wouldn't Vote or Refused" as at 18.6%. I'm starting to think that regardless of how 3rd party candidacies like Stein, Johnson or a Player TBN Later perform that a significant of people are just going to stay home. It's been speculated on before but this seems like a high number for two people who are almost totally known.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Willie Neslon and Sinn Fein both posted here that Hillary's speech meant nothing, that it would have no effect. That turned out to be EXTREMELY premature, as it turns out. After Muhammad Ali, it was the number one topic on the Sunday morning shows. Four days later it continues to dominate all of the political discussion, along with Trump's idiotic Mexican judge comments (which only reaffirms what Hillary was saying). 

Last week will be remembered as a turning point in this election cycle. 
Click to expand...
I have most of the same issues with Hillary that others in this thread do but I never thought she was in serious jeopardy of losing to Trump - granted, I've underestimated Trump the entire time - or maybe I should say I've underestimated the general populace and their willingness to nominate a completely unqualified candidate.  The only turning point Hillary needs is to not get indicted.

 
timschochet said:
Willie Neslon and Sinn Fein both posted here that Hillary's speech meant nothing, that it would have no effect. That turned out to be EXTREMELY premature, as it turns out. After Muhammad Ali, it was the number one topic on the Sunday morning shows. Four days later it continues to dominate all of the political discussion, along with Trump's idiotic Mexican judge comments (which only reaffirms what Hillary was saying). 

Last week will be remembered as a turning point in this election cycle. 
Click to expand...
What percentage of the voting population do you think watch the Sunday morning news shows?  Of those that watch, how many do you think have changed their minds - on the basis of that speech?

If you did not like Clinton before - nothing in that speech made you think that she is the right candidate.  If you were on the fence, nothing in the speech surprised you about Trump.  The political pundits like to play kingmakers - but if this election has taught us anything, its that the political pundits are as far removed from the thoughts and concerns of the voting public as the political establishment.

In reality, the people that are going to decide this election - the generally ill-informed - don't really care about foreign policy.  They care about lost jobs.  They care about stagnant wages.  They care about affordable healthcare.  They care about having the tools to be successful in life.

The only people who really care about foreign policy are the people who think they know a bit about it, but really know as much as the people who know nothing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Willie Neslon and Sinn Fein both posted here that Hillary's speech meant nothing, that it would have no effect. That turned out to be EXTREMELY premature, as it turns out. After Muhammad Ali, it was the number one topic on the Sunday morning shows. Four days later it continues to dominate all of the political discussion, along with Trump's idiotic Mexican judge comments (which only reaffirms what Hillary was saying). 

Last week will be remembered as a turning point in this election cycle. 
Click to expand...
I'm going to ask you a favor.  Be less trolley about this.  Because whereas her speech itself was more scripted nonsense, Trump crossed another canyon of disqualification.  (Both live firming on that continent IMO).  That someone should be disallowed to do their job because of ethnic origin is so far beyond the pale it makes taking laundered bribes and jeopardizing national security seem trite.

As much as I'm pulling for justice to prevail and Hillary to be indicted, the Trump clown show is warming me to the prospect of one of the most corrupt and divisive figures in American political history being our President.  Somehow the universe turned up a species of scum that buries itself under the floor boards covered in slime.

Im feeling really good about this election.

 
Mr. Ham said:
I'm going to ask you a favor.  Be less trolley about this.  Because whereas her speech itself was more scripted nonsense, Trump crossed another canyon of disqualification.  (Both live firming on that continent IMO).  That someone should be disallowed to do their job because of ethnic origin is so far beyond the pale it makes taking laundered bribes and jeopardizing national security seem trite.

As much as I'm pulling for justice to prevail and Hillary to be indicted, the Trump clown show is warming me to the prospect of one of the most corrupt and divisive figures in American political history being our President.  Somehow the universe turned up a species of scum that buries itself under the floor boards covered in slime.

Im feeling really good about this election.
Click to expand...
Trolly? I predicted the speech would have an effect, and I continue to maintain its having one. 

But as far as you rethinking your support after Trump's latest Mexican comments, I'm glad to hear it, and Im reading this a lot, but where were you guys before? This isn't anything new by Trump. He's been saying the same stuff for months now. 

 
I don't think the speech is significant as policy per se - hey let's stay in NATO, etc. A lot of Trump's policies are absurd, policy wise it's like saying the sun appears at daytime and the other guy is all for the moon appearing at noon. I mean folks, we just saw the Democratic likely nominee standing up for Reagan and McCain in a foreign policy speech. - I think it's significant from the aspect that Hillary is showing her hand that a main theme is that Trump will be a risky leader to the point of being dangerous.

This is the same argument she made with Obama in 08 with the 3am phone call, and that was an effective ad, it will probably go down as one of the most memorable in modern political history, but Obama was a capable, well studied guy with some experience in the Senate and a great sense of sounding measured, philosophical and thoughtful, he rebuffed and overcame that. Trump this week responded by essentially calling Hillary a pootyhead, accusing her of reading her speech, and man is he gonna let her have it on Monday (if he does have a comeback speech today that should be amusing if he goes 'policy' off the top of his head). At any rate the 'Trump is a dangerous leader' theme will probably be there the whole campaign and it will likely have some effect because it's true. Policy-wise IMO in content and tone it was basically Rubioesque only Hillary does not have to worry about her left (she thinks, her presuming the race is over) and she does not have to worry about offending Trump fans unlike Rubio, Bush, etc., because they obviously are not a group she is after. And while Hillary has flaws on real policy and her record in her own regard, Trump is not the one to raise them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This Reuters poll (Hillary up +11) was discussed this past weekend I believe but looking at it more closely it shows "Other, Wouldn't Vote or Refused" as at 18.6%. I'm starting to think that regardless of how 3rd party candidacies like Stein, Johnson or a Player TBN Later perform that a significant of people are just going to stay home. It's been speculated on before but this seems like a high number for two people who are almost totally known.
Click to expand...
The one thing Hillary still can do is nominate Warren for VP.  That would appease a significant number of Bernie supporters who are presumably in that 18%. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
What percentage of the voting population do you think watch the Sunday morning news shows?  Of those that watch, how many do you think have changed their minds - on the basis of that speech?

If you did not like Clinton before - nothing in that speech made you think that she is the right candidate.  If you were on the fence, nothing in the speech surprised you about Trump.  The political pundits like to play kingmakers - but if this election has taught us anything, its that the political pundits are as far removed from the thoughts and concerns of the voting public as the political establishment.

In reality, the people that are going to decide this election - the generally ill-informed - don't really care about foreign policy.  They care about lost jobs.  They care about stagnant wages.  They care about affordable healthcare.  They care about having the tools to be successful in life.

The only people who really care about foreign policy are the people who think they know a bit about it, but really know as much as the people who know nothing.
Click to expand...
You're probably right it didn't change any minds, but it certainly energized Hillary's base which is probably more important in the grand scheme of things since her natural coalition of voters is greater than 50% of the voters if they turn out to vote. 

 
timschochet said:
Trolly? I predicted the speech would have an effect, and I continue to maintain its having one. 

But as far as you rethinking your support after Trump's latest Mexican comments, I'm glad to hear it, and Im reading this a lot, but where were you guys before? This isn't anything new by Trump. He's been saying the same stuff for months now. 
Click to expand...
I've been anti-Trump, and vehemently so, throughout.  I've always considered him a carnival barker.  What he said about the judges last week takes him to a different level of fascism...  Not that it's unexpected.  To me it signals that if elected, he will attempt to ignore laws entirely in terms of his special brand of "common sense."  It just can't happen.  

 
dparker713 said:
Anyone that believes a President is repealing the ACA without a 2/3rds majority in the Senate is ignorant of how our government works.
Click to expand...
Demicrats have set the precedent for bypassing long held rules. :shrug:  

 
Were people not concerned when Obama smacked down the Supreme Court in his SOTU address?  Now Trump is Adolf Hitler because of some comments about a judge. Friggin unreal amount of hyperbole going around. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
I've been anti-Trump, and vehemently so, throughout.  I've always considered him a carnival barker.  What he said about the judges last week takes him to a different level of fascism...  Not that it's unexpected.  To me it signals that if elected, he will attempt to ignore laws entirely in terms of his special brand of "common sense."  It just can't happen.  
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's too bad on many levels. Hillary is such a flawed candidate and person, why does the alternative have to be Donald Trump? Such a missed opportunity.

 
timschochet said:
Willie Neslon and Sinn Fein both posted here that Hillary's speech meant nothing, that it would have no effect. That turned out to be EXTREMELY premature, as it turns out. After Muhammad Ali, it was the number one topic on the Sunday morning shows. Four days later it continues to dominate all of the political discussion, along with Trump's idiotic Mexican judge comments (which only reaffirms what Hillary was saying). 

Last week will be remembered as a turning point in this election cycle. 
Click to expand...
The only "turning point" left in this election cycle is if Hillary gets indicted....your fear chamber is distorting reality in a big way.

 
Sammy3469 said:
You're probably right it didn't change any minds, but it certainly energized Hillary's base which is probably more important in the grand scheme of things since her natural coalition of voters is greater than 50% of the voters if they turn out to vote. 
Click to expand...
I am curious - what do you consider her "base"

And, what percentage of her base do you think are even aware of the  speech?  There are roughly 10M viewers of the sunday talks shows, overlap probably puts uniques in the 7-8 million range, maybe a smidge lower.  That amounts to less than 3% of the public.

The people who are energized are not the "base", they are the Hillary activists - people who were already excited about her candidacy.  That speech will not affect voter turnout in November....

 
The Commish said:
The only "turning point" left in this election cycle is if Hillary gets indicted....your fear chamber is distorting reality in a big way.
Click to expand...
That's never going to happen. 

I've always believed that Hillary was going to win this thing. But the speech was a turning point, because now she might win in a landslide, meaning that the Senate could turn and the House- who knows? This could be a very big deal. I realize not for you, since you see little difference between the two parties and candidates. But most people don't feel that way, thankfully. The Republican party has been taken over by extremists and they need to be defeated- badly. (And it's important for the health of this nation for Trump to be completely repudiated.) 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
President Obama playing the role of adult in the room. I'd use him very carefully, he's still divisive, as indicated by the "worst president ever" thread on here.
Click to expand...
He has a higher favorability rating than either of the two candidates, which is remarkable after eight years as president. He can also help a lot with turnout in minority communities; African-American voters staying home this year after big turnout numbers recently has always been a central part of the argument about where Trump can gain on McCain and Romney's numbers. I think he'll be out in force.

 
cobalt_27 said:
For someone who has publicly admitted on these boards several times he hasn't really followed this story or know any pertinent details--that you're too "bored" to be bothered by any of it--this is a transparently foolish thing to believe, unless it is for the express purpose of self-delusion.
Click to expand...
Come on cobalt- forget about me and what I've read or haven't read. Do you REALLY, deep down, think she's going to be indicted? Do you? Be honest. 

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