timschochet
Footballguy
Exactly. Judicial Watch is not the FBI. Hillary does not need to cooperate with JW, nor should she IMO.
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)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
dparker713
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Even sillier than that is thinking that an attorney objecting to questions asked of his client during a deposition is a story in the first place.
BREAKING NEWS: deposition of Clinton coworker proceeds like any other deposition.
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
timschochet
Footballguy
News reports are that Harry Reid is now open to Liz Warren being the VP choice- he's willing to give up the Senate seat.
Do it Hillary!
Do it Hillary!
Trey
Footballguy
Again it's just interesting that never before in my memory has such a fuss been made over the presumptive nominee label. It certainly was not for Obama, Kerry, Romney, or McCain.
But it's good to know that everyone is suddenly so committed to following the DNC bylaws to a T.
All it boils down to is not liking who is on the winning side.
When polls close tonight Clinton will have won:
- majority of pledged delegates
- majority of popular vote
- majority of contests held
8 years ago today Clinton gave her best speech ever( The 18 million cracks) in her concession. I'd like to think that tonight's speech where she claims the mantle will be on that level.
But it's good to know that everyone is suddenly so committed to following the DNC bylaws to a T.
All it boils down to is not liking who is on the winning side.
When polls close tonight Clinton will have won:
- majority of pledged delegates
- majority of popular vote
- majority of contests held
8 years ago today Clinton gave her best speech ever( The 18 million cracks) in her concession. I'd like to think that tonight's speech where she claims the mantle will be on that level.
Rick James
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
No different than her status in February or March or April or May. This is not breaking new ground here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
CNN called, they said jump off a bridge.
If they told you wolverines would make good house pets, would you believe them? You are even more socially engineered than I first thought.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Trey
Footballguy
But there will be no more votes to be counted. After new Hampshire for example she led in none of those categories. After California, all states will have voted. Her status will be locked in.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Except that her staus won't be locked in until the SDs cast their official vote. That doesn't happen for another 7 weeks. She doesn't have enough delegates right now to clinch, just as she didn't in May, April, March, or February.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Does the media even do this anymore after getting burned a few election cycles back? They have waited for votes to start rolling in before making declarations as of late, so while I don't say I am waiting for every vote, I do say I am waiting for actual votes to start rolling in.
Regardless, they make it clear they are PREDICTING an outcome, which is different than what you've done so I'm not even sure why you bring this up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackstraw
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
The Superdelegates don't vote until July. That's when they're official vote is cast. No different than what California is doing today. We have had polling on California all year, virtually all polls have shown Hillary over Bernie, often by double-digits. It is understandable that folks in March and April would mentally compute those delegates and put them in Hillary's bucket. But, until the votes are cast, nothing is clinched, nothing is official.
Same with the SDs, whose primary is on July 25. It's reasonable to assume they will vote overwhelmingly in Hillary's favor based on the current data we have. But, as the DNC repeatedly has pointed out that it is erroneous to count those votes today as anything concrete or official. Because she does not have enough recorded delegates to win the nomination today, she will have to wait until July.
Same with the SDs, whose primary is on July 25. It's reasonable to assume they will vote overwhelmingly in Hillary's favor based on the current data we have. But, as the DNC repeatedly has pointed out that it is erroneous to count those votes today as anything concrete or official. Because she does not have enough recorded delegates to win the nomination today, she will have to wait until July.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
I don't understand why people keep saying Bernie can't win. All he needs to do is sweep all of the remaining states and then convince the Super Delegates to jump to his side.
cstu
Footballguy
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
Women across this country should be embarrassed Hillary is the first real candidate to represent the gender.timschochet said:
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.
Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration – on the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him – most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that their nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.
None of this is to deny that Hillary Clinton – as was always the case from the start – is highly likely to be the legitimately chosen winner of this process. It’s true that the party’s governing rules are deliberately undemocratic; unfair and even corrupt decisions were repeatedly made by party officials to benefit Clinton; and the ostensibly neutral Democratic National Committee (led by the incomparably heinous Debbie Wasserman Schultz) constantly put not just its thumb but its entire body on the scale to ensure she won. But it’s also true that under the long-standing rules of the Party, more people who voted preferred Clinton as their nominee over Sanders. Independent of superdelegates, she just got more votes. There’s no denying that.
And just as was true in 2008 with Obama’s nomination, it should be noted that standing alone – i.e., without regard to the merits of the candidate – Clinton’s nomination is an important and positive milestone. Americans, being Americans, will almost certainly overstate its world significance and wallow in excessive self-congratulations: many countries on the planet have elected women as their leaders, including many whose close family member had not previously served as president. Nonetheless, the U.S. presidency still occupies an extremely influential political and cultural position in the world. Particularly for a country with such an oppressive history on race and gender, the election of the first African-American president and nomination of the first female presidential candidate of a major party is significant in shaping how people all over the world, especially children, view their own and other people’s potential and possibilities. But that’s all the more reason to lament this dreary conclusion.
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance – rallying behind a Wall-Street-funded, status-quo-perpetuating, multi-millionaire militarist – is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.
Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration – on the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him – most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that their nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.
None of this is to deny that Hillary Clinton – as was always the case from the start – is highly likely to be the legitimately chosen winner of this process. It’s true that the party’s governing rules are deliberately undemocratic; unfair and even corrupt decisions were repeatedly made by party officials to benefit Clinton; and the ostensibly neutral Democratic National Committee (led by the incomparably heinous Debbie Wasserman Schultz) constantly put not just its thumb but its entire body on the scale to ensure she won. But it’s also true that under the long-standing rules of the Party, more people who voted preferred Clinton as their nominee over Sanders. Independent of superdelegates, she just got more votes. There’s no denying that.
And just as was true in 2008 with Obama’s nomination, it should be noted that standing alone – i.e., without regard to the merits of the candidate – Clinton’s nomination is an important and positive milestone. Americans, being Americans, will almost certainly overstate its world significance and wallow in excessive self-congratulations: many countries on the planet have elected women as their leaders, including many whose close family member had not previously served as president. Nonetheless, the U.S. presidency still occupies an extremely influential political and cultural position in the world. Particularly for a country with such an oppressive history on race and gender, the election of the first African-American president and nomination of the first female presidential candidate of a major party is significant in shaping how people all over the world, especially children, view their own and other people’s potential and possibilities. But that’s all the more reason to lament this dreary conclusion.
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance – rallying behind a Wall-Street-funded, status-quo-perpetuating, multi-millionaire militarist – is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.
The Commish
Footballguy
How does she justify a Warren selection as anything other than political expediency and pandering? They are the very definition of oil/water. Better yet, why would a Hillary supporter want someone so opposed to Hillary's positions?
Last edited by a moderator:
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
We're shuffling in the right direction but passed an opportunity to take a giant leap. Obama Democrats as you've described are cowards too scared to look at the larger picture and push the chips all in when you had a great hand.tone1oc said:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
How dare Clinton choose a VP candidate based on political considerations! We've never seen anything like that before. Next you're gonna tell me one of her coworker's lawyers objected to questions asked of his client at a deposition.
This candidacy just gets stranger every day.
timschochet
Footballguy
Because they agree with each other far more than they disagree and because they are unified in the main goal: defeating Donald Trump.
The Commish
Footballguy
Stop being obtuse....it's not very becoming. The meat of my point was the final question.
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
Because, like Hillary, they just want to win. If it ensured her becoming president Hillary would choose Guy Fieri as a running mate.
Still have a hard time believing Warren would say yes to such a bought off panderer but who knows what discussions would take place behind closed doors. They'd have to deal with the Warren video calling Clinton flip-flopper on the bankruptcy bill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
timschochet
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
The last part is true....the first part, not so much.....not even close. Hillary's actions in the Senate are the exact types of actions Warren has railed on since she got her voice in the Senate.
timschochet
Footballguy
Commish, Liz Warren is pro choice. She believes that climate change is a serious issue. She is concerned about police mistreatment of minorities.
I don't know what her foreign policy views are. I disagree with her on trade and certain of her views on the big banks and business regulation. But so what? She's a good person, like Hillary. It's enough.
I don't know what her foreign policy views are. I disagree with her on trade and certain of her views on the big banks and business regulation. But so what? She's a good person, like Hillary. It's enough.
The Commish
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Hint: Clinton's positions =/= her detractors' characterizations of her positions.
Here's Clinton's web page giving her positions on various issues. If you're prefer an unfiltered source, here's the Clinton page from ontheissues.org noting her statements and voting record. Which of these do you think Warren opposes?
And even if their perspectives differ on some issues, that's not new- in fact it's more the rule than the exception. See Mike Dukakis choosing the more conservative Lloyd Bentsen, Bill Clinton choosing the more liberal Al Gore, Al Gore choosing the more conservative Joe Lieberman, etc. It's never been perceived as a problem. If anything people tend to look upon it favorably, as a sign of open-mindedness.
timschochet
Footballguy
Jayrod
Footballguy
OK, now you are just making it obvious. Subtlety has been your strong suit during this fishing trip, don't blow it now when you are so close to the end.
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
No matter who you are supporting, how can anybody be ok with a candidate being named the nominee by the press on a night when no voting took place? A couple of reporters place a few phone calls to people we've never heard of and suddenly the race is over? How is this OK? This is something to be celebrated? Have we all lost our minds here?
timschochet
Footballguy
Lol
Jayrod if you want to back to the beginning of this thread you will find that I have been very consistent about this. About two years ago I read a few books about Hillary Clinton, including Game Change and another book about 2012, and later Hard Choices. These books convinced me that my earlier impression of Hillary was a false one, and that she is actually a very good person. I believe this to be true.
The Commish
Footballguy
Well, I go by actions over stated positions so we are coming from two very different places on this. I know what Clinton says her positions are, her actions tell a very different story (outside of women's rights and child healthcare/education.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Nobody is really celebrating it. AP and others are simply doing investigative work and reporting the facts, which is their job. Clinton's campaign is waiting until tonight to celebrate, when she will win enough pledged delegates to guarantee her a majority. At which point all the people currently making principled arguments about how superdelegates should not supersede the will of the people will immediately pull the most predictable 180 ever.
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
Guys, no need to worry about Clinton. She's a good person. We know this because Tim read Game Change.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The second link also lists her votes in the Senate on a wide variety of issues. How many of those do you think Warren disagrees with? Maybe 10% tops?
All due respect GB, but you're making a very silly argument here. Even if they are very different (which they're not), that's nothing new and has never been seen as a negative before, or even questioned really. In fact with every politician in the past, showing yourself to be open to different perspectives has generally been seen as a positive. The last two Democratic presidents have both chosen Republicans to serve on their cabinets and were widely praised for doing so.
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well I'm guessing they're not $800/hr. ex-DOJ/WH, like Hillary's, no.dparker713 said:
eta - As for why should Hillary Squad expose themselves to criminal liability voluntarily.... yeah you're preaching to the choir on that one.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
It's remarkable how there are daily reminders in this thread demonstrating how Clinton is held to completely different and preposterous standards.
Other Democratic primary winners were allowed to celebrate when they crossed the delegate threshold because the rules are the rules even if some people don't like them, but Clinton and her supporters cannot (never mind that she's not).
Plenty of other presidential candidates have chosen VP nominees based on political considerations rather than ideological pairings, but when Clinton even hints at the possibility that she might do it's unjustifiable and unprincipled.
Virtually every lawyer in the history of American jurisprudence has objected to questions asked of their client during a deposition, but when a lawyer for a Clinton associate does it it's evidence of a massive coverup or conspiracy or something (I didn't really follow that ridiculous argument).
That's three absolute nonsense criticisms of Clinton, her campaign and her supporters before noon. And yet people will still maintain that Clinton is treated fairly, or even favorably, by the public and the press.
Other Democratic primary winners were allowed to celebrate when they crossed the delegate threshold because the rules are the rules even if some people don't like them, but Clinton and her supporters cannot (never mind that she's not).
Plenty of other presidential candidates have chosen VP nominees based on political considerations rather than ideological pairings, but when Clinton even hints at the possibility that she might do it's unjustifiable and unprincipled.
Virtually every lawyer in the history of American jurisprudence has objected to questions asked of their client during a deposition, but when a lawyer for a Clinton associate does it it's evidence of a massive coverup or conspiracy or something (I didn't really follow that ridiculous argument).
That's three absolute nonsense criticisms of Clinton, her campaign and her supporters before noon. And yet people will still maintain that Clinton is treated fairly, or even favorably, by the public and the press.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Don't forget Hard Choices.
In other words, Tim is a sucker for propaganda, while simultaneously being averse to objective, detached analysis. That has been a consistent trait observed over and over again. And, it is in part why he is famously--notoriously--bad at prognostication. He chooses outcomes he wants, not those he has studied in any objective, systematized manner. He chooses to stand behind narratives that appeal to his ideology, not those rooted in facts.
And then he has the gall to chastise anyone else with an ideology.
Last edited by a moderator:
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
I've alleged he's a paid shill for the campaign. I was half kidding but I think it's more likely he volunteers for the campaign and has taken it upon himself to do that volunteering right here in the FFA. He's convinced himself that he's moving the needle with each post. He's right in the fact that he's moving the needle, just not in the direction he's intended.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Selecting Warren as her VP pick is such a slam dunk that I can't believe people making any argument against it.
If you want to energize the base/Bernie supporters (which is the most important thing in this election) that's the best way to do it. Plus she pisses Trump off so much, he'll just keep tweeting non-sensical stuff everyday.
If you want to energize the base/Bernie supporters (which is the most important thing in this election) that's the best way to do it. Plus she pisses Trump off so much, he'll just keep tweeting non-sensical stuff everyday.
Rove!
Footballguy
Why would anybody want to have associate so closely with such morally bankrupt and utterly corrupt individual...whoever accepts the VP slot is flushing their reputation down the toilet.
Last edited by a moderator:
George Jefferson Airplane
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
