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 (11 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Courtjester said:
There is a poll on MSN (which is about a left leaning as it gets MSM wise) and over 600k have voted. The question is "should there be a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants to allow a better vetting process"

Again over 600,000 have voted and 63% are in favor of it. 
Click to expand...
Voluntary internet polls don't mean much no matter who conducts them.

 
The Commish said:
Each one's best attribute is they aren't the other candidate....tough to reconcile.  Not sure why people stand for it honestly.
Click to expand...
Anyone but Trump up against Hillary, they're probably ahead 60-40. Anyone but Hillary against Trump, they're up 70-30.

It's indistinguishable from what would be happening if both sides just didn't want the win. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
To those who are confused and/or attempting to minimize the FBI investigation as nothing more than a routine "security review," it's a criminal investigation. 
Click to expand...
It's a ruling by a federal court, folks.

And it was so ridiculous, the DOJ wouldn't say the words 'criminal investigation' even as they were applying for an exemption devoted to criminal investigations.

And oh btw Pags will be deposed. I guess this means he will be taking the 5th for substantial portions of it though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeaverCleaver:

Keep your head in the sand.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The Trump fans in this thread remind me of the infamous Onion headline from last year (which becomes more and more relevant with each passing day).

Just replace "Trump" with "Hillary" and throw in a reference to "indictment" and there you go.

 
So the DNC has been notified that their computers were breached by Russian hackers about a year ago and have been regularly accessed by those hackers since.

Thread here.

Edit: article was quickly edited to remove statements that the FBI notified the DNC.  Hopeful that is because the FBI didn't do the notifying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Loan Sharks said:
Any new indictment news today? 
Click to expand...
Trying to decipher what the hubbub is about Wikileaks set to release more emails from her server.  He says it's stuff that should get her indicted.

I read that to mean one of two things:

- He has his hands on new emails not released by State

- He has un-redacted versions of what was released 

Furthermore, there are one of two ways he got them

- Leaked from a government source (seems unlikely)

- Hacked, in which case it explains why his having this correspondence to begin with is the grounds he describes to indict.  If he has this highly classified data, then...  Who doesn't?

:popcorn:

As the last of her lies all come down.

 
Last edited:
Mr. Ham said:
Trying to decipher what the hubbub is about Wikileaks set to release more emails from her server.  He says it's stuff that should get her indicted.

I read that to mean one of two things:

- He has his hands on new emails not released by State

- He has un-redacted versions of what was released 

Furthermore, there is one of two ways he got them

- Leaked from a government source (seems unlikely)

- Hackee, in which case it explains why his having this correspondence to begin with is the grounds he describes to indict.  If he has this highly classified data, then...  Who doesn't?

:popcorn:

As the last of her lies all come down.
Click to expand...
Not questioning the veracity of what he might have, but this guy from wikileaks is a shady character, himself, right? 

 
Speaking of delusional, Does Trump honestly think that the LGBT community will support him over Hillary because of his proposed ban on Muslims entering this country?

Donald J. TrumpVerified account ‏@realDonaldTrump 18m18 minutes ago

Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.
 
squistion said:
Speaking of delusional, Does Trump honestly think that the LGBT community will support him over Hillary because of his proposed ban on Muslims entering this country?

Donald J. TrumpVerified account ‏@realDonaldTrump 18m18 minutes ago

Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.
Click to expand...
The guy finally made his first tv ad buy.... in New York, so yeah delusional.

 
squistion said:
Speaking of delusional, Does Trump honestly think that the LGBT community will support him over Hillary because of his proposed ban on Muslims entering this country?

Donald J. TrumpVerified account ‏@realDonaldTrump 18m18 minutes ago

Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.
Click to expand...
All of you wont but some will. 

 
squistion said:
Speaking of delusional, Does Trump honestly think that the LGBT community will support him over Hillary because of his proposed ban on Muslims entering this country?

Donald J. TrumpVerified account ‏@realDonaldTrump 18m18 minutes ago

Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.
Click to expand...


squistion said:
Meanwhile Newt Gingrich channels Joe McCarthy and wants to go further than McCarthy ever did:

Keith OlbermannVerified account ‏@KeithOlbermann 17m17 minutes ago

Great! You're 1st, Newt RT @TPM Gingrich proposes new House Un-American Activities Committee, revoking citizenships http://bit.ly/1UhDjD8
Click to expand...
Not getting enough attention in the Trump thread or something?  Or are these the sort of hard hitting topics of the day you guys were whining about not being discussed in this thread? :lol:   

 
cobalt_27 said:
I haven't fully come around on the voting issue.  I'm terribly conflicted.  On the one hand, Trump is atrocious.  I am not one to make statement flippantly or lightly, but left unencumbered by the laws of our republic and he other branches of government, I have no doubt he would commit genocide and he would have a lot of popular support for it.  Even encumbered by such laws, he would be a menace, both in this country and abroad.  

On the other hand, there's Hillary.  While not as evil as Trump, she is a detestable human being in her own right and represents her own unique threats to the stability and integrity of our country and, by extension, the world.

So, how does one vote here?  I suppose the easy answer and the one I've settled on is voting for the person most likely to beat the guy who would commit genocide.  Seems like a reasonable thing to do.  But, can I really support a detestable scourge and criminal who puts her own self-interests ahead of country and others?  Is that's what it's come down to?  Reward her with my vote just because her brand of awfulness is just below that of her opponent?

I ####### hate this election.
Click to expand...
I am interested in your thoughts on this:

https://medium.com/@michaelarnovitz/thinking-about-hillary-a-plea-for-reason-308fce6d187c#.eq3sh1n6i

 
No one has ever questioned, to my knowledge, the integrity of the information on his site.

He is wanted somewhere, I think Switzerland, on rape charges.  He maintains that he was set up, but tend to believe accusers.

 
The Commish said:
Not getting enough attention in the Trump thread or something?  Or are these the sort of hard hitting topics of the day you guys were whining about not being discussed in this thread?  
Click to expand...
Trump is Hillary's general election opponent in case you haven't noticed.  And Gingrich has publically supported Trump's recent statements, plus has been mentioned as being on the short list of potential Trump VP candidates. Certainly this is as relevant (if not more) than the daily update of Current Indictment News!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
honky kong said:
I am interested in your thoughts on this:

https://medium.com/@michaelarnovitz/thinking-about-hillary-a-plea-for-reason-308fce6d187c#.eq3sh1n6i
Click to expand...
It starts with an argument that Politifact states she isn't dishonest.  Wrong.  They found she isn't as dishonest as others, but she still lies (going by memory) something like 40% of the time.  She's also far more insulated by a web of cronies and dodgy connections 

-She has taken at least one bribe (Cattle Futures)

- She was caught lying about taking sniper fire in Bosnia 

-She lied about every detail of the email

-She has stone walled and failed to cooperate with investigators, including her own department - and her staff has clearly lied under oath with a flurry of "I don't recalls," and she will do the same 

-A secret serviceman, under oath, testified that her Chief of Staff removed "two handfuls" of files from Vince Foster's office the night he died

-Hillary and her CoS have lied by saying nothing was removed (I believe the SS man)

-She has been accused (with good reason) of destroying evidence three times - including with the deletion of her "personal" emails, at least some of which have already proven to be work related 

The case for her being fundamentally dishonest is clear.  She represents an establishment that most don't trust and want to move past.

That all might be more easily forgivable if she had a good record of accomplishments.  This article talks about how shocked and surprising people are at the concept that she's not a liar.  (She is.).

What I think is really shocking is how surprised people are when they discover she failed more than succeeded at every position she ever had (she did).

 
Last edited:
Mr. Ham said:
It starts with an argument that Politifact states she isn't dishonest.  Wrong.  They found she isn't as dishonest as others, but she still lies (going by memory) something like 40% of the time.  She's also far more insulated by a web of cronies and dodgy connections 

-She has taken at least one bribe (Cattle Futures)
Click to expand...
False. Stopped reading there as should have anyone else.

Not a shred of proof, but that has never stopped you before from repeating this or your absurd claim that the Clinton's bribed Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr) to help cover up the Vince Foster murder.

 
squistion said:
False. Stopped reading there as should have anyone else.

Not a shred of proof, but that has never stopped you before from repeating this or your absurd claim that the Clinton's bribed Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr) to help cover up the Vince Foster murder.
Click to expand...
Any objective review of Cattle futures will lead to as damning a conclusion as that OJ was guilty.  You can point to the fact that OJ was acquitted.  I'd smack my forehead.

To clarify the Foster case.  The lead prosecutor resigned citing specific allegations of evidence tampering to make it appear Foster committed suicide.  He cited a second wound touched up in photos.  Also, a Federal judge ordered an addendum added to Starr's report that directly contradicts it's oft referenced conclusion of suicide.  These things are unusual and curious.  There could be many explanations. One could be that there was a cover-up and that Starr was involved.  If this were true, it would mean that all future conflicts between Starr and the Clintons would have been theater.

Starr has turned out as late to be a pretty evil dude.  (See his recent firing).  

 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

WaPo reporting that these Russian hackers -- who Hillary claims did not hack her -- have been in the DNC system for a year and have had access to everything, including internal coms and opposition research.

Other reports are breaking that Russia likely leaked the trove of Clinton emails through a third party to Wikileaks (which is prepping them for release) -- as proof they were in that system too -- and can influence our political system.

I'm sure Putin loves the idea of embarrassing Obama.

 
Last edited:
The Commish said:
Of course he will.  Keeping that "base" at a minimum is priority one.  That doesn't support your narrative that "unless you are not voting for Trump by voting for Hillary you are wasting your vote".  You guys can repeat that all you want.  It's just wrong.
Click to expand...
Either your vote goes towards accomplishing a goal, or it doesn't.  It's pretty much that simple.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Other reports are breaking that Russia likely leaked the trove of Clinton emails through a third party to Wikileaks (which is prepping them for release) -- as proof they were in that system too -- and can influence our political system.
Click to expand...




If Russia has her bathroom server emails, this means she definitely broke the law, right?

There have been some that argued that by the letter of the law, she did not violate 18 USC 793f based on the information we have today. But, if the Russians got them, then she certainly did, if I'm reading it right.

 
Philo said:
If Russia has her bathroom server emails, this means she definitely broke the law, right?

There have been some that argued that by the letter of the law, she did not violate 18 USC 793f based on the information we have today. But, if the Russians got them, then she certainly did, if I'm reading it right.
Click to expand...
By all rights it shouldn't matter if they were intercepted, if the potential were there. If they were, however, then it's really hard to argue against gross negligence--which is the standard. 

If it's true - let's see (but Wikileaks news isn't good for her), then calls for her indictment will be deafening.

 
“We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” Assange told Peston on Sunday when asked if more of her leaked electronic communications would be published.

Speaking via video link from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Assange said that there was enough information in the emails to indict Clinton, but that was unlikely to happen under the current Attorney General, Obama appointee Loretta Lynch.

He does think “the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment.”
Click to expand...

 
soothsayer said:
Drudge is linking to this - http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russia-Is-Reportedly-Set-To-Release-Intercepted-Messages-From-Clintons-Private.html.

I know nothing about the site but you asked for a link. I'm sure it will be easy to question the source here, but what if it's true...
Click to expand...
Drudge link dicey.  See my argument about why it's significant Wikileaks has anything not coming from official sources...  Where it came from is a big deal -- one way or another.   

 
cstu said:
“We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” Assange told Peston on Sunday when asked if more of her leaked electronic communications would be published.

Speaking via video link from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Assange said that there was enough information in the emails to indict Clinton, but that was unlikely to happen under the current Attorney General, Obama appointee Loretta Lynch.

He does think “the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment.”
Click to expand...
How does Assange know any of this?  Let him release what he has or get off the pot.

 
honky kong said:
I am interested in your thoughts on this:

https://medium.com/@michaelarnovitz/thinking-about-hillary-a-plea-for-reason-308fce6d187c#.eq3sh1n6i
Click to expand...
It's a provocative piece, for sure.  I need to read it again because it covers a lot of ground, but the one thing I immediately take issue with is his use of polling data to demonstrate that Hillary's popularity declined when she was running for office--and then a sloppy interpretation from those data that the results reveal sexism at its roots.  In fact, it is a relatively common phenomenon for both men and women to see calibrations in favorable polling numbers, often declining in the face of increased scrutiny during an election campaign and stabilizing while they are in office, assuming nothing remarkable has happened to cause the numbers to go up or down.  In short, anyone who analyzes data with any rigor would obliterate this article on the grounds that the interpretation of her polling data make a ton of unsubapstantiated assumptions, all very clearly attempting to fit a coherent narrative.  

 
squistion said:
Trump is Hillary's general election opponent in case you haven't noticed.  And Gingrich has publically supported Trump's recent statements, plus has been mentioned as being on the short list of potential Trump VP candidates. Certainly this is as relevant (if not more) than the daily update of Current Indictment News!
Click to expand...
hope you didn't hurt yourself digging the trench to put that bar in.  I'm always interested in observing those who demand more of others than they do themselves.  Carry on.

 
cstu said:
“We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” Assange told Peston on Sunday when asked if more of her leaked electronic communications would be published.

Speaking via video link from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Assange said that there was enough information in the emails to indict Clinton, but that was unlikely to happen under the current Attorney General, Obama appointee Loretta Lynch.

He does think “the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment.”
Click to expand...


I guess I will repost this now, Kim Dotcom said that Assange had earthshattering stuff more than a year ago.

- So far what I've seen from wikileaks is just the State Foia stuff reposted to their site replete with redactions and all. So nothing new. He will have to have original electronic material to make this interesting, however IMO if she was hacked that should be enough to drive her from the race - because it will be another stupid lie come `a`tumbling down - but we know she won't.

 
Mr. Ham said:
By all rights it shouldn't matter if they were intercepted, if the potential were there. If they were, however, then it's really hard to argue against gross negligence--which is the standard. 

If it's true - let's see (but Wikileaks news isn't good for her), then calls for her indictment will be deafening.
Click to expand...


From what I understand, the defense of Hillary that she did not violate 18 USC 793f hinges on whether her private server is a "proper place of custody". If she can argue that her server was a proper place of custody, then she did not break that law.

However, the rest of the statute reads: "(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer"

If the first part of the clause "permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust" has not been violated, the second (bolded) part will have been if the Russians indeed have them. Since this is an "or", I read it as "through gross negligence permits the same to be lost, stolen abstracted, or destroyed". They have definitely been stolen, so Hillary definitely broke the law. But I'm not a lawyer fully versed on the meaning of "or".

I will love it if, at some point, Hillary's defenders have to argue "it depends on what the meaning of or is." That would be a lovely twist.

 
timschochet said:
Loving Hillary's new tone when she talks- calm and commanding, doesn't raise her voice. Some very smart people are advising her...
Click to expand...
Because she's talking like an adult??  Come on Tim :lol:   Hard to take this stuff seriously when you've been whining about the subject matter in this thread and THIS is what you decide to contribute instead of engaging in the other topics raised after said whining.

 
cobalt_27 said:
It's a provocative piece, for sure.  I need to read it again because it covers a lot of ground, but the one thing I immediately take issue with is his use of polling data to demonstrate that Hillary's popularity declined when she was running for office--and then a sloppy interpretation from those data that the results reveal sexism at its roots.  In fact, it is a relatively common phenomenon for both men and women to see calibrations in favorable polling numbers, often declining in the face of increased scrutiny during an election campaign and stabilizing while they are in office, assuming nothing remarkable has happened to cause the numbers to go up or down.  In short, anyone who analyzes data with any rigor would obliterate this article on the grounds that the interpretation of her polling data make a ton of unsubapstantiated assumptions, all very clearly attempting to fit a coherent narrative.  
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Does it give you any pause in thinking she is dishonest (at least in what we expect out of our politicians)?

 
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
253K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Back
Top