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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hillary ClintonVerified account‏@HillaryClinton

"Our elections should be shaped by voters' voices—not bought and sold by corporations & special interests"

What she lacks in shame, she makes up for in balls.

 
A lone hacker by the name ‘Guccifer 2.0’ has claimed responsibility for hacking the Democratic National Committee database, revealing research on GOP and donor information. This contradicts the initial DNC reports that Russia was behind the attack.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz acknowledged that the party servers were hacked and that opposition research was stolen, but denied that documents of a financial nature were compromised.

On his website, Guccifer 2.0 posted some of the documents allegedly lifted from DNC’s servers, such as a 200-page “opposition research”document on Donald Trump. The hacker also posted documents with names of famous individuals who have made donations to the Democratic Party in the millions of dollars, such as actor Morgan Freeman and hedge fund manager James H. Simmons.

A document titled “2016 GOP presidential candidates” from May 2015 – about a month after Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy – shows the DNC’s strategy to use the mainstream media to stress Clinton’s positives, while feeding reporters information and questions about Republican opponents to paint them in a negative light.

“Reporter Outreach: Working through the DNC and others, we should use background briefings, prep with reporters for interviews with GOP candidates, off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch stories with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message,” the document says.

Instead of laying out strategies to help any given Democratic candidate that might win the nomination, document makes reference to Hillary Clinton in the document as “HRC,” giving credence to speculation that the DNC has been biased towards Clinton throughout the primary.

The same document calls for using targeted attacks on Republican candidates for the expressed purpose of taking the focus off of major questions that surround Hillary Clinton.

“Use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance attacks on HRC,” the document reads.

 
I never understood why the DNC has some responsibility to a man that wasn't a democrat until a year ago when he wanted to use our infrastructure, our people, our connections. A man that has never raised a red cent for democrats. Hell the Bernie folks were baffled that they should have to be a member of our party in order to vote for our candidates.  

 
Sinn Fein said:
A lone hacker by the name ‘Guccifer 2.0’ has claimed responsibility for hacking the Democratic National Committee database, revealing research on GOP and donor information. This contradicts the initial DNC reports that Russia was behind the attack.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz acknowledged that the party servers were hacked and that opposition research was stolen, but denied that documents of a financial nature were compromised.

On his website, Guccifer 2.0 posted some of the documents allegedly lifted from DNC’s servers, such as a 200-page “opposition research”document on Donald Trump. The hacker also posted documents with names of famous individuals who have made donations to the Democratic Party in the millions of dollars, such as actor Morgan Freeman and hedge fund manager James H. Simmons.

A document titled “2016 GOP presidential candidates” from May 2015 – about a month after Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy – shows the DNC’s strategy to use the mainstream media to stress Clinton’s positives, while feeding reporters information and questions about Republican opponents to paint them in a negative light.

“Reporter Outreach: Working through the DNC and others, we should use background briefings, prep with reporters for interviews with GOP candidates, off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch stories with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message,” the document says.

Instead of laying out strategies to help any given Democratic candidate that might win the nomination, document makes reference to Hillary Clinton in the document as “HRC,” giving credence to speculation that the DNC has been biased towards Clinton throughout the primary.

The same document calls for using targeted attacks on Republican candidates for the expressed purpose of taking the focus off of major questions that surround Hillary Clinton.

“Use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance attacks on HRC,” the document reads.
Click to expand...
This ain't tiddlywinks. 

 
Jackstraw said:
I never understood why the DNC has some responsibility to a man that wasn't a democrat until a year ago when he wanted to use our infrastructure, our people, our connections. A man that has never raised a red cent for democrats. Hell the Bernie folks were baffled that they should have to be a member of our party in order to vote for our candidates.  
Click to expand...
Neither the DNC nor the RNC is supposed to be a neutral bystander.  They're political parties.  Anyone that thinks the people working at those parties don't go into each election cycle with a preferred candidate is insane.  Plus, the primaries are really just the illusion of democracy anyway.  The delegate and the party insiders ultimately control who the nominee is, not the public.

 
Sinn Fein said:
A lone hacker by the name ‘Guccifer 2.0’ has claimed responsibility for hacking the Democratic National Committee database, revealing research on GOP and donor information. This contradicts the initial DNC reports that Russia was behind the attack.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz acknowledged that the party servers were hacked and that opposition research was stolen, but denied that documents of a financial nature were compromised.

On his website, Guccifer 2.0 posted some of the documents allegedly lifted from DNC’s servers, such as a 200-page “opposition research”document on Donald Trump. The hacker also posted documents with names of famous individuals who have made donations to the Democratic Party in the millions of dollars, such as actor Morgan Freeman and hedge fund manager James H. Simmons.

A document titled “2016 GOP presidential candidates” from May 2015 – about a month after Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy – shows the DNC’s strategy to use the mainstream media to stress Clinton’s positives, while feeding reporters information and questions about Republican opponents to paint them in a negative light.

“Reporter Outreach: Working through the DNC and others, we should use background briefings, prep with reporters for interviews with GOP candidates, off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch stories with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message,” the document says.

Instead of laying out strategies to help any given Democratic candidate that might win the nomination, document makes reference to Hillary Clinton in the document as “HRC,” giving credence to speculation that the DNC has been biased towards Clinton throughout the primary.

The same document calls for using targeted attacks on Republican candidates for the expressed purpose of taking the focus off of major questions that surround Hillary Clinton.

“Use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance attacks on HRC,” the document reads.
Click to expand...
Guccifer2 is a front by Russian FSB/GRU. There is no new 'Guccifer' out there.

 
Jackstraw said:
I never understood why the DNC has some responsibility to a man that wasn't a democrat until a year ago when he wanted to use our infrastructure, our people, our connections. A man that has never raised a red cent for democrats. Hell the Bernie folks were baffled that they should have to be a member of our party in order to vote for our candidates.  
Click to expand...
Because they are "the party of acceptance and tolerance"? :lmao:

And I know not a single person who doesn't understand why Democrats didn't want anyone other than establishment Democrats voting in the primary....not one.  Your last sentence couldn't be further from the truth.  Perhaps you are confusing "Bernie folks" with anyone/everyone questioning why we don't have open access to primaries that our tax dollars pay for.  Lots of people have been asking that and it's not limited to "Bernie folks".

 
The Commish said:
Because they are "the party of acceptance and tolerance"? :lmao:

And I know not a single person who doesn't understand why Democrats didn't want anyone other than establishment Democrats voting in the primary....not one.  Your last sentence couldn't be further from the truth.  Perhaps you are confusing "Bernie folks" with anyone/everyone questioning why we don't have open access to primaries that our tax dollars pay for.  Lots of people have been asking that and it's not limited to "Bernie folks".
Click to expand...
To be fair, most of the Hillary folks didn't even think about the fact that our taxes pay hundreds of millions for the primaries.  So on that front, the Bernie folks were more prevalent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
The Commish said:
Because they are "the party of acceptance and tolerance"? :lmao:

And I know not a single person who doesn't understand why Democrats didn't want anyone other than establishment Democrats voting in the primary....not one.  Your last sentence couldn't be further from the truth.  Perhaps you are confusing "Bernie folks" with anyone/everyone questioning why we don't have open access to primaries that our tax dollars pay for.  Lots of people have been asking that and it's not limited to "Bernie folks".
Click to expand...
To be fair, most of the Hillary folks didn't even think about the fact that our taxes pay hundreds of millions for the primaries.  So on that front, the Bernie folks were more prevalent.
Click to expand...
True....not limited to them was my point.  I know lots of GOPers that ask the same question.  It's been a little sub-story in our area where people are discussing it.  I've said many times around here that the interest in Bernie Sanders (both from a guy people want to vote for and a "this is how the process works" perspective) as been great.  It's educated a lot of people about the system, myself included.  If that's all he accomplishes, it will be more significant than what Hillary or Don accomplish from a "health of the system" perspective.  Acknowledging/Identifying the problems is the hardest part.

 
This is more stuff that is so boring to me. Process stories are dull. 

Personally I'd be in favor of giving Bernie everything he wants. Who cares? It's not going to make the progressive candidate win. 

The progressive candidate in the Democratic primaries is always going to lose to the centrist candidate unless: 

1. The centrist candidate screws up. 

2. The progressive candidate is especially dynamic. 

3. There is an economic catastrophe. 

The rest of this stuff doesn't matter, IMO. 

 
timschochet said:
This is more stuff that is so boring to me. Process stories are dull. 

Personally I'd be in favor of giving Bernie everything he wants. Who cares? It's not going to make the progressive candidate win. 

The progressive candidate in the Democratic primaries is always going to lose to the centrist candidate unless: 

1. The centrist candidate screws up. 

2. The progressive candidate is especially dynamic. 

3. There is an economic catastrophe. 

The rest of this stuff doesn't matter, IMO. 
Click to expand...
Sorry we're not entertaining you enough by talking about only the things that excite you.  I feel personally responsible.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I know a lot of the Clinton haters have been struggling to find a true "quid pro quo" among various speech fees and Clinton Foundation donations.  So in case you're not reading the Trump thread, let me help you out. 

This is what a quid pro quo usually looks like. Attorney General begins investigation. Target of investigation makes substantial donation to Attorney General's campaign, which he hides by illegally making it from his "charity" and then not reporting it on the charity's returns. Attorney General subsequently drops investigation into target and later endorses him in his campaign for president. Find something like that and maybe you've got yourself a quid pro quo. 

Once you've done that, you've just got to find examples of Clinton being clearly racist towards a sitting judge, advocating for state-sponsored religious discrimination, revoking press credentials from several newspapers in response to perceived unfavorable coverage, repeatedly demonstrating no grasp of basic federal government functions or foreign affairs issues, mocking a disabled person, retweeting white supremacists and intimating that the president of the United States supports radical Islamic terrorism, and your argument that Clinton is just as bad as Trump will be close to being valid.  Almost there!
Click to expand...
I assume that Hillary supporters will note that because the Attorney General wasn't indicted, he clearly didn't do anything wrong.

Also, I'm still not sure why we can't criticize Hillary for her shortcomings just because Trump is her opponent.  The Cincinnati Reds are 26-41.  Even though the Braves are 20-46, 26-41 is still terrible.

 
timschochet said:
This is more stuff that is so boring to me. Process stories are dull. 

Personally I'd be in favor of giving Bernie everything he wants. Who cares? It's not going to make the progressive candidate win. 

The progressive candidate in the Democratic primaries is always going to lose to the centrist candidate unless: 

1. The centrist candidate screws up. 

2. The progressive candidate is especially dynamic. 

3. There is an economic catastrophe. 

The rest of this stuff doesn't matter, IMO. 
Click to expand...
Tim, it's not that you're bored, it's that you don't understand it.

 
TobiasFunke said:
The poll was just for Wisconsin I think.  A 9 point lead for Clinton in blue-leaning and Trump-hating Wisconsin is not necessarily great news. It's not terrible but it's definitely not as good as a 12 point national lead.
Click to expand...
In national polling news...

CBS: Clinton 39, Trump 32 (+7)
Reuters: Clinton 39, Trump 29 (+10)
Rasmussen: Clinton 44, Trump 39 (+5)

Lots of undecided still and third party support is probably overstated, but still... 29 percent for a major-party candidate?!? That's insane.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Checked the polling aggregators...

+8.0, +6.4, + 5.8 at TPM, HuffPost, RCP -- definitely trending up.  +6.7 average.  

Also suspect that the Rasmussen #s are plain wrong which would boost that slightly.  Will be curious to see 538s #s when they start tracking the general.

 
timschochet said:
This is more stuff that is so boring to me. Process stories are dull. 

Personally I'd be in favor of giving Bernie everything he wants. Who cares? It's not going to make the progressive candidate win. 

The progressive candidate in the Democratic primaries is always going to lose to the centrist candidate unless: 

1. The centrist candidate screws up. 

2. The progressive candidate is especially dynamic. 

3. There is an economic catastrophe. 

The rest of this stuff doesn't matter, IMO. 
Click to expand...
:cry: :cry: :cry:

Granted, it's not as riveting as the explanations for why Hillary has to yell in large venues, but it's the nuts and bolts of our system that need to be discussed.  Maybe you should stay over at the kiddie table and talk a little more about how Hillary supporters have been disenfranchised by this process or discuss the latest quip squis found on twitter regarding Trump.  

 
timschochet said:
This is more stuff that is so boring to me. Process stories are dull. 

Personally I'd be in favor of giving Bernie everything he wants. Who cares? It's not going to make the progressive candidate win. 

The progressive candidate in the Democratic primaries is always going to lose to the centrist candidate unless: 

1. The centrist candidate screws up. 

2. The progressive candidate is especially dynamic. 

3. There is an economic catastrophe. 

The rest of this stuff doesn't matter, IMO. 
Click to expand...
X2

 
MaxThreshold said:
Fine. We can switch gears and talk about emails.  Any updates on the FBI's criminal investigation of HRC?
Click to expand...
This Raj thing continues to reek to the high heavens. Clinton team rushes to get him top security clearance before big nuke meeting, word gets out after a couple days, and he resigns, claiming European economic crisis.

Seriosuly, WTF?

 
dparker713 said:
Sure there's new stuff, to an extent.  But has there really been anything revelatory recently?  None of it is good mind you, but none of it is really a paradigm shift either. 
Click to expand...
I'd say it was an important "revelation" that this is definitevely a criminal investigation.  That's a paradigm shift (for those clinging to the "security review" version).  The Raj story is from 2011 but details emerging are a concern.  But, not a paradigm shift as we currently understand the details (which, admittedly, there exist more questions than answers).  Lots of other unsubstantiated rumors fluttering around and/or other bits and pieces trickling in, like Pags taking the fifth.

So, the main thing is this is a criminal investigation and like many such investigations, could wind up being much ado about nothing.  But, as you said, this steady stream of information keeps trickling in and while I don't think we learn a lot until the FBI releases its findings...none of it looks good.  And, honestly, this is the concern that when 30-60k of your emails are being audited, nothing good can come of that.  

 
dparker713 said:
Neither the DNC nor the RNC is supposed to be a neutral bystander.  They're political parties.  Anyone that thinks the people working at those parties don't go into each election cycle with a preferred candidate is insane.  Plus, the primaries are really just the illusion of democracy anyway.  The delegate and the party insiders ultimately control who the nominee is, not the public.
Click to expand...
Neither Bill nor Obama were the preferred candidate in 1992 and 2008. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
I'd say it was an important "revelation" that this is definitevely a criminal investigation.  That's a paradigm shift (for those clinging to the "security review" version).  The Raj story is from 2011 but details emerging are a concern.  But, not a paradigm shift as we currently understand the details (which, admittedly, there exist more questions than answers).  Lots of other unsubstantiated rumors fluttering around and/or other bits and pieces trickling in, like Pags taking the fifth.

So, the main thing is this is a criminal investigation and like many such investigations, could wind up being much ado about nothing.  But, as you said, this steady stream of information keeps trickling in and while I don't think we learn a lot until the FBI releases its findings...none of it looks good.  And, honestly, this is the concern that when 30-60k of your emails are being audited, nothing good can come of that.  
Click to expand...
I mean, sure, for Tim and his delusional crowd they need to recalibrate.  But I don't think too many people were clinging to the idea that the FBI investigation was not criminal.  There are serious issues here and there is a distinct possibility that our best chance to stop Trump is indicted.  However, there's also more smoke than fire to this point and there hasn't been sufficient information released thus far to actually make a determination of what crimes may or may not have occurred.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
Neither Bill nor Obama were the preferred candidate in 1992 and 2008. 
Click to expand...
No they weren't and they won the popular vote.  However, the party could have nominated someone else if they had so chosen.  

BTW, how ####### weird is it that a governor from Arkansas is still a major influence 25 years later?  

 
dparker713 said:
I mean, sure, for Tim and his delusional crowd they need to recalibrate.  But I don't think too many people were clinging to the idea that the FBI investigation was not criminal.  There are serious issues here and there is a distinct possibility that our best chance to stop Trump is indicted.  However, there's also more smoke than fire to this point and there haven't been sufficient information release thus far to actually make a determination of what crimes may or may not have occurred.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this.  I respect the opinions of some independent legal experts who feel the evidence as we have it now is enough to indict, so while I'm not necessarily on that train, the whole thing gives me the vibe that her candidacy could all blow up in an instant, pending FBI conclusions.  

Whats shifted substantially for me, however, is my view of Trump as a GE candidate.  A month or so ago, I saw him as a formidable opponent and that he would capitalize on any hint of Clinton impropriety.  I thought he'd be effective as he made the pivot and become a serious candidate.  Apparently, not so much.  Beyond the fact that he's a wretched human being, his strategic decisions In this phase of the campaign have shown him to be foolish, amateurish, and lacking any seriousness.  I hated him from day one, but I thought he was smarter than this.  So, the Clinton stuff scared me more then than it does now, because I thought she was vulnerable even without an indictment.  But now?  Only way she loses is if she's kicked out of the process, and that only happens if she's indicted.  So, in a sense, that makes me feel a little better.  Plus, her disposition in a few recent speeches has changed immensely in her favor.  She's looked much better and more in command, so that adds to the contrast between her and The Donald.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
I agree with all of this.  I respect the opinions of some independent legal experts who feel the evidence as we have it now is enough to indict, so while I'm not necessarily on that train, the whole thing gives me the vibe that her candidacy could all blow up in an instant, pending FBI conclusions.  

Whats shifted substantially for me, however, is my view of Trump as a GE candidate.  A month or so ago, I saw him as a formidable opponent and that he would capitalize on any hint of Clinton impropriety.  I thought he'd be effective as he made the pivot and become a serious candidate.  Apparently, not so much.  Beyond the fact that he's a wretched human being, his strategic decisions In this phase of the campaign have shown him to be foolish, amateurish, and lacking any seriousness.  I hated him from day one, but I thought he was smarter than this.  So, the Clinton stuff scared me more then than it does now, because I thought she was vulnerable even without an indictment.  But now?  Only way she loses is if she's kicked out of the process, and that only happens if she's indicted.  So, in a sense, that makes me feel a little better.  Plus, her disposition in a few recent speeches has changed immensely in her favor.  She's looked much better and more in command, so that adds to the contrast between her and The Donald.
Click to expand...
I was never concerned about a Trump pivot.  I grew up in the NYC area and he's been a blow hard since I can remember.  I will say, that I'm starting to drink the Hillary Kool-aid though.  I never thought this would happen.  I always was a staunch opponent.  But having decided that Trump is the worst candidate I've ever seen (and hopefully will ever see), I've been much more receptive to the idea that Hillary is a decent candidate.  Sure, this is just me trying to resolve my cognitive dissonance and I need to be mindful of this.  I guess I'm just less fearful of a Hillary Presidency because I'm so fearful of Trump Presidency.  

 
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: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top