Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (13 Viewers)

[CBusAlex]

Am I reading that right? Undecided beats Trump in the Reuters poll?

That poll also included Johnson and Stern, who clocked in at 6% and 4%, respectively. So Trump still has a solid 8 point lead on Undecided.

 

[Sconch]

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?  

Because he's smarter than hell?  (Not a BWC honk but he's like 1000000000 smarter that anything that's come out of Arkansas like forever)

 

[Riversco]

As expected, Hillary has a big lead again after she became the nominee.  Race is officially very boring now.  No point in paying attention until the debates, and maybe not even then if Hillary has a double digit lead.

 

[Riversco]

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?  

It doesn't matter where he was from.  He was very very young when he was elected.  That allowed him to stick around.  Obama was very young too but he probably won't have an influence at all once the Clintons are installed back in the White House.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

I'm not sure why think I said you can't criticize Clinton. I just said that the Florida donations are what a real quid pro quo looks like, and argued that Trump is far far worse, to a degree that analogies don't really work IMO.

 

[The Commish]

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.

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.

I think this is where my pessimism benefits me

I have never seen Trump as being smart enough to navigate the political landscape successfully.  He's not "politically smart" and quite frankly I'm sure he knows that.  This is why we have all the shouting out of him and his supporters.  It's a distraction technique that's quite common.  This is why I've paid so little attention to him and so much more attention to the Hillary/Bernie side of things.  It seems myself and those like minded will lose out again this election cycle.  Fear is a hell of a tool/mask/force (whatever you want to call it).

 

[jon_mx]

I'm not sure why think I said you can't criticize Clinton. I just said that the Florida donations are what a real quid pro quo looks like, and argued that Trump is far far worse, to a degree that analogies don't really work IMO.

No, that is nothing like what a quid pro quo looks like.  Someone asked for a donation and by a clerical mistake mistaking who the group was, the donation was provided.  A quid pro quo looks like a donor given a large donation to a president and his wife and in return gets a presidential pardon.  That meets the definition of a quid pro quo.  The instance you brought up, was an illegal donation that appeared to be the result of a series of mistakes.  There was no donation in return for a favor.   

 

[TobiasFunke]

No, that is nothing like what a quid pro quo looks like.  Someone asked for a donation and by a clerical mistake mistaking who the group was, the donation was provided.  A quid pro quo looks like a donor given a large donation to a president and his wife and in return gets a presidential pardon.  That meets the definition of a quid pro quo.  The instance you brought up, was an illegal donation that appeared to be the result of a series of mistakes.  There was no donation in return for a favor.   

It would required several "clerical mistakes" (including the source of the request, the donation coming from a charitable foundation, and the charitable foundation not reporting it), as the Trump people acknowledge in the first sentence of the article. Which suggests that it wasn't a mistake at all but an attempt to conceal the donation.  And you didn't mention that the DA had just initiated the investigation when the money was sent and the investigation was dropped the investigation shortly thereafter, which would be the equivalent of the "presidential pardon" in your example.

 

[Joe Summer]

No, that is nothing like what a quid pro quo looks like. Someone asked for a donation and by a clerical mistake mistaking who the group was, the donation was provided

It was a series of clerical mistakes. Kinda like having a plethora of pinatas.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm not sure why think I said you can't criticize Clinton. I just said that the Florida donations are what a real quid pro quo looks like, and argued that Trump is far far worse, to a degree that analogies don't really work IMO.

I just want to point out that very often quid pro quo is not the only way a politician gets convicted of corruption, there is also pay to play. You pay in, you get something out. Some politicians are open for business and that's what they get nailed for. So if a politician has a non-profit that receives a donation from a businessman in October 2014, and then in July 2015 that businessman gets some benefit out of what official decisions that politician makes, then yeah there can very much be a criminal offense. This is not necessarily the classic Tammany Hall money in one hand and some favor in the other exchanged. Pretty rare for actual QPQ to get prosecuted really.

Btw I'm all for an audit and investigation of the Trump Foundation and the donation to Bondi.

 

[The Commish]

No, that is nothing like what a quid pro quo looks like.  Someone asked for a donation and by a clerical mistake mistaking who the group was, the donation was provided.  A quid pro quo looks like a donor given a large donation to a president and his wife and in return gets a presidential pardon.  That meets the definition of a quid pro quo.  The instance you brought up, was an illegal donation that appeared to be the result of a series of mistakes.  There was no donation in return for a favor.   

I'm gonna flat out ask....is this a genuine response jon_mx?  Because when I read it I can't tell if it's serious or a mocking along the lines of "I'll take 'What Hillary supporters would say if it were her in this position' for $1000 Alex"  

 

[jon_mx]

It would required several "clerical mistakes" (including the source of the request, the donation coming from a charitable foundation, and the charitable foundation not reporting it), as the Trump people acknowledge in the first sentence of the article. Which suggests that it wasn't a mistake at all but an attempt to conceal the donation.  And you didn't mention that the DA had just initiated the investigation when the money was sent and the investigation was dropped the investigation shortly thereafter, which would be the equivalent of the "presidential pardon" in your example.

I really don't doubt Trump tries to bribe politicians, I think he has bragged about it in the past.   Both are corrupt, but I think it is a far worse crime for the person entrusted with power to abuse it.   I can't support either.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm gonna flat out ask....is this a genuine response jon_mx?  Because when I read it I can't tell if it's serious or a mocking along the lines of "I'll take 'What Hillary supporters would say if it were her in this position' for $1000 Alex"  

I did not get the part that Trump was being investigated by this guy the first time through.  This guy going around selling his authority is the more troublesome thing though.  It is not clear if Trump had any involvement here.  It would not surprise me, but the article was a bit confusing. 

 

[cobalt_27]

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.  

Could not have expressed my thoughts on this any better than what you just wrote.

 

[HellToupee]

Things have quieted down in the bimbo eruptions unit. 

 

[Gr00vus]

Things have quieted down in the bimbo eruptions unit. 

Bernie stirred the drink.

 

[The Commish]

Things have quieted down in the bimbo eruptions unit. 

Bernie stirred the drink.

It'll heat back up again as her judgment is on full display as President.  Lot's of "told you so" mixed in with "what were you thinking" I'd imagine.  This will go down as a rather large missed opportunity to shift the direction of politics in this country.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It'll heat back up again as her judgment is on full display as President.  Lot's of "told you so" mixed in with "what were you thinking" I'd imagine.  This will go down as a rather large missed opportunity to shift the direction of politics in this country.

Yep people wanted reform, they are going to get a big heaping dose of what they've been railing against instead. I'm sure the national mood will not be improved.

 

[timschochet]

It'll heat back up again as her judgment is on full display as President.  Lot's of "told you so" mixed in with "what were you thinking" I'd imagine.  This will go down as a rather large missed opportunity to shift the direction of politics in this country.

Well call me a naive optimist, but I think under Hillary the economy will continue to grow, especially if she gets the infrastructure package she wants. We'll finally address climate change, and I expect her popularity to rise. After 4 years I believe she will be easily re-elected. It's going to be all good. 

 

[cstu]

Well call me a naive optimist, but I think under Hillary the economy will continue to grow, especially if she gets the infrastructure package she wants. We'll finally address climate change, and I expect her popularity to rise. After 4 years I believe she will be easily re-elected. It's going to be all good. 

 

[Sand]

Well call me a naive optimist, but I think under Hillary the economy will continue to grow, especially if she gets the infrastructure package she wants. We'll finally address climate change, and I expect her popularity to rise. After 4 years I believe she will be easily re-elected. It's going to be all good. 

Honestly can't be any worse than Obama's growth curve.  One of the only presidents ever to never hit 3% GDP.  Jobs recovery from the recession has been horrid.  Hill, if she wins, will at least have a very low bar to hurdle here.

 

[bueno]

Well call me a naive optimist, but I think under Hillary the economy will continue to grow, especially if she gets the infrastructure package she wants. We'll finally address climate change, and I expect her popularity to rise. After 4 years I believe she will be easily re-elected. It's going to be all good. 

Doubtful, but she'll bomb the #### out of Syria.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Honestly can't be any worse than Obama's growth curve.  One of the only presidents ever to never hit 3% GDP.  Jobs recovery from the recession has been horrid.  Hill, if she wins, will at least have a very low bar to hurdle here.

There really is nowhere else to go but up.

 

[cstu]

Honestly can't be any worse than Obama's growth curve.  One of the only presidents ever to never hit 3% GDP.  Jobs recovery from the recession has been horrid.  Hill, if she wins, will at least have a very low bar to hurdle here.

Ok genius, what's your solution to get GDP growth over 3%?  I'll wait.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Honestly can't be any worse than Obama's growth curve.  One of the only presidents ever to never hit 3% GDP.  Jobs recovery from the recession has been horrid.  Hill, if she wins, will at least have a very low bar to hurdle here.

Sustainable growth > bursts and busts

 

[The Future Champs]

There really is nowhere else to go but up.

It could go down.   There was another recent president that had that happen.   

 

[The Commish]

It'll heat back up again as her judgment is on full display as President.  Lot's of "told you so" mixed in with "what were you thinking" I'd imagine.  This will go down as a rather large missed opportunity to shift the direction of politics in this country.

Well call me a naive optimist, but I think under Hillary the economy will continue to grow, especially if she gets the infrastructure package she wants. We'll finally address climate change, and I expect her popularity to rise. After 4 years I believe she will be easily re-elected. It's going to be all good.

I was commenting specifically on politics of the country, not what will get accomplished or not.  

"Economic growth" is a  point given the reality an individual doesn't make a significant impact one way or the other AND it's usually judged by how well the stock market does which ignores how most of the middle class and poor are doing in their day to day lives.  I've never understood why people use it as a measure of success when there are so many other things to look at where the President has a much more significant impact.  However, in this realm if she is able to get wages out of their decade long stagnation, that will be a net positive to us all.  Not sure how that'd happen, but we'll see.

I do agree the infrastructure package would be huge (pending the details) and a net positive.  "Address climate change" is about as vague as one could ever get so I'm not even sure where you're going with that or how it would be measured.  Seems like a platitude more than anything meaningful as stated.  Let's be honest, her popularity can only go up or stay the same.  This isn't exactly stepping out on a twig in a tornado.  

 

[James Daulton]

For one of the fairer sex, ol' Hill really does seem like she'll blow some #### up at any opportunity.

Latent aggression towards Slick Willy? 

 

[Riversco]

Well call me a naive optimist, but I think under Hillary the economy will continue to grow, especially if she gets the infrastructure package she wants. We'll finally address climate change, and I expect her popularity to rise. After 4 years I believe she will be easily re-elected. It's going to be all good. 

She won't get much of anything done domestically.  NO president can when congress is controlled by the other party.  

She will do some press conferences to try to rally support for domestic causes.  And they will fail to move congress.  She will not get an infrastructure package.  She will not address climate change.  And then she will focus on foreign policy and say congress refuses to listen.  Which is what happens every time power is split.

It is gridlock.

 

[Riversco]

Democrats have too small of a tent.  Hillary's job is just to block the republicans from winning everything.  That's it. Her job is to just keep the office away from the republicans.  There is NO WAY she can actually push an agenda.  The party has alienated too many people.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Democrats have too small of a tent.  Hillary's job is just to block the republicans from winning everything.  That's it. Her job is to just keep the office away from the republicans.  There is NO WAY she can actually push an agenda.  The party has alienated too many people.

Hillary shares a good amount of agenda with Republicans, the social/culture wedge issues will continue as fundraising mechanisms but the economic, foreign policy and military policies will largely be aligned. With Trump in play now she likely also has a shot of the Dems taking at least 1-2 houses.

 

[Riversco]

Hillary shares a good amount of agenda with Republicans, the social/culture wedge issues will continue as fundraising mechanisms but the economic, foreign policy and military policies will largely be aligned. With Trump in play now she likely also has a shot of the Dems taking at least 1-2 houses.

The democrats will never get the House again.  That is the GOP firewall.  Without the House, Hillary can't do a thing domestically.

 

[Guest]

Well call me a naive optimist, but I think under Hillary the economy will continue to grow, especially if she gets the infrastructure package she wants. We'll finally address climate change, and I expect her popularity to rise. After 4 years I believe she will be easily re-elected. It's going to be all good. 

Naive optimist. 

- Good luck with that infrastructure package 

- She won't meaningfully address climate change, because that takes big, bold definitive action that would piss off donors - she'll talk big and act small 

Hillary will virtually assure Congress stays R.  Another non-polarizing candidates would have a much better chance at these things you want.

 

[Guest]

She won't get much of anything done domestically.  NO president can when congress is controlled by the other party.  

She will do some press conferences to try to rally support for domestic causes.  And they will fail to move congress.  She will not get an infrastructure package.  She will not address climate change.  And then she will focus on foreign policy and say congress refuses to listen.  Which is what happens every time power is split.

It is gridlock.

Hillary trust problem virtually assures a balance of power.  No one sane would give her the keys to the chicken coup.

 

[Riversco]

Hillary trust problem virtually assures a balance of power.  No one sane would give her the keys to the chicken coup.

Its laughable to think the republican congress will work with the Clinton gang.  They don't trust them at all.  This is the group that impeached Bill.  They will block everything.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The Republican Party is on the verge of disintegration as we've known it for 40 years.  I'd be careful predicting what is or isn't possible.

 

[Riversco]

"HI!  I know you guys impeached me.  But would like to vote for my wife's climate change bill?"

 

[Guest]

I believe Hillary will lead us into a new armed conflict.  Her ego won't allow her to do otherwise. President without a legacy as bold and strong as a man -- not a chance.  Look how she jumped in to claim credit for Bin Laden and Libya. As part of her PR strategy she's going to act so tough she'll get us into one or more situations where we can't avoid boots on the ground.  Another thing that the Tims of the world will (after much soul searching and tears) reluctantly support - then say we never could have seen coming.  

 

[saintfool]

I believe Hillary will lead us into a new armed conflict.  Her ego won't allow her to do otherwise. President without a legacy as bold and strong as a man -- not a chance.  Look how she jumped in to claim credit for Bin Laden and Libya. As part of her PR strategy she's going to act so tough she'll get us into one or more situations where we can't avoid boots on the ground.  Another thing that the Tims of the world will (after much soul searching and tears) reluctantly support - then say we never could have seen coming.  

you're so cute when you talk out of your a$s

 

[Rove!]

The fix was in from the start..,DNC completely in the tank against Bernie

pimaries were a sham

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"HI!  I know you guys impeached me.  But would like to vote for my wife's climate change bill?"

- Yes it's possible to likely we could be plunged back into 90s style governmental dysfunctionalism. I will add Hillary's history of running things is not particularly great. The 90s health care fiasco aside, Kerry seems to be a lot more active and effective as SOS than Hillary. And call it criminal or just a scandal but reality is at a minimum the email thing is just another example of Hillary doing stupid stuff which causes a whole lot of trouble for her.

 

[huthut]

The GOP house is only as safe as the 2020 election and census. If Republican's get wiped out then, they could lose their ability to gerrymander their house districts and then the house could very much be in play. The only reason it hasn't been was because there was a massive Republican wave election in 2010, they have had less votes than democrats in recent elections.

 

[Courtjester]

you're so cute when you talk out of your a$s

You know Ham may have a point there. Lets assume she wins:

The situation as it exists in Syria is getting worse by the day and the Russians know Obama is not going to do anything substantive at this point as his tenure winds down. The Chinese don't care what we say or do in South Sea--they are just going to do what they want. And ultimately you are going to have to address the 1000 pound gorilla in the room--she is a women and thus (as ugly as it may be) is not going to garner the respect of someone like Putin or the Chinese. Odds are they will test her and with her hawkish tendencies, that COULD lead us into a conflict.   

 

[Riversco]

Let's not forget that this GOP House was scolded repeatedly that if they did not do what Obama wanted, they would be voted out with that whole "party of no" stuff. Well they blocked his agenda anyway.  And then they won the Senate as a reward for blocking him.   So there is absolutely zero motivation to give Hillary a single thing. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

I believe Hillary will lead us into a new armed conflict.  Her ego won't allow her to do otherwise. President without a legacy as bold and strong as a man -- not a chance.  Look how she jumped in to claim credit for Bin Laden and Libya. As part of her PR strategy she's going to act so tough she'll get us into one or more situations where we can't avoid boots on the ground.  Another thing that the Tims of the world will (after much soul searching and tears) reluctantly support - then say we never could have seen coming.  

At what point do you look in the mirror and say geez, I've been wrong over and over and over again.  Perhaps I should let off the gas and re-evaluate what I'm discussing.  

 

[MaxThreshold]

At what point do you look in the mirror and say geez, I've been wrong over and over and over again.  Perhaps I should let off the gas and re-evaluate what I'm discussing.  

Yeah, this is quite funny coming from the guy who keeps claiming that Obamacare as a resounding success.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's not forget that this GOP House was scolded repeatedly that if they did not do what Obama wanted, they would be voted out with that whole "party of no" stuff. Well they blocked his agenda anyway.  And then they won the Senate as a reward for blocking him.   So there is absolutely zero motivation to give Hillary a single thing. 

What people should realize is that several of the states that flipped Senate seats in 2004-08 were still pretty conservative states, sure Democrats won but they did so on pretty moderate platforms and they still had to answer to pretty conservative voters back home. Which they did eventually when those seats flipped back 2010-2014. Even if Hillary gets a Dem Senate the same issue will exist with those swing seats. The lessons of 2010-14 won't help her anyway but unlike Obama Hillary does not have major agenda issues she will fight for, like Bill she will largely go with the flow, triangulation will be back as well.

 

[cstu]

- Yes it's possible to likely we could be plunged back into 90s style governmental dysfunctionalism. I will add Hillary's history of running things is not particularly great. The 90s health care fiasco aside, Kerry seems to be a lot more active and effective as SOS than Hillary. And call it criminal or just a scandal but reality is at a minimum the email thing is just another example of Hillary doing stupid stuff which causes a whole lot of trouble for her.

Essentially her life is an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm?

 

[cstu]

I believe Hillary will lead us into a new armed conflict.  Her ego won't allow her to do otherwise. President without a legacy as bold and strong as a man -- not a chance.  Look how she jumped in to claim credit for Bin Laden and Libya. As part of her PR strategy she's going to act so tough she'll get us into one or more situations where we can't avoid boots on the ground.  Another thing that the Tims of the world will (after much soul searching and tears) reluctantly support - then say we never could have seen coming.  

Last Democratic President who got us into an avoidable conflict and put boots on the ground?  Truman?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Last Democratic President who got us into an avoidable conflict and put boots on the ground?  Woodrow Wilson?

Korea - Truman

Vietnam - JFK, LBJ