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 (7 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well then you'd be wrong wouldn't you? But that's not unusual is it?  :P
Not as worded I wouldn't.  Not my fault you can't properly word a bet to properly convey your intentions :shrug:  

The best part of this whole thing is everyone but you and squis saw it going down this way.  I'm sure it's everyone else's fault though, amirite?

 
This is the kind of substantive discussion they were looking for that should take precedent over email talks, character and judgment talks etc.  
I could bring up Hillary's diet, and that would be more substantive than the emails. (actually it's probably the main subject of a lot of those- the ones that were deleted.) 
Agreed....which is why I attempted to bring the character and judgment issues.  You don't seem to interested in those either...funny how that works.

 
Funny thing is, this point was specifically called out to him several times...the bet still went as worded.  I personally don't have any problem with jon_mx position on this.  I'd wait until the very end as well based on the verbiage in this thread.
IMHO, if Hillary does NOT get the nomination on the first go around, I should win the bet.  In that case, Obama obviously gave an endorsement prior to the race being decided.  If it plays out as expected, and Hillary gets the nomination by the initial vote, I will accept the spirit of the bet which was discussed but was not the exact wording.  Either way, I will send out payments later tonight when I get home.   

 
But are you that upset at LBJ and JFK for escalating it in the first place? It sounds like JFK, LBJ, and Nixon all expanded the war when they could have pulled out instead.  So why is it focused on Nixon?
I'm not sure that LBJ or Kennedy could have "pulled out". LBJ did have us at the negotiating table and ending the war in 1968. Nixon - and Kissinger- directly sabotaged those peace talks and convincing the south Vietnamese to leave the table. This to win the presidency. He not only prolonged the war, which cost tens of thousands of American lives, but also ignored Congress to bomb Laos and Cambodia. He *hid* those active airstrikes for YEARS from Congress. One can contextualize and rationalize the actions of both Kennedy and LBJ to an extent. The Cold War was in full swing after all. But there is no way to rationalize what Nixon and Kissinger did from 1968 until the end of the war.

 
IMHO, if Hillary does NOT get the nomination on the first go around, I should win the bet.  In that case, Obama obviously gave an endorsement prior to the race being decided.  If it plays out as expected, and Hillary gets the nomination by the initial vote, I will accept the spirit of the bet which was discussed but was not the exact wording.  Either way, I will send out payments later tonight when I get home.   
The endorsement was already made. It was either before or after the nomination was clinched. Whatever happens from this point forward is irrelevant 

 
The endorsement was already made. It was either before or after the nomination was clinched. Whatever happens from this point forward is irrelevant 
If we know all the facts.  For instance, Obama in all likelihood knows a lot more about the Hillary FBI investigation than the general public.   He knows whether an indictment is off the table or not.  The only thing standing in Hillary's way would be an indictment.  So if Obama endorsed knowing there is a good chance of an indictment, I would suggest the nomination was not clinched due to the wildcard of the Super delegates.  If an indictment is off the table, then for all practical purposes in the spirit of what we discussed, Hillary has clinched.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we know all the facts.  For instance, Obama in all likelihood knows a lot more about the Hillary FBI investigation than the general public.   He knows whether an indictment is off the table or not.  The only thing standing in Hillary's way would be an indictment.  So if Obama endorsed knowing there is a good chance of an indictment, I would suggest the nomination was not clinched due to the wildcard of the Super delegates.  If an indictment is off the table, then for all practical purposes in the spirit of what we discussed, Hillary has clinched.  
The delegates that each won during the voting are no more required to vote for either candidate than the super delegates.

 
SECRET SERVICE OFFICER SET FOR TV INTERVIEWS; BROADCAST NETWORKS BLACKLIST
MON JUNE 20 2016 19:47:25 ET
**Exclusive** 

Team Hillary is working overtime to block former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne from appearing on ANY broadcast network, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.  

Byrne is set to reveal what he observed inside the White House while protecting the First Family in the 1990s. 

'What I saw sickened me,' Byrne explains. 'I want you to hear my story.' 

Byrne paints a picture of Hillary as a deranged madwoman running interference on Bill's sexploits. 

The book 'CRISIS OF CHARACTER' is finally set for release next Monday. It has already became the top seller at AMAZON for the month of June.

And now Clinton's circle is preparing to hit back hard! 

POLITICO plans an early morning attack on Byrne's credibility, sources claim, despite his having served in federal law enforcement for nearly thirty years.  

Meanwhile, Hillary's campaign has won assurances that he will not be invited to spread 'lies' on any of the nation's broadcast networks. 

'It's trash for cash,' a campaign official warned one producer.  

FOXNEWS 'HANNITY' will have the first exclusive for cable news, DRUDGE has learned. 

Developing... 

 
Come on, Arizona Ron writes more realistic dialogue than this:

“Monica, however, still regarded herself quite favorably as the president’s singular mistress,” Byrne writes in his book. “So now she was pissed off. She pressed the officer about the delay and wanted to know why she was left standing in his security booth. He lashed back.”

“You have to wait,” the officer at the time told Lewinsky. “He’s with his other piece of ###. Wait till he’s finished.”

“What’s he want with her when he has this?” Lewinsky replied.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/20/ex-secret-service-member-monica-lewinsky-threw-a-tantrum-when-she-found-out-bill-cheated/#ixzz4CAfrW2Bn

 
Come on, Arizona Ron writes more realistic dialogue than this:

“Monica, however, still regarded herself quite favorably as the president’s singular mistress,” Byrne writes in his book. “So now she was pissed off. She pressed the officer about the delay and wanted to know why she was left standing in his security booth. He lashed back.”

“You have to wait,” the officer at the time told Lewinsky. “He’s with his other piece of ###. Wait till he’s finished.”

“What’s he want with her when he has this?” Lewinsky replied.


when she heard Clinton was sleeping with former Vice President Walter Mondale’s daughter.
 
Uhhhh.... that's a new wrinkle.
 
 
Her campaign is outspending Trump at an unfathomable clip. And it doesn't seem like he'll have any money until at least post convention. 

 
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-19/trump-gives-clinton-her-cause

sen

But it's the emergence of Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee that has galvanized her candidacy into a crusade. Trump has given her something that Sanders had in abundance but Clinton previously lacked: a cause.

Clinton is not just a workhorse for her own ambition. She has long labored to achieve a set of consistent liberal, communitarian goals. As a senator and secretary of state she did the homework necessary to learn foreign policy and national security. Whatever her detractors perceive about her "true" character, there is no question that Clinton takes the work of politics and policy deeply seriously.

Given that, can there be any doubt that the specter of Donald Trump occupying the Oval Office rattles every American bone in her body?

In a speech earlier this week in Pittsburgh, Clinton's voice was husky with fatigue. But there was a steady calm to her. Her tone was low and flat. Her sentences were precise and slow. Her demeanor was steely but not alienating as she described the dangerous buffoon who is now her Republican opponent.

She called Trump's response to the massacre in Orlando "shameful," and cited it as "yet more evidence that he is temperamentally unfit and unqualified to be commander in chief." She called out his "bizarre rants and outright lies."

There were moments when the audience of Democratic partisans laughed. Clinton didn't.

Instead, she laid the rationale for her candidacy before the nation, in simple, readily understood, terms.

"We face a "brutal enemy" that will stop at nothing to undermine or destroy us, she said. We need a leader who can grapple with the "complexity" of terrorism and an interconnected 21st-century world -- not "a loose cannon who could easily lead us into war."

It's really not complicated anymore. "Now is a time for seriousness and resolve," Clinton said. If that's the case, or even could be, there is only one candidate with the capacity to provide either quality.

"I expect that people will see her in a much better light because of the contrast with Trump," said Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, whose clients include pro-Clinton groups. "We've witnessed that in a very significant way in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre."

Trump has transformed Clinton from a transactional candidate to a conviction candidate. Fighting the talented and wily Obama in 2008, Clinton was unable to project a conviction that she alone could answer the nation's call. That's changed. Clinton is the only one standing between the U.S. and potential disaster. And she knows it. 

 
Clinton is the only one standing between the U.S. and potential disaster.

In the end, this is what it really comes down to. There's really nothing else to discuss. 

 
Good for you.

I haven't been paid. :sadbanana:

Sent a PM to jon_mx the same time you did, with my PayPal address - but while he paid you, I have not yet received payment.
I sent payment, but it was declined.  I think multiple identical pay pal payments must have set off a fraud alert.  I don't use pay pal that much and this is a new account.  I will attempt again tomorrow 

 
Clinton is the only one standing between the U.S. and potential disaster.

In the end, this is what it really comes down to. There's really nothing else to discuss. 
24 years, 1822 makeovers, 2 dozen scandals, 763 campaign mottos, uncountable lies and finally - finally - an actual reason why she is running. Have to hand it to Donald, he's done the impossible.

 
This thread is deader than Vince Foster.

With the upcoming book from the Secret Service agent and the supposed 80+ GB email release from Wikileaks we should have plenty of fireworks between now and Philly. 

:popcorn:

 
Clinton is the only one standing between the U.S. and potential disaster.

In the end, this is what it really comes down to. There's really nothing else to discuss. 
Great.  We've allowed ourselves to have a choice between two corrupt pieces of ####.  Which one is worse?  I can't tell.  They're BOTH bad for America.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://observer.com/2016/06/dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-is-finally-kicked-to-the-curb/

This is not a sign of progress. Rather, the removal buys time and entertains the possibility of retaining Wasserman Schultz after the Democratic National Convention, once criticism for her poor party leadership dies down. In short, Wasserman Schultz protected Clinton with a limited primary debate schedule and now Clinton is returning the favor—which does doing nothing to fix the corruption Wasserman Schultz flooded into the Democratic Party as DNC chair.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz served as Clinton’s 2008 campaign co-chair and helped Hillary Clinton win the 2016 Democratic primaries to the greatest extent she could, even though her relationship warranted Wasserman Schultz recuse herself from the primaries. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, bravely spoke out against the undemocratic limited debate schedule coordinated by Wasserman Schultz, and eventually recused herself from her position as DNC vice chair in order to transparently support the Sanders campaign.
Transitioning Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s duties to another Clinton surrogate will do nothing to reform the Democratic Party. In a recent address to supporters, Sanders noted his hope to work with Clinton to transform the Democratic Party into one that, “has the courage to take on Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry and the other powerful special interests that dominate our political and economic life.”

With her insincere proposal to eventually remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair, Hillary Clinton proves she doesn’t take purging corruption from of the Democratic Party—a primary platform of Sanders’ campaign—seriously.

 
The public outrage about background checks is so overwhelming (92% of the public wanted passage of those bills yesterday, yet Republicans voted them down) that it's got to help Hillary and the Democrats. 

 
timschochet said:
Clinton is the only one standing between the U.S. and potential disaster.

In the end, this is what it really comes down to. There's really nothing else to discuss. 
So a disaster is standing between us and a potential disaster. That's comforting.

 
timschochet said:
Clinton is the only one standing between the U.S. and potential disaster.

In the end, this is what it really comes down to. There's really nothing else to discuss. 
Well, sorry to see you go, but thanks for discussing until we got to this point.

 
timschochet said:
Clinton is the only one standing between the U.S. and potential disaster.

In the end, this is what it really comes down to. There's really nothing else to discuss
Finally! But I don't believe it.

 
My wife works with a guy who plays in a country band.   A HRC representative was gracious enough to call them and asked them to play at an HRC event when she comes to NC next week.   Now of course they couldn't pay them but they would get a picture with her and it would be "great exposure".   Of course they said they wouldn't play for her even if they paid them and they couldn't pay them enough to take a picture with her either.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top