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)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
Cjw_55106
Footballguy
If thats how things were judged, everyone from here on out would be "innocent" of everything.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
That seems pretty late. Those with their heads in the sand pretty much had this a year ago. Or was there some major difference between these results and the reported results from the IRS email scandal?
Look at it this way- those of you who trust me got this news several months ahead of time
whoknew
Footballguy
Fair point. Seems like he criticizes Trump every chance he gets. But he is still endorsing him. Sad.
whoknew
Footballguy
According to 538 last night, that bump wasn't from Trump. It was from the small percentage that Biden and Bernie had. Now that she's not going to be indicted, they lost any potential value.
timschochet
Footballguy
I still think she's one of the most qualified candidates ever. But she certainly did something wrong here.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Jayrok
Footballguy
HRC couldn't pass an FBI background check. She couldn't pass a simple background check for a security clearance. Therefore she is not qualified to be the commander-in-chief of the US military. She can't even be present in the room when the joint chiefs of staff brief on-going and future operations. She'd have to get the dumbed down, sanitized version of what's going on.
It says a lot about Obama, imo. But then again, he's the guy who saw fit to release 100+ terrorist prisoners back into service for terrorist groups like ISIS. So poor judgment goes hand in hand with the position, in his view.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
Even excluding the transparency and ethical issues (since, admittedly, one can be both "qualified" and "unethical"), my list of qualifications includes "doesn't repeatedly exhibit unbelievably poor judgment".
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is the second time I've heard this comparison... our government is now openly lobbying for businesses to deal with Iran and have dropped nearly all sanctions so... why was Iran so bad? And we're friends with the Sandinistas now even as they deal with China, Russia and Venezuela? So who did what wrong why?
At any rate this kind of thinking goes both ways. Comey laid out a case for violation of national security regs albeit unprosecuted while Trump is excoriated for vile supremacist retweets. Who's worse? Meanwhile in the end we have one candidate who just barely (I mean the last minute or so of the presser) emerged from one FBI investigation and we have another who is being sued for large scale fraud. Who's worse? Could play this game all day.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Come on -- one of them wants to arm the Saudis (and other countries) with nukes, has stated that using nukes in Syria is a viable option, and has speculated about defaulting on the national debt. Those are things that legitimately might lead to a true global disaster. I get it if you want to vote for Johnson or Stein, but saying Hillary and Trump are equivalent is rank nonsense.
Boston
Footballguy
Well, in fairness to Hildo I can't blame her for thinking that way...because it appears that she is...
Boston
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm troubled that she lied Rich. I'm troubled that she was extremely careless, in Comey's words.
Even excluding the transparency and ethical issues (since, admittedly, one can be both "qualified" and "unethical"), my list of qualifications includes "doesn't repeatedly exhibit unbelievably poor judgment".
But that's about the extent of it. I certainly don't buy into the repeated poor judgment claim. I don't think this disqualified her at all- IMO, how she deals with her emails has always been a very minor issue, in no way relevant to the serious issues one faces as President (or Secretary of State for that matter.) Statements like yours (or like Jayrok saying she would not receive security clearance) are way over the top.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'm not. I didn't say that and I won't. I'm just talking about the problem of negating what Hillary did in comparison to what others have done. These counter arguments are inevitable and also interminable. What Hillary did stands on its own.
HRC couldn't pass an FBI background check. She couldn't pass a simple background check for a security clearance. Therefore she is not qualified to be the commander-in-chief of the US military. She can't even be present in the room when the joint chiefs of staff brief on-going and future operations. She'd have to get the dumbed down, sanitized version of what's going on.
It says a lot about Obama, imo. But then again, he's the guy who saw fit to release 100+ terrorist prisoners back into service for terrorist groups like ISIS. So poor judgment goes hand in hand with the position, in his view.
A clearance is not required to be president. Just 270 electoral votes.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
It certainly does. And some of the ridiculous reaction here and elsewhere is starting to piss me off.
She did some troubling things here. She deserves to be criticized. But it's a minor issue. What she did doesn't rise to the level of a crime (per the FBI) and it is in no way disqualifying. Hillary will be an excellent President; that hasn't changed.
Jayrok
Footballguy
Yeah, that's special. She couldn't pass an FBI check for a job there, but she is the most qualified person, man or woman, to ever seek the oval office. That's special too.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ok good then everyone should feel free to discuss what she did without restraint and without the need to go to the well to find negating comps. She's going to win. Policy wise vs Trump there is no discussion. But the facts of what she did have now been clearly laid out.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
The vast majority of it is typical partisan BS. The whole Benghazi thing was far more outrageous and unfounded. Neither will matter in November.
timschochet
Footballguy
pantherclub
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I certainly hope not but with the way people are thinking in this country these days, who knows?
The idea that reasonable people could take this issue, disqualify Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump is outrageous to me. It's as if you were so horrified by a shoplifter that you voted for a rapist instead.
Jayrok
Footballguy
It's not over the top to say that, Tim. She wouldn't qualify for one. If she had one now it would be revoked.. believe that. She would be fired as Secretary of State. How would that look on her resume? If the president doesn't need any type of clearance, so be it. It's fine, she's above the law. Voters obviously don't care.
You think her dealings with her emails was always a minor issue and "in no way" relevant to the serious issues the SOS faces? Her reading and disseminating classified material in an insecure manner are not relevant to her job as SoS? Do you really believe that? I get that you don't understand the impact of not safeguarding that type of information or why it is classified to certain levels. And that's ok.. as such, this conversation doesn't need to go any farther.
timschochet
Footballguy
Stop accusing me of trolling. She's one of the most qualified candidates ever. That's the truth; deal with it.
Which ridiculous reaction? All along, my primary objections to Hillary have been: 1) poor judgment, 2) lack of transparency, and 3) disregard for the truth. She's displayed these same qualities over and over again throughout her career, and throughout this campaign alone. Now, Comey confirmed all three of them in this one investigation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cjw_55106
Footballguy
If its a minor issue, why lie and try to cover it up? Because she's a crooked, lying politician, just like the rest of them.
Jayrok
Footballguy
Do you honestly think she would pass any type of background check for any type of position that would require her to be involved with the handling of sensitive information after what's been going on? Do you really? You can't be this delusional... can you?
We are fortunate that we are yet to find out what kind of illegal stuff she will do as president.
timschochet
Footballguy
She has not displayed these qualities throughout her career. That's bunk. That's the ridiculous reaction (also that this is in any way disqualifying for the office of President).
timschochet
Footballguy
pantherclub
Footballguy
Jesus Christ dude based on what? Thats the most asinine statement I think I have ever read.
pantherclub
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
So, it concerns me that Hillary was--at best--reckless in handling top secret and other sensitive information. That alone is reprehensible.
But, what still remains unanswered--and perhaps even more concerning--is the purpose for creating the private server in the first place. I understand that Hillary first claimed that it was for "convenience," but her credibility in telling the truth around these matters has obliterated, and the various depositions and FBI findings certainly appear inconsistent with that story. The FBI could not conclude why the private server was established, and that's a big red flag...and it really speaks to why I think it's premature to say there was no clear obstruction or evasiveness involved. I happen to think her various contradictory statements and story changes about how/why the rig was set up are almost as big--or bigger--than the mishandling of security information.
But, what still remains unanswered--and perhaps even more concerning--is the purpose for creating the private server in the first place. I understand that Hillary first claimed that it was for "convenience," but her credibility in telling the truth around these matters has obliterated, and the various depositions and FBI findings certainly appear inconsistent with that story. The FBI could not conclude why the private server was established, and that's a big red flag...and it really speaks to why I think it's premature to say there was no clear obstruction or evasiveness involved. I happen to think her various contradictory statements and story changes about how/why the rig was set up are almost as big--or bigger--than the mishandling of security information.
Jayrok
Footballguy
This can't be real. I imagine it makes you mad because some shmo in here is saying these things about your hero. But it's not opinion. 
The Commish
Footballguy
The ONLY way to be able to swallow Hillary's actions is if they are compared to someone/something else. There is no valid justification for that sort of bad judgment if you look at it in a vacuum and focus specifically on those actions. That's why the comparisons keep arising. The only way there's a discussion is if we deflect part of it. It's THAT obvious.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
OK. In the real world she's about to be given access to the highest level of classified information- right after the Democratic convention. But you go on living in your own world in which she doesn't get security clearances.
bleachercreacher
Footballguy
If you truly believe this, you are just as bad, if not worse, than all the Trump fans. She has done nothing but prove over and over that she is unqualified for the job. There is absolutely no way any government agency could hire her right now. Hell, she's not qualified to work at the DMV. If she wins this race, the only reason she wins is because she was running against Trump. We've never had an election with two less qualified individuals running for President.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
The bolded is incorrect. It is a crime, but the FBI is using the argument that in general not every crime committed is prosecuted, and under similar circumstances other people haven't been prosecuted for this.
You seem to be ignoring Comey's important point: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences”
The consequences he is referring to are things like getting fired, having your career ruined, etc, etc.... at best a person who did what Hillary did would keep their job only if all access to sensitive data is stripped from them. Promoting someone who did this is insane, and I think people who want to promote her are committing a worse crime against this country than the one she committed.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You're underestimating the severity of the email thing. There are things classified daily that if released publicly can tell someone who the source is, and that source can be killed. You don't have to release the sources name and address to put them at risk. Just some govt knowing that we have certain data outs the source. I've seen it before unfortunately.
Im not saying someone was killed over clintons carelessness. I'm saying they easily could have been and it's why her carelessness and arrogance is really sickening for someone that's supposed to be a leader. She cares about Hillary. Not you not me and not any government employee or anyone else that's not lining her pockets.
Galileo
Footballguy
She shouldn't be. Even if you deem her actions to not warrant a criminal offense, she has clearly been negligent with sensitive material and has shown a lack of judgement. This is not a quality we should see in our commander in chief.
- Status
Similar threads
