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.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hillary says Comey is wrong.

She's a piece of work.
Click to expand...
This is just another example of why she is the Wayne Gretzky of lying...she never takes a night off...just when you think she can't get any better she takes it to another level...the next time she admits she did something wrong will be the first...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't think you guys are disagreeing with each other, necessarily; you're just pointing out that people are inconsistent.

"Would you prefer an honest President, or a dishonest President?" The first one.

"Would you prefer a Presidential candidate who promises to cut taxes, increase spending, and balance the budget, or a Presidential candidate who won't make such a promise?" The first one.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is why when they are caught lying, there has to be consequences. If there are no consequences, politicians have everything to gain and nothing to lose by lying. 

 
Race baiting? :lol:   You guys keep your head in the sand and pretend this isn't politics as normal.   Newt said almost the same exact thing.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
It's an opinion supported by facts, more facts, and still more facts.

She should quit while she's behind instead of continuing to argue this point.
Click to expand...
If an interviewer asks her, "Do you think you were extremely careless?", what do you expect her to say? "Gee, Director Comey says I was, so I guess so."?? Come on  now. Of course she has to disagree. That's not an attack on Comey, either. 

 
timschochet said:
If an interviewer asks her, "Do you think you were extremely careless?", what do you expect her to say? "Gee, Director Comey says I was, so I guess so."?? Come on  now. Of course she has to disagree. That's not an attack on Comey, either. 
Click to expand...
"Let's dispel with this fiction that I was extremely careless. I knew exactly what I was doing."

 
timschochet said:
But she's absolutely right about this. 
Click to expand...
Tim, be fair here. If Donald Trump made this statement he was going to go talk to white people; he would have been burried in the media---absolutely killed and you know it. 

He gave a balanced response tonight and offered support to both sides, but the female on CNN found fault because he dared to offer condolence to the Dallas officers FIRST before the two black motorist that were shot 

 
Courtjester said:
Tim, be fair here. If Donald Trump made this statement he was going to go talk to white people; he would have been burried in the media---absolutely killed and you know it. 

He gave a balanced response tonight and offered support to both sides, but the female on CNN found fault because he dared to offer condolence to the Dallas officers FIRST before the two black motorist that were shot 
Click to expand...
I like what Donald Trump has had to say about this, for once. I have no criticism of him. 

But- and I know you're going to disagree with me on this- when it comes to the police mistreatment of black men, a big part of the problem is that white people just don't get it. That's what Newt Gingrich said earlier today and that's what Hillary is saying. And I read it in this forum. Every time a black guy gets shot, there's a bunch of white guys who rush in here and say, "Well, if it had been me I would have obeyed the officer," etc., acting with the premise that everyone gets treated equally by police when they don't. So i think that's what Hillary was trying to say about this, and I think she's right. 

 
Courtjester said:
Tim, be fair here. If Donald Trump made this statement he was going to go talk to white people; he would have been burried in the media---absolutely killed and you know it. 

He gave a balanced response tonight and offered support to both sides, but the female on CNN found fault because he dared to offer condolence to the Dallas officers FIRST before the two black motorist that were shot 
Click to expand...
Well, gee, could it be that maybe Trump doesn't talk to the same white people that Hillary does? A little difference audience here, to say the least.

 
NutterButter said:
maybe she took exception with the "extremely" part.  
Click to expand...
"I wouldn't say 'extremely.' I would say more like somewhere between 'moderately' and 'surprisingly.' I don't care what the FBI Director says -- on a scale from 1 to 10, my carelessness was really no higher than a 7 if you ask me."

I think it's better to just bite the bullet and move on rather than challenging the point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
"I wouldn't say 'extremely.' I would say more like somewhere between 'moderately' and 'surprisingly.' I don't care what the FBI Director says -- on a scale from 1 to 10, my carelessness was really no higher than a 7 in my opinion."

I think it's better to just bite the bullet and move on rather than challenging the point.
Click to expand...
HILLARY ADMITS SHE WAS CARELESS!!!!

Screaming headlines everywhere. She can't do it. 

 
timschochet said:
I like what Donald Trump has had to say about this, for once. I have no criticism of him. 

But- and I know you're going to disagree with me on this- when it comes to the police mistreatment of black men, a big part of the problem is that white people just don't get it. That's what Newt Gingrich said earlier today and that's what Hillary is saying. And I read it in this forum. Every time a black guy gets shot, there's a bunch of white guys who rush in here and say, "Well, if it had been me I would have obeyed the officer," etc., acting with the premise that everyone gets treated equally by police when they don't. So i think that's what Hillary was trying to say about this, and I think she's right. 
Click to expand...
I think this is a great response. Despite  my Trump support, you and I always seem to find common ground. 

Oh well have to perform my dad taxi service and get my girl from ballet practice 

 
Courtjester said:
Clinton: " I am going to be talking to white people.  I think we're the ones that have to start listening to legitimate cries that are coming from our Africa  American fellow citizens."

What a race baiting POS. 
Click to expand...
Does she mean Bill?  I recall back in 2008 when Bill called Ted Kennedy to pressed for an endorsement for Hillary.  He was making a case for his wife but went on to belittle Obama in a way that offended Kennedy.  Clinton had said, "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
As opposed to: "FBI DETERMINES THAT HILLARY WAS CARELESS, BUT SHE'S CONSTITUTIONALLY INCAPABLE OF ADMITTING ANY FAULT! JUST LIKE DONALD TRUMP!!"
Click to expand...
But see, that's said by somebody else. So long as SHE doesn't say it, it's OK. 

Hillary has stated that if she had to do it over, she would have used the private server. That has to be the extent of her admission. She has to navigate her away around this without either admitting she was careless or that she was too deliberate in her actions. Not easy. But she can't admit fault. 

 
timschochet said:
Hillary has stated that if she had to do it over, she would have used the private server. That has to be the extent of her admission. She has to navigate her away around this without either admitting she was careless or that she was too deliberate in her actions. Not easy. But she can't admit fault. 
Click to expand...
Assuming that's a typo and you left out the word 'not' in the first sentence, that seems like an easy answer. "I was careless in using a private server. I'm a lot better informed now about the technology relating to security matters, and I wouldn't make a mistake like that again."

 
timschochet said:
HILLARY ADMITS SHE WAS CARELESS!!!!

Screaming headlines everywhere. She can't do it. 
Click to expand...
Should be obvious to anyone who has followed politics.

If Hillary is dumb enough to admit that and frame not only the attack ads but Trumps talking points in the debates, then she doesn't deserve to be the nominee.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Assuming that's a typo and you left out the word 'not' in the first sentence, that seems like an easy answer. "I was careless in using a private server. I'm a lot better informed now about the technology relating to security matters, and I wouldn't make a mistake like that again."
Click to expand...
Yeah I meant to say not. 

But- she still can't say she was careless. 

 
squistion said:
It would be equivalent to when George Romney said he was brainwashed about Vietnam. That ended his run for the Presidency because from that point forwarded he was labeled the "brainwashed candidate" and by the same token Hillary would be branded by her own admission as being "careless" - Would you trust someone with the 3AM call who is careless?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not! And I don't care if she admits it... she IS careless. 

 
timschochet said:
But- she still can't say she was careless. 
Click to expand...
About just this one thing, or about anything ever?

If she can't admit to being careless about anything in her entire life, ever, that's pretty absurd -- and probably disqualifies her from being President more than all of her various scandals combined (unless the Vince Foster thing turns out to be true).

If, on the other hand, she can admit to being careless at least one time in her life, the thing with the server seems like a pretty good candidate.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
About just this one thing, or about anything ever?

If she can't admit to being careless about anything in her entire life, ever, that's pretty absurd -- and probably disqualifies her from being President more than all of her various scandals combined (unless the Vince Foster thing turns out to be true).

If, on the other hand, she can admit to being careless at least one time in her life, the thing with the server seems like a pretty good candidate.
Click to expand...
Actually, at this point- about anything ever. 

Just my opinion, but when you're running for President, especially if you're a woman running (the first ever to do so and to have come this far) there are certain words you cannot use in reference to yourself. Careless is one of those. Of course she's been careless but she can't ever say that. She can admit mistakes. She can say that she regrets things, and would do things differently. But she can't say "I was careless", "I was stupid", "I was wrong". 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Intent to do what? I don't have the relevant statutory language memorized like some people around here might, but the required intent had to do with mishandling classified information. What lie might she have told Congress that would help establish that intent?
Click to expand...
If she's mis-stated (or lied) about various points in her responses to Congress, why wouldn't her statements bring into question her clear intent to not give truthful information into her actions around her handling of the security information? It seems the bar is set to her selling the information, etc., but if you're seeing up a server in your home, etc. you are clearly intending to skirt around the rules and then lying about some of the specific questions adds further questions.

None of this is going to matter in 2 weeks, but less 4 months, but this should remind people of her character (or lack of).

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
What are these statements that are so false that they could reasonably be considered perjury?  Particularly by the guy sitting in yesterday's hearing?
Click to expand...
I think perjury would be tough to prove because you would have to show she didn't know at the time, which is a tough burden. She's not going to be brought up on perjury charges, but there were instances of her answers (sending classified information, # of devices are 2 that were played over and over) conflicting with the facts.

 
cubd8 said:
I think perjury would be tough to prove because you would have to show she didn't know at the time, which is a tough burden. She's not going to be brought up on perjury charges, but there were instances of her answers (sending classified information, # of devices are 2 that were played over and over) conflicting with the facts.
Click to expand...
So her clear lies aren't really clear and/or lies at all!  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
So her clear lies aren't really clear and/or lies at all!  
Click to expand...
They are lies. I'm sure if you're a supporter, you can downplay her answers to these questions, but you can't get around the fact there her answers were not truthful to some of these questions. Not prosecuting her for that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 
cubd8 said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Intent to do what? I don't have the relevant statutory language memorized like some people around here might, but the required intent had to do with mishandling classified information. What lie might she have told Congress that would help establish that intent?
Click to expand...
If she's mis-stated (or lied) about various points in her responses to Congress, why wouldn't her statements bring into question her clear intent to not give truthful information into her actions around her handling of the security information?
Click to expand...
From your subsequent posts, it seems like the lies you have in mind are (a) telling Congress that she never sent or received classified information by email even though she did, and (b) telling Congress that she preferred to carry around only a single mobile device even though, over the course of several years, she used more than one mobile device.

Neither of those strike me as obvious lies, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are lies. (Also, I have no idea what she told Congress, so I'm also assuming for the sake of argument that she actually said those things.)

How do those lies help establish that Clinton intended to inappropriately send or receive classified information? "I used to think that she accidentally received classified information, but now that she's denying that she received any such information, I think she must have received it on purpose." I don't follow the steps there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Actually, at this point- about anything ever. 

Just my opinion, but when you're running for President, especially if you're a woman running (the first ever to do so and to have come this far) there are certain words you cannot use in reference to yourself. Careless is one of those. Of course she's been careless but she can't ever say that. She can admit mistakes. She can say that she regrets things, and would do things differently. But she can't say "I was careless", "I was stupid", "I was wrong". 
Click to expand...
A concept some people just don't get.

 
timschochet said:
HILLARY ADMITS SHE WAS CARELESS!!!!

Screaming headlines everywhere. She can't do it. 
Click to expand...
Her constant lying on this since March 2015 has been far more damaging. And now she insists on continuing.

MT's right, this particular aspect is as crazy as Trump who has the same bad habit of doubling down on false, albeit on nutty stuff like Michelle Fields' pen bomb, his use of pseudonyms and Microsoft images.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Actually, at this point- about anything ever. 

Just my opinion, but when you're running for President, especially if you're a woman running (the first ever to do so and to have come this far) there are certain words you cannot use in reference to yourself. Careless is one of those. Of course she's been careless but she can't ever say that. She can admit mistakes. She can say that she regrets things, and would do things differently. But she can't say "I was careless", "I was stupid", "I was wrong". 
Click to expand...
FYI people know it anyway.

 
cubd8 said:
They are lies. I'm sure if you're a supporter, you can downplay her answers to these questions, but you can't get around the fact there her answers were not truthful to some of these questions. Not prosecuting her for that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Click to expand...
I think under the standard for what is a lie you are establishing to condemn Hillary of "answers ... conflicting with the facts" is a pretty problematic.   Under this standard lots of posters which I have longed believed to be honest are now "serial liars".   Including you.  And me.  In fact just about anyone who has any posting volume at all.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
From your subsequent posts, it seems like the lies you have in mind are (a) telling Congress that she never sent or received classified information by email even though she did, and (b) telling Congress that she preferred to carry around only a single mobile device even though, over the course of several years, she used more than one mobile device.

Neither of those strike me as obvious lies, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are lies. (Also, I have no idea what she told Congress, so I'm also assuming for the sake of argument that she actually said those things.)

How do those lies help establish that Clinton intended to inappropriately send or receive classified information? "I used to think that she accidentally received classified information, but now that she's denying that she received any such information, I think she must have received it on purpose." I don't follow the steps there.
Click to expand...
I don't think those in congress pursuing perjury charges are concerned about how your question ties together with the email/server issue.  In the same way the steps were irrelevant in pursuing perjury charges against Bill Clinton when the original investigation was over a land deal.

 
cobalt_27 said:
I don't think those in congress pursuing perjury charges are concerned about how your question ties together with the email/server issue.  In the same way the steps were irrelevant in pursuing perjury charges against Bill Clinton when the original investigation was over a land deal.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we weren't discussing perjury charges. We were discussing whether requisite criminal intent under section 793(f) could be established by showing that Clinton lied to Congress.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, but we weren't discussing perjury charges. We were discussing whether requisite criminal intent under section 793(f) could be established by showing that Clinton lied to Congress.
Click to expand...
Sorry, misunderstood the context.  I see that now and fully agree that connection seems impossible to establish.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I don't know why, but it was important. 
Click to expand...
Cause you really, really, REALLY want Hillary indicted.  You've repeatedly made every inference against her.  There is plenty to attack Hillary on, yet you continue to draw the worst possible conclusion at every opportunity.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
Cause you really, really, REALLY want Hillary indicted.  You've repeatedly made every inference against her.  There is plenty to attach Hillary on, yet you continue to draw the worst possible conclusion at every opportunity.    
Click to expand...
Meh, he has been that way for everything she has done as long as I can remember. 

If Hillary found a cure for cancer. Saints would put a negative spin on it.

 
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
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top