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.
Source is another tell all book about the Clintons from someone trying to make a quick buck dredging up dirt that can't be proven or disproven, in this case with a statement from 1974 and if Hillary didn't say it (as she and Bill claim) it goes into the category of trying to prove a negative. From the Guardian piece this is what she had to say:

"I have never said anything like that, ever," Mrs Clinton said. "I have in the past certainly, you know maybe, called somebody a name. But I have never used an ethnic, racial, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory, prejudiced, accusation against anybody. I've never done it. I've never thought it."

I am sure she probably has "called somebody a name" and even Bill wouldn't deny that:

"She might have called him a *******, I wouldn't rule that out. She's never claimed that she was pure on profanity. But I've never heard her tell a joke with an ethnic connotation. She's so fanatic about it. It's not in her."

And the type of remark she allegedly made, would have been considered not PC, even in 1974 and is unlikely from someone in the public eye who is or will be seeking elective office, besides being out of character for someone who is liberal/progressive in their views.
This doesn't move the needle for me, because -- 1974.  Not like the bribe she took in 78. I don't doubt it happened though, and the fact Squis is always denying the smoke behind the walls no matter how thick is cute.

 
Last edited:
This doesn't move the needle for me, because -- 1974.  Not like the bribe she took in 78. I don't doubt it happened though, and the fact Squis is always denying the smoke behind the walls no matter how thick is cute.
Stop with the bribe nonsense. Not a shred of proof on that. You don't seem to get that when you make ridiculous accusations like that it makes impossible for anyone you take you seriously.

 
Source is another tell all book about the Clintons from someone trying to make a quick buck dredging up dirt that can't be proven or disproven, in this case with a statement from 1974 and if Hillary didn't say it (as she and Bill claim) it goes into the category of trying to prove a negative. From the Guardian piece this is what she had to say:

"I have never said anything like that, ever," Mrs Clinton said. "I have in the past certainly, you know maybe, called somebody a name. But I have never used an ethnic, racial, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory, prejudiced, accusation against anybody. I've never done it. I've never thought it."

I am sure she probably has "called somebody a name" and even Bill wouldn't deny that:

"She might have called him a *******, I wouldn't rule that out. She's never claimed that she was pure on profanity. But I've never heard her tell a joke with an ethnic connotation. She's so fanatic about it. It's not in her."

And the type of remark she allegedly made, would have been considered not PC, even in 1974 and is unlikely from someone in the public eye who is or will be seeking elective office, besides being out of character for someone who is liberal/progressive in their views.
For the sake of argument considering you've drilled down on this... didn't the Guardian confirm the report with Clinton's campaign manager and his wife?

 
For the sake of argument considering you've drilled down on this... didn't the Guardian confirm the report with Clinton's campaign manager and his wife?
Doesn't mean it actually happened.

Haven't you ever seen recollections from people who worked together 20-30 years ago, but have completely different accounts of what someone did or said? It has been documented by those who study memory that sometimes people hear an account second hand, but later claim they witnessed it or take what they thought someone was thinking which morphs later in to what they are sure someone actually said. I am not trusting something from that long ago particularly from those that might still have an axe to grind with the Clintons.

 
50-100 posters with numerous log in names can continue to beat their chests and act like Hilary Clinton is the clear cut winner here and the rest of the minority thinking about Trump are off their rockers...please keep living in denial because the Trump movement feeds off being the underdog in this. Quite frankly, I wouldn't know what to think if Trump were actually ahead or winning by a decent margin...I really might think something was wrong. 

But with so many dismissing Trump, the fact is he drummed up the largest voter turnout for the GOP in a very long time in the primaries.  Regardless of whether you hate Trump or not and it seems to be black and white here, you either love him or hate him but you hatred for him doesn't do anything to stop folks from flocking towards him.

Where as I can ignore Clinton for a couple days, maybe even just let her speak at one of these rallies she has done of late and just record what comes out of her mouth because you cannot spin some of the entitlements she is touting. It's all out war on the Middle Class and anyone who makes more than a couple bucks over minimum wage is middle class. Then they stretch what is a pretty middle household income of say $75,000 combined and lump them in with the fraction of folks making $250,000, that seems mighty fair. 

And what disturbs me are certain sections of middle class folks who are intelligent, educated, work fairly hard, and yet they seem eager to want to hand more money over to Uncle Sam to pay for people who do not share the same values and work ethics. I remember @Henry Ford  posting he wanted to send money to everyone and if they want to stay home and shoot heroin with it, good by him. I just don't share those same values. 

And that's what it will boil down to. How many decent hard working middle class Americans can Clinton convince into forking out more of their paychecks? We need more jobs, better jobs, better paying job, better insurance and perks for those who actually work, more folks feeling like they are part of capitalism and not the end product from the rear end of it. Prosperity and people living fulfilling lives 

So the Clinton supporters can continue to mock and laugh or dismiss Trump but in the end you are in for a rude awakening. The polls are starting to turn towards him as folks realize the power of their vote this time around.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
50-100 posters with numerous log in names can continue to beat their chests and act like Hilary Clinton is the clear cut winner here and the rest of the minority thinking about Trump are off their rockers...please keep living in denial because the Trump movement feeds off being the underdog in this. Quite frankly, I wouldn't know what to think if Trump were actually ahead or winning by a decent margin...I really might think something was wrong. 

But with so many dismissing Trump, the fact is he drummed up the largest voter turnout for the GOP in a very long time in the primaries.  Regardless of whether you hate Trump or not and it seems to be black and white here, you either love him or hate him but you hatred for him doesn't do anything to stop folks from flocking towards him.

Where as I can ignore Clinton for a couple days, maybe even just let her speak at one of these rallies she has done of late and just record what comes out of her mouth because you cannot spin some of the entitlements she is touting. It's all out war on the Middle Class and anyone who makes more than a couple bucks over minimum wage is middle class. Then they stretch what is a pretty middle household income of say $75,000 combined and lump them in with the fraction of folks making $250,000, that seems mighty fair. 

And what disturbs me are certain sections of middle class folks who are intelligent, educated, work fairly hard, and yet they seem eager to want to hand more money over to Uncle Sam to pay for people who do not share the same values and work ethics. I remember @Henry Ford  posting he wanted to send money to everyone and if they want to stay home and shoot heroin with it, good by him. I just don't share those same values. 

And that's what it will boil down to. How many decent hard working middle class Americans can Clinton convince into forking out more of their paychecks? We need more jobs, better jobs, better paying job, better insurance and perks for those who actually work, more folks feeling like they are part of capitalism and not the end product from the rear end of it. Prosperity and people living fulfilling lives 

So the Clinton supporters can continue to mock and laugh or dismiss Trump but in the end you are in for a rude awakening. The polls are starting to turn towards him as folks realize the power of their vote this time around.  
I believe I said something to the effect that I would prefer a Basic Income Guarantee to our current welfare/etc. programs, and that given the economic realities (that there will always be unemployment in this country) I would prefer that the loser, useless class be unemployed, sit at home, and shoot heroin with their money and let the rest of us get on with the business of life without having to worry about being robbed at gunpoint by a junkie instead, yes.

 
Henry Ford, I just pmed you my address, please send me some money so I can buy some heroin.  Thanks.  Yours in christ-dutch.

 
It's all out war on the Middle Class and anyone who makes more than a couple bucks over minimum wage is middle class. Then they stretch what is a pretty middle household income of say $75,000 combined and lump them in with the fraction of folks making $250,000, that seems mighty fair. 
The Pew report looks at middle-income households, which it defines as those earning between two-thirds and double the median household income. In 2014, that meant a three-person household would have to earn between $42,000 and $126,000 to be considered middle-income

 
Stop with the bribe nonsense. Not a shred of proof on that. You don't seem to get that when you make ridiculous accusations like that it makes impossible for anyone you take you seriously.
She took a laundered bribe on Bill's behalf and if discovered earlier she and Bubba would have been exposed as a couple of down home hucksters and we'd have a different history.  

But we don't.

I'm mostly making peace with it, but Hillary is a warts-and-all candidate who has always been ethically challenged -- and has always expanded her tactics to precisely that which she believes she can get away with, and often a tick or two more.  In 1978, that was taking a laundered bribe and sitting on any board that would have her because of her husband's political position.  

You can hide from that reality, but it's who she is and why she gets so much flack.

 
Stop with the bribe nonsense. Not a shred of proof on that. You don't seem to get that when you make ridiculous accusations like that it makes impossible for anyone you take you seriously.


- The outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas' largest employer, gave Hillary a trading tip via a former Tyson employee, Red Bone, 3 months before Bill Clinton (then AR AG) got elected governor.

So let me ask you:

- If the general counsel for Goldman Sachs came to Bill Clinton today and said that a former employee of his had opened up his own brokerage and that he knew of a sure fire stock tip concerning a financial fund which was about to have its IPO via that group, do you think that would be ok, could Bill Clinton do that, right now, today, in your view?

(note this isn't that hypothetical, Bill's son in law Marc Mezvinsky is a former GS broker and had his brokerage set up with the help of two GS partners).​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
- The outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas' largest employer, gave Hillary a trading tip via a former Tyson employee, Red Bone, 3 months before Bill Clinton (then AR AG) got elected governor.

So let me ask you:

- If the general counsel for Goldman Sachs came to Bill Clinton today and said that a former employee of his had opened up his own brokerage and that he knew of a sure fire stock tip concerning a financial fund which was about to have its IPO via that group, do you think that would be ok, could Bill Clinton do that, right now, today, in your view?

(note this isn't that hypothetical, Bill's son in law Marc Mezvinsky is a former GS broker and had his brokerage set up with the help of two GS partners).​
File this also under "can't be proved, but indicative of reality..."  Go take an inventory of hedge fund managers' wives, and rate them on a scale from 1-10.  Met my share.  These are people who care first and foremost about results and status, and are often mercilessly Maciavellian.  

I'm not saying Chelsea Clinton doesn't have a wonderful personality (sins of the father and all that), but smart money is Marc Mezvinsky chose her for the same reasons Goldman chose Hillary for keynotes.  Betting both were done in full recognition that they'd lead to a lot of secret deals on the side.  

 
Stephen Colbert delivers a brutal takedown of 'shady' Hillary Clinton for her email scandal


Stephen Colbert can't make any excuses for Hillary Clinton's email scandal in light of last week's findings by the FBI that she wasn't being truthful about her use of a private server when she was Secretary of State.

At first, Colbert did take a shot at defending her on Monday's "Late Show."

"While she may have not necessarily told the truth about what her email server, where it was, how it was used, whether it could be hacked, any of that stuff," Colbert stammered, "I think we have to understand, if I'm honest with myself, that Secretary Clinton only used that private server because she knew her political enemies would put her entire life under a microscope, as they always have for the last 25 years. And it's natural to expect that she would want to protect..."

But the host couldn't do it anymore.

[video]



"You know what, f--- it," he yelled. "I have to take the gloves off."

In this new edition of the fun series, Colbert rattles off one-liners about Clinton's email scandal with some musical accompaniment. 



Here are a few of our favorite jabs:

"Secretary Clinton, you are so untrustworthy that Beyonce is working on a concept album about you."

"You look so shady right now that FIFA wants to hire you."

"You lie so much that kids are now chanting, 'Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire.'"

"You are so dishonest, Hillary '16 is the number of times you told the truth."
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Stephen-Colbert-delivers-a-brutal-takedown-of-8354634.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop

THE CLIP

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cliff Notes:

FFA Forum is dominated by Clinton posters who use multiple aliases to make Hillary's support seem greater than it is.

Don't vote for Hillary because she will raise your taxes and give more free stuff to people who don't actually work.
That's right. Instead we should vote for captain bankruptcy who has actually moved jobs to China in his "companies." That's how we help the middle class and create jobs for U.S. citizens - don't you get it?

 
You forgot to mention defraud students as part of Trump's resumé. Correct me if I am wrong but I think there is still a possibility he could get indicted for this while the election is in process. 

 
That's right. Instead we should vote for captain bankruptcy who has actually moved jobs to China in his "companies." That's how we help the middle class and create jobs for U.S. citizens - don't you get it?
They are both horrific, awful choices.  You can criticize one without it being a direct endorsement of the other.   My anger has been because of the slow motion train wreck over a year -- where both parties could have done something....  One by rejecting buffoonery and the other rank corruption.

 
They are both horrific, awful choices.  You can criticize one without it being a direct endorsement of the other.   My anger has been because of the slow motion train wreck over a year -- where both parties could have done something....  One by rejecting buffoonery and the other rank corruption.
You can, but MOP wasn't - he was advocating for disco donnie.

 
timschochet said:
I was referring to speeches. So yes with a TelePrompTer. I've never understood the criticism about that anyhow. 
Shocking, given there is a lot you don't understand even when explained to you over and over and over and over and over....

 
You forgot to mention defraud students as part of Trump's resumé. Correct me if I am wrong but I think there is still a possibility he could get indicted for this while the election is in process. 
I think Donald's riskiness lies in his lack of experience, his policies, beliefs or ideology, and his temperament.

However if anyone wants to go down the ethical road.... things get a little muddy distinguishing between him and the Clintons IMO.

But no, supposedly prosecutors don't get involved with indictment before elections. Comey just let Hillary off the hook literally only a couple hours before she appeared the first time with Pres. Obama and a couple weeks before the convention. I think the time for doing any indictment with Trump has passed until after the election and probably after the civil trial.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Classic.

here's a good one: :obc: - people always use the same 3-4 emoticons, never understood that when there are so many to choose from.
Old Bay is for out of staters.   The pros use JO#2 and have since at least 1980.

And the point was that whether or not Hillary's server was hacked is pretty boring.  For the same reason - the pros reading Hillary's emails for our adversaries didn't need t hack her server to capture them.   That and the unlikeliness that among 55 classified topics would there be any real secrets anyway.

 
She took a laundered bribe on Bill's behalf and if discovered earlier she and Bubba would have been exposed as a couple of down home hucksters and we'd have a different history.  

But we don't.

I'm mostly making peace with it, but Hillary is a warts-and-all candidate who has always been ethically challenged -- and has always expanded her tactics to precisely that which she believes she can get away with, and often a tick or two more.  In 1978, that was taking a laundered bribe and sitting on any board that would have her because of her husband's political position.  

You can hide from that reality, but it's who she is and why she gets so much flack.
Who do you think is more compromised?  A candidate that has taken money as part of a quid pro quo, or a candidate that owes enough to multinational banks that he could be financially ruined if they refuse him/her favorable rates?

 
- The outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas' largest employer, gave Hillary a trading tip via a former Tyson employee, Red Bone, 3 months before Bill Clinton (then AR AG) got elected governor.

So let me ask you:

- If the general counsel for Goldman Sachs came to Bill Clinton today and said that a former employee of his had opened up his own brokerage and that he knew of a sure fire stock tip concerning a financial fund which was about to have its IPO via that group, do you think that would be ok, could Bill Clinton do that, right now, today, in your view?

(note this isn't that hypothetical, Bill's son in law Marc Mezvinsky is a former GS broker and had his brokerage set up with the help of two GS partners).​
Was the tip based on inside information?

 
50-100 posters with numerous log in names can continue to beat their chests and act like Hilary Clinton is the clear cut winner here and the rest of the minority thinking about Trump are off their rockers...please keep living in denial because the Trump movement feeds off being the underdog in this. Quite frankly, I wouldn't know what to think if Trump were actually ahead or winning by a decent margin...I really might think something was wrong. 

But with so many dismissing Trump, the fact is he drummed up the largest voter turnout for the GOP in a very long time in the primaries.  Regardless of whether you hate Trump or not and it seems to be black and white here, you either love him or hate him but you hatred for him doesn't do anything to stop folks from flocking towards him.

Where as I can ignore Clinton for a couple days, maybe even just let her speak at one of these rallies she has done of late and just record what comes out of her mouth because you cannot spin some of the entitlements she is touting. It's all out war on the Middle Class and anyone who makes more than a couple bucks over minimum wage is middle class. Then they stretch what is a pretty middle household income of say $75,000 combined and lump them in with the fraction of folks making $250,000, that seems mighty fair. 

And what disturbs me are certain sections of middle class folks who are intelligent, educated, work fairly hard, and yet they seem eager to want to hand more money over to Uncle Sam to pay for people who do not share the same values and work ethics. I remember @Henry Ford  posting he wanted to send money to everyone and if they want to stay home and shoot heroin with it, good by him. I just don't share those same values. 

And that's what it will boil down to. How many decent hard working middle class Americans can Clinton convince into forking out more of their paychecks? We need more jobs, better jobs, better paying job, better insurance and perks for those who actually work, more folks feeling like they are part of capitalism and not the end product from the rear end of it. Prosperity and people living fulfilling lives 

So the Clinton supporters can continue to mock and laugh or dismiss Trump but in the end you are in for a rude awakening. The polls are starting to turn towards him as folks realize the power of their vote this time around.  


Cliff Notes:

FFA Forum is dominated by Clinton posters who use multiple aliases to make Hillary's support seem greater than it is.

Don't vote for Hillary because she will raise your taxes and give more free stuff to people who don't actually work.
It was a lot more than that but obviously those two points must ring true to you. It's not too late to take your place on the Trump train. 

 
Who do you think is more compromised?  A candidate that has taken money as part of a quid pro quo, or a candidate that owes enough to multinational banks that he could be financially ruined if they refuse him/her favorable rates?
An old roommate and dear friend had a dog, Behr.  Why he named him after the paint company and not the animal, I don't know.  Point is, you could take two treats. If you threw them at that same time by either side of his head, he'd shimmy back and forth for a long while before he chose which way to go.  Only in this case, you've thrown me two ####s and eventually I have to eat one.  

 
It didn't ring true. I just condensed your verbose rant into what little that was salient.
But you're just one little voice or opinion bud, sorry. I just see post after post of 1 line rhetoric and I offered a slightly more in depth approach. Again you're welcome to feel different but it's obvious you are doing exactly what I posted so I thank you. You're not debating or adding anything to the discussion or asking questions, you're just trying to be an internet tough guy, it's exactly what I posted up top. 

:bowtie:   

 
But you're just one little voice or opinion bud, sorry. I just see post after post of 1 line rhetoric and I offered a slightly more in depth approach. Again you're welcome to feel different but it's obvious you are doing exactly what I posted so I thank you. You're not debating or adding anything to the discussion or asking questions, you're just trying to be an internet tough guy, it's exactly what I posted up top. 

:bowtie:   
And you're not?

 
Old Bay is for out of staters.   The pros use JO#2 and have since at least 1980.
:doh: I should have thought of who I was posting to. Of course you would know. I had a vacation to the VA coast when I was a kid, one of the best memories of my life. Anyway I always have though that whole DelMarVa thing was very cool, hope to do it one day. Needless to say great seafood is a love of mine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Was the tip based on inside information?
Which version are we speaking of here, the Tyson incident or the quasi-hypothetical?

Tyson was and is very much in the cattle business.

As for my hypo, yeah that's very much implicit. However given Hillary's and Bill's family, personal and professional ties now just as then "intent" would be very hard to prove. So a friend/colleague/family member gives Bill a friendly tip from the inside, what's the harm in that?

 
An old roommate and dear friend had a dog, Behr.  Why he named him after the paint company and not the animal, I don't know.  Point is, you could take two treats. If you threw them at that same time by either side of his head, he'd shimmy back and forth for a long while before he chose which way to go.  Only in this case, you've thrown me two ####s and eventually I have to eat one.  
Ha, this is great.

 
Which version are we speaking of here, the Tyson incident or the quasi-hypothetical?

Tyson was and is very much in the cattle business.

As for my hypo, yeah that's very much implicit. However given Hillary's and Bill's family, personal and professional ties now just as then "intent" would be very hard to prove. So a friend/colleague/family member gives Bill a friendly tip from the inside, what's the harm in that?
Well ask Martha Stewart.

 
And the point was that whether or not Hillary's server was hacked is pretty boring.  For the same reason - the pros reading Hillary's emails for our adversaries didn't need t hack her server to capture them.   That and the unlikeliness that among 55 classified topics would there be any real secrets anyway.
Well really sometimes I post stuff because to me it's new information. I don't think I realized Comey confirmed what we knew. I mean we know Hillary's emails were read/downloaded but it's really something to hear it from him. However there are a few around here who are not so willing to understand or accept what is essentially basically truths such as this. To the extent you knew it already, yeah, there it is.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
https://news.vice.com/article/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-to-decide-whether-to-release-memos

- So it was more than "55." You're counting chains instead of actual communications.

- Whether these were damaging in the way of their release, I don't know, we can't say they were but we can't say they weren't. Presumably since the government won't release them, some people with real knowledge think they might even today.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nobody is talking about Hillary's remarkable speech today? 

“I cannot stand here and claim that my words and actions haven’t sometimes fueled the partisanship that often stands in the way of our progress,” she told a small audience that crowded beneath a grand ceiling here. “So I recognize I have to do better, too.”

“The challenges we face today do not approach those of Lincoln’s time. Not even close,” she said. “But recent events have left people across America asking hard questions about whether we are still a house divided.”

But during her half-hour remarks, Mrs. Clinton trained her attention largely on Mr. Trump, whose campaign she called “as divisive as any we have seen in our lifetimes.”

In perhaps her most zealous flourish, she noted that Mr. Trump had suggested Tuesday night that he could relate to systemic bias against black Americans because “even against me, the system is rigged.”

“Even this, the killing of black people by police, is somehow about him,” Mrs. Clinton said.

As the Republican Party prepares to nominate Mr. Trump next week, Mrs. Clinton seemed inclined to highlight the consequences of that choice at every opportunity.

She mocked Mr. Trump’s reference last week to “Article 12” of the Constitution, which does not exist, and wondered about giving him access to the levers of power.

“Imagine if he had not just Twitter and cable news to go after his critics and opponents, but also the I.R.S. — or for that matter, our entire military,” she said.

 
Let's get a Vice spotlight on every company in America that is building abroad and the conditions of all the workers. I'm not condoning and I do enjoy Vice so I will check it out but just on the surface it sounds like a smear campaign. Business is a dirty world and so much unfair BS happens top to bottom that those who have never worked in the actual private sector probably would be wise to STFO of much that happens in there. It's kind of like your Aunt Bessy uncovers a snuff film innocently and turns it on and suddenly her world is changed forever...similar here for the meek and mild. 

We know lions eat cute animals and viewing that material is stomach churning for some, same way when they show forms of execution from days long ago, it's an evil world we're living in. 

But again it's more reason to not vote for Hilary and the establishment...these things are occurring in the world they created or had a large hand in. Things aren't always as they seem but I love information like this. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top