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 (9 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
I read this post earlier today and I wanted to respond to it. While I don't believe that Hillary is especially a liar, I do sense the rest of what you wrote is true. Though she will never admit it openly, I agree that Hillary does believe that the rules, specifically the rules regarding email classifications, did not apply to her. 

I agree with her. I don't think they apply either. I have stated that from the beginning. I believe that VIPs like Hillary Clinton (and there aren't too many of these) should be immune from these sorts of situations. If she was careless with classified materials, I don't care. That should be somebody else's responsibility, always. 

Furthermore, I believe our society benefits when we treat people like Hillary Clinton as different, and more special, than most of the rest of us. She is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with elitism. 
Click to expand...
Hillary supporters don't ever criticize you but they should. You create a caricature which satisfies the worst imaginings of Hillary opponents. She's a secret Republican, she thinks she's above the law or rules, she views corporations as constituents. It's weird what you get away with from the POV of the Hillary side, you're more insulting to her than any critic could ever be sometimes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hillary supporters don't ever criticize you but they should. You create a caricature which satisfies the worst imaginings of Hillary opponents. She's a secret Republican, she thinks she's above the law or rules, she views corporations as constituents. It's weird what you get away with from the POV of the Hillary side, you're more insulting to her than any critic could ever be sometimes.
Click to expand...
I don't think I'm insulting at all. First off she's not a secret Republican- I wrote that in the context of economics only she openly espouses some views that the Republican Party used to be for. Second I don't recall writing that she viewed corporations as constituents, but I could make a very good argument that America benefits when corporations do- "What is good for General Motors", etc. 

As far as Hillary being above the rules: I don't want this to be misconstrued. She is not a dictator, nor should she be immune from questions of ethics or corruption. What I meant when I wrote that is that I believe she should be above the petty bureaucratic rules that govern so much of our lives, particularly those rules that govern lower level government employees. She is not that. 

 
timschochet said:
I don't think I'm insulting at all. First off she's not a secret Republican- I wrote that in the context of economics only she openly espouses some views that the Republican Party used to be for. Second I don't recall writing that she viewed corporations as constituents, but I could make a very good argument that America benefits when corporations do- "What is good for General Motors", etc. 

As far as Hillary being above the rules: I don't want this to be misconstrued. She is not a dictator, nor should she be immune from questions of ethics or corruption. What I meant when I wrote that is that I believe she should be above the petty bureaucratic rules that govern so much of our lives, particularly those rules that govern lower level government employees. She is not that. 
Click to expand...
I disagree with this, but I would argue that she hasn't been exempted from those petty rules either. No lower level government employee would be in this position in the first place, because there wouldn't be large organizations dedicated to using our judicial system and FOIA laws as a means to dig for mud to sling at them. And if for some reason it was discovered that some lower level government official had received a small amount of classified information at a private email address (which I can guarantee you has happened tens of thousands of times), the punishment would almost certainly be no more than a slap on the wrist.

I've said many times that I don't like how Clinton handled her email, but Jesus H Christ, people. Let. It. Go. From an "ethics in the federal workplace" scandal it's closer to parking in a handicapped spot than it is to, say, going behind Congress' back to sell arms to an enemy of the state and then diverting the money to fund a Central American insurgency despite the express wishes of Congress. If you can give a pass to anyone remotely associated with the latter (not to mention those that deify those responsible for it to this day), certainly you can give a pass to Clinton (aka the only person who stands between Donald Trump and the presidency) for this low level error in judgment.

 
timschochet said:
As far as Hillary being above the rules: I don't want this to be misconstrued. She is not a dictator, nor should she be immune from questions of ethics or corruption. What I meant when I wrote that is that I believe she should be above the petty bureaucratic rules that govern so much of our lives, particularly those rules that govern lower level government employees. She is not that. 
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree with this more.  Information is classified for a reason.  If it weren't sensitive to national security, it would not be classified as such.  Those classification rules do not "govern so much of our lives."  They have nothing to do with "us".  They govern those individuals, lower level government employees all the way up to the top, who are entrusted to view/handle/process information sensitive enough to warrant the appropriate classification.  

We've already discussed this and I know you don't think it is a deal (big or small) at all and you think she is above the "pettiness" as you call it.  She is not above this.  No one is.  

 
timschochet said:
As far as Hillary being above the rules: I don't want this to be misconstrued. She is not a dictator, nor should she be immune from questions of ethics or corruption. What I meant when I wrote that is that I believe she should be above the petty bureaucratic rules that govern so much of our lives, particularly those rules that govern lower level government employees. She is not that. 
Click to expand...
As SOS, one of the highest level employees, she sees highly classified info that many lower level employees never see and you think she shouldn't have to follow security rules regarding that highly classified and sensitive info? You will believe whatever you can to justify your support of her. It doesn't make you look good. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
From an "ethics in the federal workplace" scandal it's closer to parking in a handicapped spot....
Click to expand...
I don't see it as an "ethics in the workplace" issue.  It's unethical to use your position for financial gain, or to sway a vote to award a contract to a company that you do business with or plan to join after your term of office.  Or to accept gifts of certain value from outside firms.  What she did could have resulted (and may have, who knows?) in damage much worse than her padding her personal bank account. 

 
Phase of the Game said:
As SOS, one of the highest level employees, she sees highly classified info that many lower level employees never see and you think she shouldn't have to follow security rules regarding that highly classified and sensitive info? You will believe whatever you can to justify your support of her. It doesn't make you look good. 
Click to expand...
My support for her has nothing to do with this issue. You'll have to take my word for it because there's no way I can prove it to you, but if I was opposed to Hillary and everything she stands for I would still defend her on this issue and my attitude about it wouldn't be any different. 

 
squistion said:
Translation: "No I don't have a link to back up my inference that Hillary is against making things in America".
Click to expand...
:lmao:   from our resident "context" guy....this thread doesn't disappoint.  Wish I had the energy to go back through the thread for the several days I've missed...I'm sure there are some zingers in there.

 
Jayrok said:
I don't see it as an "ethics in the workplace" issue.  It's unethical to use your position for financial gain, or to sway a vote to award a contract to a company that you do business with or plan to join after your term of office.  Or to accept gifts of certain value from outside firms.  What she did could have resulted (and may have, who knows?) in damage much worse than her padding her personal bank account. 
Click to expand...
Behavior in the workplace, then, if that makes you feel better.  And sure, it could have resulted in severe damage.  But the same is true of a federal employee who leaves their ID lying on the bar while they take a leak.  The melodrama over what could have happened but was very unlikely to actually happen has gotten a little silly, especially considering the relatively benign content of the emails (supporting the notion that she did the delicate work of the office face to face) and the fact that nobody really knew the private account existed until a Benghazi witch hunt-related document request.

 
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
I read this post earlier today and I wanted to respond to it. While I don't believe that Hillary is especially a liar, I do sense the rest of what you wrote is true. Though she will never admit it openly, I agree that Hillary does believe that the rules, specifically the rules regarding email classifications, did not apply to her. 

I agree with her. I don't think they apply either. I have stated that from the beginning. I believe that VIPs like Hillary Clinton (and there aren't too many of these) should be immune from these sorts of situations. If she was careless with classified materials, I don't care. That should be somebody else's responsibility, always. 

Furthermore, I believe our society benefits when we treat people like Hillary Clinton as different, and more special, than most of the rest of us. She is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with elitism. 
Click to expand...
I understand that you really believe this.  I can't wrap my head around why anyone would think this is OK.  It's bat#### insane.  The standard for public officials should be a higher bar, not a lower one.

Taken to its logical conclusion, you would be perfectly OK with a POTUS announcing the "nuclear launch codes" on live TV.
Click to expand...
It's a huge fishing trip at this point.  If you read this, remembering this comment comes from the same person that believes Trump is going to be dictator of the USA, you have to just shake your head and move on.  He's unhinged and doesn't take anything to a place of "logic"...it's a vast array of randomly drawn lines to fit a narrative he's created.  There's no logical consistency anywhere to be found.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Behavior in the workplace, then, if that makes you feel better.  And sure, it could have resulted in severe damage.  But the same is true of a federal employee who leaves their ID lying on the bar while they take a leak.  The melodrama over what could have happened but was very unlikely to actually happen has gotten a little silly, especially considering the relatively benign content of the emails (supporting the notion that she did the delicate work of the office face to face) and the fact that nobody really knew the private account existed until a Benghazi witch hunt-related document request.
Click to expand...
This is true, though maybe not on the same scale of potential impact.  The email content could have been mostly benign, yes, I agree, though we may never know the contents of all the emails since many were deleted.  My argument has always been the importance of handling classified material, whether it is sensitive info on troop movements or simply updates on what's going on with rogue states the US is monitoring.  I'm glad the server came to light and I hope they change how the DoS information is handled going forward, regardless of who is SoS.   

 
The Commish said:
It's a huge fishing trip at this point.  If you read this, remembering this comment comes from the same person that believes Trump is going to be dictator of the USA, you have to just shake your head and move on.  He's unhinged and doesn't take anything to a place of "logic"...it's a vast array of randomly drawn lines to fit a narrative he's created.  There's no logical consistency anywhere to be found.
Click to expand...
I believe that Trump if elected is a threat to the Constitution and will would seek if he could to become a dictator. I did not say he would succeed and I am hardly the only person to believe this. But it isn't a fishing trip. You have continuously discounted the existential threat that Trump represents. Hopefully I'll never have to say "I told you so." 

 
timschochet said:
I believe that Trump if elected is a threat to the Constitution and will would seek if he could to become a dictator. I did not say he would succeed and I am hardly the only person to believe this. But it isn't a fishing trip. You have continuously discounted the existential threat that Trump represents. Hopefully I'll never have to say "I told you so." 
Click to expand...
I really don't think we need to worry about the dictator stuff.  It's pretty close to fundamentally impossible given our governmental system.  Even FDR was beaten down in his power grabs and if anyone had the potential to do it, it would have been him.  I would be more concered with him just being bad at the job - not "I don't like this policy," bad, but, "holy hell America is being run by that guy," bad.

 
timschochet said:
I don't think I'm insulting at all. First off she's not a secret Republican- I wrote that in the context of economics only she openly espouses some views that the Republican Party used to be for. Second I don't recall writing that she viewed corporations as constituents, but I could make a very good argument that America benefits when corporations do- "What is good for General Motors", etc. 

As far as Hillary being above the rules: I don't want this to be misconstrued. She is not a dictator, nor should she be immune from questions of ethics or corruption. What I meant when I wrote that is that I believe she should be above the petty bureaucratic rules that govern so much of our lives, particularly those rules that govern lower level government employees. She is not that. 
Click to expand...
Who decides which rules are "really important" and which ones are "petty bureaucratic stuff"?  You seem to believe it's Hillary herself who gets to decide.  Do you not see the inherent problem here?

 
timschochet said:
I believe that Trump if elected is a threat to the Constitution and will would seek if he could to become a dictator. I did not say he would succeed and I am hardly the only person to believe this. But it isn't a fishing trip. You have continuously discounted the existential threat that Trump represents. Hopefully I'll never have to say "I told you so." 
Click to expand...
Hillary wants to alter the 1st Amendment. Imagine if Trump wanted to do that.

 
Rich Conway said:
Who decides which rules are "really important" and which ones are "petty bureaucratic stuff"?  You seem to believe it's Hillary herself who gets to decide.  Do you not see the inherent problem here?
Click to expand...
Why no. James Comey gets to decide, and Loretta Lynch. And they decided that Hillary did nothing wrong. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hillary wants to alter the 1st Amendment. Imagine if Trump wanted to do that.
Click to expand...
Well he does. And with regard to Hillary I think you're referring to CItizens United, which makes your assertion highly subjective: she wants to reverse the current 5-4 Supreme Court interpretation of the 1st Amendment. 

 
timschochet said:
I believe that Trump if elected is a threat to the Constitution and will would seek if he could to become a dictator. I did not say he would succeed and I am hardly the only person to believe this. But it isn't a fishing trip. You have continuously discounted the existential threat that Trump represents. Hopefully I'll never have to say "I told you so." 
Click to expand...
:lmao:  Dude, he will be lucky to stay in office and chained to the whitehouse for 4 years. It is far more likely that he proclaims he has fixed all the US's problems by year 3 and says he has finished the job and is handing over power to the VP.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Behavior in the workplace, then, if that makes you feel better.  And sure, it could have resulted in severe damage.  But the same is true of a federal employee who leaves their ID lying on the bar while they take a leak.  The melodrama over what could have happened but was very unlikely to actually happen has gotten a little silly, especially considering the relatively benign content of the emails (supporting the notion that she did the delicate work of the office face to face) and the fact that nobody really knew the private account existed until a Benghazi witch hunt-related document request.
Click to expand...
Hillary's account was discovered when Blumenthal's account was hacked and Gawjer published the details.

The first public request which triggered inquiry was by CREW, a liberal group now owned by David Brock. After that it was the AP which pressed its case in federal court after getting no documents for *** five years. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Why no. James Comey gets to decide, and Loretta Lynch. And they decided that Hillary did nothing wrong. 
Click to expand...
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."

"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

"While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government."

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

 
squistion said:
Well, the Convention is supposed to play to the base, but a lot of folks are just starting to pay attention to the general election for the first time.  What they have seen so far in the first two days is a hate fest against Hillary which at times has had the flavor of the Salem witch trials. I don't understand the logic behind this, but then again, I never expected Trump to be the nominee until it was too late to stop him. I can't imagine this is a winning strategy, but my track record in judging Trump's popular appeal has been rather abysmal to date. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I heard on NPR that in the latest poll in Pennsylvania and Ohio Trump was polling at ZERO % with African-Americans. Here is a link.

Donald Trump is getting ZERO percent of the black vote in polls in Pennsylvania and Ohio

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Well he does. And with regard to Hillary I think you're referring to CItizens United, which makes your assertion highly subjective: she wants to reverse the current 5-4 Supreme Court interpretation of the 1st Amendment. 
Click to expand...
Trump has the same agenda with the USSC in terms of interpreting the 1A, although in a different way.

But Hillary actually wants to rewrite the 1st Amendment, not even Donald has asked to do that.

 
The Commish said:
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
I read this post earlier today and I wanted to respond to it. While I don't believe that Hillary is especially a liar, I do sense the rest of what you wrote is true. Though she will never admit it openly, I agree that Hillary does believe that the rules, specifically the rules regarding email classifications, did not apply to her. 

I agree with her. I don't think they apply either. I have stated that from the beginning. I believe that VIPs like Hillary Clinton (and there aren't too many of these) should be immune from these sorts of situations. If she was careless with classified materials, I don't care. That should be somebody else's responsibility, always. 

Furthermore, I believe our society benefits when we treat people like Hillary Clinton as different, and more special, than most of the rest of us. She is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with elitism. 
Click to expand...
I understand that you really believe this.  I can't wrap my head around why anyone would think this is OK.  It's bat#### insane.  The standard for public officials should be a higher bar, not a lower one.

Taken to its logical conclusion, you would be perfectly OK with a POTUS announcing the "nuclear launch codes" on live TV.
Click to expand...
It's a huge fishing trip at this point.  If you read this, remembering this comment comes from the same person that believes Trump is going to be dictator of the USA, you have to just shake your head and move on.  He's unhinged and doesn't take anything to a place of "logic"...it's a vast array of randomly drawn lines to fit a narrative he's created.  There's no logical consistency anywhere to be found.
Click to expand...
Glad I didn't miss the complete idiocy on display by Tim here

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Trump has the same agenda with the USSC in terms of interpreting the 1A, although in a different way.

But Hillary actually wants to rewrite the 1st Amendment, not even Donald has asked to do that.
Click to expand...
Citizens United was judicial activism and the only way to permanently correct that horrible interpretation of the law is by a new Constitutional Amendment (I assume you are aware that Amendments can not be rewritten).

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2010/01/26-judicial-activism-mann

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is an Egregious Exercise of Judicial Activism

The 5-4 conservative majority decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission that struck many decades of law and precedent will likely go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's most egregious exercises of judicial activism.

In spite of its imperative to rule on "cases and controversies" brought to the Court, to defer to the legitimate lawmaking authority of the Congress and other democratically elected legislatures, and to not allow simple disagreement with past judicial decisions to overrule precedent (stare decisis), the Roberts Court ruled unconstitutional the ban on corporate treasury funding of independent political campaigns.

The Court reached to make new constitutional law by ordering a re-argument of a minor case that itself raised no direct challenge to the laws and precedents that it ultimately overruled; dismissed the legitimacy of laws enacted over a century by Congress and state legislatures; equated the free speech protections of individuals and corporations in spite of countless laws and precedents that insisted on meaningful differences; and provided not a shred of evidence of new conditions or harmful effects that justified imposing their own ideological preferences on a body of settled law and social tradition.

The decision makes a mockery of Chief Justice Roberts' pious statements during his confirmation hearing that he embraced judicial modesty and constitutional avoidance. His concurring decision to respond to his critics was defensive and lame.  [...]

 
Nate Silver has had a pretty dramatic shift in his general election prediction over the past few weeks:

June 29, 2016:  Hillary Clinton has an 81% chance of winning the election to Donald Trump’s 19%, polling analyst Nate Silver said on Wednesday in his first model of the 2016 presidential election.  

July 19, 2016:  Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 3 or 4 percentage points. That’s down from a lead of 6 or 7 percentage points a few weeks ago.  As a result, Trump’s odds have improved. He has a 36 percent chance of winning the election, according to our polls-only forecast, and a 38 percent chance according to polls-plus.  (From a Silver article entitled, Election Update: Clinton’s Lead Is As Safe As Kerry’s Was In 2004)

 
timschochet said:
Why no. James Comey gets to decide, and Loretta Lynch. And they decided that Hillary did nothing wrong. 
Click to expand...
YES! I knew it - thank you for making my prediction spot on. James Comey and Lynch decided nothing of the sort - but I absolutely knew it would be incorrectly stated that way.

Comey stated specifically that Hillary did several things wrong - and lied about it - but did not recommend indictment. I said at the time the worst thing about the recommendation is that someone (I should have guesses it would be Tim) would turn that into the opposite, "Hillary did nothing wrong".

 
squistion said:
Citizens United was judicial activism and the only way to permanently correct that horrible interpretation of the law is by a new Constitutional Amendment (I assume you are aware that Amendments can not be rewritten).

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2010/01/26-judicial-activism-mann

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is an Egregious Exercise of Judicial Activism

The 5-4 conservative majority decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission that struck many decades of law and precedent will likely go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's most egregious exercises of judicial activism.

In spite of its imperative to rule on "cases and controversies" brought to the Court, to defer to the legitimate lawmaking authority of the Congress and other democratically elected legislatures, and to not allow simple disagreement with past judicial decisions to overrule precedent (stare decisis), the Roberts Court ruled unconstitutional the ban on corporate treasury funding of independent political campaigns.

The Court reached to make new constitutional law by ordering a re-argument of a minor case that itself raised no direct challenge to the laws and precedents that it ultimately overruled; dismissed the legitimacy of laws enacted over a century by Congress and state legislatures; equated the free speech protections of individuals and corporations in spite of countless laws and precedents that insisted on meaningful differences; and provided not a shred of evidence of new conditions or harmful effects that justified imposing their own ideological preferences on a body of settled law and social tradition.

The decision makes a mockery of Chief Justice Roberts' pious statements during his confirmation hearing that he embraced judicial modesty and constitutional avoidance. His concurring decision to respond to his critics was defensive and lame.  [...]
Click to expand...
We could talk about this some more, and I likely share more in common with you than not on this, however this doesn't address Hillary's dangerous desire to amend the 1st Amendment. Glad to admit I'm wrong but check Hillary's statement on it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Why no. James Comey gets to decide, and Loretta Lynch. And they decided that Hillary did nothing wrong. 
Click to expand...
You know this is false.  Comey said the evidence did not clearly point to illegal activity.  But, he was very clear in stating several times over several days that what she did was wrong. 

Hell, Tim, you even admitted so much.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
YES! I knew it - thank you for making my prediction spot on. James Comey and Lynch decided nothing of the sort - but I absolutely knew it would be incorrectly stated that way.

Comey stated specifically that Hillary did several things wrong - and lied about it - but did not recommend indictment. I said at the time the worst thing about the recommendation is that someone (I should have guesses it would be Tim) would turn that into the opposite, "Hillary did nothing wrong".
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
timschochet said:
I read this post earlier today and I wanted to respond to it. While I don't believe that Hillary is especially a liar, I do sense the rest of what you wrote is true. Though she will never admit it openly, I agree that Hillary does believe that the rules, specifically the rules regarding email classifications, did not apply to her. 

I agree with her. I don't think they apply either. I have stated that from the beginning. I believe that VIPs like Hillary Clinton (and there aren't too many of these) should be immune from these sorts of situations. If she was careless with classified materials, I don't care. That should be somebody else's responsibility, always. 

Furthermore, I believe our society benefits when we treat people like Hillary Clinton as different, and more special, than most of the rest of us. She is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with elitism. 
Click to expand...
This is an awful take, but entirely consistent with someone who defends the elite when, for example, they commit rape.  Thinking back to your defense of Polanski, it's clear that even back then you were talking about how "the elite should be immune from these sorts of situations."  

Man, this place was so much better when you were on a timeout.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
This is an awful take, but entirely consistent with someone who defends the elite when, for example, they commit rape.  Thinking back to your defense of Polanski, it's clear that even back then you were talking about how "the elite should be immune from these sorts of situations."  

Man, this place was so much better when you were on a timeout.  
Click to expand...
I am very sorry you feel that way.

I would never defend a member of the elite from a charge of rape or any other serious charge. If you believe that, then you grossly misunderstand me (and perhaps that is my fault for not making myself more clear.)

My defense of Polanski was based on some misinformation on my part, which I have apologized for numerous times later on. I do not stand by what I wrote there, and it has no bearing to this situation. 

 
cobalt_27, when  you're not commenting about me, you're a guy I very much respect here. You're thoughtful, you're not partisan, you offer interesting perspective on the election and even though I disagree with some of it I'm always interested to read it. Obviously I got off on the wrong foot with you, and stayed there, and that was not my intent. If I have personally offended you in something that I have written, then I apologize. This election is going to get even more intense, and I would value having an ongoing discussion with you about it, rather than tossing insults back and forth (that goes for almost everyone here, as well.) 

 
bananafish said:
At this point Hillary should do as little campaigning as possible. It can only hurt her. Trump is doing a better job than 1000 Hillarys could at getting her elected.
Click to expand...
They aired that brilliant commercial with the kids watching Trump say terrible, stupid things on TV. It's a well-done ad that I'm sure has been posted in here. After the clips of the kids, it ends with Hillary on stage talking and I remembered telling my girlfriend they should just cut her out of it entirely. The ad loses a lot of momentum when the audience is suddenly reminded, "Oh yeah. Her."

They showed it again this morning (In Arizona, mind you - means the state is in play) and they removed that final piece. Way more effective.

 
Plorfu said:
They aired that brilliant commercial with the kids watching Trump say terrible, stupid things on TV. It's a well-done ad that I'm sure has been posted in here. After the clips of the kids, it ends with Hillary on stage talking and I remembered telling my girlfriend they should just cut her out of it entirely. The ad loses a lot of momentum when the audience is suddenly reminded, "Oh yeah. Her."

They showed it again this morning (In Arizona, mind you - means the state is in play) and they removed that final piece. Way more effective.
Click to expand...
But in the end you're not given a choice between "Trump" and "Not Trump." Most people that don't want Trump to win are still going to have to pull the lever for Hillary Clinton. She's got to find a way to give them a reason to do so.

It's probably too late for her, realistically, to earn back public trust. But she needs to have a positive message next week (not just anti- Trump, as Trump's message has largely been anti-Hillary this week). She needs to tell people what she's going to do for them- and in such a way as they believe her. Her best way to do this is to hug Obama as much as possible. Obama should be all over the Democratic convention. Hillary has got to run as Obama part 3. 

 
timschochet said:
But in the end you're not given a choice between "Trump" and "Not Trump." Most people that don't want Trump to win are still going to have to pull the lever for Hillary Clinton. She's got to find a way to give them a reason to do so.

It's probably too late for her, realistically, to earn back public trust. But she needs to have a positive message next week (not just anti- Trump, as Trump's message has largely been anti-Hillary this week). She needs to tell people what she's going to do for them- and in such a way as they believe her. Her best way to do this is to hug Obama as much as possible. Obama should be all over the Democratic convention. Hillary has got to run as Obama part 3. 
Click to expand...
Requiring muting of opinion of the hideous behavior of Hillary is as bad as the Trumpians calling for Republicans to "get in line." That is the same thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Decided who you're voting for yet, Saints? 
Click to expand...
Gary Johnson with Jill Stein as a close 2 if I can learn more about her or if convinced I will pull the trigger for the most qualified woman in the race perhaps, essentially the same platform as Sanders and she speaks more to the point about the problems of corruption found in both Hillary and Trump.

 
Dr. Jill Stein Verified account ‏@DrJillStein Jul 18
I'm not okay with Trump or Clinton as President. I'm not okay with a warmonger or a corporatist. We deserve better.
Click to expand...
I have zero problem with this statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I read this post earlier today and I wanted to respond to it. While I don't believe that Hillary is especially a liar, I do sense the rest of what you wrote is true. Though she will never admit it openly, I agree that Hillary does believe that the rules, specifically the rules regarding email classifications, did not apply to her. 

I agree with her. I don't think they apply either. I have stated that from the beginning. I believe that VIPs like Hillary Clinton (and there aren't too many of these) should be immune from these sorts of situations. If she was careless with classified materials, I don't care. That should be somebody else's responsibility, always. 

Furthermore, I believe our society benefits when we treat people like Hillary Clinton as different, and more special, than most of the rest of us. She is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with elitism. 
Click to expand...
Holy ####. 

 
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
241K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
1K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top