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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
chauncey said:
Bob, thanks for replying, and for not banning me for questioning the PC/liberal narrative. 

I'm off to sleep now, but I'll read and respond later. I am interested to see your thoughts on the topic. 
Click to expand...
No worries, Chauncey. I'm not a fan of dismissiveness in general, but if I made whatever point I was trying to (or illustrated it with articles/examples) poorly, that is on me. I view communication as a two part process. I'm usually willing to go through an exchange or two to see where somebody is coming from. It's cool to express ourselves and disagree and, at the risk of a Trump-inflected cliché, that is what *REALLY* makes America great (when discourse is civil and respectful, even in disagreement, that can potentially lead to many good things that I appreciate most about the board - it can stimulate thought in new pathways and directions, be the cause of other readers than the two principals seeing things in new ways, etc). 

* One reason I don't like Trump, I find him often dismissive, and the complete opposite of civil and respectful. But perhaps that is the point, institutions have deteriorated to the level that SOP and business as usual social, cultural communication niceties aren't deemed fit and suited to deal with capturing the anger directed at them and intent on sweeping them away (not sure he has formulated it this way to himself, imo more likely a deep rooted personality tendency).     

 
renesauz said:
BY definition? Maybe not.

But to intentionally sabotage a presidential election by intentionally with-holding information?

Yeah...sorry...might not be treason by definition but I'd call that low life and treasonous. If they have the info it should have already been shared, regardless of political bent
Click to expand...
One thing that concerns me about Hillary's emails if they were indeed captured by Russian or other FIS. *If deleted data is published by wikileaks that would be devastating to Hillary and almost certainly elevate Trump to the presidency. I really hope this does not happen, but that is the only scenario whereby I would think the treason word would come up, if the IC, FBI & Hillary knew her emails had been collected and failed to tell us. As it stands right now though that is not before us.

However consider the possibility of disinformation. What if Russia created false emails, planted them amongst true emails from the DNC or Hillary or otherwise and then thereby created chaos before an election as no one could tell what was true and what was false. It's a very precarious position we're in.

 
If Putin was behind what you are describing (or had those intentions and carried them out), is that an act of war?

At least warranting sanctions. Counter-measures?

Will future wars be information wars (and clearly some already are to an extent - China has allegedly been responsible for a lot of hacking mischief and blatant industrial espionage).

 
BassNBrew said:
I think he wants to help the country more than Clinton.  I think Bernie wanted to help the country far more than both of them combined.
Click to expand...
I get that there are levels and layers of malfeasance, and Clinton presumably isn't exempt.

But failing to instantly summarily, categorically and unequivocally denounce a KKK sympathizer's praise spoke volumes and was imo massively creepy. No idea how that was motivated to "help". Both actions and inactions, errors of commission and omission can have consequences. While I have no doubt Clinton has done some self-serving things, it is hard for me to see her make the same kind of mistake I have outlined with Trump, and that kind of mistake is imo reserved for a more central ring of hell.

If that incident was reflective of some kind of instinctive thought process on his part that in order to make America great again we have to roll back decades of hard fought civil liberties and make America more racist again, than I can not join him on that retrograde, backwards journey.       

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw said:
If Putin was behind what you are describing (or had those intentions and carried them out), is that an act of war?

At least warranting sanctions. Counter-measures?

Will future wars be information wars (and clearly some already are to an extent - China has allegedly been responsible for a lot of hacking mischief and blatant industrial espionage).
Click to expand...

We cannot take that step of saying so but effectively what was called "active measures" was a part of the Cold War. If we are having active measures applied to us on a scale bigger than anything we saw during the actual Cold War, well what does that say?

We are so completely out of this element now, we have blown 25 years of foreign policy. This has been progressive, it's involved multiple presidencies and multiple mistakes and now our pants are down. I think the best, first thing we could do is acknowledge what's going on and reform ourselves politically because if this this really happening (if, and the FBI is looking at it) then we have to get our act together first.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw said:
Bob Magaw said:
It seems to me in developed and semideveloped countries there is emerging a new kind of politics for which maybe the best taxonomic category would be right-wing populist nationalism,” said Stanley Payne, a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “We are seeing a new kind of phenomenon which is different from what you had” in the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Political movements evolve over time, particularly when the ashes from which they emerge are in vilified territory, at least if they want to have broader relevance
Click to expand...
SaintsInDome2006 said:
One important point about fascism though - it absolutely requires a vacuum to rise. If people are worried about fascistic tendencies and trends, I'd say look first at the environment in which government is so mistrusted and the *choice made by the DNC to run a nominee who is a walking, talking billboard for government misfeasance, malfeasance and popular distrust. The DNC runs a candidate with a trust/honesty rating under 30 and people ask well gosh why is this guy railing about things being rigged and lying leaders getting so much traction. 
Click to expand...
Isn't there a vacuum though? At the very least in the Republican party. They fielded 16 presidential candidates other than Donald Trumo. 16. Not exactly a sign of a unified party - and let's not even begin to menton the Tea Party and their tactics of primarying more centrist candidates.

If you look at Germany in the thirties there was a strong fight between the Social Democrats and the Communists, but no real alternative on the right for the common man - so it was not exactly a position of absolute vacuum that allowed the National Socialists to gain traction.

As for Hitler only getting 33% of the vote, that's no a small number in multiparty societies, it is not unlikely to make you the biggest party around (as it did in Germany), whereas in a two party system it means you received a beatdown of epic proportions

ETA: Something went wrong in the formatting of my response to Bob Magaw...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer said:
Isn't there a vacuum though? At the very least in the Republican party. They fielded 16 presidential candidates other than Donald Trumo. 16. Not exactly a sign of a unified party - and let's not even begin to menton the Tea Party and their tactics of primarying more centrist candidates.

If you look at Germany in the thirties there was a strong fight between the Social Democrats and the Communists, but no real alternative on the right for the common man - so it was not exactly a position of absolute vacuum that allowed the National Socialists to gain traction.

As for Hitler only getting 33% of the vote, that's no a small number in multiparty societies, it is not unlikely to make you the biggest party around (as it did in Germany), whereas in a two party system it means you received a beatdown of epic proportions

ETA: Something went wrong in the formatting of my response to Bob Magaw...
Click to expand...
Got it, this part was your response (thanks for the clarification to the thread, I understood).

"Political movements evolve over time, particularly when the ashes from which they emerge are in vilified territory, at least if they want to have broader relevance"

 
timschochet said:
I don't know anything about this writer or his books. But per the article Hillary seemed to like his first book which was not about Israel, and has no comment about his second book. So what point are you trying to make here? 
Click to expand...
He also wrote this ditty, Goliath, which is no. 9 on the Wiesenthal Center's 2013 antisemitic publications list. My point is in her emails Max Blumenthal's work was sourced to her by his father.

A veteran confidant of Hillary Clinton has waded into a bitter argument over the explosive topic of Israel, defending his son’s intensely anti-Israel book from a liberal critic.

Sidney Blumenthal, a former New Yorker writer turned Clinton adviser from the White House to the 2008 campaign, has been waging an online campaign against Nation columnist Eric Alterman for negatively reviewing his son Max Blumenthal’s book, Goliath. The book was described by Alterman, himself a frequent critic of Israel, as “awful” and something that “could have been published by the Hamas Book-of-the-Month Club (if it existed).”
Click to expand...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/clinton-adviser-sid-blumenthals-new-cause-his-sons-anti-isra?utm_term=.tcagV66k0#.kev0jPPQq

- Sidney Blumenthal is likely going to be a key White House staffer, I think we know that.

My point?


 


Hillary Clinton Verified account ‏@HillaryClinton


The company you keep says a lot about you...
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer said:
Isn't there a vacuum though? At the very least in the Republican party. They fielded 16 presidential candidates other than Donald Trumo. 16. Not exactly a sign of a unified party - and let's not even begin to menton the Tea Party and their tactics of primarying more centrist candidates.

If you look at Germany in the thirties there was a strong fight between the Social Democrats and the Communists, but no real alternative on the right for the common man - so it was not exactly a position of absolute vacuum that allowed the National Socialists to gain traction.

As for Hitler only getting 33% of the vote, that's no a small number in multiparty societies, it is not unlikely to make you the biggest party around (as it did in Germany), whereas in a two party system it means you received a beatdown of epic proportions

ETA: Something went wrong in the formatting of my response to Bob Magaw...
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely, but I think the GOP's responsibility goes back further than that. George Bush violated two core principles of conservatism or Republicanism - financial restraint and opposition to nation building. Now we can say whatever we will feel about those positions but those were bedrock core positions as perceived by many, many people.; Now there is a vacuum in the GOP, it's not just a leadership vacuum but there is also a vacuum of principles or ideology. Yes it is a huge problem.

 
Yeah I disagree with Hillary's "the company you keep" line. I always have. I felt the same way in 2008 in regard to Obama's minister. 

People should be judged by what they do and say, not by what their friends and acquaintances do and say. 

 
timschochet said:
Yeah I disagree with Hillary's "the company you keep" line. I always have. I felt the same way in 2008 in regard to Obama's minister. 

People should be judged by what they do and say, not by what their friends and acquaintances do and say. 
Click to expand...
Even if those people will be working in the Oval Office, have a direct line of communication to her and are considered among her chief advisors. Got it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Yes, absolutely, but I think the GOP's responsibility goes back further than that. George Bush violated two core principles of conservatism or Republicanism - financial restraint and opposition to nation building. Now we can say whatever we will feel about those positions but those were bedrock core positions as perceived by many, many people.; Now there is a vacuum in the GOP, it's not just a leadership vacuum but there is also a vacuum of principles or ideology. Yes it is a huge problem.
Click to expand...
I agree that the roots of the problem lie in the past somewhere, and maybe not even further back than Dubya. But I think the Tea Party has accelerated things, not only for aggressive tactics and rhetoric (lowering the discourse if you like), but perhaps even more so for not getting any lasting results, and thus exacerbating the feeling of lack of influence by the common man (of republican ilk - obviously the democrats have problems of their own)

 
msommer said:
I agree that the roots of the problem lie in the past somewhere, and maybe not even further back than Dubya. But I think the Tea Party has accelerated things, not only for aggressive tactics and rhetoric (lowering the discourse if you like), but perhaps even more so for not getting any lasting results, and thus exacerbating the feeling of lack of influence by the common man (of republican ilk - obviously the democrats have problems of their own)
Click to expand...
It's a good point about the TP failing actually maybe being a problem. Yeah I think that's true. And really Trump reminds me of the TP candidates like O'Donnell (DE) and Angle (NV).

One other thing that occurs to me though is that whatever we think of them these societal forces are not be ignored. So for example we all pretty well know maybe one good argument for social programs - which some might be called 'socialist' even - are meant to ameliorate the possibility of the lower classes becoming agitated over time as their needs are not met and as they are constantly oppressed by inequities which they cannot overcome.

Ok, well maybe governing administrations need to think about the dangers of economic dysfunctionalism caused through trade practices and immigration policies. It may not even be a question of right or wrong (are our social programs 'rights' per se, or are they just good ideas to ensure we don't end up with riots and revolution?). One thing that steamed me about the TPP was that the spending of millions on job retraining was overtly discussed because the government was saying that oh yes many thousands or millions of people will be displaced. It is so cold, just to say well whoops ok we're just doing this and you will have to find something else to do. Same goes for our coal policy. I mean say what we will about the necessity or desirability of these things but people aren't just going to stand around and take it forever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Yeah I disagree with Hillary's "the company you keep" line. I always have. I felt the same way in 2008 in regard to Obama's minister. 

People should be judged by what they do and say, not by what their friends and acquaintances do and say. 
Click to expand...
Isn't part of the "do" the decisions they make regarding those they choose to surround themselves with? :oldunsure:  

 
The Commish said:
Isn't part of the "do" the decisions they make regarding those they choose to surround themselves with? :oldunsure:  
Click to expand...
It depends. 

I have some close friends and family members who are Trump fans and who have, unfortunately, adopted some of his bigoted views. Naturally they don't see it as such. But I love them and think they are good people under a kind of mass delusion which is currently gripping a good part of this nation. 

But I don't think I should be judged on my association with these people. 

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
Isn't part of the "do" the decisions they make regarding those they choose to surround themselves with? :oldunsure:  
Click to expand...
It depends. 

I have some close friends and family members who are Trump fans and who have, unfortunately, adopted some of his bigoted views. Naturally they don't see it as such. But I love them and think they are good people under a kind of mass delusion which is currently gripping a good part of this nation. 

But I don't think I should be judged on my association with these people.
Click to expand...
And it's your belief that you using the illustration of your family (the people you can't pick and choose) is similar enough to the people you can pick and choose and have complete control over your association with to use as an example?

 
Commish, to answer your question more specifically: if Hillary once elected hires Sidney Blumenthal's son to handle Israeli relations then I will be concerned. 

 
The Commish said:
And it's your belief that you using the illustration of your family (the people you can't pick and choose) is similar enough to the people you can pick and choose and have complete control over your association with to use as an example?
Click to expand...
I believe I mentioned friends AND family. And I can choose not to hang out with my family if I wanted to. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's a good point about the TP failing actually maybe being a problem. Yeah I think that's true. And really Trump reminds me of the TP candidates like O'Donnell (DE) and Angle (NV).

One other thing that occurs to me though is that whatever we think of them these societal forces are not be ignored. So for example we all pretty well know maybe one good argument for social programs - which some might be called 'socialist' even - are meant to ameliorate the possibility of the lower classes becoming agitated over time as their needs are not met and as they are constantly oppressed by inequities which they cannot overcome.

Ok, well maybe governing administrations need to think about the dangers of economic dysfunctionalism caused through trade practices and immigration policies. It may not even be a question of right or wrong (are our social programs 'rights' per se, or are they just good ideas to ensure we don't end up with riots and revolution?). One thing that steamed me about the TPP was that the spending of the millions was overtly discussed because the government was saying that oh yes many thousands or millions of people will be displaced. It is so cold, just to say well whoops ok we're just doing this and you will have to find something else to do. Same goes for our coal policy. I mean say what we will about the necessity or desirability of these things but people aren't just going to stand around and take it forever.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree and that is one of the reasons I like the Scandinavian model, which through attempting to deliver a high baseline standard of living to all reduces the risk of disruption in society. There is an attached cost, potentially in terms of economical growth when wealth is distributed away from those who are most adept at accumulating it, but providing the benefit to those, by also delivering more personal safety.

An anecdote to illustrate this. When I lived in Brazil the head of Ericsson Brazil lived in the penthouse apartment of my building. Every day he was picked up by a small convoy of three identical bulletproof Chevy Blazers. He would only take get into the elevators if there were no one else there (if he was waiting for the same lift as me, he would ask me to take the first lift and wait for the next. Two bodyguards went with him in the lift (I know this from seeing him come out of the lift in the garage in the morning). I would guess that he did not always sit in the same Blazer or indeed that the Blazer which heoccupied would not always be in the same position in the convoy.

By contrast, the global head of Vestas (the world's largest producer of wind mills, HQ'ed in Denmark) drives his own car to work in the morning. The hear of A.P. Moller-Maersk (a shipping/oil company with USD 100 bn+ turnover) has a driver (who probably functions as a bodyguard as well but I don't know this for sure).

By giving the least fortunate in society enough to have a decent living and enough real opportunity for their children to improve their means through education etc. you avoid a lot of disruptive issues. Not all of them, but a lot. But you have to be able to foot the economic burden of that.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
As often occurs you're not paying attention from distaste or you're deflecting.
Click to expand...
No I'm not Saints. You brought this issue up, in response to my reply to David Dodds. Let me be explicit: I firmly believe Hillary Clinton is a supporter of Israel. I think this will continue to be demonstrated by her actions and statements as President, and not based on whom she surrounds herself with. If she surrounds herself with people with a different take, so be it. Harry Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall, urged Truman not to recognize the State of Israel in 1948 because Marshall wanted closer ties with the Arab states (and there are rumors that Marshall was anti-Semitic as well.) Truman had a different point of view. Winston Churchill was a leading Zionist his entire life, but his Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, was an anti-Semite. Richard Nixon was himself an anti-Semite, yet also a friend of Israel. I could give you many other examples. Actions speak louder than associations. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
No I'm not Saints. You brought this issue up, in response to my reply to David Dodds. Let me be explicit: I firmly believe Hillary Clinton is a supporter of Israel. I think this will continue to be demonstrated by her actions and statements as President, and not based on whom she surrounds herself with. If she surrounds herself with people with a different take, so be it. Harry Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall, urged Truman not to recognize the State of Israel in 1948 because Marshall wanted closer ties with the Arab states (and there are rumors that Marshall was anti-Semitic as well.) Truman had a different point of view. Winston Churchill was a leading Zionist his entire life, but his Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, was an anti-Semite. Richard Nixon was himself an anti-Semite, yet also a friend of Israel. I could give you many other examples. Actions speak louder than associations. 
Click to expand...
Blumenthal did influence Hillary's decision making though.

 
Presidential Policy Directive -- United States Cyber Incident Coordination




July 26, 2016

PRESIDENTIAL POLICY DIRECTIVE/PPD-41

SUBJECT: United States Cyber Incident Coordination

The advent of networked technology has spurred innovation, cultivated knowledge, encouraged free expression, and increased the Nation’s economic prosperity. However, the same infrastructure that enables these benefits is vulnerable to malicious activity, malfunction, human error, and acts of nature, placing the Nation and its people at risk. Cyber incidents are a fact of contemporary life, and significant cyber incidents are occurring with increasing frequency, impacting public and private infrastructure located in the United States and abroad.

United States preparedness efforts have positioned the Nation to manage a broad range of threats and hazards effectively. Every day, Federal law enforcement and those agencies responsible for network defense in the United States manage, respond to, and investigate cyber incidents in order to ensure the security of our information and communications infrastructure. The private sector and government agencies have a shared vital interest in protecting the Nation from malicious cyber activity and managing cyber incidents and their consequences. The nature of cyberspace requires individuals, organizations, and the government to all play roles in incident response. Furthermore, effective incident response efforts will help support an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable information and communications infrastructure that promotes trade and commerce, strengthens international security, fosters free expression, and reinforces the privacy and security of our citizens.

While the vast majority of cyber incidents can be handled through existing policies, certain cyber incidents that have significant impacts on an entity, our national security, or the broader economy require a unique approach to response efforts. These significant cyber incidents demand unity of effort within the Federal Government and especially close coordination between the public and private sectors.

...
Click to expand...



https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/26/presidential-policy-directive-united-states-cyber-incident

- Mr. President,with all due respect - this horse left the barn and you helped pry it open by saying hey put whatever you want on your private server, folks. No consequences for violating any of this as far as I can tell.

But now with the DNC hack maybe people see the danger finally.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
No I'm not Saints. You brought this issue up, in response to my reply to David Dodds. Let me be explicit: I firmly believe Hillary Clinton is a supporter of Israel. I think this will continue to be demonstrated by her actions and statements as President, and not based on whom she surrounds herself with. If she surrounds herself with people with a different take, so be it. Harry Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall, urged Truman not to recognize the State of Israel in 1948 because Marshall wanted closer ties with the Arab states (and there are rumors that Marshall was anti-Semitic as well.) Truman had a different point of view. Winston Churchill was a leading Zionist his entire life, but his Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, was an anti-Semite. Richard Nixon was himself an anti-Semite, yet also a friend of Israel. I could give you many other examples. Actions speak louder than associations. 
Click to expand...
This was not lost on me Tim...well done :thumbup:   

 
The Commish said:
This was not lost on me Tim...well done :thumbup:   
Click to expand...
And yet HRC was the one who shone a blazing light on associations by proclaiming that you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.

Her associations, then, are attached to her by her actions. 

 
pantagrapher said:
The article does not back up that allegation, but I guess you need a new indictment to fantasize about.
Click to expand...


But during the three-month period when the DNC was working to spin the situation, state parties kept less than one half of one percent of the $82 million raised through the arrangement — validating concerns raised by campaign finance watchdogs, state party allies and Bernie Sanders supporters.
Click to expand...
Am I doing this right? - That's 0.005 of all proceeds?

Campaign finance watchdogs and the Sanders campaign had argued that the arrangement represented a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on skewing the process to help Clinton defeat Sanders, and then win the White House.
Click to expand...


Pant, is that a law?

 
What a good Democrat - this was actually used by HILLARY to argue that Sanders was not a good Democrat because he did not raise money for you know other Democrats and downticket races.

But guess what - Hillary said 'I'll take that $82 million intended for state races AND IT IS ALL MINE.'

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Am I doing this right? - That's 0.005 of all proceeds?

Pant, is that a law?
Click to expand...
Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of last month, the fund had brought in $142 million, the lion’s share of which — 44 percent — has wound up in the coffers of the DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), according to a POLITICO analysis of FEC reports filed this month. By comparison, the analysis found that the state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee — or only 0.56 percent.

Officials from the DNC and the Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about why so little of the cash raised by the fund has gone to — and remained with — the participating state parties. But they have previously argued that, even when state parties aren’t receiving cash transfers, they are benefiting from the political infrastructure paid for by money raised by the fund.
Click to expand...

 
I know it pisses off DNC haters that the DNC gets to decide how so much money is allocated, but that's how a political party apparatus works. I don't see state parties complaining. They know they're going to get theirs and it makes no sense to announce to everyone how you're allocating that money. Sounds like a pretty clear case of proprietary info.

 
David Dodds said:
another day and more corruption...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191

In sports you get disqualified for blatant cheating.  If you are Hillary, you get to be President.  Yeah for more cheating and corruption.
Click to expand...
The Hillary Victory Fund still had $42 million in the bank at the end of June, and it seems likely that more money will be moved to the state parties in the coming months. 
 
Click to expand...
I don't see cheating...Just the way it is allocated.

 
There's a big difference between "you have to account for campaign expenditures" and "you have to tell us in advance how you are going to allocate all that money."

 
Hopefully you can figure out why party insiders would want to huddle up and make sure nobody was going to leak details of national campaign expenditures to the press.

 
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
252K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top