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 (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rick James said:
why put corruption in quotes?
Click to expand...
Because it's a buzzword that's being used to bundle a number of unrelated incidents to create a mantra for minds that need simple, instant gratification. Example: The DNC is corrupt because they were interfering in the process. When that's a stupid premise on its face. But ya know, "corruption". So that's why the quotes.

 
The pulse of my personal network is that they are furious that the email scandal is being deflected by the media and the Dems to Russia this and that. 

They also don't like that the dems are pretending everything is great at the convention, when ISIS attacks are frequent and innoncent police officers are being targeted.

As a result, people have overwhelmingly moved to supporting trump.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TripItUp said:
The pulse of my personal network is that they are furious that the email scandal is being deflected by the media and the Dems to Russia this and that. 

They also don't like that the dems are pretending everything is great at the convention, when ISIS attacks are frequent and innoncent police officers are being targeted.

As a result, people have overwhelmingly moved to supporting trump.
Click to expand...
as the latest polls indicate

 
MattFancy said:
15) Trump then promised to change that: “We're going to win so much. You're going to get tired of winning. you’re going to say, ‘Please Mr. President, I have a headache. Please, don't win so much. This is getting terrible.’ And I'm going to say, ‘No, we have to make America great again.’ You're gonna say, ‘Please.’ I said, ‘Nope, nope. We're gonna keep winning.’

What the hell does that even mean? What exactly are we going to win?
Click to expand...
it means whatever people reading ti wants it to mean. Trade deals, Foreign Policy, immigration, climate change, space exploration, and countless other "things" that obviously others didn't want to make great - trump can make great, just by saying so he can make it great.

 
TripItUp said:
The pulse of my personal network is that they are furious that the email scandal is being deflected by the media and the Dems to Russia this and that. 

They also don't like that the dems are pretending everything is great at the convention, when ISIS attacks are frequent and innoncent police officers are being targeted.

As a result, people have overwhelmingly moved to supporting trump.
Click to expand...
Its probably just me stereotyping - but based on the description, it does not sound like many in your network are "moving" to Trump.  They were probably already there...

 
Sinn Fein said:
Its probably just me stereotyping - but based on the description, it does not sound like many in your network are "moving" to Trump.  They were probably already there...
Click to expand...
I will say that many people who vote Trump were ashamed of it so probably using this as a chance to come out of the closet as Trump supporters or downplay their support. 

 
pantagrapher said:
The election itself is going to be boring because Hillary is going to win in a landslide.
Click to expand...
I would love to believe this but you are underestimating trump, overestimating Clinton, and I would guess this will be one of the lowest turnouts in recent memory which is a pretty big wild card/

 
timschochet said:
Let's put aside the dislike for Hillary, and the like for Hillary, and take a moment to reflect on the fact that for the first time in our nation's history a woman is going to be nominated for President by one of the two major parties. 

It didn't have to be the Democrats. Republicans would have gladly put up a Margaret Thatcher years ago had she been American. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, even Pakistan, a Muslim nation, had a woman in charge before we did. So what took us so long? 
Click to expand...
There are a number of women that I'd vote for on the conservative side.  Heck, I like Fiorina, though she was out of it by the time the primary came to my state.

Speaking of Thatcher, IMO the biggest insult this administration has commited during the last 8 years was pointedly refusing to send anyone to her funeral.  A national embarrassment.  

 
I think a lot of people are going to vote Trump who don't like Trump.  There will be republicans that vote the ticket, there will be people who hate Hillary who vote against her.

On the other side, there will be many people who vote Clinton who do not like Clinton - same reasons - party preference, hate/afraid of Trump. 

We have the two least-liked candidates ever - there will be a lot of nose-holding in the ballot box.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think a lot of people are going to vote Trump who don't like Trump.  There will be republicans that vote the ticket, there will be people who hate Hillary who vote against her.

On the other side, there will be many people who vote Clinton who do not like Clinton - same reasons - party preference, hate/afraid of Trump. 

We have the two least-liked candidates ever - there will be a lot of nose-holding in the ballot box.
Click to expand...
Breaking news here.

 
bagger said:
I would love to believe this but you are underestimating trump, overestimating Clinton, and I would guess this will be one of the lowest turnouts in recent memory which is a pretty big wild card/
Click to expand...
not to mention the voter fraud that both of these dirty candidates and staffs are going to attempt..  

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think a lot of people are going to vote Trump who don't like Trump.  There will be republicans that vote the ticket, there will be people who hate Hillary who vote against her.

On the other side, there will be many people who vote Clinton who do not like Clinton - same reasons - party preference, hate/afraid of Trump. 

We have the two least-liked candidates ever - there will be a lot of nose-holding in the ballot box.
Click to expand...
Going to be fascinating on down ticket implications. Seems like lot of non traditional voters who won't have much knowledge in way of other races. 

 
So...question.  She (and her camp) often complain about the "misinformation" spread about her.  Why does she go this route of asking the media to not participate rather than suing the sources for libel?  I've never understood this approach.  It just plays into the narrative that she's buddies with the media.

 
pantagrapher said:
The election itself is going to be boring because Hillary is going to win in a landslide.
Click to expand...
Could not disagree more.  I suspect she'll still be ahead by 2-4 points after things shake out in August, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.  No way does it end up in the 8-10 point range IMO.

 
Bill gives a very uncharacteristically (for Bill) love story speech. She makes history by becoming the first woman nominated for POTUS. Why wasn't she there?   

 
bagger said:
I would love to believe this but you are underestimating trump, overestimating Clinton, and I would guess this will be one of the lowest turnouts in recent memory which is a pretty big wild card/
Click to expand...
What makes you think it will be a low turnout? I think it will be one of the highest ever. This election has grabbed attention like never before. I think the only way a low turnout happens is if enough people say f*** this, both suck, I just won't vote. Because for some reason, nobody will "waste their time" voting for a third party candidate.

 
pantagrapher said:
wdcrob said:
Could not disagree more.  I suspect she'll still be ahead by 2-4 points after things shake out in August, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.  No way does it end up in the 8-10 point range IMO.
Click to expand...
Let's revisit this after she wins in a landslide.
Click to expand...
I was pessimistic about your prediction (360ish points if I remember correctly) in the Hillary thread, but I underestimated Trump's ignorance and inability to get out of his own way (not sure how I could do that, but I digress).  I think I'm on board with this now....if it's not a landslide victory it's going to be pretty sad.  It shouldn't be close.  If it is and a substantial amount of voters are voting for a third party, perhaps we aren't as far down the hole as I thought.  We'll see.

 
Phil Elliott said:
Bill gives a very uncharacteristically (for Bill) love story speech. She makes history by becoming the first woman nominated for POTUS. Why wasn't she there?   
Click to expand...
Probably out doing a Benghazi or emailing Iran from her hotmail account to see if the $150 billion went through.

In case you really don't know: traditionally candidates don't appear in the convention hall until their acceptance speeches.  It's rare to see a candidate whose ego is so out of control that he just can't stay away from the adoring masses.

 
The Commish said:
So...question.  She (and her camp) often complain about the "misinformation" spread about her.  Why does she go this route of asking the media to not participate rather than suing the sources for libel?  I've never understood this approach.  It just plays into the narrative that she's buddies with the media.
Click to expand...
Because it's almost impossible for a public figure to win a libel suit after NY Times v. Sullivan.  Just proving that the statement isn't true isn't nearly enough.  You have to prove that the speaker knew it wasn't true or acted with complete indifference to the truth. 

 
Phil Elliott said:
True, but given the night it would have been nice to see the love birds together. Guess it really wasn't that big of a night.
Click to expand...
She was busy trying to make a deal with Putin...more uranium, a Debbie Wasserman-Shultz autographed mug, Jeremy Langford and TY Hilton for missing emails that contain lies and corruption...

 
TobiasFunke said:
Probably out doing a Benghazi or emailing Iran from her hotmail account to see if the $150 billion went through.

In case you really don't know: traditionally candidates don't appear in the convention hall until their acceptance speeches.  It's rare to see a candidate whose ego is so out of control that he just can't stay away from the adoring masses.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure Obama made a surprise appearance the night before his acceptance speech in 2008, but carry on.

After Joe Biden spoke, his first address as Vice Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama made a surprise appearance praising the convention.[39]

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Because it's almost impossible for a public figure to win a libel suit after NY Times v. Sullivan.  Just proving that the statement isn't true isn't nearly enough.  You have to prove that the speaker knew it wasn't true or acted with complete indifference to the truth. 
Click to expand...
In this case, is the bold really all that difficult?

 
The Commish said:
In this case, is the bold really all that difficult?
Click to expand...
Yes.  At the very least, the discovery is a killer.  Nobody writes something easily verifiable like "Hilary Clinton killed a hobo in Scranton on June 11, 1983" and then is shown to have an emailed copy of an Arkansas Post-Gazette showing Hillary in Little Rock on that date.

They do things like list all the connections between Hillary and Vince Foster and then say "could the Clintons have silenced him!"  That's not actionable.  There's no knowingly false statement there.  It's just opinion and innuendo, which is protected. 

There are firms that specialize in this stuff, including one that is now representing the Dean from UVA in the Rolling Stone controversy.  But that's against one magazine that clearly, epically ****** up.  There's a huge network of sites out there that make every inference about Hillary that they can.  Some of them have probably done enough to commit a libel, but it would be expensive, pointless, and terrible PR for a politician to sue over it.  She'd just look like someone trying to use the force of law to silence a critic.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Yes.  At the very least, the discovery is a killer.  Nobody writes something easily verifiable like "Hilary Clinton killed a hobo in Scranton on June 11, 1983" and then is shown to have an emailed copy of an Arkansas Post-Gazette showing Hillary in Little Rock on that date.

They do things like list all the connections between Hillary and Vince Foster and then say "could the Clintons have silenced him!"  That's not actionable.  There's no knowingly false statement there.  It's just opinion and innuendo, which is protected. 

There are firms that specialize in this stuff, including one that is now representing the Dean from UVA in the Rolling Stone controversy.  But that's against one magazine that clearly, epically ****** up.  There's a huge network of sites out there that make every inference about Hillary that they can.  Some of them have probably done enough to commit a libel, but it would be expensive, pointless, and terrible PR for a politician to sue over it.  She'd just look like someone trying to use the force of law to silence a critic.
Click to expand...
Sigh. We might never find out then who killed those 5 hookers while Craig James was at SMU.

 
timschochet said:
Parrothead said:
not to mention the voter fraud that both of these dirty candidates and staffs are going to attempt..  
Click to expand...
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...
JFK allegedly had a high dead voter turn out, courtesy of some Chicago downfield blocking.

 
Hillary Brownshirt Clinton is trying to silence her opponent's super PAC from running ads on television.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is pressuring TV stations across the country to stop airing an anti-Clinton political ad sponsored by the pro-Trump super-PAC Rebuilding America Now.

The campaign claims the ad, titled “Outsourcing,” is “directly contracted by evidence in the public record.”

The ad claims Clinton went to India and talked up outsourcing — and then received a donation from Indian politician Amar Singh of up to $5 million in 2008.

The Clinton campaign contends that the donation was made in a different year.

A lawyer for Rebuilding America Now, Cleta Mitchell, said the political ad “is well within the scope of important public discourse.”
Click to expand...
What these amateurs don't realize is that by throwing a tantrum and trying to silence the opposition they are just giving them free publicity and spreading their message 10x as far. 

 
chauncey said:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is pressuring TV stations across the country to stop airing an anti-Clinton political ad sponsored by the pro-Trump super-PAC Rebuilding America Now.

The campaign claims the ad, titled “Outsourcing,” is “directly contracted by evidence in the public record.”

The ad claims Clinton went to India and talked up outsourcing — and then received a donation from Indian politician Amar Singh of up to $5 million in 2008.

The Clinton campaign contends that the donation was made in a different year.

A lawyer for Rebuilding America Now, Cleta Mitchell, said the political ad “is well within the scope of important public discourse.”
Click to expand...
The Clinton connection to Singh & Chatwal is real.

- They can niggle over details but there is there there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Hillary had not been a supporter of the bill, and her closest aides were all opposed to it. But in September 2008, as the bill’s fate hung in the balance, Amar Singh made a visit to New York to see Hillary. Joining him for a private dinner with the senator was Sant Chatwal. Opposition to the bill had come primarily from Democrats. Hillary had supported the “killer amendment” two years earlier. According to Amar Singh, they had a two-hour dinner. In the days following, he was confident the deal would go through, based on what he heard. Having grown accustomed to the deal making and influence buying ways of the Indian parliament, he was open with the Indian media about what transpired in New York. (Hillary Clinton probably considered herself fortunate that his comments were never reported in American media.)
Click to expand...

 
Phil Elliott said:
Bill gives a very uncharacteristically (for Bill) love story speech. She makes history by becoming the first woman nominated for POTUS. Why wasn't she there?   
Click to expand...
Most Presidential candidates do not show up until the last night. In fact, Trump showing up early was very unusual. 

 
randall146 said:
For the eleventy zillionth time today - why does being concerned about Russians hacking US computers and propagandizing to influence our election mean the emails were national security related?
Click to expand...
We should be more concerned about the NSA hacking our emails, yet we know they do, and we do nothing.

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