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.
I was happy with Hillary's plan, offered last year, to relieve student loans. I think this is a worthwhile government expenditure, if for no other reason than it well encourage millennials to buy homes, which they simply are not able to afford currently at the same levels as previous generations. 

But I am NOT happy with Hillary having glommed onto Bernie's plan of paying college tuitions for the middle class. This seems like an unnecessary expenditure to me. There are lots of problems with it: 

1. Not everyone needs to go to college. This will encourage many to go to college who dont belong there, which will eventually weaken academic standards. 

2. Public colleges are already partially siubsidized. If we fully subsidize them it will force private colleges to raise their tuitions further. 

3. Right now the military offers free college if you commit to service afterwards. This will eviscerate that program, which has produced the finest military in the world. Why bother enlisting if you can go to college free anyhow? 

4. This will cost many billions of dollars. I don't see how we can afford it without seriously increasing the deficit. 

These were my objections to Bernie's plan when he first announced it. They remain my objections to Hillary's plan now that she had adopted it. 

 
timschochet said:
I was happy with Hillary's plan, offered last year, to relieve student loans. I think this is a worthwhile government expenditure, if for no other reason than it well encourage millennials to buy homes, which they simply are not able to afford currently at the same levels as previous generations. 

But I am NOT happy with Hillary having glommed onto Bernie's plan of paying college tuitions for the middle class. This seems like an unnecessary expenditure to me. There are lots of problems with it: 

1. Not everyone needs to go to college. This will encourage many to go to college who dont belong there, which will eventually weaken academic standards. 

2. Public colleges are already partially siubsidized. If we fully subsidize them it will force private colleges to raise their tuitions further. 

3. Right now the military offers free college if you commit to service afterwards. This will eviscerate that program, which has produced the finest military in the world. Why bother enlisting if you can go to college free anyhow? 

4. This will cost many billions of dollars. I don't see how we can afford it without seriously increasing the deficit. 

These were my objections to Bernie's plan when he first announced it. They remain my objections to Hillary's plan now that she had adopted it. 
Click to expand...
Don't worry, she'd doesn't mean any of it. Bernie did.

 
Jayrok said:
This whole "it takes a village" thing is frustrating.  From her speech:  20 years ago I wrote a book called “It Takes a Village.”  A lot of people looked at the title and asked, what the heck do you mean by that?   This is what I mean. None of us can raise a family, build a business, heal a community or lift a country totally alone.   

It takes a village to raise a family?  No, it takes two loving parents to raise a family.  The words "family" and "alone" make no sense together.  I think one of the biggest problems in our country is the decline of the family.  Too many single moms having to work more than one job to make ends meet.  Where are the fathers?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure she was appealing to her base. Minorities and single parent families on welfare. It is in the Democrats best interest that these people believe it takes a village to raise their children. If these people were inspired to stand on their own two feet and achieve success there is a 50/50 chance they leave the party. If they stay dependent on the government for every aspect of their well being then there is a 100% chance they stay Democrat. 

Great book in my opinion. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Welcome back, Jim11!  We need a level headed rational person like you in the political threads, a bunch of crazies have shown up when you were gone.
Click to expand...
One Jim11 doesn't make a dent in the dozens of Hillbots that have invaded the FFA.

It wouldn't surprise me if FBG is bringing in more cash flow from Correct the Record than fantasy football subscriptions. 

This would explain the odd 10:1 Hillary vs Trump support in a message board that supposedly attracts football fans (men).

 
Clinton resists deposition to ask who urged using private server


... Just hours after Clinton wrapped up her speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination at the party's convention in Philadelphia, Clinton's legal team submitted an unexpected legal filing to a federal judge in Washington Friday morning, arguing that Clinton's statement in a televised interview aired Sunday does not bolster a conservative group's drive to depose her.

...

"It was recommended that it would be convenient, and I thought it would be. It’s turned out to be anything but," Clinton told Scott Pelley of CBS's "60 Minutes" during a joint interview with new running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)

On Monday, the group pressing the Freedom of Information Act suit in front of Sullivan, Judicial Watch, sent Sullivan a transcript of the interview. The organization also argued that Clinton's statement was yet another indication that questions remain about why Clinton chose to use the private server located in the basement of her home rather than the State Department's official systems.

...
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-deposition-private-serve-226428#ixzz4FqJznsJ7

- This reminds me a little of the Trump case where the judge ordered release of sealed records because Trump himself had introduced the legitimacy of Trump U into the national debate. The judge held that Trump had made it a matter of public interest himself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was a reason the media got in front of the story alleging Russian hacking.  I suspect these new emails from Clinton's campaign HQ are going to show a LOT of misdeeds.  

 
Jayrok said:
This whole "it takes a village" thing is frustrating.  From her speech:  20 years ago I wrote a book called “It Takes a Village.”  A lot of people looked at the title and asked, what the heck do you mean by that?   This is what I mean. None of us can raise a family, build a business, heal a community or lift a country totally alone.   

It takes a village to raise a family?  No, it takes two loving parents to raise a family.  The words "family" and "alone" make no sense together.  I think one of the biggest problems in our country is the decline of the family.  Too many single moms having to work more than one job to make ends meet.  Where are the fathers?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but even if taken to the extremes of extremes, I think we'd all agree that it does not take every Tom, ****, and Harry to raise a family. However, on the flip side it does not take just two loving parents either. It does take extended family, neighbors, teachers, strangers, business owners, and the like... yes, even government policies and the like. And, before anyone scoffs at such a notion, ask yourselves who you knew growing up and how much of an influence others had on where you are today. Sure, a great foundation would be two loving parents at home but, sadly, this has never been the case for 100% of people. It is worse now because of the amount of people and lack of, not just fathers, but caring neighbors, caring communities, caring strangers and the like. To think otherwise is either being naive or just simply ignorant.

 
msommer said:
please try to do that without a society of customers. Come back in a few years with the results of your independent venture

I'll be here :popcorn:
Click to expand...
No problem.  So are the customers a result of government or the result of being born?  Who was first-taxes or people?   I have no problem with people on the government dole.   Actually I do.  It's a drain on everyone, but some deserve help because of the hand they were dealt.  I have no time for people that disdain a certain type of work because it is beneath them.   Nothing is beneath anyone if you are hungry.

Sorry if I offended anyone lazy.

 
Jim11 said:
Want to pay more taxes? Vote for HRC.

http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes

Hillary’s formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:


Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposedhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact/ a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaignhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/infrastructure/ document.

“Fairness” Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: According to her published planhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...-by-restoring-basic-fairness-to-our-tax-code/, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.

For instance:

Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposedhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/24/encourage-long-term-growth/ an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.

Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposedhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/ a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposedhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...8/ending-inversions-and-investing-in-america/ a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.

This proposal completely fails to address the underlying causes behind inversions: The U.S. 39% corporate tax rate (35% federal rate plus an average state rate of 4%) and our "worldwide" system of taxation, which imposes tax on all American earnings worldwide. The average corporate rate in the developed world is 25%. Thirty-one of thirty-four developed countries have cut their corporate tax rate since 2000. The U.S. has not. Hillary's plan moves in the wrong direction.

 
Click to expand...
Every one is willing to pay a little more for better schools roads and bridges. 

They also are willing for the rich to pay a lot more.  

 
Dr Oadi said:
Every one is willing to pay a little more for better schools roads and bridges. 

They also are willing for the rich to pay a lot more.  
Click to expand...
Ah - no. Not those taxes for sure. Fortunately the Republicans ill probably control the House, so we won't see any of these bad ideas.

 
chauncey said:
One Jim11 doesn't make a dent in the dozens of Hillbots that have invaded the FFA.

It wouldn't surprise me if FBG is bringing in more cash flow from Correct the Record than fantasy football subscriptions. 

This would explain the odd 10:1 Hillary vs Trump support in a message board that supposedly attracts football fans (men).
Click to expand...
Manly men that call women pigs, insult POWs and the handicapped. My hero!   

 
irishidiot said:
No problem.  So are the customers a result of government or the result of being born?  Who was first-taxes or people?   I have no problem with people on the government dole.   Actually I do.  It's a drain on everyone, but some deserve help because of the hand they were dealt.  I have no time for people that disdain a certain type of work because it is beneath them.   Nothing is beneath anyone if you are hungry.

Sorry if I offended anyone lazy.
Click to expand...
No the customers are inherent in the community (village) that you so strenuously objected to.

But as @Joe Summerpointed out village does not equate government, so there is the basic fallacy in your argument

 
chauncey said:
One Jim11 doesn't make a dent in the dozens of Hillbots that have invaded the FFA.

It wouldn't surprise me if FBG is bringing in more cash flow from Correct the Record than fantasy football subscriptions. 

This would explain the odd 10:1 Hillary vs Trump support in a message board that supposedly attracts football fans (men).
Click to expand...
Magaw probably double dipping at the trough.

 
Dr Oadi said:
Every one is willing to pay a little more for better schools roads and bridges. 

They also are willing for the rich to pay a lot more.  
Click to expand...
Sure, so long as it goes to that instead of party favors to sylindra, which was a major donator to Obama.   Pay to play.  bad for everyone except Barack & Salindra.

cool: I managed to spell sylindra wrong 3 times.

 
msommer said:
No the customers are inherent in the community (village) that you so strenuously objected to.

But as @Joe Summerpointed out village does not equate government, so there is the basic fallacy in your argument
Click to expand...
Ah, obviously a debate team guy.  Your post does nothing to refute what I typed except for deflection.  IMO

 
MaxThreshold said:
Well, Hillary is a corrupt and shady POS, so there's that.  HRC supporters shouldn't be insulting anyone running for POTUS.
Click to expand...
Trump has lied about Russian connections and is waffling on NATO (not to mention calling women pigs, mocking POWs and ridiculing the handicapped), so there's that. Trump supporters shouldn't be insulting anyone running for POTUS. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim11 said:
Want to pay more taxes? Vote for HRC.

http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes

Hillary’s formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:


Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposedhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/10/college-compact/ a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaignhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/infrastructure/ document.

“Fairness” Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: According to her published planhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...-by-restoring-basic-fairness-to-our-tax-code/, Clinton has called for a tax increase of “between $400 and $500 billion” by “restoring basic fairness to our tax code.” These proposals include a “fair share surcharge,” the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.

For instance:

Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposedhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/24/encourage-long-term-growth/ an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.” Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.

Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposedhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/ a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

“Exit Tax” – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposedhttps://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...8/ending-inversions-and-investing-in-america/ a series of measures aimed at inversions including an “exit tax” on income earned overseas. The term “exit tax” is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.

This proposal completely fails to address the underlying causes behind inversions: The U.S. 39% corporate tax rate (35% federal rate plus an average state rate of 4%) and our "worldwide" system of taxation, which imposes tax on all American earnings worldwide. The average corporate rate in the developed world is 25%. Thirty-one of thirty-four developed countries have cut their corporate tax rate since 2000. The U.S. has not. Hillary's plan moves in the wrong direction.

 
Click to expand...
Well maybe don't nominate a reality game show host. Pro tip.

 
irishidiot said:
Ah, obviously a debate team guy.  Your post does nothing to refute what I typed except for deflection.  IMO
Click to expand...
Well, if you stuck to complaining about what HRC actually said rather than what you are feeling she said, there would be fewer debate teams engaging with you.

 
irishidiot said:
No problem.  So are the customers a result of government or the result of being born?  Who was first-taxes or people?   I have no problem with people on the government dole.   Actually I do.  It's a drain on everyone, but some deserve help because of the hand they were dealt.  I have no time for people that disdain a certain type of work because it is beneath them.   Nothing is beneath anyone if you are hungry.

Sorry if I offended anyone lazy.
Click to expand...
If offended?  I stand my comments

 
Bob Magaw said:
Trump has lied about Russian connections and is waffling on NATO (not to mention calling women pigs, mocking POWs and ridiculing the handicapped), so there's that. Trump supporters shouldn't be insulting anyone running for POTUS. 
Click to expand...
Well I agree with you about that!  Neither candidate's supporters should be insulting each other's candidate...at all...ever because they are both POS.

BTW, I'm not a Trump supporter so I can insult both.  Them's the rules.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Well I agree with you about that!  Neither candidate's supporters should be insulting each other's candidate...at all...ever because they are both POS.

BTW, I'm not a Trump supporter so I can insult both.  Them's the rules.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the clarification. My feeling is it is the US, as long as we are civil, it is cool to mutually poke fun at opposing candidates. I just find it inherently distasteful when people get bossy about what others can say. Sorry.

I'm not blind to Clinton's questions as well. I just find her, despite her flaws, infinitely more Presidential than The Donald (I wonder if Washington called himself The George? :) ). As I've said before, once it looked like Trump was a candidate for reals, I instantly flashed back to Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone. He genuinely frightens me as a hot head, unstable individual and capable of bad decisions through a monstrous ego. Not making fun here, just expressing my concern. Obviously I hope I'm wrong in this case.

I don't need to tell you (CDL already reminded you) this is a weird, maybe even unprecedented election in our lifetime - kind of like if Soupy Sales or Larry Storch were Democratic candidates in the '70s. I acknowledge HRC has flaws. I find Trump petty, mean spirited, childish, loud, boorish and with the attention span of a gnat, I admire traits like generosity, kindness, compassion, empathy, humility (which aren't mutually exclusive with tough and fair). Whatever HRC has done, imo calling a woman a pig is cowardly. I don't want a coward for a President. But I understand and respect where you are coming from, as well as your right to your opinion and to express it on the board (as you recall, the exchange didn't start by me telling you what you could or couldn't say).      

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw said:
Appreciate the clarification. My feeling is it is the US, as long as we are civil, it is cool to mutually poke fun at opposing candidates. I just find it inherently distasteful when people get bossy about what others can say. Sorry.

I'm not blind to Clinton's questions as well. I just find her, despite her flaws, infinitely more Presidential than The Donald (I wonder if Washington called himself The George? :) ). As I've said before, once it looked like Trump was a candidate for reals, I instantly flashed back to Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone. He genuinely frightens me as a hot head, unstable individual and capable of bad decisions through a monstrous ego. Not making fun here, just expressing my concern. Obviously I hope I'm wrong in this case.

I don't need to tell you (CDL already reminded you) this is a weird, maybe even unprecedented election in our lifetime - kind of like if Soupy Sales or Larry Storch were Democratic candidates in the '70s. I acknowledge HRC has flaws. I find Trump petty, mean spirited, childish, loud, boorish and with the attention span of a gnat, I admire traits like generosity, kindness, compassion, empathy, humility (which aren't mutually exclusive with tough and fair). Whatever HRC has done, imo calling a woman a pig is cowardly. I don't want a coward for a President. But I understand and respect where you are coming from, as well as your right to your opinion and to express it on the board (as you recall, the exchange didn't start by me telling you what you could or couldn't say).      
Click to expand...
Of course there's that super predator thingy or the fact that she was the beneficiary of the DNC working against the one candidate that did demonstrate the traits that you admire.

 
There is a hierarchy of "badness".

I find ridiculing women, POWs, the handicapped more loathsome.

Anger management issues/poor impulse control + nuclear football = bad juju

* Didn't Trump mouth off to the Pope. Who does that? :lmao: :lmao:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CurlyNight said:
I would think Johnson and Stein would bow out when faced with the possibility of a Trump presidency esp if it is close.
Click to expand...
I'm betting you're wrong. 

What Johnson and Stein and lots of people here (like the Commish and Sinn Fein and others) have in common is that they do not believe that a Trump presidency would be an existential disaster for the country. Apparently they think that he is just another politician, no better or worse than Clinton, and that he would be stopped by Congress from doing too much damage, etc. They think people like me and you are fear mongering when we suggest how truly scary that Trump could be. They think we're nuts. They just don't get it. 

 
CurlyNight said:
I would think Johnson and Stein would bow out when faced with the possibility of a Trump presidency esp if it is close.
Click to expand...
One would think they would bow out facing a Hillary presidency.

Hitler v. Stalin and CurlyNight would suggest that Churchill bow out.

 
Trump was interviewed on ABC News and was pressed about repeated taunts regarding his temperament making him unfit for the responsibility to make decisions about nuclear weapons during HRC's DNC concluding nomination acceptance speech, he stated he had a great temperament, and he better shut his pie hole about it or else! :)  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew said:
One would think they would bow out facing a Hillary presidency.

Hitler v. Stalin and CurlyNight would suggest that Churchill bow out.
Click to expand...
Oh come on. No way in hell can anyone sane think Trump would be better than Hills. Hills isn't my first choice, my Bern is gone, but v Trump. No question..

 
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
264K
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