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 (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
bueno
In a class by himself
I laugh at the fact that rather than talking about Hillary, all the Hildos are obsessed with bashing Trump in three threads. I think you guys need some psychological help here...
bryhamm
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock
Footballguy
bueno
In a class by himself
bueno
In a class by himself
Actually no, you haven't. I haven't seen this level of bashing since Palin. Not one of you have come up with a good reason to vote for the Wicked Witch of the East except that Trump is a jerk. We get that. Why don't you just stop the anti-Trump circle jerk and talk about Hillary's good points - if she has any, that is. Bunch of 30-somethings acting like two year olds in here.
You are all making Tim look like he most rational poster on the board.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno
In a class by himself
timschochet
Footballguy
I do that myself. And actually Bueno if you look through this thread I have offered lots of reasons for voting for Hillary. Anytime you want to have a discussion about policy I'm game.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
My concern is being Putin's lap dog and letting Russia roll up NATO countries unopposed.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
I don't get this criticism. Trump is giving up millions of his own money and 4-8 of his golden years to serve the country. He is willing to make more sacrifices if only you let him.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
If neither candidate has a lot positives to recommend them, it is logical to start looking at exclusionary criteria. Do you think the leader of the greatest country on earth getting in grade school level hissy fits with the family of a fallen soldier is a good look? What good have you noted about Clinton, and if not, are you just as one-sided as those you are lamenting and exhorting? I'm not going to put lipstick on a pig, feel free if you choose to. Trump is a weird cat, and easy target for both humor and calling him on his abominably incoherent flip flop record. It isn't the commentators fault if Trump has been a thin skinned baby in recent days. I haven't seen a lot of personal bashing (like calling people two years olds or suggesting they need help
), more directed at Trump, and some people seem very defensive and humorless about it. Trump is funny to me (also scary, so I can find cause to comment on him several different ways). Clinton is just sort of bland and safe, in a good way for me, but not the greatest grist for the conversational mill. I could care less if people make fun of Clinton (it isn't like they haven't in both threads, I haven't seen anybody here complain about it, or ask to start a rainbows, puppy dogs and lollipops ONLY Clinton thread).Think of it as just a demographic trend, not "ganging up". Trump polls better with, I've heard uneducated whites (no impugning of our readership here, in fact the opposite, which I'll explain). It just seems to be a case where there are a disproportionate number of posters here IN GENERAL that don't fit in the Trump demographic. If so, there are going to be more anti-Trump than Trump posters, simple math.
Trump seems to me the most dangerous Presidential candidate I can recall in my life time. Why be authoritarian and dictatorial about how others should break down the election FOR THEMSELVES? Is anybody telling you that you are immature or cognitively suspect for your beliefs, or what you can or can't talk about, or what you can or can't laugh about? Your complaining about others going into Trump threads while bashing this one. If you are going to be consistent, shouldn't you DO IT FROM EITHER OF THE OTHER THREADS.
I will not be posting in the Trump Goggles thread (may visit for purely entertainment purposes). If something is bothering you in the "protected" thread, use the report function. Nobody reads every post in every thread, that is the best way to insure someone sees it if there as an issue.
* It is bizarre to expect others to be "nice" and compassionate and understanding about Trump, when his ticket has been one of the most thuggish, bullying, Neanderthal, nasty, crude, vulgar, divisive, racist, fear-mongering and demagogue-like I've ever seen. IMO he deserves whatever negativity he gets X 1,000,000. IMO, he is a vile, loathsome, reptilian monster who needs to go back to whatever depraved, repugnant moral rock he crawled out from under. If I never see him again for the rest of my life beyond this election, it will be soon enough.
** Trump really doesn't even summon higher amplitude emotions like anger, he is too clownish for that, more emotions on the low energy band of the spectrum - pity, revulsion and disgust.
Last edited by a moderator:
chauncey
Footballguy
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Co4EGuHW8AENJcb.jpg:small
On the left: how the FFA thinks Hillary's campaign is going
On the right: how Hillary's campaign is actually going
Pretty sad when the first female nominee from a major party and one of the riches men in the world can't even fill up a third of a basketball court.
On the left: how the FFA thinks Hillary's campaign is going
On the right: how Hillary's campaign is actually going
Pretty sad when the first female nominee from a major party and one of the riches men in the world can't even fill up a third of a basketball court.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Currently, Clinton is running at 68% to 32% odds (after being significantly closer, before the aftermath of the low energy, loser RNC pathetically suffered in comparison to the high energy, winner DNC, and Trump might as well have just dumped a bunch of gasoline and torched the DON'T RIDICULE GOLD STAR MOTHER block of prospective voters, and generally made a spectacle of himself, most recently by defiantly refusing to give Republican leadership endorsement that in some cases endorsed him - You've just been Donalded) I KID, to the thin skinned Trump.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
8/2/16 Election Update: Is Clinton’s Lead A Bounce Or A New Equilibrium?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-clintons-lead-a-bounce-or-a-new-equilibrium/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
8/2/16 Election Update: Is Clinton’s Lead A Bounce Or A New Equilibrium?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-clintons-lead-a-bounce-or-a-new-equilibrium/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
So, what is up with the Ryan feud, seems like an ingrate move after Ryan supported Trump?
Is this related to the report about the Trumper Tantrum, in which he sent a letter to Congressional Leaders to help stand up with him against the "vicious attack" by Mr. Khan. He couldn't be THAT petty and childish, could he? It is no secret that Ryan (along with many Republican leaders) wasn't too thrilled with Trump's nod, so maybe this is bad blood from further back, maybe Trump being vindictive for the cardinal political sin of DISLOYALTY.
Trump refuses to endorse Paul Ryan in GOP primary: ‘I’m just not quite there yet’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-refuses-to-endorse-paul-ryan-in-gop-primary-im-just-not-quite-there-yet/2016/08/02/1449f028-58e9-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html
"Trump went on to say that if he loses the election, he will start two or three “anti-certain candidate” super PACs, which he vowed to fund with $10 million apiece, to savage Republicans or Democrats of his choosing in future elections. He said his targets might include Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) or Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who both lost in the primaries to Trump but are eyeing another run in 2020."
Paul Ryan Primary Opponent at Heart of Proxy War Between Trump and GOP
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/paul-ryan-primary-opponent-heart-proxy-war-between-trump-gop-n621906
"I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country," Trump said. "We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I'm just not quite there yet. I'm not quite there yet."
Those words echoed Ryan's own refusal to back Trump in May, when he told CNN that "I'm just not ready to do that at this point. I'm not there right now."
Trump vs. Ryan (again): How we got here
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/donald-trump-paul-ryan-endorsements/
"The front-runner landed in the Badger State and immediately proceeded to rip Walker, still popular there despite his weak turn on the national stage -- and a Ryan ally.
"Your governor came out, he was expected to win and we sent him packing like a little boy," Trump said during an interview with radio host Michael Koolidge, after Walker backed his rival, Ted Cruz.
Trump kept up the attacks on Walker during a campaign stop in Janesville, Ryan's hometown -- a decision one Republican strategist in the state told CNN was like "(poking) Ryan in the eye."
"Any notion that Ryan's endorsement would tamp down Trump's rhetoric proved to be terribly mistaken. In the subsequent days, Trump launched a series of racially charged attacks on US District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, saying he could not fairly oversee a lawsuit related to Trump University because of his Mexican-American heritage.
Ryan called it "the textbook definition of a racist comment" and "absolutely unacceptable."
Is this related to the report about the Trumper Tantrum, in which he sent a letter to Congressional Leaders to help stand up with him against the "vicious attack" by Mr. Khan. He couldn't be THAT petty and childish, could he? It is no secret that Ryan (along with many Republican leaders) wasn't too thrilled with Trump's nod, so maybe this is bad blood from further back, maybe Trump being vindictive for the cardinal political sin of DISLOYALTY.
Trump refuses to endorse Paul Ryan in GOP primary: ‘I’m just not quite there yet’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-refuses-to-endorse-paul-ryan-in-gop-primary-im-just-not-quite-there-yet/2016/08/02/1449f028-58e9-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html
"Trump went on to say that if he loses the election, he will start two or three “anti-certain candidate” super PACs, which he vowed to fund with $10 million apiece, to savage Republicans or Democrats of his choosing in future elections. He said his targets might include Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) or Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who both lost in the primaries to Trump but are eyeing another run in 2020."
Paul Ryan Primary Opponent at Heart of Proxy War Between Trump and GOP
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/paul-ryan-primary-opponent-heart-proxy-war-between-trump-gop-n621906
"I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country," Trump said. "We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I'm just not quite there yet. I'm not quite there yet."
Those words echoed Ryan's own refusal to back Trump in May, when he told CNN that "I'm just not ready to do that at this point. I'm not there right now."
Trump vs. Ryan (again): How we got here
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/donald-trump-paul-ryan-endorsements/
"The front-runner landed in the Badger State and immediately proceeded to rip Walker, still popular there despite his weak turn on the national stage -- and a Ryan ally.
"Your governor came out, he was expected to win and we sent him packing like a little boy," Trump said during an interview with radio host Michael Koolidge, after Walker backed his rival, Ted Cruz.
Trump kept up the attacks on Walker during a campaign stop in Janesville, Ryan's hometown -- a decision one Republican strategist in the state told CNN was like "(poking) Ryan in the eye."
"Any notion that Ryan's endorsement would tamp down Trump's rhetoric proved to be terribly mistaken. In the subsequent days, Trump launched a series of racially charged attacks on US District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, saying he could not fairly oversee a lawsuit related to Trump University because of his Mexican-American heritage.
Ryan called it "the textbook definition of a racist comment" and "absolutely unacceptable."
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Actually that's more a comment on WaPo's reporter who ran a really deceiving photo there.
Hillary has mostly had small crowds throughout. It has to be by choice, I just don't think she has the energy or voice to handle larger events. Or they try to micromanage the crowd for tv and photo effect. The point of Buffet was to get him on tv. I'm not sure the Hillary campaign thinks the big crowds help much, they seem much more interested in the packaging of her appearances for distribution and Hillary never could do the big road event anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I'll start with the possibility that the outlier polls are right: Rasmussen continues to show Trump slightly ahead, and that LAT/USC poll with the oddball sampling still has it tied. So if those guys are onto something no one else is seeing the race could still be competitive. This is almost never the case and hanging your hat on this kind of thing is typically what the losing campaign does (c.f. unskewing), but this is a weird election so anything is possible.
If that's not the case and traditional polling has the race read correctly...
I looked at the last half-dozen "normal" polls and used the associated margin of error to create a range for each poll. So if the result was Clinton +6 with an MOE of 2 the range would be 4-8. Then I stacked the ranges on top of each other to see if there was anywhere the polls all intersected. And there is.
If Clinton's actual lead is between 6.8 and 7.7 all of the polls I used would still be correct in that the actual result (6.8-7.7) would fall within the MOE of each individual poll's result. Coincidentally Nate Silver just suggested that he thought the lead had reverted to about 7 points -- where it was in earlier in the year. So, barring some sort of fundamental issue that's confounding all the polls, that seems like a pretty good guess as to how things look today.
If that's not the case and traditional polling has the race read correctly...
I looked at the last half-dozen "normal" polls and used the associated margin of error to create a range for each poll. So if the result was Clinton +6 with an MOE of 2 the range would be 4-8. Then I stacked the ranges on top of each other to see if there was anywhere the polls all intersected. And there is.
If Clinton's actual lead is between 6.8 and 7.7 all of the polls I used would still be correct in that the actual result (6.8-7.7) would fall within the MOE of each individual poll's result. Coincidentally Nate Silver just suggested that he thought the lead had reverted to about 7 points -- where it was in earlier in the year. So, barring some sort of fundamental issue that's confounding all the polls, that seems like a pretty good guess as to how things look today.
Last edited by a moderator:
John Bender
Footballguy
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-hillary-clinton-s-tax-proposals
If this a reputable organization? Tax Foundation?
It hasn't been updated since January it appears and I was wondering about where Hillary seems to be at re: stock market trading and dividends specifically. I'm seeing/hearing a potential increase on taxation for stock trading. Any info someone could direct me to on this front? Whether it's platitude or a real potential? TIA
If this a reputable organization? Tax Foundation?
It hasn't been updated since January it appears and I was wondering about where Hillary seems to be at re: stock market trading and dividends specifically. I'm seeing/hearing a potential increase on taxation for stock trading. Any info someone could direct me to on this front? Whether it's platitude or a real potential? TIA
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I don't think they're a front, they're a serious group which has been around a long time but they're definitely pro business which leans conservative. My sense is their analysis is probably fair. Regardless of Hillary's stated policies Wall Street has backed her to the max, I forget the numbers but they are staggeringly in her favor. Something like $20 million in contributions from Wall Street while Trump has under $100K or something like that. Now she has definitely raised it as part of her platform and while Hillary may throw a bone to the Sanders wing with something like a transaction tax, I seriously doubt she would put much behind it and I doubt it would get through a GOP House. Hillary just mostly plays good cop / bad cop with these guys.
Last edited by a moderator:
badmojo1006
Footballguy
John Bender
Footballguy
That's part of what's so hard to reconcile. "Hillary is bought and sold" "Wall Street owns Hillary" are a few things you might here as a negative to Hillary. Hard to imagine her tax plans in this arena could be serious given that. I'm just looking at it from a timing perspective about whether or not I should be debating pulling money out of the market ahead of the election. Depending on what happens with the house, looks like I might have some lead time to figure it all out.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yeah I think so. I don't really know. Personally I think the stock market will do very well under the Clintons, that aspect does not worry me. The prospect of the instability under a Pres. Trump would concern me.
Jayrok
Footballguy
The link he posted was just the defendant's (the State Department) reply to a plaintiff's FOIA request that the State Department further conduct their search for proof of training for the SoS and top aides. The State Department did a search on all Department-wide training systems and databases that contain records of all official training activity for security and IT courses undertaken by State employees and produced all records found pertaining to State officials. They didn't find any on Clinton and some other top aides. The Plaintiff wanted them to also search individual-specific hard drives and/or shared drives used by any of the senior officials on the chance that they may have kept a copy of certifications, etc.
The State Department lawyers sought to deny the Plaintiff's cross motion for additional discovery. Nothing in the document proves that the SoS and other top officials did or didn't complete any mandatory training.
Jayrok
Footballguy
I know this wasn't directed at me but the lines you quoted from the link you posted were from the State Department's deputy spokesman. What else is he going to say?
From the same link: “State searched the record systems and databases that would contain records showing that the specified individuals completed the mandatory training courses — if they in fact completed them,” stated Benjamin Mizer, the principal deputy assistant Attorney General, and Marcia Berman, the assistant director of the Federal Program Branch at the Justice Department, in their filing before Judge Leon.
the Bureau of Diplomatic Security is “the primary training institution for [State]” and would possess training records for Clinton and her aides. The SCI also “has access to SCI electronic training records.”
“If its search of STMS, the Cyber Security Administration database, and SCI electronic training records did not locate training certifications, then such courses were not completed,” both DOJ officials concluded.
I agree with this 100%. Unfortunately, in this case, I've found huge lists of exclusionary criteria that apply to both candidates (not that I had to look very hard). So, Gary Johnson it is.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
I'm voting for Hillary mostly based on party platform, as I don't find her appealing as an individual. But I reject both Donald Trump and most of the Republican platform, so it's not a tough call. I'll repeat, I don't like Hillary that much, personally. That's the price this cycle.
timschochet
Footballguy
Hillary- the forgotten candidate.
Seems like for the time being her best strategy is to just stay out of the way...
Seems like for the time being her best strategy is to just stay out of the way...
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Indeed. Just let the other guy self-destruct. I'm normally not a big fan of politicians running on "hey, at least I'm not __________," but anything remotely resembling normalcy went out the window long ago this cycle.
The Commish
Footballguy
This has always been her best strategy...stay out of the public eye and hope people don't pay attention to her. It's a great approach this election cycle if winning is the goal, but it's not a "tick" in the positive column of characteristics one looks for in a President.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
This is true. But I would like to see her pushing aggressively on issues out on the trail. She can let Trump handle Trump at this point. If she runs only on "Trump's unfit", I would find that lacking and frankly beneath her, because issues are one of her (few) strengths.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Ryan has been asked by the RNC to fight a rearguard action against Trump's Scorched Earth tactics in an effort to give the Republican Party a toehold in the 2018 and 2020 election cycles.
Sucks for the Democrats...if this were Biden(or at least someone with less disdain than HRC) v. Trump, the Democrats could have been in position for (including Obamas 8 years) a 20+ POTUS reign with real chances to turn Congress and local governments their way AND control the 202 redistricting. As it is, HRC will win......but she won't placate Independents, Conservative Democrats and Disenfranchised Republicans thus enabling "Common Sense" Republicans to fight another day and benefit in 18 and 20 from the publics HRC "hatred".
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
That's fine. What I want is better choices. I don't necessarily want one party in a 20+ year dominant position. However, that may happen anyway, as a natural outcome of one party's platform reflecting a larger representation of America's stances than the other party's platform.
squistion
Footballguy
Joan Walsh @joanwalsh 11h11 hours ago
People who say Clinton would be in trouble if Trump dropped out:
a) he won't
b) who would replace him?
c) his voters would flip OUT
People who say Clinton would be in trouble if Trump dropped out:
a) he won't
b) who would replace him?
c) his voters would flip OUT
Thunderlips
Footballguy
If there was a crossover appeal guy that hadn't been in Trump's crosshairs....someone he could tell/ask/demand his followers support in order to stop Clinton....maybe. But the problem for the Republicans is that Trump has already poisoned the well of anyone who might have been able to mount a resistance against Clinton. Trump bowing out and then extolling the virtues of Romney/Kasich/Ryan would be phonier than a red headed Asian.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Trump is obviously planning a post election strategy already - take his 40% share and call that 'his' audience, sell that to a network or even start his own news network with Ivanka on it, and blame the whole thing on our democracy being rigged. Sell, sell, sell. We're all a bunch of condos, steaks and vodka, even the opponents.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
NutterButter
Footballguy
Absolutely. I'm pretty torn on whether he even wants to win this election. Either way, he's making out like a bandit.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
They can't replace Trump at this point unless Trump chooses to go away, which he won't. He's lined up for a three month long infomercial on his next TV show on prime time on all of the major networks. No way he's walking away now.
chauncey
Footballguy
Bill Clinton back in the news over his visits to Pedophile Island:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html
Bill fortunately wasn't charged with anything the first time around, when Epstein plea bargained a sweetheart deal in his underage sex slave case. Hopefully these latest suits don't dredge up anything that would hurt Bill's reputation or worse.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
Hey chauncey, you know a then 13-year old girl says Trump raped her at Epstein's home, don't you?
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
You people keep underestimating her, you don't understand. This is Hillary Clinton we are talking about. The big HRC. She is going to destroy not only Trump but the GOP. This is bubonic plague type destruction that will change the entire demographics of the American electorate. Don;t worry about if Trump loses that is almost a forgone conclusion, you need to start planning now for the aftermath; and not just the aftermath of the election but of a Hillary presidency, and maybe a double. What will the GOP look in 2024 if 2005 would be the last time a GOP won the presidency? There will be people voting who were not alive when GWB was elected. HRC will not only be our first woman president, but the grandmother who destroyed the GOP.
Last edited by a moderator:
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
I am from his district - the guy is a weasel and a tool. Grandpa gerrymander.Rove! said:
- Status
Similar threads
