perry147
Footballguy
Canada, Holland, Finland = Democratic Socialism
Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea= Socialism/Communism
Anyone not understanding the difference is either willfully ignorant or a political tool.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
Cuba, USSR, China, North Korea= Socialism/Communism
Anyone not understanding the difference is either willfully ignorant or a political tool.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
This seems like moving the goalposts. During the primaries your argument was "Bernie will lose, Hillary will win."
squistion
Footballguy
Which the annual Gallup poll seemed to indicate was a majority of the American public, who thought being a Socialist was the biggest disqualifier for being President.
squistion
Footballguy
Actually I kept saying, Bernie couldn't win because of the Socialist issue and to a lesser extent his age. And I did think Hillary will win. I still lean that way. What has changed is that Trump surprisingly (or not) hasn't pivoted and has continued to run a piss poor campaign and if it turns out to be a Hillary blowout, then Bernie probably could have beaten him too. However, I certainly would not feel more comfortable at this point in time if Bernie were the nominee instead of Hillary.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Sure, but that's because you seem to prefer Hillary to begin with.
If you remember the primaries, a lot of folks liked Bernie for his policies or his integrity or whatever. Your primary argument against them was "But Bernie will lose! Vote for Hillary. She will win."
Now it seems like you're acknowledging that maybe Bernie would have won the general election had he been the nominee. Just like we all told you at the time.
bueno
In a class by himself
There has never been a true communist state as MArx envisioned it. Your examples are all dictators who claimed to be communists.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
bueno:
It's only news because Trump keeps acting like Bernie's supporters will vote for him.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is actually not correct. Pay to play is illegal.
So are a few other things like hiring people off the grid (Pagliano, Cooper) and doing double duty for private entities (Teneo, CF, Mills, Abedin).
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
I thought the Socialist/Communist card would be a killer. That hasn't changed and when the attack ads would start being aired 24/7 the public might perceive him to be the more extreme candidate compared to Trump. Along with most pundits and the Republican establishment, I thought Trump would clean up his act once he got the nomination, instead he has gotten worse and that would be the reason that Bernie (or just about any Democrat) could beat him now.
There is no trying, Sanders is doing. Much like Warren before him Sanders is walloping Trump on one of his only stated strengths and that is his supposed mastery of capitalism. Sanders lays bare Donald's claptrap for what it is.
perry147
Footballguy
That can be explained in the next lesson along with the idea that ###-hats are everywhere and will use anything to excel at ###-hattery..
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Here's the article for any so interested.
I just want to point out a couple things:
- This means that the FBI came to the DOJ, not once, but twice.
- This lends credence to the earlier reports of many more FBI agents. I always tried to shoehorn that into the idea that a lot of technical support was needed for the email investigation, but the claims of some were maybe correct. - Investigating the emails and the Foundation, yeah, I could see that requiring many agents. And three field offices plus FBI HQ sure sounds like it could get to 100 agents pretty quickly.
- The report you cite say 'a year earlier', that doesn't account for new evidence gathered over the course of the year. Obviously the FBI had more evidence.
- The fact that the FBI wanted an investigation and that that was corroborated by three separate field offices is pretty powerful to me as that's corroboration. (edited, it's not clear who in the FBI made the first request for investigation)
- When does the DOJ decline investigations by the FBI? if you're a mayor of some podunk city and the FBI wants to investigate you, you think the DOJ says 'no'? When does the DOJ turn down referrals not once, but twice, and from their main office (which was handling the email investigation) plus three offices? I'm guessing that's a pretty rare combo.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
When are the attack ads against Hillary going to start? I'm here in SC with NC TV channels (supposedly a state that's up for grabs) and have yet to see an anti-Hillary commercial. Again, for any of this to be true, we have to believe Trump is capable of being the complete 180 of what he is today. Tough sale for sure...good luck.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I don't know but I suspect they turn down requests from the FBI all the time, especially after they've looked into the matter. And in this particular case they expressed what seems to be to be a very valid concern- that "the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton's presidential campaign." Note that that quote contains not only an allegation that the request was political in nature, but also a conclusion that it lacked substance, which is reason enough to turn down an investigation I would think.
You seem to be assuming questionable intent on one side of the equation- DOJ- but ignoring the possibility of questionable intent on the other side of the equation- three FBI field offices- even though the text of the article you linked offers that up as part of the reason the decision you question was made. That makes zero sense to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
perry147
Footballguy
Can I ask a very simple question? This entire things sounds very politically motivates and the CNN article " Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton's presidential campaign.' Sounds like another witch hunt.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Also, take a step back here. Why would Clinton risk criminal charges to benefit a charitable foundation- one that by all accounts is already fairly well-endowed, but that's almost beside the point.
When people get busted for this stuff it's always for something that lines their own pockets. Not because they want so badly to help Haitians that they're willing to break the law to do it. It makes absolutely zero sense that she would do this.
Ask yourself what is more likely- that Clinton is apparently the world's first white collar criminal committing her crimes for the benefit of a charity? Or that the Foundation got lots of money from people who know the Clintons, and that people who know the Clintons also would have been inclined to ask for favors (granted or not) so there would inevitably be some overlap?
When people get busted for this stuff it's always for something that lines their own pockets. Not because they want so badly to help Haitians that they're willing to break the law to do it. It makes absolutely zero sense that she would do this.
Ask yourself what is more likely- that Clinton is apparently the world's first white collar criminal committing her crimes for the benefit of a charity? Or that the Foundation got lots of money from people who know the Clintons, and that people who know the Clintons also would have been inclined to ask for favors (granted or not) so there would inevitably be some overlap?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well keep in mind that the DOJ did turn the email investigation over to Comey. He made the call. So let's accept there was some question about the danger of political influence from the DOJ to begin with..
As for the political question viz FBI, I think that's valid to the extent that the DOJ maybe does not want to do things that influence elections. That I could see. However if the DOJ - per CNN - is suggesting that the FBI is political, well then that's a pretty bad accusation too. That's a brand new kettle of fish. Hillary has stood behind the objectivity of the FBI, now she's going to claim they are political?
On your last point, I don't think you read that right - the 3 field offices did not say that investigation should not take place, they said it should take place.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Eh, I don't know that criminality is always so consciously criminal. It often results from dumb decisions by people who do not realize they are crossing lines they should not, at least in the white collar / political context.
As for the last point - I think you should bring Teneo into that equation and the fact that the Foundation was passing through speaking fees to the Clintons as well as providing a world of perks, literally, such as global travel and contact with heads of state and major global corporations. That makes for a high class lifestyle of the sort which they had previously been accustomed.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
You seem to be missing the distinction between "The FBI" and "three FBI field offices." The whole agency didn't bring the matter to DOJ. This could have just been a couple of hard-core right-wingers or Trumpkins pressing on it and DOJ surmising that they were doing so for political reasons based on timing and lack of substance ... exactly what the articles says they concluded.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
There are two terms used here:
- " three field offices"
- " FBI officials"
That sounds like investigators in field offices and also officials at the top of the FBI itself. That's a whole lot of political influence you're suggesting. And we'd have to think this went through Comey, whom we agree is a 100% straight shooter all the way.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
ok, so they self identified - and the American public bought it, even your precious Reagan
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Doesn't sound like that to me. FBI field offices have officials in them. And I see no reason to think it went through Comey unless you know something about the inner workings of the FBI that I don't.
Bottom line- you're making a lot of assumptions about political influence on one side of the equation based on zero evidence, and completely refusing to do so on the other side of the equation despite the suspect timing and the suspicion of political influence being cited in the article and reportedly by DOJ as the reason the case was turned away. That makes no sense any way you slice it.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
First of all, thanks for the discussion. Good to hash this out reasonably.
Yeah I'm going to say a request for investigation of Hillary Clinton, and etc., would go through Comey. I think an investigation of a big city mayor would go through the director of the FBI. I'm guessing that happened with de Blasio for instance.
And Comey was already handling the email investigation. How could it not go through him. That investigation was being handled at FBI HQ.
I guess we're at an impasse on the political influence thing. I gave it an out on the idea that the election could be viewed as being inherently political, but if you're looking for evidence well like I said look no further than the fact that the DOJ hierarchy stepped completely aside for Comey on the email investigation. I see zero reason why they should do that there - and implicitly acknowledge the fact that there was the potential for appearance of conflict - and not do it with regard to the Foundation. The fact that the DOJ did that though is all the evidence you need.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
At least they're investigating now, which since she has done everything above boards will lead to nothing at all... Or a #### ton more obstruction and eventual lost documents. Either or.
The Commish
Footballguy
Hey....can we please get back on topic!!!!!!!!!! We need to be discussing how Trump would have been a political mastermind all of a sudden if Bernie had beaten Hillary....TIA.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Hillary people were so worried about an honest politician, they concocted the whole "Trump will really kill Bernie" schtick
Says as much about the Hillary lemmings as it does Hillary herself.
G
Guest
Guest
If Hillary gets indicted for a new thing, and not what she should have been indicted for last time, do they just put up Kaine and he's our new leader just like that?
Oh what a farce we have on our hands. The only two in America that could possibly win against each other. It would be funny if it weren't.
Oh what a farce we have on our hands. The only two in America that could possibly win against each other. It would be funny if it weren't.
The Commish
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
We all know what happens to teams that go conservative on offense and prevent on defense
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
With Hillary, even when it is legal, you know it is not on the up and up. You have heard her speak. No way she's worth $250K an hour.
Megaton
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
To be fair, this is true when the opponent is actually trying to win as well. I don't have any idea what happens when the opponent has gone off the deep end and is trying to lose.
G
Guest
Guest
Suspected FBI mutiny underway, but not mass resignations. They circumvented the DOJ and are launching Foundation probes in Little Rock, DC and NY. They are coming after them and the Presidency will never be a legitimate one if she isn't led out in cuffs first.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/12/exclusive-clinton-foundation-probes-may-be-moving-forward-in-three-cities/#ixzz4HDb8oVrR
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/12/exclusive-clinton-foundation-probes-may-be-moving-forward-in-three-cities/#ixzz4HDb8oVrR
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well I'd say No. VA instead of DC or LR as that's where the US Attorneys for the email investigation were based out of, Dana Boente is a corruption guy, was never known for national security.
However personally I'd like to see this reported outside Daily Caller for validation. I certainly think there are good reasons obviously but the report from CNN was these were shot down. Also the Bob McDonnell USSC decision did not help things. I've said that before but IMO that decision was far more damaging to fighting corruption than the CU decision was.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
And it is not just Bill & Hillary. Chelsea Clinton is one of the highest paid speaker in the country. I heard her speech at the DNC convention. C'mon, give me a break!
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
I don't think Bill is helping
Bill Clinton accuses FBI of serving up a ‘load of bull’
Bill Clinton is accusing the FBI director of serving up “the biggest load of bull I’ve ever heard” — marking the first significant public comments from the husband of the Democratic nominee on the scandal that’s plagued his wife’s campaign for over a year.
“First of all, the FBI director said, when he testified before Congress, he had to amend his previous day’s statement that she had never received any emails marked classified,” Clinton told journalists at an Asian American Journalists Association meeting in Las Vegas on Friday, making a strong defense for Hillary Clinton.
He added, “They saw two little notes with a ‘C’ on it — this is the biggest load of bull I’ve ever heard — that were about telephone calls that she needed to make. The State Department typically puts a little ‘C’ on it to discourage people from discussing it in public in the event the secretary of state, whoever it is, doesn’t make a telephone call. Does that sound threatening to the national security to you?”
Hillary Clinton has been under fire since it was discovered last year that she exclusivelyused her own server to conduct all her work related email on.
On Friday, Bill Clinton went on to say it is inconceivable his wife was threatening national security.
“Do you really believe there are 300 career diplomats because that’s how many people were on these emails, all of whom were careless with national security? Do you believe that? Forget about Hillary, forget about her. Is that conceivable?”
Bill Clinton accuses FBI of serving up a ‘load of bull’
Bill Clinton is accusing the FBI director of serving up “the biggest load of bull I’ve ever heard” — marking the first significant public comments from the husband of the Democratic nominee on the scandal that’s plagued his wife’s campaign for over a year.
“First of all, the FBI director said, when he testified before Congress, he had to amend his previous day’s statement that she had never received any emails marked classified,” Clinton told journalists at an Asian American Journalists Association meeting in Las Vegas on Friday, making a strong defense for Hillary Clinton.
He added, “They saw two little notes with a ‘C’ on it — this is the biggest load of bull I’ve ever heard — that were about telephone calls that she needed to make. The State Department typically puts a little ‘C’ on it to discourage people from discussing it in public in the event the secretary of state, whoever it is, doesn’t make a telephone call. Does that sound threatening to the national security to you?”
Hillary Clinton has been under fire since it was discovered last year that she exclusivelyused her own server to conduct all her work related email on.
On Friday, Bill Clinton went on to say it is inconceivable his wife was threatening national security.
“Do you really believe there are 300 career diplomats because that’s how many people were on these emails, all of whom were careless with national security? Do you believe that? Forget about Hillary, forget about her. Is that conceivable?”
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Link.
Have to love how it's cool for the Clintons to attack Comey.
Also he sounds a little stung, lends credence maybe to the idea that they're still being investigated, and adds some flavor to his personal mission to influence Lynch.
Last edited by a moderator:
badmojo1006
Footballguy
If there are debates, how many times do you think Hillary will respond to one of Trump's wild accusations with, "Was that sarcasm"?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Anthony Weiner caught in new flirty online chat
- New code name: "mongoose."
- When does Abedin drop this jackhole? Is this dirtbag going to be hanging around the WH?
- New code name: "mongoose."
- When does Abedin drop this jackhole? Is this dirtbag going to be hanging around the WH?
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Hi guys, still enjoying my vacation, but thought I'd check in here with some Saturday night thoughts:
1. Everything is going Hillary's way, thankfully. Hard to see how she loses now; I no longer fear a cataclysmic event that will turn things around. My only remaining concern is what we in California call the "Bradley effect"; namely that a lot of voters are prepared to vote for Trump but won't admit it in the polls. That seems unlikely to change the result but who knows? Makes me nervous.
2. A few people have taken the Hillary fans like myself to task here in recent days for predicting that Bernie Sanders would lose to Donald Trump. That's a little bit of revisionist history. For my own part, I did argue early on that Bernie would lose to the Republican candidate, but once it became clear that this candidate was going to be Trump, I stopped making that argument and wrote that in terms of winning it made no difference because the election would be about Trump, not about Hillary or Bernie. The dominant argument in this thread however, emphatically made by Sinn Fein and repeated by many others was the exact opposite: that Hillary would lose to Trump, and that Bernie was our only chance to defeat Trump. This argument was made all the way into early July: Sinn Fein, much like his alter ego Bernie fan H A Goodman, guaranteed a Hillary defeat (Goodman still does).
3. I'm a little surprised there is not more discussion here about the CNN revelations regarding Cheryl Mills. For the first time there appears to an inappropriate connection between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's time in the State Department. It is to be sure a tenuous connection; it doesn't prove "pay to play" (as I have pointed out in the past, in order to prove that you need to present a deliberate quid pro quo, and nobody has) but at the very least it seems to be improper and perhaps a violation of ethics.
4. Last summer the only guy in this forum willing to admit he was a Trump fan was Eminence. As Trump's popularity grew so did his supporters. Now it seems to have shrunk back to Eminence again; the others are nowhere to be seen. I almost feel sorry for Em (almost).
1. Everything is going Hillary's way, thankfully. Hard to see how she loses now; I no longer fear a cataclysmic event that will turn things around. My only remaining concern is what we in California call the "Bradley effect"; namely that a lot of voters are prepared to vote for Trump but won't admit it in the polls. That seems unlikely to change the result but who knows? Makes me nervous.
2. A few people have taken the Hillary fans like myself to task here in recent days for predicting that Bernie Sanders would lose to Donald Trump. That's a little bit of revisionist history. For my own part, I did argue early on that Bernie would lose to the Republican candidate, but once it became clear that this candidate was going to be Trump, I stopped making that argument and wrote that in terms of winning it made no difference because the election would be about Trump, not about Hillary or Bernie. The dominant argument in this thread however, emphatically made by Sinn Fein and repeated by many others was the exact opposite: that Hillary would lose to Trump, and that Bernie was our only chance to defeat Trump. This argument was made all the way into early July: Sinn Fein, much like his alter ego Bernie fan H A Goodman, guaranteed a Hillary defeat (Goodman still does).
3. I'm a little surprised there is not more discussion here about the CNN revelations regarding Cheryl Mills. For the first time there appears to an inappropriate connection between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's time in the State Department. It is to be sure a tenuous connection; it doesn't prove "pay to play" (as I have pointed out in the past, in order to prove that you need to present a deliberate quid pro quo, and nobody has) but at the very least it seems to be improper and perhaps a violation of ethics.
4. Last summer the only guy in this forum willing to admit he was a Trump fan was Eminence. As Trump's popularity grew so did his supporters. Now it seems to have shrunk back to Eminence again; the others are nowhere to be seen. I almost feel sorry for Em (almost).
G
Guest
Guest
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It's been discussed.
It's not the first time because the same connection via Mills & Abedin to the Foundation and Teneo has been discussed before.
The NEW info is that while we were all hemming/hawing over the drama of Comey and the political influence of the DOJ, the DOJ just shot down the FBI's request to investigate the CF behind closed doors not once but twice while no one was looking. Pretty much the scenario predicted with the server investigation came to pass with the Foundation with nary an eye blinking or any in time reporting. Now it's an oh btw after the fact revelation while the nation hangs on the balance of worrying about the Orange nutbag getting in as a result should anyone actually take notice.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
