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 (7 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
These relentless partisan attacks are making me and others like her more.  What are they so afraid of?  Sometime you know you are on the right side my the people by the character of the people fighting you.

 
Lochte lies and loses all his endorsements, Hillary lies and picks up endorsements.  
Shut it down, folks.  You're not gonna top this one for worst anti-Hillary post.  Concise, almost certainly stolen from social media based on the clumsy reference to non-political current events, and impossibly stupid.  This is the Mona Lisa of the genre. Perfection in 13 words. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Shut it down, folks.  You're not gonna top this one for worst anti-Hillary post.  Concise, almost certainly stolen from social media based on the clumsy reference to non-political current events, and impossibly stupid.  This is the Mona Lisa of the genre. Perfection in 13 words. 
Not to mention it is also in the running for probably the most nonsensical analogy ever made in this forum. Calling it impossibly stupid was being kind.

 
timschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
@squistion

- Wait a bloomin' second: JUNE 2009??? Who :censored: cares? Hillary set up her server during her confirmation hearing in January 2009. WTH difference does this make?
For that matter, what difference does it make that she discussed this with Colin Powell at all? 
I've wondered this too.  I have no idea why she (or her camp) keeps bringing it up as if it means something :shrug:    

 
Flying Spaghetti Monster said:
These relentless partisan attacks are making me and others like her more.  What are they so afraid of?  Sometime you know you are on the right side my the people by the character of the people fighting you.
Sometimes....in this instance you then take a look at who's on your side and realize you're ###### either way....epic race to the bottom this election is.

 
Even though this is the Hillary thread, it seems barely anyone is truly a supporter or defender of Hillary in the classic sense. I'm pretty sure any poster that could be pointed to as part of the "pro-Hill" crowd is on record with posts in here showing outright disdain for her as a person, if not stronger feelings of hatred. 

 
Cjw_55106 said:
Cmon. 

Comparing her with Trump proves what about her exactly? Pretty sad that lying 28% of the time is fine with a lot of people. 
It also matters what she lies about.  Operating the government as a pay-to-play scheme is as bad as it gets. 

 
Even though this is the Hillary thread, it seems barely anyone is truly a supporter or defender of Hillary in the classic sense. I'm pretty sure any poster that could be pointed to as part of the "pro-Hill" crowd is on record with posts in here showing outright disdain for her as a person, if not stronger feelings of hatred. 
:mellow:  

 
TobiasFunke said:
Shut it down, folks.  You're not gonna top this one for worst anti-Hillary post.  Concise, almost certainly stolen from social media based on the clumsy reference to non-political current events, and impossibly stupid.  This is the Mona Lisa of the genre. Perfection in 13 words. 
:lmao:   :lmao: You do realize you have Squissy on your team. 

 
Even though this is the Hillary thread, it seems barely anyone is truly a supporter or defender of Hillary in the classic sense. I'm pretty sure any poster that could be pointed to as part of the "pro-Hill" crowd is on record with posts in here showing outright disdain for her as a person, if not stronger feelings of hatred. 
We've done this before- this is wrong.  There are people who passionately support her and plenty more who like her and think she'd be a good president.  I'd put myself in the latter category. 

It's just that (1) those people, like Clinton herself, tend to be pragmatists rather than absolutists who think their candidate is the best and right about everything and every other candidate is the worst and wrong about everything; and more importantly (2) it's pointless to really praise or embrace Clinton on a message board comprised almost entirely of upper middle class Christian straight white men.  You'll just get shouted down.  Best you can do is answer sincere questions and challenges and mock the silliest of the attacks.

 
We've done this before- this is wrong.  There are people who passionately support her and plenty more who like her and think she'd be a good president.  I'd put myself in the latter category. 

It's just that (1) those people, like Clinton herself, tend to be pragmatists rather than absolutists who think their candidate is the best and right about everything and every other candidate is the worst and wrong about everything; and more importantly (2) it's pointless to really praise or embrace Clinton on a message board comprised almost entirely of upper middle class Christian straight white men.  You'll just get shouted down.  Best you can do is answer sincere questions and challenges and mock the silliest of the attacks.
Are you saying we don't fit the target demo?  :)

Agree with these points. I just find it interesting the labels put on posters like "the Hillary defenders", when for the most part posters in here have mixed feelings, even those voting for her.

 
Not to mention it is also in the running for probably the most nonsensical analogy ever made in this forum. Calling it impossibly stupid was being kind.
It wasn't an analogy. Id explain it to you but as Hillary supporter you likely are in her target demographic so it would be pointless. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Again, you are factually wrong about this.  Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have had their personal pockets lined by their private speaking engagements.

Sometimes I think the only reason why the Clinton Foundation exists at all is to confuse the issue for people like you who want to be confused.
Yet you're the one conflating the two in this first sentence of this post, which was in direct response to Tim specifically talking about the foundation.  It's obvious you know better, so why play this silly game? 

 
timschochet said:
And next you will bring up Edmund Hillary, and being fired at by snipers...

Why don't you just admit that you dislike her, first and foremost, because she is a liberal, and all the rest of this stuff is just window dressing? Your hatred of Hillary Clinton is 99% partisan.
Doesn't this bother you? These lies didn't have to be told , made no sense 

Reading a story in the WSJ about cattle futures trading

 
timschochet said:
Actually, the Colin Powell stuff is a small snippet of what she told the FBI-  it was just the part leaked by Republicans in Comgress because they knew that, taken out of context, it would do her the most damage. Which is why the Clinton campaign wanted the entire FBI report released in full to the public and not secretly to Congress, because they knew this crap was going to happen. 
:lol:   that's why the Clintons got their stooge Joe Conason to peddle it too..

 
Doesn't this bother you? These lies didn't have to be told , made no sense 

Reading a story in the WSJ about cattle futures trading
In the large scheme of things (meaning what Hillary Clinton will do to benefit this nation's security and prosperity as President, and what she will do to further issues important to me), the answer is no, I don't care about it at all. 

 
In the large scheme of things (meaning what Hillary Clinton will do to benefit this nation's security and prosperity as President, and what she will do to further issues important to me), the answer is no, I don't care about it at all. 
:goodposting:  Taking a break from boogeyman politics of personality, the platform, the stability, and the SC justices are more palatable under Clinton v. Trump. I can't accurately judge where Don is on policy, I think he figures he'll get elected and figure it out later

 
Has anyone talked about all the people associated with the Clintons who have mysteriously died or shot themselves in the back of the head while committing suicide? Latest count is up to 48 I believe. Probably all just coincidences. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Says the Hillary defender who thinks people should be fired for lying
Do you get a bulk discount on Straw Men?

I didn't say people should be fired for lying.

What I did say was that if Colin Powell's personal assistant made up a conversation she had with him and gave it to a reporter to be used as a quote of Powell's in his book, then she should be fired. Contrary to what you may think, that would grounds for termination in just about any company.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2. If Hillary as Secretary of State changed American policy as a result of personal greed or private influence, contributions to the Clinton Foundation, CGI, her husband, paid speeches, etc., etc., I would consider that corrupt behavior and have a huge problem with it. But meeting with contributors, giving them jobs or family members jobs, I don't really care about any of that. 

Hope that's clear. 



At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

What do you think they called or met to talk about, weather and sports? Checking on the family seeing how the grandkids are doing? 

 
Has anyone talked about all the people associated with the Clintons who have mysteriously died or shot themselves in the back of the head while committing suicide? Latest count is up to 48 I believe. Probably all just coincidences. 
About 100 times. Mr. Ham or MOP bring it up about once a week.

 
Do you get a bulk discount on Straw Men?

I didn't say people should be fired for lying.

What I did say was that if Colin Powell's personal assistant made up a conversation she had with him and gave it to a reporter to be used as a quote of Powell's in his book, then she should be fired. Contrary to what you may think, that would grounds for termination in just about any company.
I'm probably just parsing words right squis??  DOUBLE DOWN....GO ALL IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:   

Either he lied or his personal assistant lied when she told Conason she talked to Powell about the dinner conversation. If his personal assistant is just making up things and giving them to a reporter writing a book, then she should fired immediately as, being his representative, it damages his credibility.
 
Let me guess "just making up things" <> "lying", right squis???  Tough to take seriously from our resident "context guy" reading your entire comment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The facts behind Donald Trump’s many falsehoods

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-facts-behind-donald-trumps-many-falsehoods/2016/08/01/0571b048-582d-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html?utm_term=.84c9e7b85844

"Certainly, Clinton tells whoppers, too. But Glenn Kessler, The Post’s Fact Checker, tells me that in his six years on the beat, “there’s no comparison” between Trump and other politicians. Kessler says politicians’ statements get his worst rating — four Pinocchios — 15 percent to 20 percent of the time. Clinton is about 15 percent. Trump is 63 percent to 65 percent.

PolitiFact, similarly, rated Clinton statements false 28 percent of the time (including 2 percent rating “pants on fire,” the worst rating), while rating 70 percent of Trump statements false (including 17 percent “pants on fire”)."

 
Let me guess "just making up things" <> "lying", right squis???  Tough to take seriously from our resident "context guy" reading your entire comment.
If it is a completely made up quotation attributed to her boss that she is giving to a reporter for inclusion in a book, it is a distinction without a difference.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The world's oldest woman (116?) died last month, and may have been a Republican that saw something with the process server? Pretty suspicious, possible foul play (could have been staged to look like dying of old age)?  

 
Let me guess "just making up things" <> "lying", right squis???  Tough to take seriously from our resident "context guy" reading your entire comment.
If it is a completely made up quotation attributed to her boss that she is giving to a reporter for inclusion in a book, it is a distinction without a difference.
Oh I agree, which is why I :lol:  at you saying you didn't say it.

 
Yet you're the one conflating the two in this first sentence of this post, which was in direct response to Tim specifically talking about the foundation.  It's obvious you know better, so why play this silly game? 
Again, that just isn't true.  Anybody who wants to do so can dig back through the thread to see that.  Tim made some stupid comment about how there's evidence of Hillary being corrupt -- her and husband's speaking engagements are outstanding evidence of corruption.

 
What I did say was that if Colin Powell's personal assistant made up a conversation she had with him and gave it to a reporter to be used as a quote of Powell's in his book, then she should be fired. Contrary to what you may think, that would grounds for termination in just about any company.
What if the Secretary of State lied about how she handled classified information?  Would something analogous to that be grounds for termination in just about any company?

 
Oh I agree, which is why I :lol:  at you saying you didn't say it.
Fine, if all you can do is ridicule or insult me, that is your right, but don't expect me to respond to you in the future if laughing emojis is all you got.

If you want me to discuss anything with you, treat me with respect. If not, I won't bother to waste my time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the thing about this election. Neither Republican nor Democratic nominee is defensible.  

if the media had played their proper role, they would have flushed the Clinton turds 20 years ago.  If they had played their proper role, they would have retained enough credibility to flush the Trump turd long ago.  

As as it stands now, we will have an unpopular President, who will likely already have or will stumble their way into grounds for impeachment and a fourth estate that has sacrificed a great deal of their credibility.

 
OK, I think that both on this and the issue of donors we're talking over each other. So let me be clear: 

1. I have no problem with Hillary earning money from speeches. Ditka Butkis accused her, without evidence, of skimming money from the Clinton Foundation. I would have a problem with that, if it was true; it isn't. 

2. If Hillary as Secretary of State changed American policy as a result of personal greed or private influence, contributions to the Clinton Foundation, CGI, her husband, paid speeches, etc., etc., I would consider that corrupt behavior and have a huge problem with it. But meeting with contributors, giving them jobs or family members jobs, I don't really care about any of that. 

Hope that's clear. 
Yeah, only certain types of corruption are really corruption.  Other corruption isn't corruption.  Duh.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top