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 (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
I doubt very seriously that most of the people posting in this thread could handle even 25% of Hillary's schedule. Talk about stamina. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

We're not voting for anyone in the FFA to run the free world.

Unless...do we have a unanimous write-in candidate to represent the FBG ticket? What if the user ID that we write in is an alias?

 
TobiasFunke said:
A fair criticism to be sure, and one that Dems have been leveling.

OTOH she's sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place on transparency. The public has made it fairly clear that they are willing to tolerate a lot more obfuscation from her rival than they are from her. 

Imagine what would happen, for example, if Clinton refused to release her tax info, and if her medical releases amounted to a single hilarious one page letter from this dude with no follow-up, and if she claimed to have given millions to charity but could produce no evidence of any giving in the last seven years and had in fact been spending other people's money on stuff like lawsuits targeting political opponents and six-foot paintings of herself, and if she'd funneled millions in campaign funds back to her family's business interests. If she did even half that stuff she'd be polling in the single digits.

So what is she to do?  She's stuck between doing what's best for the American people in terms of disclosure and doing what's best for the American people in terms of saving them from a white nationalist moron who doesn't know the difference between his ### and the South China Sea but who apparently is allowed to get away with pretty much anything.
Click to expand...
It is truly amazing the amount of latitude Hillary is giving because her opponent is a reality TV buffoon.  He really is the ideal candidate for her to run against.

 
Bob Magaw said:
Some articles suggest Clinton's estimate was too low.


The Media Has Been Pointing Out Trump’s ‘Basket Of Deplorables’ For Over A Year



Is Hillary Clinton not allowed to say what journalists have been saying all this time?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/media-basket-of-deplorables_us_57d6d9f2e4b03d2d459b87c4


Hillary Clinton Was Politically Incorrect, but She Wasn't Wrong About Trump's Supporters


Clinton said half of Donald Trump’s supporters were prejudiced. If anything, her numbers are too low.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/basket-of-deplorables/499493/

How and where racism is distributed in the election

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-wasnt-wrong-about-the-deplorables-among-trumps-supporters/2016/09/12/93720264-7932-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html?utm_term=.929eb27785f5

* Basket of Humanitarians (NYTimes coverage of Trump rallies - needless to say, adult language)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/donald-trump-supporters.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


Binders Full of Women

47%

 
TobiasFunke said:
A fair criticism to be sure, and one that Dems have been leveling.

OTOH she's sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place on transparency. The public has made it fairly clear that they are willing to tolerate a lot more obfuscation from her rival than they are from her. 

Imagine what would happen, for example, if Clinton refused to release her tax info, and if her medical releases amounted to a single hilarious one page letter from this dude with no follow-up, and if she claimed to have given millions to charity but could produce no evidence of any giving in the last seven years and had in fact been spending other people's money on stuff like lawsuits targeting political opponents and six-foot paintings of herself, and if she'd funneled millions in campaign funds back to her family's business interests. If she did even half that stuff she'd be polling in the single digits.

So what is she to do?  She's stuck between doing what's best for the American people in terms of disclosure and doing what's best for the American people in terms of saving them from a white nationalist moron who doesn't know the difference between his ### and the South China Sea but who apparently is allowed to get away with pretty much anything.
Click to expand...
It's facetious behavior anyway. They don't want transparency, they want ammunition.

 
TobiasFunke said:
So what is she to do?  She's stuck between doing what's best for the American people in terms of disclosure and doing what's best for the American people in terms of saving them from a white nationalist moron who doesn't know the difference between his ### and the South China Sea but who apparently is allowed to get away with pretty much anything.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why she needs to be transparent. It's already been demonstrated you don't beat Trump by running on policy. The best way to beat Trump is by running on integrity. Right now she is failing that test just as badly as him.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
It is truly amazing the amount of latitude Hillary is giving because her opponent is a reality TV buffoon.  He really is the ideal candidate for her to run against.
Click to expand...
Except for the part where the public apparently allows him to get away with stuff that would have doomed a politician held to usual standards of the presidency ten times over.  Which is kind of a big problem for her, as it would be for any non-demagogue.

 
dutch said:
Also irrelevant to Hillary's physical ability to handle the job requirements of being President.  She has shown for years she can handle the stress, the grind and the travel.
Click to expand...
Ok agree but we also can't say she has had dehydration/fainting episodes 2005, 2008, 2009, 2012 & 2016, and who knows when else, from a combination of bugs and overwork and say that won't be a factor as president. She will be working 24/7/365 as president.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Except for the part where the public apparently allows him to get away with stuff that would have doomed a politician held to usual standards of the presidency ten times over.  Which is kind of a big problem for her, as it would be for any non-demagogue.
Click to expand...
A very bizarre dynamic indeed. The odd double-standards, the false equivalencies, the "they both do it" arguments, are so disconnected from reality. I think it's because the underlying support for these candidates is more personal and emotionally driven than most people want to admit. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok agree but we also can't say she has had dehydration/fainting episodes 2005, 2008, 2009, 2012 & 2016, and who knows when else, from a combination of bugs and overwork and say that won't be a factor as president. She will be working 24/7/365 as president.
Click to expand...
She's been working non-stop for decades.  She's ready for the job.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok agree but we also can't say she has had dehydration/fainting episodes 2005, 2008, 2009, 2012 & 2016, and who knows when else, from a combination of bugs and overwork and say that won't be a factor as president. She will be working 24/7/365 as president.
Click to expand...
Of course it will be a factor.  So what?  Presidents get sick. Pretty much all of them have, and until we perfect cyborg technology almost all of them will, including potentially Trump, a 70 year old who has released virtually no medical information, lives an unhealthy lifestyle, and had a father who got Alzheimers. If you're looking for a 100% guarantee that the president won't be hindered in performing their duties due to health concerns, I've got some bad news for you.

In the meantime, if you're looking for reassurances against failing health, I say vote for the old woman with the capable VP, who surrounds herself with experienced and mostly trustworthy  and stable advisors. Seems preferable to the even older man with the homophobic David Duke-empathizing VP, who surrounds himself with anti-Semitic conspiracy theory peddlers, Russian sycophants, surrogates who call for the public execution of his opponent, Rudy Giuliani, and other assorted clowns and idiots :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Of course it will be a factor.  So what?  Presidents get sick. Pretty much all of them have, and until we perfect cyborg technology almost all of them will, including potentially Trump, a 70 year old who has released virtually no medical information, lives an unhealthy lifestyle, and had a father who got Alzheimers. If you're looking for a 100% guarantee that the president won't be hindered in performing their duties due to health concerns, I've got some bad news for you.

In the meantime, if you're looking for reassurances against failing health, I say vote for the old woman with the capable VP, who surrounds herself with experienced and mostly trustworthy  and stable advisors. Seems preferable to the even older man with the homophobic David Duke-empathizing VP, who surrounds himself with anti-Semitic conspiracy theory peddlers, Russian sycophants, surrogates who call for the public execution of his opponent, Rudy Giuliani, and other assorted clowns and idiots :shrug:
Click to expand...
It's almost unfair when you put it that way because you know I agree with you.

However if you turn it into a political issue (as opposed to what's really wrong with her if anything) it's maybe a matter of just perspective because while I agree with you it ticks me off that Hillary allowed this to happen or alternatively that she didn't explain to people it could happen. So politically speaking what should have been an advantage - Bornstein, Trump's medical deferment, his 80s/90s sexscapades, his lack of any real medical history - has now become an unnecessary liability for the rest of the campaign.

I'm still confident she wins because on the other side you have Dale Brown calling the 'freak' defense as a play, but it's still poor politics.

 
TobiasFunke said:
A fair criticism to be sure, and one that Dems have been leveling.

OTOH she's sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place on transparency. The public has made it fairly clear that they are willing to tolerate a lot more obfuscation from her rival than they are from her. 

Imagine what would happen, for example, if Clinton refused to release her tax info, and if her medical releases amounted to a single hilarious one page letter from this dude with no follow-up, and if she claimed to have given millions to charity but could produce no evidence of any giving in the last seven years and had in fact been spending other people's money on stuff like lawsuits targeting political opponents and six-foot paintings of herself, and if she'd funneled millions in campaign funds back to her family's business interests. If she did even half that stuff she'd be polling in the single digits.

So what is she to do?  She's stuck between doing what's best for the American people in terms of disclosure and doing what's best for the American people in terms of saving them from a white nationalist moron who doesn't know the difference between his ### and the South China Sea but who apparently is allowed to get away with pretty much anything.
Click to expand...
The public or the media?  Speaking personally, just because I don't talk about Trump doesn't mean I like him or even tolerate him.  He's simply not worth the brain power.  It's part of the reason I don't even go in the Trump thread.  What's the point? 

Hillary's issues with transparency have been a problem long before this run for President.  Looking at them in the vacuum of this campaign and specifically in comparison to Trump is a fool's folly IMO.  There's a history that has gotten us to where we're at with Hillary.  Personally, I hold our media, first and foremost, responsible for letting the things you bring up as examples slide.  Unfortunately, "importance" is a narrative driven by what is being covered.  If a person sees CNN talking about X for days and days, it begins to suggest "hey, this might be important".  Right or wrong, that's how it works right now.  If the media keeps talking about it (which they seem unwilling to do for whatever reason) it stays front and center.

She has a swath of people out there that don't trust her.  They may be just fine with her platform, but that foundation of trust simply isn't there.  Being more open and transparent is a step in the right direction for fixing that.  Being less open and less transparent is a step in the wrong direction.  Does being more transparent open her to more criticism?  Sure it does.  Does the additional criticism come from a valid source?  Most likely no....it doesn't.  I get that she's down the rabbit hole pretty far at this point, and if I'm being honest, I'm not sure she could ever win me over, but I wouldn't discount it completely...honesty and self reflection go a long way with a person like me.

 
Boston said:
No way to know...she deleted all that info...
Click to expand...
If she didn't do any work then no worries about what was deleted.  You should check with the FBI to find out if any of the 50000 pages of documents Hillary handed over contained work product from the end of her term.

 
The General said:
Trump talks about his little schlong during a debate.

Building a wall is the central most important part of his campaign's beginnings.

Dismisses POW Senator and one time presidential nominee of your part as a loser who got caught.

Attack parents of soldier because they disagree with you and comparing his loss and sacrifice  to theirs.

There's 30-40 more, these just came to mind. 
Click to expand...
Comrade Manafort

Trump admitting he could shoot somebody on Fifth Ave. and not lose any supporters.

Encouraging violence at his rallies (I wanted to punch that guy, offering to pay legal bills for an assault charge).

Going Moe from Three Stooges after criticism in the wake of the DNC - I just wanted to... Why I oughta... I just wanted to... Why I oughta... hit that guy, so hard, it would make his head spin.

At a security briefing asking three times why he couldn't use nukes.

In a post Cold-War, Dr. Strangelove landscape of MAD, he is quoted that he wants to be "unpredictable" with nukes.

He knows more about ISIS than the generals and has a plan to defeat them only it is a secret so ISIS doesn't know - the secret plan is later revealed to maybe involve asking generals what to do, and he'll recognize a good plan if he sees it.

He would solve all crime in the first week because he talked to some "strong looking guy" who may or may not have been in the Chicago Police that nobody seems to know about.

Dwayne Wade's cousin is shot and his first instinct is to say - Told ya so.

Makes an aggressive illegal immigrant policy a cornerstone of his campaign strategy, than it comes to light that he employed undocumented Polish workers (who he then stiffed their pay). His wife Melania may have illegally worked and stayed in the country with the wrong kind of visa.

Complains about pay for play, than his "charitable foundation/slush fund" is caught bribing a Florida woman to not bring fraud charges against Trump U. In a deposition, he can't remember that he claimed he had the world's greatest memory.

Brags about exploiting BK loopholes because that is what the US system permits and successful businessmen do, leaves thousands of small business workers in Jersey casinos holding the bag, than talks about how he stands for the "little guy".

Repeatedly rails on Obama and Clinton for causing the Iraq War as if they started it (and not Bush) and talks about how he wasn't for it, though their is irrefutable evidence of a Stern interview in which he was, than when repeatedly corrected, keeps perpetuating the lie, seemingly on the basis if you tell a lie enough it becomes the truth.

His surrogate "Crazy" Katy Pierson claims Obama and Clinton policies caused the death of the Khan's son - a half decade before Obama was elected.

They trot out a Russian born campaign adviser with a thick accent named BORIS unironically claiming there is no connection between Russia and the campaign.

Trump seriously asks Russia to spy on the Clinton campaign to influence the election, than when the press turns on him, berates the "dumb press" for not telepathically realizing he was "being sarcastic". 

Countless politicians and security agents extending to high levels of government ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE warning that Trump is not only not a serious or credible candidate, but extremely dangerous and temperamentally unfit for excutive office.

Chronic, habitual pattern of second grade insults and bullying tactics earlier in the Republican debate process.

The whole recent Mexican escapade/fiasco where he claimed they had a great meeting yet just a few hours later the Mexican President ended up in a Twitter war with him, not to mention the bizarre fugue state in which fire and brimstone, deport everybody Donald morphs into a kinder, gentler, softer "Amnesty" Don, than is back to wanting to deport more than 10 million people ASAP - ALL WITHIN A POLICY WHIPLASH-INDUCING 24 HOURS!!!

For a time sabotaged his own party by withholding support for Ryan and McCain due to personal grudges (making himself look petty, juvenile and vindictive in the process).

Claims the fix is in on the election before it is even over, while having no lucid, coherent or intelligible ground game prep of his own, and solicits extra-legal private election day voting booth security/militia watchdogs (i.e. - roving bands of Boss Tweed, Pendergast Machine-like goon squads) to ratchet up the intimidation factor, when some states such as Florida permit concealed weapons - what could go wrong?       

There are probably actually hundreds if not thousands of such instances.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace Under Pressure said:
It's the "therefore, Trump" part of the argument I don't get.
Click to expand...
I think you're overestimating the number of people making the "therefore, Trump" argument. His actual supporters don't care what Hillary does so that isn't really their argument. And many of her critics in this thread have no plans to vote for the orange one.

 
Murph said:
This is exactly why she needs to be transparent. It's already been demonstrated you don't beat Trump by running on policy. The best way to beat Trump is by running on integrity. Right now she is failing that test just as badly as him.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

Hillary running on integrity is like Sarah Palin running on raw intellect....

 
The Commish said:
The public or the media?  Speaking personally, just because I don't talk about Trump doesn't mean I like him or even tolerate him.  He's simply not worth the brain power.  It's part of the reason I don't even go in the Trump thread.  What's the point? 

Hillary's issues with transparency have been a problem long before this run for President.  Looking at them in the vacuum of this campaign and specifically in comparison to Trump is a fool's folly IMO.  There's a history that has gotten us to where we're at with Hillary.  Personally, I hold our media, first and foremost, responsible for letting the things you bring up as examples slide.  Unfortunately, "importance" is a narrative driven by what is being covered.  If a person sees CNN talking about X for days and days, it begins to suggest "hey, this might be important".  Right or wrong, that's how it works right now.  If the media keeps talking about it (which they seem unwilling to do for whatever reason) it stays front and center.

She has a swath of people out there that don't trust her.  They may be just fine with her platform, but that foundation of trust simply isn't there.  Being more open and transparent is a step in the right direction for fixing that.  Being less open and less transparent is a step in the wrong direction.  Does being more transparent open her to more criticism?  Sure it does.  Does the additional criticism come from a valid source?  Most likely no....it doesn't.  I get that she's down the rabbit hole pretty far at this point, and if I'm being honest, I'm not sure she could ever win me over, but I wouldn't discount it completely...honesty and self reflection go a long way with a person like me.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's the public or the media, to be honest.  Probably both.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but barring either death or a debilitating long term health problem, either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is going to be the next president of the United States.  You can call it whatever you want, talk about looking at the candidates in a vacuum instead of relative to one another all you want, but it's the truth. Here in reality, for the next eight weeks every criticism of Clinton has to be seen through the prism of whether it makes her less desirable as president of the United States than a buffoonish, moronic, hateful, thin-skinned demagogue. I'll worry about her transparency relative to the public's right to information once we've defeated her significantly less transparent (and also worse in every other conceivable way) opponent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim Kaine denies the existence of "sanctuary cities."

that should, no doubt, lead to some productive discussion

 
Murph said:
I think you're overestimating the number of people making the "therefore, Trump" argument. His actual supporters don't care what Hillary does so that isn't really their argument. And many of her critics in this thread have no plans to vote for the orange one.
Click to expand...
I hope so. But I would echo this sentiment: there are two choices. Voting third party, or not voting, is still a choice. And those choices don't help Hillary beat Donald, which is the bottom line outcome, because otherwise Donald will beat Hillary. Whether they planned to vote for him or not.

 
TobiasFunke said:
for the next eight weeks every criticism of Clinton has to be seen through the prism of whether it makes her less desirable as president of the United States than a buffoonish, moronic, hateful, thin-skinned demagogue. I'll worry about her transparency relative to the public's right to information once we've defeated her significantly less transparent (and also worse in every other conceivable way) opponent.
Click to expand...
And dismissing those criticisms turns off a segment of voters who might otherwise be willing to jump on the Clinton train. You can call it false equivalency but it is a real segment of the electorate that just says a pox on both their houses.

 
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
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top