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.
Not true, and in any case, it has nothing to do with racism.
Based on the DNC emails earlier this summer, looks like the Democratic party has a bit of a racist problem.  But that's nothing we on the right didn't already know.  You pay good lip service to get votes, but behind the curtain Democrats are as racist as the ones they accuse.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You seem to be missing the point - Hillary released the rumor into the wild - she can't now disavow ownership because it went off in ways that she clearly intended...yes the GOP took it  and ran - but the sinister intent was there from the beginning.
And herein lies the crux of the problem.  Tim appears very hostile and defensive about this, probably frustrated that a clear talking point negative to Trump is being played into a negative talking point about Hillary, and that irks him to no end.  But, you know, reap what you sow.  She was ultimately responsible for it in the first place.

 
And herein lies the crux of the problem.  Tim appears very hostile and defensive about this, probably frustrated that a clear talking point negative to Trump is being played into a negative talking point about Hillary, and that irks him to no end.  But, you know, reap what you sow.  She was ultimately responsible for it in the first place.
And how convenient to apologize when the damage was already done.  How fake and disingenuous.

 
Not an answer. Still waiting and if you keep returning to this thread without answering what you meant by that statement, I will keep asking until you do.

 
It's important to note as well that if even the Clinton campaign HAD taken Penn's recommendation it wasn't the same. To say that Obama has "middle eastern roots" is bad enough and subtly racist; to claim that he wasn't born here, that he's illegitimate is BLATANTLY racist. 

Trump is hoping this story will go away now. Hopefully the media won't let it.
I don't get this at all.  The first statement seems way more racist than the second.  Lots of people of all races weren't born in the US.  Pretty sure Prince William wasn't, and I'm pretty sure I'm not being racist by saying so.

 
Look, I like Sanders.  I wish he'd won the nomination.  But he didn't, and the logic being employed here is IMO a little strained. Sanders would cost the Dems at least some black and female votes, if for no other reason than because some people would stay home because they don't seem to like him as much as they like Clinton. That's difficult to deny.  And Trump would absolutely come up with some sort of ridiculous "scandal" or insult to hang on Sanders, and it would stick with his supporters and spread across social media regardless of how true or fair it might be.  That's also difficult to deny. 
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/741350-bernie-sanders-for-president-in-2016/?page=434#comment-19123594

@TobiasFunke

I apologize, I got you confused with trey. My thought still stands re tim though.

The namby-pamby conservadems are the proximate cause of the possibility of President Trump. The fear of open primaries was always oddball influence from the right. That theory doesn't seem quite so plausible any more. As fewer and fewer people identify with one of the big two parties, there needs to be a movement towards third party candidates. Increasing third party % of votes helps because their messages will get co-opted by one of the two big parties to woo supporters. It also may allow for a viable candidate in a future election, Gary Johnson isn't going to get there, but could a Huntsman or a Kasich or a Bernie or a Warren carve out a path to 270 on an alternate line? Seems more likely than it did a year ago.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've said this before, but I seriously think certain posters here might be autistic (or on the spectrum, like Asberger).  There's an incredibly strange and abnormal notebook floating around in certain quarters.  
I prefer the term Strawtistic.  It's painfully obvious, to the point I'm reluctant to engage it on any level.

 
He doesn't have to answer to you, and you really should let this go because it went from creepy to scary.
Of course he doesn't.  No one has to answer to any other poster here.

He makes a statement on this forum and refuses to explain what he meant. Does he have that right? Absolutely? And it not unreasonable for me or anyone else to ask for an answer until he does, particularly since he keeps coming into this thread and trashing Hillary.

Deal for HT, stay out of this thread and I won't ask more embarrassing questions in any other thread, such as "Please explain what you meant by that statement".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course he doesn't.  No one has to answer to any other poster here.

He makes a statement on this forum and refuses to explain what he meant. Does he have that right? Absolutely? And it not unreasonable for me or anyone else to ask for an answer until he does, particularly since he keeps coming into this thread and trashing Hillary.

Deal for HT, stay out of this thread and I won't ask more embarrassing questions in any other thread, such as "Please explain what you meant by that statement".
Is everything okay?

 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/09/hillary-clinton-racist-top-5/

1. “Hard-working white Americans” prefer her to Obama. In May 2008, Clinton told the USA Today that while Obama was leading the delegate race, she still had a broader political base. Unfortunately, she made that claim in explicitly racial terms, citing an Associated Press poll “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

2. “Colored People’s Time.” Clinton appeared alongside left-wing New York City mayor Bill de Blasio at the annual Inner Circle Dinner this year, and joined in a racist joke based on a stereotype that black people are late for everything:


Clinton: I just have to say thanks for the endorsement, Bill. Took you long enough. [Laughter]

De Blasio: Sorry Hillary, I was running on C.P. time. [Audience gasps]

Host: I don’t like jokes like that.



As Mediate later noted, the cable news networks mostly ignored the racist joke.

3. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wasn’t really THAT great. As she struggled to stop the Obama insurgency in the 2008 Democratic primary, Clinton tried to diminish Obama’s credentials as a “community organizer,” which had led some to draw connections between him and Dr. King. Clinton argued that it was really a professional politician, President Lyndon Johnson, who made the difference: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act”

4. “Ah don’t feel no ways TAHHHHHRD.” Clinton, like Vice President Al Gore, and indeed like President Obama himself, has a tendency to imitate what she believes to be an African-American accent when she speaks before black audiences. Obama, who grew up in Hawaii, at least has some cultural competence and experience, honed through practice in inner city Chicago. Clinton manages to sound condescending every time — most notoriously in this cringe-worthy clip from 2008.



5. Obama’s “slumlord,” and “super predators.” Losing traction in 2008, Clinton belatedly attacked Obama’s connection to fraudster and fundraiser Tony Rezko: “I was fighting against those [Reagan] ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago,” she said in a South Carolina debate. The remark was described as racist by Obama fans — as was her 1996 term for chronic criminals, “super predators.”

 
its amazing how the media will go to lengths to really interpret and extrapolate meaning from certain Trump and Surrogates comments, but stuff like that CP time B.S., which was SCRIPTED, gets no attention or notice.

People say, "why do trump supporters ignore facts about him that would hurt him" (well they don't say that but paraphrased). 

And to me its quite clear, that even people that aren't in the know, can see and sense the distortions, and thus are less willing to trust ACTUAL arrows that Trump should take with all this chicken little talk, when they don't the same to Hillary on stuff like CP time

 
Of course he doesn't.  No one has to answer to any other poster here.

He makes a statement on this forum and refuses to explain what he meant. Does he have that right? Absolutely? And it not unreasonable for me or anyone else to ask for an answer until he does, particularly since he keeps coming into this thread and trashing Hillary.

Deal for HT, stay out of this thread and I won't ask more embarrassing questions in any other thread, such as "Please explain what you meant by that statement".
You sure know how to make a rear end of yourself.

 
According to this report, based on IRS filings, Clinton Foundation provided over $5 million to charity grants in 2014. That's less than 6% of their spending  :excited: . $500 million "other expenses".

Clinton Foundation 5.7% to charity.
You don't get to live a lavish lifestyle and run for President by giving all your money away.  The Clinton Foundation is nothing more than a slush fund for the Clintons - it's primary purpose.

 
Pretty bold of you to show your face in this thread.  You're running a risk of being on the receiving end of a serious question-asking.  I would probably crack under the stress if I were in your shoes. 

 
Of course he doesn't.  No one has to answer to any other poster here.

He makes a statement on this forum and refuses to explain what he meant. Does he have that right? Absolutely? And it not unreasonable for me or anyone else to ask for an answer until he does, particularly since he keeps coming into this thread and trashing Hillary.

Deal for HT, stay out of this thread and I won't ask more embarrassing questions in any other thread, such as "Please explain what you meant by that statement".
Haven't you called people out for alleged "Tim-stalking"? Be careful not to throw stones in glass houses.

 
Other expenses include then progams the foundation runs.  The Clintons do not personally make one dime from the foundation.  
Wow....am I reading this right?   You are saying that the Clinton's make no money from it's foundation?   Are you talking legitimate money or money under the table?   I mean...there is simply no way that anyone believes that the Clinton's are not skimming money from this.   Right?  

 
Other expenses include then progams the foundation runs.  The Clintons do not personally make one dime from the foundation.  
Perhaps not directly.  But, you're being deliberately obtuse to ignore how they personally have made millions upon millions of dimes indirectly through the foundation's existence and the intersection of political and financial capital.

 
Perhaps not directly.  But, you're being deliberately obtuse to ignore how they personally have made millions upon millions of dimes indirectly through the foundation's existence and the intersection of political and financial capital.
"Obtuse" is TGunz' middle name.  David Koresh and Jim Jones only wished they had followers as zealous, blind and obtuse as him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top