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 (9 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
In retrospect I think Hillary's divergence from the administration was probably calculated some time back because she knew Biden would be getting in and he would be carrying the third term mantle, hence she got out ahead of the ballgame.
I enjoy watching all your contortions trying to reconcile your prior predictions that Hillary would come out in favor of both Keystone and TPP, because of donations to the Foundation and Hillary being beholden to corporate interests, who supposedly own this corrupt and unprincipled woman.

That was then and this was now. Latest spin: A shrewd "calculated" move because she "knew Biden would be getting in" and this was her plan all along! :hophead:
How long ago were we having this conversation about the TPP? Was it June? When there was a vote? I try to avoid predictions but as I recall the question was whether Hillary would come out for or against the TPP while there was a throw-down in Congress over it. She did neither, she wouldn't even take a position. Now she claims she is against it. Before she wrote about it in a way to claim it as one of her accomplishments. Susan Rice named it one of Hillary's three great accomplishments. On Keystone she claimed she could not speak about something that she had been involved on in the administration before it had itself resolved what to do, yet at some point, recently she decided, meh, never mind, she could speak on it anyway despite her prior claim of being ethically barred to do so. Here she claimed... what again? Why couldn't she full-throatedly speak on this issue before now? Horse has left the barn, right? Congress by some machination voted it through so now we are on fast track and it's a fait accompli, right? Why is she speaking now at this specific time?

Hillary helped bring the TPP to fruition, negotiated it, spoke in favor of it for 3-4 years, wrote positively about it, touted it as an accomplishment, did nothing to stop it from getting passed (nothing), it will be in effect when she is president, she and her husband have received handsome payments from corporations that will profit from it.... but she's "against" it and solely because of new information she has only recently learned about it. That is a contortion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another possibility for the timing of the TPP announcement is that Hillary is having trouble with traditional big labor support, Teamsters, AFL-CIO. Just a guess but as I understand it she has had trouble wrapping them up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have a debate coming up, it's on Tuesday I do believe.

I am really wondering how the limited number of debates - 3-4 pre-Iowa? - will shake out for Hillary, It's desigend to protect her, but if things go south and she gets hammered she won't have many debates or have them soon enough to recover.

Sanders is obviously looming - the man is skilled in dialectic. If he wants to take her apart on ideology he can. i do think Hillary is strong on policy, disciplined, prepared... but not flexible. I don't know anything about the rules of the debate, the setup, where it will be, but I do know it will be shorter than the GOP debates. Then again far fewer candidates but that also means more focus on lesser candidates who will be looking for their chance to do something, anything to make their campaigns meaningful.

Jim Webb - I like this guy and wish I knew I had a chance to consider him for president. He's basically turned into Ferdinand wandering the fields but somewhere deep inside I'd like to think he wakes up on this one. My guess is his biggest threat to Hillary is challenging her mideast policy, especially Libya.

Martin O'Malley - I think he comes at her hard on TPP and Keystone, basically the flipflop argument in full force.

Lincoln Chafee - I know we may all laugh but he has been on her about Iraq since the beginning and even recently.



Lincoln Chafee needles Clinton: Iraq war vote ‘created all the problems’

Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee said Tuesday he’s seeking the Democratic nomination to keep the question of the Iraq War alive, one which implicitly haunts Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
Democrats need to point out that the problems with ISIS and other instability in the Middle East started with the Iraq War and should not be afraid to tag Republicans on the issue, Chafee, who was a senator at that time of the vote in 2002, said during a Christian Science Monitor Breakfast in Washington.
“They were the ones who invaded Iraq and created all the problems,” said Chafee, who was a Republican at the time and the only Republican senator to vote against the war. “Just politically speaking, it’s important for the Democrat Party to say that’s a Republican mistake that we now have to fix.”
Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2002, as did the 2004 Democratic nominee then-Sen. John Kerry.
He may also charge her on TPP:



Chafee accuses Clinton of ‘flip-flop’ on trade deal

Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee on Thursday accused rival Hillary Clinton of changing her position on a major international trade deal.
“I guess I’m the only Democratic candidate for president standing strong with President Obama on this issue,” Chafee, a former governor of Rhode Island, said during an appearance on CNN.
“Yes, it is a flip-flop,” Chafee added of Clinton’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), saying voters were interested in “your character and if you can stand strong on an issue.”
These guys have basically been the three little dwarves up 'til now but they may have some impact at the debate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In retrospect I think Hillary's divergence from the administration was probably calculated some time back because she knew Biden would be getting in and he would be carrying the third term mantle, hence she got out ahead of the ballgame.
I enjoy watching all your contortions trying to reconcile your prior predictions that Hillary would come out in favor of both Keystone and TPP, because of donations to the Foundation and Hillary being beholden to corporate interests, who supposedly own this corrupt and unprincipled woman.

That was then and this was now. Latest spin: A shrewd "calculated" move because she "knew Biden would be getting in" and this was her plan all along! :hophead:
How long ago were we having this conversation about the TPP? Was it June? When there was a vote? I try to avoid predictions but as I recall the question was whether Hillary would come out for or against the TPP while there was a throw-down in Congress over it. She did neither, she wouldn't even take a position. Now she claims she is against it. Before she wrote about it in a way to claim it as one of her accomplishments. Susan Rice named it one of Hillary's three great accomplishments. On Keystone she claimed she could not speak about something that she had been involved on in the administration before it had itself resolved what to do, yet at some point, recently she decided, meh, never mind, she could speak on it anyway despite her prior claim of being ethically barred to do so. Here she claimed... what again? Why couldn't she full-throatedly speak on this issue before now? Horse has left the barn, right? Congress by some machination voted it through so now we are on fast track and it's a fait accompli, right? Why is she speaking now at this specific time?

Hillary helped bring the TPP to fruition, negotiated it, spoke in favor of it for 3-4 years, wrote positively about it, touted it as an accomplishment, did nothing to stop it from getting passed (nothing), it will be in effect when she is president, she and her husband have received handsome payments from corporations that will profit from it.... but she's "against" it and solely because of new information she has only recently learned about it. That is a contortion.
The bolded is all that matters to Hillary.

 
Are people gonna watch the Dem debates? I mean, I will. But I fear the ratings will be a small fraction of what the Republicans are getting, due to the lack of trumpiness.

 
Hillary's major flip flops

1. Iraq War - Obviously voted for it, and now calls it a mistake.

2. Trade Agreements - Was pro-NAFTA and TPP, before deciding to oppose both

Later she discussed NAFTA in a 2003 memoir, writing “Creating a free trade zone in North America — the largest free trade zone in the world — would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal.”

By 2007, however, Clinton’s views on NAFTA had changed. In a 2007 debate during the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton contrasted her previous statements, saying in the debate NAFTA was the wrong course of action.
3. Crime - In 1994, it was fashionable to be "tough on crime", now, not so much.

In 1994, Hillary Clinton’s quotes about crime sound very different from her 2016 campaign when she talks about the problem of mass incarceration. “We need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” she said in 1994. “We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.”

During her latest campaign, Clinton has been an outspoken critic of the current criminal justice system. “We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance, and these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again,” Clinton said.
4. Gay Rights - Pro DOMA to Pro Gay Marriage

“Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman,” Clinton said in 2000.

Even as recently as 2014, despite having come out in favor of same-sex marriage the year before, Clinton was hesitant to endorse efforts for nationwide marriage equality, hiding behind the favorite Republican Party talking point of states’ rights.

“Marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists who work state-by-state,” she said.

But just a year later, with an ever increasing number of people supportive of establishing nationwide equality for same-sex couples, Clinton changed her tune. She advocated that the Supreme Court rule in favor of same-sex couples, in a clear contrast with her states-based approach from the previous year.
5. Drivers Licenses for undocumented immigrants - was Against, now For

During her quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton generated headlines when she said she would not support a proposal put forward by then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants that pass a driving test. This came after criticism that her position on the issue was not clear.

However, in her second bid for the Democratic nomination, Clinton has done a 180 on the issue. Clinton indicated the change in her position through a campaign spokesperson who said “Hillary supports state policies to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. This is consistent with her support for the president’s executive action.”

Clinton didn’t say what prompted her to switch her position on the issue, but in a primary where she is running in a full sprint to the left, it isn’t surprising that she has changed her tune in a way that appeals to progressives.
6. Ethanol

“In 2002, Clinton opposed the mandated use of just two billion gallons of ethanol per year,” the article stated. “But a mere five years later, after seeing that she had to go through Iowa — which produces more ethanol than any other state — to return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, she was advocating the use of 18 times that quantity of biofuel.”

The fact that Clinton flip-flopped on ethanol while campaigning for President in Iowa after she had consistently voted against ethanol related measures as a senator is telling of her tendency to take the politically convenient stance, rather than uphold any convictions. It shows that her predominate interest is getting elected, rather than adhering to principle.
 
Hillary's major flip flops

1. Iraq War - Obviously voted for it, and now calls it a mistake.

2. Trade Agreements - Was pro-NAFTA and TPP, before deciding to oppose both

Later she discussed NAFTA in a 2003 memoir, writing “Creating a free trade zone in North America — the largest free trade zone in the world — would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal.”

By 2007, however, Clinton’s views on NAFTA had changed. In a 2007 debate during the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton contrasted her previous statements, saying in the debate NAFTA was the wrong course of action.
3. Crime - In 1994, it was fashionable to be "tough on crime", now, not so much.

In 1994, Hillary Clinton’s quotes about crime sound very different from her 2016 campaign when she talks about the problem of mass incarceration. “We need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” she said in 1994. “We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.”

During her latest campaign, Clinton has been an outspoken critic of the current criminal justice system. “We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance, and these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again,” Clinton said.
4. Gay Rights - Pro DOMA to Pro Gay Marriage

“Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman,” Clinton said in 2000.

Even as recently as 2014, despite having come out in favor of same-sex marriage the year before, Clinton was hesitant to endorse efforts for nationwide marriage equality, hiding behind the favorite Republican Party talking point of states’ rights.

“Marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists who work state-by-state,” she said.

But just a year later, with an ever increasing number of people supportive of establishing nationwide equality for same-sex couples, Clinton changed her tune. She advocated that the Supreme Court rule in favor of same-sex couples, in a clear contrast with her states-based approach from the previous year.
5. Drivers Licenses for undocumented immigrants - was Against, now For

During her quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton generated headlines when she said she would not support a proposal put forward by then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants that pass a driving test. This came after criticism that her position on the issue was not clear.

However, in her second bid for the Democratic nomination, Clinton has done a 180 on the issue. Clinton indicated the change in her position through a campaign spokesperson who said “Hillary supports state policies to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. This is consistent with her support for the president’s executive action.”

Clinton didn’t say what prompted her to switch her position on the issue, but in a primary where she is running in a full sprint to the left, it isn’t surprising that she has changed her tune in a way that appeals to progressives.
6. Ethanol

“In 2002, Clinton opposed the mandated use of just two billion gallons of ethanol per year,” the article stated. “But a mere five years later, after seeing that she had to go through Iowa — which produces more ethanol than any other state — to return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, she was advocating the use of 18 times that quantity of biofuel.”

The fact that Clinton flip-flopped on ethanol while campaigning for President in Iowa after she had consistently voted against ethanol related measures as a senator is telling of her tendency to take the politically convenient stance, rather than uphold any convictions. It shows that her predominate interest is getting elected, rather than adhering to principle.
But that is her only principle.

 
Are people gonna watch the Dem debates? I mean, I will. But I fear the ratings will be a small fraction of what the Republicans are getting, due to the lack of trumpiness.
I'm guessing the traffic will be pretty low.

Sort of like NASCAR - you've got dedicated fans, you've got those looking for the upset but will only watch long enough to see if that's possible, and you've got people who tune in hoping for a major carwreck.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I fully expect Hillary to win the debate pretty handily. I've watched her in several debates over the years and she only ever messed up in one (about drivers licenses for illegals). Normally she is extremely competent, one of the best I've seen.

It probably won't matter since not a lot of people will be watching. And of course the Sanders fans are so invested in their guy that they'll see it as s victory for him no matter what happens. But Hillary will be fine.

 
I fully expect Hillary to win the debate pretty handily. I've watched her in several debates over the years and she only ever messed up in one (about drivers licenses for illegals). Normally she is extremely competent, one of the best I've seen.

It probably won't matter since not a lot of people will be watching. And of course the Sanders fans are so invested in their guy that they'll see it as s victory for him no matter what happens. But Hillary will be fine.
I think your assessment is right. In theory, this should be a cakewalk for her, but therein lies the problem. If she comes in like the over-confident, ice queen and handily wins the debate over the popular underdog, all this will do is enforce the idea she is an elitist and can't relate to normal people problems. She has to strike a balance and I don't know if she can do it. (and I don't mean faux tears)

There were several of us early on in this thread or the other one that talked about how unlikable she is and I know you disagreed with us, but she is not liked or trusted by a lot of people. This is her cross to bear.

 
Drudge On the media’s treatment of Hillary: “You’ve got to be the greatest you can be now–now. Before this country is so completely altered and we’re left with Hillary’s brain in the Oval Office in a jar. Cuz that’s what we’re getting. She is old and she’s sick. She is not a contender. They’re making her a contender with these propped up Saturday Night Live things; it’s like a head on a stick. And then on the Today show with [savannah Guthrie]–a head on a stick. She is not a viable, vibrant leader for this country of 300–including the illegals, 380 million–Americans. So the media is trying to put us to sleep.”

Drudge On Clinton-style retribution: “Look at anybody who has any form of success in the polls, is because they rumble… I’m very pessimistic on this race, because I’m just not so sure it’s not gonna end up with the dreaded brain in the jar in the Oval Office once known as Hillary Clinton, who is hypothyroid–anybody who is 70 years old who is hypothyroid, you do not elect President, ladies and gentlemen. You don’t do it… [i’m] just shaking now after seeing NBC giving her endless hours of airtime, over the past 72 hours, that Hillary’s back and that she’s back for real. Now what that means to you or me–what it means to me, I’ve got a long history with these people. They’re ugly; they play dirty. They sued me for 30 million dollars last time around–with the approval of the President, announced by the Press Secretary of the White House. A civil action. These people–and they didn’t have the NSA then… Hillary Clinton with the NSA? Good luck if you dissent. Good luck if you dissent. Snowden, I’ll switch places with you. You can come over here and rot in hell, cuz that’s what it’s gonna be.”

 
Benghazi committee... releases more Clinton emails

Hillary Clinton used her private email account to pass along the identity of one of the CIA’s top Libyan intelligence sources, raising new questions about her handling of classified information, according to excerpts from previously undisclosed emails released Thursday by Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

On March 18, 2011, Sidney Blumenthal — Clinton’s longtime friend and political adviser — sent the then secretary of state an email to her private account that contained apparently highly sensitive information he had received from Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official with whom Blumenthal at the time had a business relationship.

“Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted due to sources and methods],” the email states, according to Gowdy’s letter.

The redacted information was “the name of a human source,” Gowdy wrote to his Democratic counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, and was therefore “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community.”

“Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded the email to a colleague — debunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address,” wrote Gowdy in a letter to Cummings.

Clinton has repeatedly said she never sent or received classified information on her private email server “that was marked classified at the time that it was sent or received.” But the FBI, at the request of the inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department, is investigating the handling of classified information on the private server.

And while there is nothing that indicates that the email from Blumenthal (who was not a government employee) was marked classified at the time Clinton received it, the sensitive nature of its contents should have been a red flag and never should have been passed along, according to a former veteran CIA officer.

“She is exposing the name of a guy who has a clandestine relationship with the CIA on her private, unprotected server,” said John Maguire, who served for years as one of the CIA’s top Mideast officers.

In addition, he noted, the email should trigger a “crimes report” by the CIA to the Justice Department seeking an investigation into who within the agency revealed the information to Drumheller.

“Unless Tyler was blowing smoke, it’s an unauthorized disclosure of information,” said John Rizzo, a former CIA general counsel. “And it’s the most sensitive kind of classified information — the identity of a human source. She should have told Blumenthal, ‘delete this — and don’t send me that again.’ And then she should have reported it to State Department security.”

...

A CIA spokesman declined to comment. Drumheller, a 25-year CIA official who had once headed the agency’s European division, died in August.

Gowdy’s 13-page letter to Cummings, ranking member of the Benghazi panel, comes as the committee prepares for Clinton’s long-awaited public testimony, scheduled for Oct. 22. It was aimed at rebutting mounting Democratic criticism that the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans — including Ambassador Chris Stevens — has morphed into a partisan political exercise designed to damage Clinton’s candidacy. Gowdy says he is simply “following the facts.”

...


Cummings immediately shot back that Gowdy’s letter only proves the Democrats’ point. The letter “is a defensive and desperate attempt to save face, but it only proves that McCarthy’s statement is true — [Gowdy’s] new proposal to selectively release yet another subset of emails reveals his obsession with Secretary Clinton and no new information about the Benghazi attacks,” Cummings said in a statement.

The letters contained multiple excerpts from over 1,500 emails to and from Clinton about Libya — one-third of them from Blumenthal, a former journalist and longtime political adviser who had forged a business relationship with Drumheller and with Cody Shearer, another longtime friend of Clinton’s. The two were helping a security company called Osprey Global Solutions, headed by retired Army Major Gen. David Grange, a former Delta Force commander.

In one of the emails, Blumenthal informs Clinton about Osprey’s efforts to get a contract to provide “field medical help, military training, organize supplies and logistics” to Libyan rebels. “Tyler, Cody and I acted as honest brokers, putting this arrangement together though a series of connections, linking the Libyans to Osprey and keeping it moving,” Blumenthal wrote in the July 14, 2011, email to Clinton, according to Gowdy’s letter.

Blumenthal’s emails also included derisive remarks about others in the Obama White House, referring in one to then national security adviser Tom Donilon’s “babbling rhetoric” and Drumheller’s assessment of then Secretary of Defense Bob Gates as a “mean, vicious little #####.”

Gowdy in his letter called the contents of the Blumenthal emails “quite remarkable” and referred to the fact that Clinton relied on him for advice as “mind boggling.” James Cole, Blumenthal’s lawyer, did not respond to a request for comment.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/benghazi-committee-under-fire-releases-more-230352443.html

- AP
 
And of course the Sanders fans are so invested in their guy that they'll see it as s victory for him no matter what happens.
And of course Hillary fans are so invested in her that they'll see it as a victory for her no matter what happens.
I doubt it. Most Hillary fans, including myself, are the first to criticize her when she makes mistakes.
Did you really just call yourself a fan? :lmao:

 
If you don't understand that the name of a foreign CIA human intelligence source is Classified, you're too ignorant to be President. If you understand it but forward that information on an unsecured server then you are far too reckless to be President.

 
I fully expect Hillary to win the debate pretty handily. I've watched her in several debates over the years and she only ever messed up in one (about drivers licenses for illegals). Normally she is extremely competent, one of the best I've seen.

It probably won't matter since not a lot of people will be watching. And of course the Sanders fans are so invested in their guy that they'll see it as s victory for him no matter what happens. But Hillary will be fine.
I think your assessment is right. In theory, this should be a cakewalk for her, but therein lies the problem. If she comes in like the over-confident, ice queen and handily wins the debate over the popular underdog, all this will do is enforce the idea she is an elitist and can't relate to normal people problems. She has to strike a balance and I don't know if she can do it. (and I don't mean faux tears)

There were several of us early on in this thread or the other one that talked about how unlikable she is and I know you disagreed with us, but she is not liked or trusted by a lot of people. This is her cross to bear.
It's only a "cakewalk" if they get in the mud. Bernie won't go there. If Bernie does this correctly there will be him saying "glad you have finally come around to my side" or variations thereof.

 
And of course the Sanders fans are so invested in their guy that they'll see it as s victory for him no matter what happens.
And of course Hillary fans are so invested in her that they'll see it as a victory for her no matter what happens.
I doubt it. Most Hillary fans, including myself, are the first to criticize her when she makes mistakes.
In your case, the problem isn't that you're not willing to criticize her for making a mistake, it's that, when it comes to Hillary, 99% of the time, you can't recognize the mistake in the first place.

 
Wel lets see. In this thread I have criticized Hillary Clinton for:

1. Creating this whole unnecessary email mess.

2. Not handling the email mess well, and actually lying about it during her first TV interview.

3. Foreign policy decisions regarding Syria and pulling out of Iraq.

4. Avoiding a commitment on gay marriage until the political tide had turned.

5. Avoiding a position on Keystone.

6. Coming out against TPP

7. Pandering to the Sanders/Warren "populist" wing of the Democratic Party.

So yeah I am a fan and a firm supporter, but not an apologist.

 
I fully expect Hillary to win the debate pretty handily. I've watched her in several debates over the years and she only ever messed up in one (about drivers licenses for illegals). Normally she is extremely competent, one of the best I've seen.

It probably won't matter since not a lot of people will be watching. And of course the Sanders fans are so invested in their guy that they'll see it as s victory for him no matter what happens. But Hillary will be fine.
Have you ever seen Sanders live (ie live on tv)?

I've been extremely impressed in his tv interviews as he nails his point concisely in 2 minutes or so. He is very good rhetorically. Sanders has been doing town halls and debates since the early 70s. He's a lot better than you think or realize.

There will be three other candidates as well. Chafee is a joke as a candidate but he has no filter and nothing to lose. MOM is a governor and mayor and he can carry his own. And Webb has more gravitas than anyone in either field on foreign affairs especially.

 
Wel lets see. In this thread I have criticized Hillary Clinton for:

1. Creating this whole unnecessary email mess.

2. Not handling the email mess well, and actually lying about it during her first TV interview.

3. Foreign policy decisions regarding Syria and pulling out of Iraq.

4. Avoiding a commitment on gay marriage until the political tide had turned.

5. Avoiding a position on Keystone.

6. Coming out against TPP

7. Pandering to the Sanders/Warren "populist" wing of the Democratic Party.

So yeah I am a fan and a firm supporter, but not an apologist.
Shouldn't be all that shocked, but you have a really weird definition for "criticize".

 
And while there is nothing that indicates that the email from Blumenthal (who was not a government employee) was marked classified at the time Clinton received it
:whistle:
Redux

If you don't understand that the name of a foreign CIA human intelligence source is Classified, you're too ignorant to be President. If you understand it but forward that information on an unsecured server then you are far too reckless to be President.

 
And of course the Sanders fans are so invested in their guy that they'll see it as s victory for him no matter what happens.
And of course Hillary fans are so invested in her that they'll see it as a victory for her no matter what happens.
I doubt it. Most Hillary fans, including myself, are the first to criticize her when she makes mistakes.
How many months of falling poll numbers did it take you and Hillary to admit she might have made a mistake in setting up the server? I am not seeing this willingness to admit mistakes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I fully expect Hillary to win the debate pretty handily. I've watched her in several debates over the years and she only ever messed up in one (about drivers licenses for illegals). Normally she is extremely competent, one of the best I've seen.

It probably won't matter since not a lot of people will be watching. And of course the Sanders fans are so invested in their guy that they'll see it as s victory for him no matter what happens. But Hillary will be fine.
Have you ever seen Sanders live (ie live on tv)?

I've been extremely impressed in his tv interviews as he nails his point concisely in 2 minutes or so. He is very good rhetorically. Sanders has been doing town halls and debates since the early 70s. He's a lot better than you think or realize.

There will be three other candidates as well. Chafee is a joke as a candidate but he has no filter and nothing to lose. MOM is a governor and mayor and he can carry his own. And Webb has more gravitas than anyone in either field on foreign affairs especially.
Ive watched and listened to Sanders for years. He's excellent, and I expect him to do a very good job. I don't think he's quite up to Hillary's level but we'll see.
 
Wel lets see. In this thread I have criticized Hillary Clinton for:

1. Creating this whole unnecessary email mess.

2. Not handling the email mess well, and actually lying about it during her first TV interview.

3. Foreign policy decisions regarding Syria and pulling out of Iraq.

4. Avoiding a commitment on gay marriage until the political tide had turned.

5. Avoiding a position on Keystone.

6. Coming out against TPP

7. Pandering to the Sanders/Warren "populist" wing of the Democratic Party.

So yeah I am a fan and a firm supporter, but not an apologist.
That list is longer than your reasons to support her :oldunsure:

 
I fully expect Hillary to win the debate pretty handily. I've watched her in several debates over the years and she only ever messed up in one (about drivers licenses for illegals). Normally she is extremely competent, one of the best I've seen.

It probably won't matter since not a lot of people will be watching. And of course the Sanders fans are so invested in their guy that they'll see it as s victory for him no matter what happens. But Hillary will be fine.
Have you ever seen Sanders live (ie live on tv)?

I've been extremely impressed in his tv interviews as he nails his point concisely in 2 minutes or so. He is very good rhetorically. Sanders has been doing town halls and debates since the early 70s. He's a lot better than you think or realize.

There will be three other candidates as well. Chafee is a joke as a candidate but he has no filter and nothing to lose. MOM is a governor and mayor and he can carry his own. And Webb has more gravitas than anyone in either field on foreign affairs especially.
Ive watched and listened to Sanders for years. He's excellent, and I expect him to do a very good job. I don't think he's quite up to Hillary's level but we'll see.
I said this but Hillary is extremely prepared and disciplined, but she is not flexible. The debate rules will determine how things go. I don't know if this will be the standard talking points podium presentation style or if the candidates will be allowed to interact with and counter each other. If it's the former, advantage Hillary. If it's the latter advantage Sanders and the 3 Dwarves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wel lets see. In this thread I have criticized Hillary Clinton for:

1. Creating this whole unnecessary email mess.

2. Not handling the email mess well, and actually lying about it during her first TV interview.

3. Foreign policy decisions regarding Syria and pulling out of Iraq.

4. Avoiding a commitment on gay marriage until the political tide had turned.

5. Avoiding a position on Keystone.

6. Coming out against TPP

7. Pandering to the Sanders/Warren "populist" wing of the Democratic Party.

So yeah I am a fan and a firm supporter, but not an apologist.
Didn't you spend hours telling us she didn't lie? Or did you say she wasn't lying until you said she was?

 
I will be shocked if neutrals watching the debate do not declare Sanders the mythical "winner" of the debate.

Hillary has co-opted so many of Sanders' positions, that they won't disagree on much - thus the perception of "winning/losing" will come down to authenticity - and there is nothing Hillary is going to do to close the gap with Bernie on that.

So, my prediction is that most "voters" will think Sanders won, while most democratic establishment figures will think Clinton won - if for no other reason than she is unlikely to commit any gaffs.

 
And while there is nothing that indicates that the email from Blumenthal (who was not a government employee) was marked classified at the time Clinton received it
:whistle:
Redux

If you don't understand that the name of a foreign CIA human intelligence source is Classified, you're too ignorant to be President. If you understand it but forward that information on an unsecured server then you are far too reckless to be President.
But not too ignorant or reckless to be Vice President, like **** Cheney (see Scooter Libby and Valerie Plame). :hophead:

 
By the way if it turns out Blumenthal was hooking up gun running to friends with private gun running businesses, well that wouldn't be too good for him either. Or whoever helped him do so.

 
I want to add another criticism of Hillary to my list: I wish she would disassociate herself from David Brock. He is as slimy as it gets.

 
Bill White

Chairman & CEO

...White and business partner Joe Pecoraro help raise funds within the sale of Blackwater/Xe for current owners Academi. ...
http://www.constellationsgroup.com/about_us_bw.html

This is one of the persons involved in Libya. His company, Constellations Group, allegedly per the NYT hired Sid Blumenthal.

The Libya venture came together in 2011, when David L. Grange, a retired Army major general, joined with a newly formed New York firm, Constellations Group, to pursue business leads in Libya. Constellations Group, led by a professional fund-raiser and philanthropist named Bill White, was to provide the leads. Mr. Grange’s company, Osprey Global Solutions, based in North Carolina, would put “boots on the ground to see if there was an opportunity to do business,” Mr. Grange said in an interview.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/clinton-friends-libya-role-blurs-lines-of-politics-and-business.html?_r=2

- If the recent politico report is true then Blumenthal was pushing Hillary for the US gov to hire private security forces (for instance, like Blackwater in Iraq) to run guns and help deliver arms to rebels in Libya. White was involved in both Blackwater and the Constellations/Osprey/Blumenthal venture. More here:

Among the newly revealed emails were a pair of messages from July 2011 in which Blumenthal described efforts to secure Libyan government contracts for Osprey Global Solutions, a company in which Blumenthal has admitted to having a financial interest.

Blumenthal warned Clinton that French companies were looking to scoop up security contracts from the Transitional National Council, the revolutionary government of the Libyan resistance, and plugged Osprey’s ability to be an American counterweight.

“It puts Americans in a central role without being direct battle combatants,” Blumenthal wrote of Osprey’s TNC contract. He described his efforts in “putting this arrangement together through a series of connections, linking the Libyans to Osprey and keeping it moving.”

Clinton forwarded that message to Jake Sullivan, her deputy chief of staff, and asked to discuss it later.

Emails also show that Clinton actively promoted security arrangements that might have benefitted Osprey. Blumenthal told Clinton in an April 2011 email that Libyan revolutionary leaders were “considering the possibility of hiring private security firms to help train and organize their forces.”

Clinton forwarded that email to Sullivan, adding, “the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.”
From Blumenthal's keypad to the State Department's ears.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I want to add another criticism of Hillary to my list: I wish she would disassociate herself from David Brock. He is as slimy as it gets.
But that is exactly why Hillary is associated with him. You think she surrounds herself with law-abiding folks? Hillary?

 
timschochet said:
Wel lets see. In this thread I have criticized Hillary Clinton for:

1. Creating this whole unnecessary email mess.

2. Not handling the email mess well, and actually lying about it during her first TV interview.

3. Foreign policy decisions regarding Syria and pulling out of Iraq.

4. Avoiding a commitment on gay marriage until the political tide had turned.

5. Avoiding a position on Keystone.

6. Coming out against TPP

7. Pandering to the Sanders/Warren "populist" wing of the Democratic Party.

So yeah I am a fan and a firm supporter, but not an apologist.
Like I said, 99% of the time. You recognized seven out of hundreds, so I'd say I was accurate.

 
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
And while there is nothing that indicates that the email from Blumenthal (who was not a government employee) was marked classified at the time Clinton received it
:whistle:
Redux

If you don't understand that the name of a foreign CIA human intelligence source is Classified, you're too ignorant to be President. If you understand it but forward that information on an unsecured server then you are far too reckless to be President.
But not too ignorant or reckless to be Vice President, like **** Cheney (see Scooter Libby and Valerie Plame). :hophead:
**** Cheney was not the leaker, it was Richard Armitage. Scooter Libby got in trouble for lying to investigators. The Democrats spent a couple of years and tens of millions of dollars investigating. So I guess we can all agree that outing a CIA operative and misleading investigators is a bad thing.

 
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
And while there is nothing that indicates that the email from Blumenthal (who was not a government employee) was marked classified at the time Clinton received it
:whistle:
Redux

If you don't understand that the name of a foreign CIA human intelligence source is Classified, you're too ignorant to be President. If you understand it but forward that information on an unsecured server then you are far too reckless to be President.
But not too ignorant or reckless to be Vice President, like **** Cheney (see Scooter Libby and Valerie Plame). :hophead:
**** Cheney was not the leaker, it was Richard Armitage. Scooter Libby got in trouble for lying to investigators. The Democrats spent a couple of years and tens of millions of dollars investigating. So I guess we can all agree that outing a CIA operative and misleading investigators is a bad thing.
+ The DOJ opened an investigation then too.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top