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 (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, this is true, if you ignore the fact that on every major issue that has been stressed by Trump, Hillary takes the exact opposite view. But other than that...
Tough argument to make isn't it Tim...you need to add the qualifier "today" on the end of "Hillary takes the exact opposite view".  Would be an interesting exercise to go through his positions and see when Hillary held the same (or very similar) position.

 
Do you mean now that she moved a million miles left to snuff out Bernie or how she'll actually government as a centrist?
No I don't. You said she was ideologically similar to Trump. Trump is anti-immigrant, anti-free trade, a nativist, an isolationist, doesn't believe in climate change, is in not interested in black issues, wants to cut corporate taxes, and will appoint only pro-life justices. So please explain how Hillary is similar to this, now or ever. 

 
Tough argument to make isn't it Tim...you need to add the qualifier "today" on the end of "Hillary takes the exact opposite view".  Would be an interesting exercise to go through his positions and see when Hillary held the same (or very similar) position.
It depends on the year and election season.  We could do a video/transcript mash-up of Hillary's positions and make it seems she agrees with 98% of what Trump says.  Mash up another set of excerpts of hers--again, change the year, change the audience--and she could be made to look like she agrees with only 8% of what Trump has to say.

This is what you get when you have no intrinsic belief system, except what gets you money, power, and titles.

 
Tough argument to make isn't it Tim...you need to add the qualifier "today" on the end of "Hillary takes the exact opposite view".  Would be an interesting exercise to go through his positions and see when Hillary held the same (or very similar) position.
No you don't. Hillary in her entire career has never held most of the positions Trump stresses now, so this is simply wrong. 

 
No I don't. You said she was ideologically similar to Trump. Trump is anti-immigrant, anti-free trade, a nativist, an isolationist, doesn't believe in climate change, is in not interested in black issues, wants to cut corporate taxes, and will appoint only pro-life justices. So please explain how Hillary is similar to this, now or ever. 
Again...depends on which point in time you are referring to Tim.  I also think it's absolutely unfair to say Trump is "anti-immigrant".  It's the illegal part he and a lot of people have issue with, but that's more difficult to get all :hophead: over.  I also don't know how one is an "isolationist" when it appears they want to rule the world.  Seems like the exact opposite.

 
No you don't. Hillary in her entire career has never held most of the positions Trump stresses now, so this is simply wrong. 
Huh? Didn't Trump say he was in favor of the mandate? Wasn't that her thing for a while? They're both against the TPP, right? Hillary was in favor of the border fence in 2008 not to mention some of the offensive stuff she said about immigrants while running for NY Senate. It would make for an interesting comparison.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does she support TPP?

This is one I think she finally got right, but this is evidence of her not supporting free trade as TPP is being sold.

 
Climate Change:

Don't really know where she stands philosophically.  It's a pretty vague subject for her.  What we do know is she supports Obama's power plant rules.  She is a proponent of "fracking" stateside and abroad.  She supports offshore drilling for oil.  Her family foundation takes a lot of money from oil countries.  Did she ever comment on Keystone?  At one point she refused to comment for political reasons (which were fine by me).  It's hard to say where she lands on this issue based on her actions.

 
Nativist?  She's the opposite?

That means she favors immigrants over the citizens that are already here.  I see nothing in her positions that would suggest this is true.  She wouldn't be this successful in politics if this were true.  On the flip side, I don't see why being nativist in this sense is a bad thing that one would have to shy away from, so you'd have to clarify more before we went further.

 
Black issues?  Ok....I need more specifics as to what you're talking about here.  Are we talking about the privatization of prisons here?  What?

 
1. Yes she is against TPP (which disappoints me) but she has never been anti-free trade and she certainly doesn't want the tariffs that Trump is recommending against China, Mexico, etc. 

2. She has been for tighter border controls but only as a trade off for  path to citizenship. She has always supported a path to citizenship for the illegals already here. 

3. She has accepted the truth of man made climate change since the mid 90s 

I could go on and on. This is really stupid to be honest. 

 
"She called our boys ‘super-predators’ in ’96, then she race-baited when running against Obama in ‘08, now she’s a lifelong civil rights activist. I just want to know which Hillary is running for President, the one from ’96, ’08, or the new Hillary?”
This sound bite from 1996 is going to sink her any day now. Right after the email indictments.

 
Climate Change:

Don't really know where she stands philosophically.  It's a pretty vague subject for her.  What we do know is she supports Obama's power plant rules.  She is a proponent of "fracking" stateside and abroad.  She supports offshore drilling for oil.  Her family foundation takes a lot of money from oil countries.  Did she ever comment on Keystone?  At one point she refused to comment for political reasons (which were fine by me).  It's hard to say where she lands on this issue based on her actions.
I actually never looked up her beliefs on fracking until right now.  Surprised to see how much she is for it.  I personally don't have a big problem with it, but it's been a huge hot-button issue in Western NY and the Southern Tier and has been for a number of years.  I wonder what her commentary on fracking was while she was a NY senator....but I'm too lazy to look it up.

 
Climate Change:

Don't really know where she stands philosophically.  It's a pretty vague subject for her.  What we do know is she supports Obama's power plant rules.  She is a proponent of "fracking" stateside and abroad.  She supports offshore drilling for oil.  Her family foundation takes a lot of money from oil countries.  Did she ever comment on Keystone?  At one point she refused to comment for political reasons (which were fine by me).  It's hard to say where she lands on this issue based on her actions.
I actually never looked up her beliefs on fracking until right now.  Surprised to see how much she is for it.  I personally don't have a big problem with it, but it's been a huge hot-button issue in Western NY and the Southern Tier and has been for a number of years.  I wonder what her commentary on fracking was while she was a NY senator....but I'm too lazy to look it up.
To my knowledge, this is a representation of her actions thus far.  She has a ton of promises on her website, we'll see how much of that she really tries to push.

 
This sound bite from 1996 is going to sink her any day now. Right after the email indictments.
You have to  admit, though, Hillary navigated that pretty clumsily.  As she does pretty much everything that isn't scripted and mapped out.  Trump is going to absolutely evicerate her.

 
Who the hell is in charge of picking Hillarys clothes? The giant collar look she keeps using looks ridiculous . Seriously . Just dress her as a business woman. 

 
Pantsuit observations. Time is a flat circle.
He's got a point.  She wears these weird monochromatic outfits that make her look like a piece of fruit: orange outfit = pumpkin, green outfit = watermelon, red outfit = apple.  I'm waiting for the Fruit of the Loom guys to show up at one of her campaign appearances.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has Hillary proposed negotiating with pharma to lower the cost spent by the Feds in drug reimbursements? 

Because Trump has done that too, only he promises a stupidly high, impossible or ridiculous number in savings.

I don't know how anyone promises this though seeing as how Obama waived that right away in his Pharma deal.

 
He's got a point.  She wears these weird monochromatic outfits that make her look like a piece of fruit: orange outfit = pumpkin, green outfit = watermelon, red outfit = apple.  I'm waiting for the Fruit of Loom guys to show up at one of her campaign appearances.
The seeds were planted years ago.

10082521_H15385361-600x868.jpg


 
Has Hillary proposed negotiating with pharma to lower the cost spent by the Feds in drug reimbursements? 

Because Trump has done that too, only he promises a stupidly high, impossible or ridiculous number in savings.

I don't know how anyone promises this though seeing as how Obama waived that right away in his Pharma deal.
She talks about "tweaks" to ACA, but I haven't heard any sort of specifics come out of her mouth.  Perhaps they are on the webpage?

 
Prediction: will Hillary be pretty much locked in as the nominee after Super Tuesday, or will it be competitive for at least another month? 

 
I agree that Hillary's stylist is weird.  But nobody ever comments about the fact that Trump is a billionaire who can't buy a suit that fits.  For that matter nobody cares that Bernie wears a suit like a 13 year old who just had his Dad show him how to tie a tie.  For Bernie, that's considered part of the charm. 

 
I agree that Hillary's stylist is weird.  But nobody ever comments about the fact that Trump is a billionaire who can't buy a suit that fits.  For that matter nobody cares that Bernie wears a suit like a 13 year old who just had his Dad show him how to tie a tie.  For Bernie, that's considered part of the charm. 
Rubio got a few days of attention about his boots.

 
I agree that Hillary's stylist is weird.  But nobody ever comments about the fact that Trump is a billionaire who can't buy a suit that fits.  For that matter nobody cares that Bernie wears a suit like a 13 year old who just had his Dad show him how to tie a tie.  For Bernie, that's considered part of the charm. 
People, this is easy:

- Trump's look is Midtown Manhattan half-drunk bond broker pontificating at the end of the bar in the middle of the afternoon.

- Sanders' look is Willy Loman DOAS-mode earnest rumpled salesman of ideological goods.

- Hillary's look is Romulan general announcing her takeover of all bases to Starfleet Command.

Simple.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm VERY disappointed in Bernie not going after her racist comments about black people. There was a real opportunity to score points here. Love the Pepto Bismol chugging part.



 
Good post, but again, that doesn't exclude Hillary, does it? It actually suggests a wider scope. That could even go past her aides. One of the news reports indicated as many as 30 or so accounts could have had spillage. And who did they spill to? It also obviously does not have to include her or her aides. I think we all know that someone else could be offered up to help move past thing, fairly or not.

There is no question given the sole private ownership of where this classified information was stored who was definitely among those doing the handling.
No, it doesn't exclude Hillary, but the presence of such an investigation into the State Department's culture is not evidence that the hammer is about to fall on Hillary.   In fact, like most of the "smoking guns" thrown out to laugh at those of us with our "heads in the sand" who are "blind to how big of deal this is" it suggests just the opposite. 

 
No, it doesn't exclude Hillary, but the presence of such an investigation into the State Department's culture is not evidence that the hammer is about to fall on Hillary.   In fact, like most of the "smoking guns" thrown out to laugh at those of us with our "heads in the sand" who are "blind to how big of deal this is" it suggests just the opposite. 
The server is an actual smoking gun though. If a friend of yours is shot dead and the police show up at your door and seize a gun you own that's not a good sign for you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It depends on the media narrative. I really think Bernie's make-or-break is March 15.
There's only one possible narrative the media will come up with on their own.  Let's not fool ourselves.  Bernie could dominate all those states and the reaction would be "can he really win?" or "I'm still skeptical, let's see what happens next week" etc.

 
It may be insurmountable once Hillary wins the overwhelming majority of states in the next 3 Tuesdays but...

Bernie has a lot of favorable demographics in states after March 15.  He has to stick really close, and probably even win a few, because splitting delegates won't just be enough when faced with a big L in all the states.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top