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.
timschochet said:
Who the #### cares about these ####### transcripts? 
Click to expand...
Many.  She is disingenuously presenting herself as someone tough on Wall Street, which is a new pivot, but one forced upon her by Bernie.  So, she is playing the role.  She made very specific statements several debates ago about what she told Wall Street (that they're wrecking the country, that they need to reign in executive pay, they need to stop their mortgage practices, etc)...basically, she says she let them have it.  I don't buy it.  Nobody does.  Let's see those transcripts to see what she really said.  She has a credibility problem.  This would go a long way to establishing she walks the talk.  

The fact that she won't release make public the opinions and perspective she shared with Goldman Sachs and others speaks volumes.  If you're proud of what you said, you'd release them.  If you're worried about what you said, you'd hide them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
Many.  She is disingenuously presenting herself as someone tough on Wall Street, which is a new pivot, but one forced upon her by Bernie.  So, she is playing the role.  She made very specific statements several debates ago about what she told Wall Street (that they're wrecking the country, that they need to reign in executive pay, they need to stop their mortgage practices, etc)...basically, she says she let them have it.  I don't buy it.  Nobody does.  Let's see those transcripts to see what she really said.  She has a credibility problem.  This would go a long way to establishing she walks the talk.  

The fact that she won't release make public the opinions and perspective she shared with Goldman Sachs and others speaks volumes.  If you're proud of what you said, you'd release them.  If you're worried about what you said, you'd hide them.
Click to expand...
Tim - what the hell?  

Take a suck of 'ol cobalt there.  How'd that taste?

 
Tim,

Assuming you agree that an FBI investigation is warranted given spillage, do you think it would be reasonable to ask Hillary to write a personal check to cover the costs? (Or that she should at least ask Goldman to pay it for her?)

 
There is no reason for Hillary to release transcripts. As if clean transcripts would cause those doubting Hillary to suddenly change their narrative.

 
jon_mx said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Something that actually was confirmed to even potentially impact national security would be a start.  Discussions of news articles aren't all that shocking, yet alone bad.
Click to expand...
That is what Top Secret is by definition.  You expect the actual details to be disclosed?  
Click to expand...
I want everyone of them made readily available!  Along with at least 90% of everything else classified,  But that is a real topic that should be discussed during election process so it doesn't belong in a thread about a candidate.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I want everyone of them made readily available!  Along with at least 90% of everything else classified,  But that is a real topic that should be discussed during election process so it doesn't belong in a thread about a candidate.
Click to expand...
It's kind of ridiculous to say we don't know what's in them as a defense which is necessary for you here to defend Hillary and then say in the same breath they should be made public even though we don't know what's in them.

This is really easy: if the intelligence agency where the information was sourced says it's secure and should not be released and in the public domain that's the end of the story. That's how we protect our national security. No one ever anywhere has been allowed to produce top secret information to the public - or even risk it by putting it in an unsecure location where it could be found or stolen - without facing jail time.

If Hillary really, really wants to challenge the IC she should file an amicus brief in the FOIA case, but otherwise she knows just as well as you do that to do this is perform an illegal act.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Millennials favor Bernie? This is not breaking news. It's going to be an interesting bit of post-election analysis. Do young not vote to protest Hillary or do they just not vote (again)? Personally, I think moderate women voters will begin to warm to Hillary as she can speak to them more credibly than Trump. BLM voters, however, can't or won't connect with Hillary and, honestly, I don't think Bernie does either.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Which would be true if Hillary had used GMail or Yahoo instead of a private server.  Which would be true if Hillary had used the .gov account that probably was never even created.  Your "smoking gun" is irrelevant!

Now of course what evidence other than idle speculation by numerous "experts" who have not seen the emails providing fodder for articles that any of that last sentence has actually happened?  
Click to expand...


On that last bit, I'm citing you here. We know that State and the IC have withheld documents, either 22 or 29. More, maybe around 80+, have been certified as "secret". As you point out there has been spillage. As you point out this information was vulnerable. We know unclassified email at State has been broached, it's pretty absurd to say that Russia/China/NK etc. have breached our security at State and not Hillary's bum-backward homemade Windows portal.

You don't think that has consequences? Assume for a moment it was just a security review. Ok then, why is that important? Because some kid is reading Hillary's emails in a basement in Quahog RI? No. They're doing that because enemies of the US who mean to do harm to us and our people and our friends have gotten their information and the feds want to know who and then who and what has been placed in danger.

This is the point of the security review, as you put it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I want everyone of them made readily available!  Along with at least 90% of everything else classified,  But that is a real topic that should be discussed during election process so it doesn't belong in a thread about a candidate.
Click to expand...
It's kind of ridiculous to say we don't know what's in them as a defense which is necessary for you here to defend Hillary and then say in the same breath they should be made public even though we don't know what's in them.

This is really easy: if the intelligence agency where the information was sourced says it's secure and should not be released and in the public domain that's the end of the story. That's how we protect our national security. No one ever anywhere has been allowed to produce top secret information to teh public without facing jail time.

If Hillary really, really wants to challenge the IC she should file an amicus brief in the FOIA case, but otherwise she knows just as well as you do that to do this is perform an illegal act.
Click to expand...
The real threat to a democracy is the government keeping 80 million secrets a year!  The vast majority having zilch to do with national security.  Other than suspecting that Hillary is on the wrong side of this rel issue, it doesn't have anything to do with Hillary.

Oh, the information being unknown is driving the "egregious" :narrative.  Not the other way around.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The real threat to a democracy is the government keeping 80 million secrets a year!  The vast majority having zilch to do with national security.  Other than suspecting that Hillary is on the wrong side of this rel issue, it doesn't have anything to do with Hillary.

Oh, the information being unknown is driving the "egregious" :narrative.  Not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Actually you and I likely have common ground on that - with regard to whistleblowers.

Hillary is not a whistleblower. Hillary is charged with holding nationally important information that needs to be held securely on the highest level. She failed that duty because consciously failed to follow the rules We could likely agree on some things on this issue, but you, I and every transparency fan in the US acknowledge there are indeed national secrets that protect our nation and our democracy. Hillary has prosecuted whistleblowers.

As for transparency, Hillary is one of the greatest offenders of FOIA and public records we have ever seen on a national, state or local level. This is someone who took all her public records - all of them - and kept them private. And if it wasn't for a hacker in Romania and maybe some good work by public advocates we would have never known she was holding them. It's the height of contradiction to say that Hillary was personally retaining all her public documents and then claim she is really advocating for transparency. The production of her records was ordered by a federal court, or even several of them. Her server was seized by criminal law enforcement. If Hillary had her way you and every good government advocate in America would have never heard of her server or her private email system.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clinton 49 Sanders 44 in WBUR Mass poll just released. Would be a big time win for Clinton on Super Tuesday if she can snag it. 

 
Id love someone smarter than me to explain the stark contrast in polls right now. Clinton has had an amazing run of STATE polls but the National numbers seem to be getting tighter and tighter. 

It seems counterintuitive when she's running up huge numbers in FLOHPA.

 
tommyGunZ said:
There is no reason for Hillary to release transcripts. As if clean transcripts would cause those doubting Hillary to suddenly change their narrative.
Click to expand...
Remember when you were able to be proud of supporting a candidate who promised transparency and openness?  This must really suck for you now.

 
Trey said:
Id love someone smarter than me to explain the stark contrast in polls right now. Clinton has had an amazing run of STATE polls but the National numbers seem to be getting tighter and tighter. 

It seems counterintuitive when she's running up huge numbers in FLOHPA.
Click to expand...
It used to be the opposite. Hillary was killing Sanders nationally while the battleground states were tighter.  Personally I think the state polls are more important, but I'd say compare the dates of the polls to see if there isn't a lag.

 
Hillary- I didn't know Trump that well but I knew him a little and I always found him charming and affable. But this man/ the racial intolerance, the xenophobia- is not the man I thought I knew. 

 
timschochet said:
Hillary- don't confuse the FBI's security inquiry with the private lawsuits by conservative groups- I'm not concerned about either. 
Click to expand...
Even Hillary is starting to realize how difficult it is to keep all of the various allegations against her straight. 

"Look guys, there endangering-national-security thing is totally different than the dodging-FOIA-requests thing.  Don't confuse the two."

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well in Brookline they're rich and educated as all hell and voted for Barney Frank every time  You tell me what's going on up there.
Click to expand...
Barney was living with and banging a hooker running a gay prostitution ring out of Barney's apartment and he was voted in easily every election.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Remember when you were able to be proud of supporting a candidate who promised transparency and openness?  This must really suck for you now.
Click to expand...
You're misreading my post.  Politically, it makes zero sense for Hillary to release the transcripts.'

On a personal level, I'd like to see them as well, though I don't think the smoking gun that you guys are salivating for exists.

 
tommyGunZ said:
You're misreading my post.  Politically, it makes zero sense for Hillary to release the transcripts.'

On a personal level, I'd like to see them as well, though I don't think the smoking gun that you guys are salivating for exists.
Click to expand...
What smoking gun?  

I'm pretty much 100% sure that her speeches were something along the lines of "The financial industry is important, you guys are doing good work, and I've always been a big supporter of your industry."  In the particular case of Hillary and finance, that all happens to be true.  That's completely fine with me -- no worries at all.  Like I've said before, Hillary's position on banking and finance isn't far from my own.  

I think if you're honest with yourself, you don't want the transcripts to be released because you don't want to see them.  You won't be able to maintain this fictional narrative of Hillary being anything other than a moderate Republican if they were released.  Hillary isn't hiding these transcripts from her opponents.  She's hiding them from her supporters.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
263K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top