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.
IvanKaramazov said:
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, it 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.    
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
IvanKaramazov said:
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.    
Click to expand...


I don't think you have to be a "moderate republican" to understand that markets are extremely valuable.  I think the majority of Hillary supporters are liberals like me who both support increased oversight and reform while at the same time understanding how crucial a role capital allocation has in powering the American engine.

Hillary supports Dodd Frank. How many moderate Republicans voted for it? 

 
If the transcripts are innocuous—which I suspect they are—it makes more sense to use them to extract something from the GOP nominee during the general. You've created this sense that the transcripts are important to unmasking Hillary. That something in them is valuable. Fine, then release your [McGuffin], candidate Trump/Rubio.

The transcripts thing isn't hurting her with her supporters, and her releasing them isn't going to shift Sanders supporters into her camp. Meanwhile, and the odds she secures the nomination are fairly safe. So why give in now? Makes no sense for her to do it. It's a piece of leverage she can use to shame the GOP candidate into releasing something.

 
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...
It's not great if it's nothing either. It's almost worse, what were they paying her and Bill for then, some jokes and stories?

 
pantagrapher said:
If the transcripts are innocuous—which I suspect they are—it makes more sense to use them to extract something from the GOP nominee during the general. You've created this sense that the transcripts are important to unmasking Hillary. That something in them is valuable. Fine, then release your [McGuffin], candidate Trump/Rubio.

The transcripts thing isn't hurting her with her supporters, and her releasing them isn't going to shift Sanders supporters into her camp. Meanwhile, and the odds she secures the nomination are fairly safe. So why give in now? Makes no sense for her to do it. It's a piece of leverage she can use to shame the GOP candidate into releasing something.
Click to expand...
Of course let's ignore the candidate who raised them, Bernie.

 
On a state-by-state basis, Hillary's running about 11 points stronger (on average) than she'd need to be to win the nomination.  If that gap holds for the next four days Tuesday will effectively end Sanders' chances of pulling the upset.  I doubt he gets out under any circumstance, but the competitive portion of the race will be over.

Also, of all the years for Dems to run an old-school centrist Republican (more or less agree with Ivan on this), a year when old-school moderate Republicans are looking for an alternative might be a lucky coincidence.  Capturing even a couple percent of those folks would result in a comfortable win vs. Trump.

 
From Bernie:

Just days before the Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton left the campaign trail for a high-dollar fundraiser at a hedge fund. That same hedge fund is a major investor in fracking, an incredibly destructive practice of extracting natural gas by pumping hundreds of secret chemicals into the ground.

Hillary Clinton supports fracking. I do not.

And just as I believe you can't take on Wall Street while taking their money, I don't believe you can take on climate change effectively while taking money from those who would profit off the destruction of the planet.

People who live near fracking locations no longer have drinkable water, and in some cases their tap water is actually flammable. Oklahoma has even seen a rash of earthquakes that many believe are a result of fracking.

In short, fracking is a disaster for the planet.

We need a president who is not beholden to special interests and who will do everything in his or her power to fight the effects of climate change. 

 
hagmania said:
It's sad because it's like 90% true.

We'll fight to the end though. I expect Bernie to campaign right on up to the convention so long as he has the means.
Click to expand...
I expect him to stay in as well. And I hope he keeps fighting and driving the theoretical value of the transcripts up.

 
Gr00vus said:
From Bernie:

Just days before the Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton left the campaign trail for a high-dollar fundraiser at a hedge fund. That same hedge fund is a major investor in fracking, an incredibly destructive practice of extracting natural gas by pumping hundreds of secret chemicals into the ground.

Hillary Clinton supports fracking. I do not.

And just as I believe you can't take on Wall Street while taking their money, I don't believe you can take on climate change effectively while taking money from those who would profit off the destruction of the planet.

People who live near fracking locations no longer have drinkable water, and in some cases their tap water is actually flammable. Oklahoma has even seen a rash of earthquakes that many believe are a result of fracking.

In short, fracking is a disaster for the planet.

We need a president who is not beholden to special interests and who will do everything in his or her power to fight the effects of climate change. 
Click to expand...
I'm definitely with Bernie on fracking, but it's a complicated issue. Natural gas decreases reliance on coal, which is the worst of the worst. Domestic production decreases reliance on, say, Russian exports. And Hillary also advocates strict tracking regulations. I'd love to see municipalities empowered to stop fracking in their own backyards. I suspect that is something that might eventually get to the Supreme Court (like the case of Denton, TX—they voted to stop tracking and were effectively given the middle finger by the governor). Anyway, I do prefer Bernie's position to Hillary's on this, but I do acknowledge her side of it. It's not some Palin-esque Drill, Baby, Drill.

 
Fracking is bad, real bad, end of story. There's no nuance to it, no amount of equivocating will make it palatable. Tax the hell out of companies that engage in it and send those funds directly to companies that are implementing cleaner, renewable energy generation sources. Definitely don't take money from people invested in perpetuating it if you're a candidate. This is just one big difference between these candidates.

 
I have a serious, non-partisan question about Hillary.

If/when she is elected, what will her immediate top priorities be? What will she try to achieve and/or change?

Right now, she's a grab bag of issues, promising everything to everyone - expanding Obamacare, increased minimum wage, reduced college tuition, Wall Street and campaign finance reform, etc.

So when it comes time for her to get down to work, what is she actually going to turn her focus to?

My guess is:

1. Supreme Court nominee

2. Expanding family/medical leave

3. Expanding Obamacare to cover those still uninsured

Anything else? Maybe minimum wage increase. I wouldn't expect her to do anything with college tuition, Wall Street and campaign finance reform, expansion of civil liberties or addressing racial inequality. And she'll be status quo on most everything else Obama has put in place. Maybe a bit to the right of him on the environment, foreign policy, and the expanding surveillance state.

 
The_Man said:
I have a serious, non-partisan question about Hillary.

If/when she is elected, what will her immediate top priorities be? What will she try to achieve and/or change?

Right now, she's a grab bag of issues, promising everything to everyone - expanding Obamacare, increased minimum wage, reduced college tuition, Wall Street and campaign finance reform, etc.

So when it comes time for her to get down to work, what is she actually going to turn her focus to?

My guess is:

1. Supreme Court nominee

2. Expanding family/medical leave

3. Expanding Obamacare to cover those still uninsured

Anything else? Maybe minimum wage increase. I wouldn't expect her to do anything with college tuition, Wall Street and campaign finance reform, expansion of civil liberties or addressing racial inequality. And she'll be status quo on most everything else Obama has put in place. Maybe a bit to the right of him on the environment, foreign policy, and the expanding surveillance state.
Click to expand...
Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. 

 
The_Man said:
I have a serious, non-partisan question about Hillary.

If/when she is elected, what will her immediate top priorities be? What will she try to achieve and/or change?

Right now, she's a grab bag of issues, promising everything to everyone - expanding Obamacare, increased minimum wage, reduced college tuition, Wall Street and campaign finance reform, etc.

So when it comes time for her to get down to work, what is she actually going to turn her focus to?

My guess is:

1. Supreme Court nominee

2. Expanding family/medical leave

3. Expanding Obamacare to cover those still uninsured

Anything else? Maybe minimum wage increase. I wouldn't expect her to do anything with college tuition, Wall Street and campaign finance reform, expansion of civil liberties or addressing racial inequality. And she'll be status quo on most everything else Obama has put in place. Maybe a bit to the right of him on the environment, foreign policy, and the expanding surveillance state.
Click to expand...
I will go with (1), then (3) albeit Hillary will not be expanding coverage to all but rather she will be doing a slight to major tweak to more fully "revise" the ACA than people had been led to expect...

...and I think the biggie after that will be the budget where I think she goes full Bill Clinton and tries to balance the budget with the GOP. Though if Trump is the nominee it may be a Democratic Senate she's dealing with at that point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Man said:
I have a serious, non-partisan question about Hillary.

If/when she is elected, what will her immediate top priorities be? What will she try to achieve and/or change?
Click to expand...
Who the hell knows? Impossible to say what she is going to be for a week from now on the campaign trial much less in 2017.

The one thing her supporters keep saying is they vote for more than just someone who has honesty and integrity. Without those two things, how do you know anything else about her or what her actual positions will be? Her actions as senator showed her first priority is to do the best she can for the money who got her there.  Her second priority is to appease the voting public the best she can with her words.  So I'm guessing her immediate priorities are to make sure everyone in the banking industry, insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry and the rest get what they need and whatever that is will be dressed up, repackaged and presented to the public the most palatable way it can be with an eye on 2020.

 
If she ever got elected, her only priority would be her standing in world circles.  She will want to leave her legacy on the world stage - not the US stage.

 
The_Man said:
I have a serious, non-partisan question about Hillary.

If/when she is elected, what will her immediate top priorities be? What will she try to achieve and/or change?

Right now, she's a grab bag of issues, promising everything to everyone - expanding Obamacare, increased minimum wage, reduced college tuition, Wall Street and campaign finance reform, etc.

So when it comes time for her to get down to work, what is she actually going to turn her focus to?

My guess is:

1. Supreme Court nominee

2. Expanding family/medical leave

3. Expanding Obamacare to cover those still uninsured

Anything else? Maybe minimum wage increase. I wouldn't expect her to do anything with college tuition, Wall Street and campaign finance reform, expansion of civil liberties or addressing racial inequality. And she'll be status quo on most everything else Obama has put in place. Maybe a bit to the right of him on the environment, foreign policy, and the expanding surveillance state.
Click to expand...


Per her recent town hall, all of it.  In fact she want all D's to vote for her next Tuesday so she could wrap up the nomination and start working now.

In reality...

1. Coerce  the FBI and any other gov't agency investigating her crimes to exonerate her or at least bury it.

2. Meet with Big Pharma, Big Banking, and her Wall St cronies and figure out a way for her to look tough on them while protecting their profits.

3. Find Bill a hobby that won't embarrass her.

4. Order the IRS to audit Trump again.

 
If anyone wants a model for how Hillary would govern see her health care panel while First Lady. - Corporate interests meeting behind closed doors with zero right of transparency to know who attended or what they discussed.

 
The_Man said:
I have a serious, non-partisan question about Hillary.

If/when she is elected, what will her immediate top priorities be? What will she try to achieve and/or change?

Right now, she's a grab bag of issues, promising everything to everyone - expanding Obamacare, increased minimum wage, reduced college tuition, Wall Street and campaign finance reform, etc.

So when it comes time for her to get down to work, what is she actually going to turn her focus to?

My guess is:

1. Supreme Court nominee

2. Expanding family/medical leave

3. Expanding Obamacare to cover those still uninsured

Anything else? Maybe minimum wage increase. I wouldn't expect her to do anything with college tuition, Wall Street and campaign finance reform, expansion of civil liberties or addressing racial inequality. And she'll be status quo on most everything else Obama has put in place. Maybe a bit to the right of him on the environment, foreign policy, and the expanding surveillance state.
Click to expand...
1. Appoint cronies to important positions.

2. Appoint Goldman Sachs employees to treasury department positions.

3. Get to work raising money for the DNC for 2018 elections.

 
Rich Conway said:
1. Appoint cronies to important positions.

2. Appoint Goldman Sachs employees to treasury department positions.

3. Get to work raising money for the DNC for 2018 elections.
Click to expand...
You forgot putting healthcare insurance lobbyists and big agriculture insiders on the FDA, putting energy execs on the EPA, and a whole bunch of other things, but the gist of your post is correct.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 


Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is pure fantasy



Clinton talks of possibly decades-long occupations and orderly regime changes, yet somehow Sanders is the fantasist


In this year’s Democratic primary, surrogates for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have attacked Senator Bernie Sanders’s domestic policy agenda for being unfunded or overly ambitious. For example, after signing onto a letter attacking Sanders’ economic agenda — backed by no data or modeling — University of Chicago economist and former Obama White House Council of Economic Advisers Chair Austan Goolsbee went on to suggest Sanders’ agenda promises were “magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”

 
 
But Clinton made a comment at Tuesday’s town hall in Columbia, SC, that might make those “magic flying puppies” promises look cautious by comparison.

The comment came at the end of an exchange sparked by a question from University of South Carolina student Dennzon Winley. “As we have learned in Iraq and, recently, Libya,” Winley noted, “getting rid of long-time dictators and their affiliates can lead to problems unforeseen.” He then asked Clinton how she’d ensure that regime change in Syria would “install within that country a government capable of containing and mitigating the sectarian and insurgency violence that will undoubtedly increase, thus further destabilizing the region?”

After addressing a potential ceasefire in Syria and the need to stop Russia’s bombing in that country, Clinton turned to Libya. She boasted of the election held in the country in 2014, describing the moderates elected. She then suggested the country needed some time and support to get over internal disputes. “I’m hoping that we can give them the time and space to actually make a difference for their country in the future,” she said.

“How do you explain the time and space to people?” debate moderator Chris Cuomo asked in response. He then asked Clinton to assess one of the key efforts from her tenure as Secretary of State: “Maybe we shouldn’t have done it that way. Do you believe there was a mistake involved in Libya?”

After pointing to the election again, Clinton then invoked the half-century-plus deployment of U.S. forces in Germany, Japan, and South Korea as examples of U.S. troops remaining onsite to give a country time and space, with a particular emphasis on the latter. “If you think about South Korea, there were coups, there were assassinations, there was a lot of problems for the Koreans to build their economy, to create their democracy,” she described. “This doesn’t happen overnight, and yes, it’s been a couple of years,” she said, returning to the five years since Libya’s overthrow of Qaddafi in 2011. “I think it’s worth European support, Arab support, American support, to try to help the Libyan people realize the dream that they had when they went after Qaddafi.”

In response to a question about what she meant about time and space (and a question about whether regime change that has led to chaos was a mistake), Clinton responded by raising deployments that have lasted upwards of 60 years.

Meanwhile, while Bernie Sanders may be recommending the U.S. adopt domestic policies that match those of our Canadian and European counterparts, thus far he has mentioned nothing about 60-year military deployments. Moreover, unlike Sanders, Clinton has not even called for taxes to pay for what would be a costly endeavor — unless her reference in this exchange to Libya’s oil means she hopes to be more successful billing Libya for defense than the U.S. has been with Iraq.

Such is the nature of our politics that Sanders can be attacked as a fantasist for daring to aspire to live as well as Europeans, while 60-year military deployments get treated as magic ponies that cost nothing.

Perhaps it is considered bad economics to make this suggestion. But it seems like a smart way to pay for universal health care for all Americans is to stop getting into 60-year military deployments around the world?
Click to expand...
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/26/hillary_clintons_foreign_policy_is_pure_fantasy/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
That will never happen. It has never been done and if she would do it, even Democrats would asking for her resignation or would be involved in an impeachment process.
Click to expand...
You guys can't even bring yourself to admit that there's anything at all shady about collecting personal income from outside groups.  

Edit: Hillary's biggest cheerleader has argued more than once that she shouldn't be bound by the same sort of ethical norms as little people like us.  jon_mx was just making a little joke -- tim wasn't.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
That will never happen. It has never been done and if she would do it, even Democrats would asking for her resignation or would be involved in an impeachment process.
Click to expand...
Meh, don't forget her staff. Ford did this for Nixon. Hillary could declare it a clemency not a pardon for the whole burrito.

 
Read an article not worth posting here (editorial piece in New York Post) speculating that Trump is going to have opposition research that gets into minute detail on everything from the many real estate deals gone wrong in Arkansas (not just White Water) and every woman Clinton put his #### in that's not already public.  Also suggestions that there are things in Hillary's personal life that were merely rumors and the press decided not to publish, that will be on the table.  In other words, Trump is going to throw everything against the wall, get deeper into detail on the past than anyone has and won't be afraid to get deep into the muck on things that are not verifiable. 

Gosh it's going to be fun.  Disgusting poo slinging, but this is the last guy Hillary/Bill wanted to be up against, even though they'll beat him.  They'll have so many past embarrassments dredged up it'll further taint her stature.  She'll end up the most reviled President in our history.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Read an article not worth posting here (editorial piece in New York Post) speculating that Trump is going to have opposition research that gets into minute detail on everything from the many real estate deals gone wrong in Arkansas (not just White Water) and every woman Clinton put his #### in that's not already public.  Also suggestions that there are things in Hillary's personal life that were merely rumors and the press decided not to publish, that will be on the table.  In other words, Trump is going to throw everything against the wall, get deeper into detail on the past than anyone has and won't be afraid to get deep into the muck on things that are not verifiable. 

Gosh it's going to be fun.  Disgusting poo slinging, but this is the last guy Hillary/Bill wanted to be up against, even though they'll beat him.  They'll have so many past embarrassments dredged up it'll further taint her stature.  She'll end up the most reviled President in our history.
Click to expand...
Great way to rally women to vote by making her a victim.

 
Lindsey Graham: "The most dishonest person in the world is a woman.  Who is about to become president."

you go girlfriend!

 
hagmania said:
I presume this is because of the Christie endorsement, signalling the GOP may in fact back The Donald.
Click to expand...
Yes. If the RNC follows Christie's lead, it makes Trump seem like a legitimate candidate. That allows people who haven't paid attention up to this point (millions of Americans) to consider Trump as a legitimate conservative alternative to Hillary rather than the demagogue he actually is. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
squistion said:
That will never happen. It has never been done and if she would do it, even Democrats would asking for her resignation or would be involved in an impeachment process.
Click to expand...
You guys can't even bring yourself to admit that there's anything at all shady about collecting personal income from outside groups.  

Edit: Hillary's biggest cheerleader has argued more than once that she shouldn't be bound by the same sort of ethical norms as little people like us.  jon_mx was just making a little joke -- tim wasn't.  
Click to expand...
It's like my kids....first thing out of their mouths is to deny or blame the other.  It's a defense mechanism.  It's so strong here, even the most obvious jokes are missed.

 
It is kind of funny that someone really thinks the Dems would revolt if Hillary did pardon herself.  That might not even break into Hillary's top 10 unethical moves.  

 
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