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 (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some Hillary tweets from last night, as she watched the GOP debate:

Let's break down barriers. Let's not build new walls.

We should build a path to citizenship, not a wall on the border.

We will not rip families apart. We will defend President Obama's actions on immigration and go further to keep families together. 
  On 4/10/2013 at 9:16 AM, timschochet said:

On 4/10/2013 at 9:15 AM, Bogeys said:
  On 4/10/2013 at 9:10 AM, timschochet said:
In less than four years we're going to have a President of the United States who once wrote a book about education called It Takes A Village. I don't think there's anything new or especially controversial about these comments.
As long as you support her I won't worry about her winning...I am considering the track record of your Presidential support during election times. :lol:
I won't support her. Doesn't mean she won't win though. I didn't support Obama, but believed all along he would win rather easily.


Tim, a few of us in the Star Wars thread were wondering about this quote from 2013.  I was hoping you could shed some light on the journey you've taken in the last three years.


 
It's really not that mysterious. In 2014, the Republicans abandoned all pretense of being a center right party. They campaigned to get the Tea Party vote and they did. They moved to the right, and Hillary is the closest thing to the center. 

But even if I didn't feel that way before, the fact that the man who appears to be the GOP nominee is bigoted, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and anti-free trade makes this a family easy choice for me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whether it's Hillary or Trump, one thing is for certain: someone is going to get a partial refund on their immortal soul.

 
We will not rip families apart. We will defend President Obama's actions on immigration and go further to keep families together. 
Tim, why is it okay for illegal aliens to rip their families apart, break the law and enter this country illegally. Why is it okay for Mexican families to send their young children alone across the border unaccompanied by any adults?

But...if America wants to actually enforce the border and enforce our immigration laws and deport illegal aliens, we can't do it because we are ripping families apart? Why is that?

 
Tim, why is it okay for illegal aliens to rip their families apart, break the law and enter this country illegally. Why is it okay for Mexican families to send their young children alone across the border unaccompanied by any adults?

But...if America wants to actually enforce the border and enforce our immigration laws and deport illegal aliens, we can't do it because we are ripping families apart? Why is that?
Easy to talk as someone who won the birth lottery.

 
As long as you support her I won't worry about her winning...I am considering the track record of your Presidential support during election times.
Tim supported Obama by the end in 2008. Not sure about 2012.

 
Easy to talk as someone who won the birth lottery.
Nice deflection.

Well. My parents were drug addicts and incarcerated. Should I have been able to beg the judge not to break up my family because my parents broke the law when I was a child? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim, why is it okay for illegal aliens to rip their families apart, break the law and enter this country illegally. Why is it okay for Mexican families to send their young children alone across the border unaccompanied by any adults?

But...if America wants to actually enforce the border and enforce our immigration laws and deport illegal aliens, we can't do it because we are ripping families apart? Why is that?
They tear their families apart in order to send their children to s better place, a country with hope and opportunity. Though you deny it, they are embodiment of the American Dream. 

We tear down that dream when we deport them. You want our government to act like the Gestapo, demanding to see papers and arresting anyone who doesn't have them. Well not on Hillary's watch. 

 
Nice deflection.

Well. My parents were drug addicts and incarcerated. Should I have been able to beg the judge not to break up my family because my parents broke the law when I was a child? 
All I'm saying is to stop demonizing people who broke the law in order to make a better life for themselves. IMO it takes a lot of guts to give up everything you know and make a dangerous trip to get to a country where you don't know the language.

Sorry to hear that about your parents, if I made the laws they would never have went to jail and would have been given the option of drug treatment to keep their family together.

 
They tear their families apart in order to send their children to s better place, a country with hope and opportunity. Though you deny it, they are embodiment of the American Dream. 

We tear down that dream when we deport them. You want our government to act like the Gestapo, demanding to see papers and arresting anyone who doesn't have them. Well not on Hillary's watch. 
So, it is okay to voluntarily break up the family and break the law. But it isn't okay to break up a family be enforcing the law. Is that your position?

 
All I'm saying is to stop demonizing people who broke the law in order to make a better life for themselves. IMO it takes a lot of guts to give up everything you know and make a dangerous trip to get to a country where you don't know the language.

Sorry to hear that about your parents, if I made the laws they would never have went to jail and would have been given the option of drug treatment to keep their family together.
What do you define as demonizing? Stating that illegal aliens are a net negative for American society or a societal burden that taxpayers shouldn't shoulder isn't demonization. 

I definitely think it takes courage and I have no problem saying that I don't blame them for attempting to find a better path or create a better life. I think everybody here will understand and concede that point. I don't hate illegals. I have interacted with illegals my entire life. And though I am staunchly opposed to illegal aliens being in this country and I strongly advocate for the enforcement of our laws, I have never treated them like ####. 

I won't get into it here...but I have had some awesome experiences and believe many of these individuals are truly good people. And there is definitely something to be said about the argument some people make about deporting American citizens on the dole and allowing hard working illegal aliens the opportunity to stay.

As for my parents, I appreciate your words and I did not post them to illicit sympathy or anything like that. But simply to make a point. We break up families every day in this country for a variety of reasons, mainly with respect to violations of the law. It annoys me to no end that illegal aliens are the first to cry about having their families broken up when many of them do that very thing.

Not a valid argument to me. FWIW, my parents should have been incarcerated. They broke the laws not only with respect to their drug use, but with the crimes they committed to fund their abuse. ####...they stole from me when I was a kid. 

 
Given the strain on resources alone in this State Department tenure, it's clear there would have been many better choices than Hillary for that job.  I know -- let's promote her!

 
So, it is okay to voluntarily break up the family and break the law. But it isn't okay to break up a family be enforcing the law. Is that your position?
Well yes. If you are a conservative, you should understand the distinction. The first is a personal decision made by the family. And the law they're breaking is a minor one, a misdemeanor. The second involves big government clamping down on private families. 

 
An analogy, SIDA, is this: my neighbors are an old lesbian couple and on the weekends they like to smoke pot. They're breaking the law, but I don't care. It's their business and I'm good with it. But if the police ever came along and arrested them and sent them to years in prison, I would have a big problem with that. Not all laws need to be so harshly enforced. I can think of a worse enforcement of a law than what Trump is proposing with illegal immigrants. It's monstrous, IMO. 

 
There's a notion that justice is blind.  its depicted by a statue of a woman wearing a blindfold and holding up a scale.

It would seem that if that symbol was to apply to anything, it was to apply to people who are trying to play politics with the law to get their favored candidates elected, whether that means saying we should remove that blindfold in cases x, y, z because that's how I feel and my feelings are more important than the law, or saying "the other side does it, so I'm going to do it too!"

What do you think, tim?  Does that symbol offended you at this point?  Because you seem to be a billion miles away from it.  You must find it repulsive.

 
There's a notion that justice is blind.  its depicted by a statue of a woman wearing a blindfold and holding up a scale.

It would seem that if that symbol was to apply to anything, it was to apply to people who are trying to play politics with the law to get their favored candidates elected, whether that means saying we should remove that blindfold in cases x, y, z because that's how I feel and my feelings are more important than the law, or saying "the other side does it, so I'm going to do it too!"

What do you think, tim?  Does that symbol offended you at this point?  Because you seem to be a billion miles away from it.  You must find it repulsive.
Um, wearing the blindfold does not mean justice is blind. The blindfold represents objectivity/impartiality and is to shield the eyes of justice from corruption and bribery:
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice

Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, fame, power, or identity; blind justice and impartiality

 
Um, wearing the blindfold does not mean justice is blind. The blindfold represents objectivity/impartiality and is to shield the eyes of justice from corruption and bribery:
 
You sure they aren't bandages because justice is very angry and has blood coming out of her eyes or her wherever

 
There's a notion that justice is blind.  its depicted by a statue of a woman wearing a blindfold and holding up a scale.

It would seem that if that symbol was to apply to anything, it was to apply to people who are trying to play politics with the law to get their favored candidates elected, whether that means saying we should remove that blindfold in cases x, y, z because that's how I feel and my feelings are more important than the law, or saying "the other side does it, so I'm going to do it too!"

What do you think, tim?  Does that symbol offended you at this point?  Because you seem to be a billion miles away from it.  You must find it repulsive.
I don't know how many dozens of times I need to repeat this but: 

i am not looking the other way when it comes to Hillary Clinton. I don't believe she is a criminal. 

 
A few days back I wrote that I believed that one of the reasons that southern blacks support Hillary Clinton by such a large margin is that they feel they owe her after choosing Obama in 2008. A few people here mocked me. 

Now the New York Times has an article coming out which confirms my analysis: 

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/black-women-join-south-carolina-fight-to-send-a-woman-to-the-white-house.amp.html?client=safari#fpstate=amp_viewer

Nice to be right about this election at least ONCE in a while...

 
A few days back I wrote that I believed that one of the reasons that southern blacks support Hillary Clinton by such a large margin is that they feel they owe her after choosing Obama in 2008. A few people here mocked me. 

Now the New York Times has an article coming out which confirms my analysis: 

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/black-women-join-south-carolina-fight-to-send-a-woman-to-the-white-house.amp.html?client=safari#fpstate=amp_viewer

Nice to be right about this election at least ONCE in a while...
Tim the writer is as guilty as editorializing her own wishful thinking in to the story as you were. I see where the writer says this, where do the four women she interviews say this?

 
timschochet said:
An analogy, SIDA, is this: my neighbors are an old lesbian couple and on the weekends they like to smoke pot. They're breaking the law, but I don't care. It's their business and I'm good with it. But if the police ever came along and arrested them and sent them to years in prison, I would have a big problem with that. Not all laws need to be so harshly enforced. I can think of a worse enforcement of a law than what Trump is proposing with illegal immigrants. It's monstrous, IMO.
Do each of us get to decide which are the important laws and which ones are not a big deal to break? 

 
timschochet said:
I don't know how many dozens of times I need to repeat this but: 

i am not looking the other way when it comes to Hillary Clinton. I don't believe she is a criminal. 
If livinging in a world of objectivity, there is no way both of these are possible at the same time in the same person :shrug:  unless you have a very narrow definition of the word "criminal", but given your propensity to use broad brushes on just about everything, I don't see how that wouldn't be the case here unless you were being dishonest with yourself.

 
timschochet said:
An analogy, SIDA, is this: my neighbors are an old lesbian couple and on the weekends they like to smoke pot. They're breaking the law, but I don't care. It's their business and I'm good with it. But if the police ever came along and arrested them and sent them to years in prison, I would have a big problem with that. Not all laws need to be so harshly enforced. I can think of a worse enforcement of a law than what Trump is proposing with illegal immigrants. It's monstrous, IMO. 
You understand why this analogy sucks right?  Tim doesn't get to pick and choose what rules and their corresponding punishments get enforced.  We are born under those laws or become citizens under those laws.  If you're here temporarily, you abide by those laws.  If you want them changed work through your government to have them changed.  Until then, live by them, both the good and the bad.

 
timschochet said:
I don't know how many dozens of times I need to repeat this but: 

i am not looking the other way when it comes to Hillary Clinton. I don't believe she is a criminal. 
That's kinda the whole point.  You don't know anything about what she has done or hasn't done.  There is no way you know enough about the situation to say "I don't believe she is a criminal."  That's for the law to decide.  And hopefully a law not tainted by preconceived biases like believing he is not a criminal before even looking at everything.

So its like you don't believe in blind justice.

 
That's kinda the whole point.  You don't know anything about what she has done or hasn't done.  There is no way you know enough about the situation to say "I don't believe she is a criminal."  That's for the law to decide.  And hopefully a law not tainted by preconceived biases like believing he is not a criminal before even looking at everything.

So its like you don't believe in blind justice.


Tim is very blind when it comes to justice for Hillary.  He has stated Hillary should not be held to the same laws as other government employees.

 
CcOUbCTWEAA2xjN.jpg:large


 
[SIZE=24pt]Unclassified Clinton Emails May Have Consequences for a Key Deputy[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]WASHINGTON — In May, 2011, John Kerry wrapped up a trip to Pakistan intended to calm tensions over the secret raid that had killed Osama bin Laden just weeks before. But as he took off to fly to Dubai, the Central Intelligence Agency carried out a pair of drone attacks in North Waziristan.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]When he landed, Mr. Kerry, then chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, called the American ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, in a fury and tried to reach Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Mr. Munter also called Mrs. Clinton’s senior aide, Jake Sullivan, who, in turn, jotted a brief email to his boss.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“Cameron called me, hysterical,” Mr. Sullivan’s email began under a subject line that noted Mr. Kerry’s request to speak with her.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]What he wrote next is one example of what lies at the heart of a yearlong controversy over Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server at the State Department. The controversy has entangled some of her most trusted aides, both then and now, in a political and legal fight that could drag on throughout the election year.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Mr. Sullivan added a short phrase that was redacted when the email was made public in January on the grounds that the passage could cause serious damage to the nation’s security.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]That reference to the drone strikes and Mr. Munter’s reaction included information that, like a couple of dozen other emails, should not have been sent through a nonsecured computer server, not even the State Department’s official though unclassified system, according to current and former officials from the department, Congress and law enforcement agencies.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Even admirers of Mrs. Clinton’s record as secretary of state acknowledge that the use of the server had consequences for her select circle of confidants. They include Mr. Sullivan, who as director of policy planning and a deputy chief of staff, handled the most pressing policies and international crises during her tenure as secretary. Others were Cheryl D. Mills, her chief of staff, and Huma Abedin, who was then also a deputy chief of staff, and other senior diplomats who sent messages to her now under scrutiny.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Both Ms. Abedin and Mr. Sullivan serve in senior positions in Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The emails — as well as Mrs. Clinton’s initial decision to set up the server — are now the focus of investigations by the F.B.I., the inspectors general of the State Department and the intelligence agencies and by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss inquiries involving classified information.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]...[/SIZE]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/politics/new-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-points-to-a-key-role-played-by-a-deputy.html?_r=0

- The NYT drops this stuff to let out that things are brewing, IMO, and Sullivan is a guy who has something to worry about in the FBI's investigation. Hillary may not be worried but her staff is something else entirely.

...

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/politics/new-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-points-to-a-key-role-played-by-a-deputy.html?_r=0

- The NYT drops this stuff to let out that things are brewing, IMO, and Sullivan is a guy who has something to worry about in the FBI's investigation. Hillary may not be worried but her staff is something else entirely.

...
I am not sure how they get her staff without getting Hillary.  Seems like Hillary is the most guilty party of the bunch.  No wonder so many teams are working on this. :popcorn:

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/politics/new-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-points-to-a-key-role-played-by-a-deputy.html?_r=0

- The NYT drops this stuff to let out that things are brewing, IMO, and Sullivan is a guy who has something to worry about in the FBI's investigation. Hillary may not be worried but her staff is something else entirely.

...
Was just going to post this.  Fall guy emerging.  Telling you...  Something bigger coming Monday.

 
I am not sure how they get her staff without getting Hillary.  Seems like Hillary is the most guilty party of the bunch.  No wonder so many teams are working on this. :popcorn:
The way it works in investigations is they work from the ground up. Hillary has always been very fortunate that others have not turned on her specifically. Chris Wade and David Hale did but Susan McDougal did not.

If the feds prosecute a Pagliano or a Sullivan and they say that Hillary instructed her to do what they did then it's all over. There are also the depositions coming up where the same thing could happen.

OTOH the DOJ could have one or any of them plead to a misdemeanor, do no jail, Hillary can pardon and they can have their jobs in the WH just like nothing ever happened.

Sullivan is a likely candidate to be the next Ben Rhodes as the political advisor at NSA.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Closest we'll see to a smoking gun.  I've said this multiple times in this thread and will gladly admit my error if I'm wrong -- but it just doesn't compute to me why State would have stalled until the eve of Super Tuesday instead of getting everything out of the news cycles earlier unless there's something there they didn't want voters to see before the votes are cast on that important day.  There will be something pretty bad IMO -- but it won't be fully digested until too late for voters to consider by Tuesday.  

Call me out if I'm wrong...  May take until late next week to find it...  But my guess is it's there.

Edit:  Even possible it's already out there from this last batch--something like that redacted Blumenthal email referring to satellite imagines.  Something that State knows is directly in the bullseye of inexcusable felony.  It's there somewhere.  Which is why staffers and already being set up to take the hit.  It's so shockingly predictable and corrupt and -- so Hillary -- it amazes.

 
Last edited:
Closest we'll see to a smoking gun.  I've said this multiple times in this thread and will gladly admit my error if I'm wrong -- but it just doesn't compute to me why State would have stalled until the eve of Super Tuesday instead of getting everything out of the news cycles earlier unless there's something there they didn't want voters to see before the votes are cast on that important day.  There will be something pretty bad IMO -- but it won't be fully digested until too late for voters to consider by Tuesday.  

Call me out if I'm wrong...  May take until late next week to find it...  But my guess is it's there.

Edit:  Even possible it's already out there from this last batch--something like that redacted Blumenthal email referring to satellite imagines.  Something that State knows is directly in the bullseye of inexcusable felony.  It's there somewhere.  Which is why staffers and already being set up to take the hit.  It's so shockingly predictable and corrupt and -- so Hillary -- it amazes.
Remind us again why State would stall this until Super Tuesday?

 
I thought that was the court ordered deadline.
I'm talking about Ham's hair brained conspiracy theory.  I.e., why would State stall this out for political reasons? If this "smoking gun" exists, it doesn't help democrats to wait until they pick their candidate to drop release the goods. All that does is destroy their chances in the general.

 
I'm talking about Ham's hair brained conspiracy theory.  I.e., why would State stall this out for political reasons? If this "smoking gun" exists, it doesn't help democrats to wait until they pick their candidate to drop release the goods. All that does is destroy their chances in the general.
Too big to fail. :shrug:  

 
I thought that was the court ordered deadline.
Original deadline was JANUARY 29th.  State "missed" it, citing a one day snow storm as the reason and pushed out to FEBRUARY 29.  Too late for the public to digest the last batch before a quarter + of the delegates were decided and Hillary was secure as the presumptive nominee.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top