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 (7 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Sullivan said the State Department’s inspector general last month faulted the department and Clinton’s office for overseeing processes that repeatedly allowed “inaccurate and incomplete” FOIA responses, including a May 2013 reply that found “no records” concerning email accounts Clinton used, even though dozens of senior officials had corresponded with her private account.
Click to expand...
and maybe, just maybe, if there had been an [appointed, permanent] IG in place during Clinton's tenure as SoS, this wouldn't be quite the ####-show it is now.

 
timschochet said:
Im not convinced of this. The problem with Bernie is what it's always been: the word socialist scares off too many people. That's unfair but it's true. And it's also true that between now and November he can't properly educate enough people about it. 

In addition all of the big corporate donors who usually support Republicans are ready to throw their support behind Hillary because they're rightfully terrified of Trump's trade policies. The one thing that would throw them behind Trump is if Bernie is on the other side. 
Click to expand...
Candidate Bernie is only a little to the left of Candidate Obama (circa 2007-2008). Obama was painted as a Socialist and still won easily. I think the label is only going to scare off voters who wouldn't be voting for him anyway.

Against someone like Kasich it might make a difference, but Trumps unfavorable ratings are just too high. He might get something like 30% of a national election vote in a 2 person race. It would be historically lopsided against either Democratic contender. 

 
Sullivan said the State Department’s inspector general last month faulted the department and Clinton’s office for overseeing processes that repeatedly allowed “inaccurate and incomplete” FOIA responses, including a May 2013 reply that found “no records” concerning email accounts Clinton used, even though dozens of senior officials had corresponded with her private account.
Click to expand...
But wait a second.  Tim told me that Hillary's email server was all about convenience and had nothing to do with the Freedom of Information Act.  How could a federal judge and an inspector general get this so terribly wrong?

 
timschochet said:
Hillary will easily beat Trump in November. Sanders would have a 50-50 chance. Sorry but that's the truth. 
Click to expand...
I desperately hope I'm wrong if Clinton gets the nomination, but I don't think so.  Bernie Sanders will demolish Trump in the general election. They play the same kind of game, but Sanders is a black belt and Trump is a street brawler.  

Hillary Clinton will be close. Very, very close. Unless the Republicans step up and kneecap him with a Romney independent run. 

 
thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/272290-comeys-fbi-makes-waves

Love the growing open hostility between Comey and the Administration.  I'm very much hoping for a Saturday Night Massacre type event where failure to bring charges leads to a mass exodus and serious questioning of the legitimacy of the Admin.  in lieu of charges coming, my vote is for a political nightmare that shrouds Hillary throughout the run and beyond.  Maybe just maybe Obama decides he doesn't want to hang his legacy on all that garbage and the charges come after all.  Or else Hillary is just exposed as the racketeer she is.

 
Henry Ford said:
I desperately hope I'm wrong if Clinton gets the nomination, but I don't think so.  Bernie Sanders will demolish Trump in the general election. They play the same kind of game, but Sanders is a black belt and Trump is a street brawler.  

Hillary Clinton will be close. Very, very close. Unless the Republicans step up and kneecap him with a Romney independent run. 
Click to expand...
If you're right I'll give you full credit- before I go commit seppuku, that is. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Exactly.  She has a website and a voting record that shows vast differences between her and either candidate on issues like women's health, the environment, and immigration, among many others. If you choose to defend your willful ignorance of those differences because some of her current positions conflict with some statement she made a decade ago or some bill her husband signed with her support 20 years ago, so be it.  But if Ted Cruz or Donald Trump comes in, shuts down the Clean Power Plan, appoints a Scalia clone to the court and rejects immigration reform in favor of a hardline deportation approach, it is 100% fair to blame those developments on the people who couldn't motivate themselves to vote to prevent them from happening.  Maybe you don't mind those things and you're simply voting for Sanders because of his "single issue," as Clinton likes to say. In which case great, no harm done from your perspective. Your decision to stay home is rational.  But I do care about those things, which means if they happen I get to blame the people who enabled them through inaction.
Click to expand...
Let's not conflate willful ignorance with being highly critical.  There's a substantial difference.  It's funny you bring up the environment and immigration.  Her actions and her words have been very different over the years.  Environment is a pretty good place to start even this election cycle.  "Climate change is real and we need to do something about it" vs "I'm for fracking and increased drilling off our shores".  It's tough to really take her seriously either way.  Foreign policy she's had her struggles being for things before she was against them.  Gay marriage is another place where I guess she's come to the right place now, but I don't really know because I don't know her genuine motivations on any of them.  To me, that's important.  I can support a flawed candidate if I know they are making decisions based on genuine concern for the individual.

There's one thing I have always applauded her for and that was her position on children and children's health.  You can tell that it's something she cares deeply about.  She's a completely different person when she talks about that topic.  For me, I look for THAT Hillary on the other topics as a sign of her really caring and she just doesn't get there.  My position isn't one out of willful ignorance....far from it and I refuse to do the "better by comparison" shtick either.  That's how we've talked ourselves (as an electorate) into voting for some pretty big imbeciles over time.  If that's the bar we set, that's all these politicians are going to do.  I don't expect them to wear 150 pieces of flare if I am only demanding they where 10.

 
Mr. Ham said:
thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/272290-comeys-fbi-makes-waves

Love the growing open hostility between Comey and the Administration.  I'm very much hoping for a Saturday Night Massacre type event where failure to bring charges leads to a mass exodus and serious questioning of the legitimacy of the Admin.  in lieu of charges coming, my vote is for a political nightmare that shrouds Hillary throughout the run and beyond.  Maybe just maybe Obama decides he doesn't want to hang his legacy on all that garbage and the charges come after all.  Or else Hillary is just exposed as the racketeer she is.
Click to expand...
What I thought was interesting from Lynch's comments - aside from her using the term "investigation" and then also that the DOJ was not bound to charge anyone regardless of the recommendation - was that she said it wasn't a matter of operation of law (there's the out folks...) but rather one of procedures and that (presumably FBI) agents would be included in that process. If that's the case I could very well see a sort of dramatic showdown. However I could see a negotiated outcome where a lower down person like Abedin or Sullivan cops a plea to a misdemeanor and fine knowing full well they will be pardoned or given clemency by the WH replete with salary and their old clearance back by next January. However if Hillary is interviewed one major possibility for her is she is caught in a perjury trap, I can't believe that clip that Tripper posted where Hillary says that there was no classified information ever, that won't fly for the FBI, she will have to come clean or face a prosecution on lying about that just like Pertraeus.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/272290-comeys-fbi-makes-waves

Love the growing open hostility between Comey and the Administration.  I'm very much hoping for a Saturday Night Massacre type event where failure to bring charges leads to a mass exodus and serious questioning of the legitimacy of the Admin.  in lieu of charges coming, my vote is for a political nightmare that shrouds Hillary throughout the run and beyond.  Maybe just maybe Obama decides he doesn't want to hang his legacy on all that garbage and the charges come after all.  Or else Hillary is just exposed as the racketeer she is.
Click to expand...
What happened to how the emails released last week were going to produce a bombshell that would result in an indictment? Didn't you predict that? Now you think the Obama Administration is covering up for the Clintons...because?

I love how you just move from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory without any regard for the previous one failing. 

 
timschochet said:
What happened to how the emails released last week were going to produce a bombshell that would result in an indictment? Didn't you predict that? Now you think the Obama Administration is covering up for the Clintons...because?

I love how you just move from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory without any regard for the previous one failing. 
Click to expand...
Huh, a few posts up you have a post claiming "they" did all kinds of awful things to poor Hillary. You've copped to believing in the VRWC.

Little old lady just got run over by a truck, wasn't doing anything.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Hillary will easily beat Trump in November. Sanders would have a 50-50 chance. Sorry but that's the truth. 
Click to expand...
By "Sorry but that's the truth," do you mean "Sorry but that's my prediction even though I'm not making any predictions because I pretty much always get them wrong"?

 
timschochet said:
What happened to how the emails released last week were going to produce a bombshell that would result in an indictment? Didn't you predict that? Now you think the Obama Administration is covering up for the Clintons...because?

I love how you just move from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory without any regard for the previous one failing. 
Click to expand...
What is really funny is that earlier in the thread, one of the narratives was that Obama was actually behind the email investigation because he wanted Biden instead of Hillary to be the nominee (that was before Mr. Ham arrived with his :tinfoilhat: ).

Yes, friends we were told it was better than 50/50 Hillary would be indicted. Now it is that she should be but Obama is protecting her. This is more entertaining than the Ken Starr Follies of the 90s.

 
CdIHvlsWAAAhkci.jpg:large


 
timschochet said:
What happened to how the emails released last week were going to produce a bombshell that would result in an indictment? Didn't you predict that? Now you think the Obama Administration is covering up for the Clintons...because?

I love how you just move from conspiracy theory to conspiracy theory without any regard for the previous one failing. 
Click to expand...
I stand by the prediction, which was never that there would be something indictment worthy (I've maintained that indictment is doubtful--even if warranted).  I predicted that there was something that State was holding back because Hillary didn't want it known prior to Super Tuesday.  That could quite possibly be the email that was withheld by law enforcement.  

I could be wrong, but I also may have been right.  Either way the stall tactics were awfully fishy.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
By "Sorry but that's the truth," do you mean "Sorry but that's my prediction even though I'm not making any predictions because I pretty much always get them wrong"?
Click to expand...
Now that hurts, MT. 

 
squistion said:
What is really funny is that earlier in the thread, one of the narratives was that Obama was actually behind the email investigation because he wanted Biden instead of Hillary to be the nominee (that was before Mr. Ham arrived with his :tinfoilhat: ).

Yes, friends we were told it was better than 50/50 Hillary would be indicted. Now it is that she should be but Obama is protecting her. This is more entertaining than the Ken Starr Follies of the 90s.
Click to expand...
Obama doesn't want to indict Hillary.  Is that really so shocking? She's the best hope of continuing his legacy (i.e. Obamacare not instantly abolished,etc).  It's not a conspiracy theory.  He went on 60 Minutes and said he didn't think Hillary's emails were criminal - and the FBI got pissed because he'd never once been briefed and had no basis to comment -- but already he was lying (implying he had knowledge) to protect her.

Of course he's going to exert political pressure to preserve a lead for Democrat in the election.

You're not this obtuse.

 
Mr. Ham said:
I stand by the prediction, which was never that there would be something indictment worthy (I've maintained that indictment is doubtful--even if warranted).  I predicted that there was something that State was holding back because Hillary didn't want it known prior to Super Tuesday.  That could quite possibly be the email that was withheld by law enforcement.  

I could be wrong, but I also may have been right.  Either way the stall tactics were awfully fishy.
Click to expand...
Well actually on further reflection considering the Feds were waiting for the email rollout to end maybe they were trying to push back the Pagliano immunity and following interviews as far back as possible. That could have been it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well actually on further reflection considering the Feds were waiting for the email rollout to end maybe they were trying to push back the Pagliano indictment and following interviews as far back as possible. That could have been it.
Click to expand...
To the degree that there wasn't an email that said:

Huma:  H, let's break the law!

H: Dunzo!  Therez aliens in Area 51.

I may have been wrong about there being the bombshell shocker in there.  (Although we really don't know).  So I'll conditionally eat crow.

It was apparent however that there was a rationale behind the delays and yes -- something like this is reasonably the root.

 
One odd thing in the emails among many is that Sidney Blumenthal at least twice sends Hillary to NoQuarterUSA.net links.

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05777837.pdf

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05763251.pdf

Seems to me I recall this being the site of some of the earliest anti-Obama rumors back in 2008, the stuff about Wright, Kenya and Ayers especially, and there's still a tag for Ayers so I think that's the same guy. This was a pro-Hillary site in 2008.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/

It's run by Larry Johnson, the ex-CIA analyst who with Tyler Drumheller was part of the outside spy network that Blumenthal used to feed Hillary information on Libya, Europe and the mideast.

Very strange connection for Hillary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher said:
You don't find that a bit petty?
Click to expand...
Hillary sucking up to women?  Sure.

As for the woman in the picture - I do not find it petty.  The photo and comment from Hillary leave an impression that the woman supports Clinton, and that the woman gave Clinton permission to use the photo as advertising.  She may not want people she knows and associates with to have the impression that she supports Clinton.

 
The Commish said:
Let's not conflate willful ignorance with being highly critical.  There's a substantial difference.  It's funny you bring up the environment and immigration.  Her actions and her words have been very different over the years.  Environment is a pretty good place to start even this election cycle.  "Climate change is real and we need to do something about it" vs "I'm for fracking and increased drilling off our shores".  It's tough to really take her seriously either way.  Foreign policy she's had her struggles being for things before she was against them.  Gay marriage is another place where I guess she's come to the right place now, but I don't really know because I don't know her genuine motivations on any of them.  To me, that's important.  I can support a flawed candidate if I know they are making decisions based on genuine concern for the individual.

There's one thing I have always applauded her for and that was her position on children and children's health.  You can tell that it's something she cares deeply about.  She's a completely different person when she talks about that topic.  For me, I look for THAT Hillary on the other topics as a sign of her really caring and she just doesn't get there.  My position isn't one out of willful ignorance....far from it and I refuse to do the "better by comparison" shtick either.  That's how we've talked ourselves (as an electorate) into voting for some pretty big imbeciles over time.  If that's the bar we set, that's all these politicians are going to do.  I don't expect them to wear 150 pieces of flare if I am only demanding they where 10.
Click to expand...
FWIW this are not conflicting statements.  I agree with both of them to some extent, albeit with significant oversight and disclosure requirements for fracking and with my own preference that the affected communities (coastal in the case of offshore drilling) be the ones with the most influence over the decision, since it's largely a question of jobs vs localized environmental risks.  Fossil fuel questions do not have easy answers: yes we'd all love to live in a world where all of our energy needs are met with renewable fuels and reductions on the demand side, and I prefer candidates who vote to fund research and regulation aimed at those ends (which includes Clinton). But until that magical time comes we have to do something to keep the lights on.

I agree with and share the rest of your concerns and criticisms of her.  I'm just not sure how they rise to the level of deciding to stay home if it comes down to Clinton vs Trump or Cruz.  Versus a run of the mill opponent, sure, I totally get it, might even agree.  But not those two.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
Hillary sucking up to women?  Sure.

As for the woman in the picture - I do not find it petty.  The photo and comment from Hillary leave an impression that the woman supports Clinton, and that the woman gave Clinton permission to use the photo as advertising.  She may not want people she knows and associates with to have the impression that she supports Clinton.
Click to expand...
I dunno, man. Getting worked up over an instagram photo that calls you inspiring and compliments your coffee-making skills seems petty.

 
pantagrapher said:
I dunno, man. Getting worked up over an instagram photo that calls you inspiring and compliments your coffee-making skills seems petty.
Click to expand...
How is she getting worked up?

Someone probably brought it to her attention, which caused her to reply, and politely ask that it be taken down.  I don't see her acting obnoxious or mean-spirited here.  Me thinks you are taking any anti-clinton comments a bit too seriously...

 
Hillary actually looks good in that photo.  Nice to see her wearing something that isn't so bright that it burns out my computer screen.

 
Really a strange choice for a candidate with standing trust issues to try to say that sanders supports:

-bans on clean energy

-GWB

-the Koch brothers

amongst other things. 

When the same invective is used to speak out against trump, can I believe her when she's attacking him?  Or delivering any version of the truth if she's so willing and able to lie to our face?  

Plenty of places and things to go after Bernie on, without being a Mary Sue about everything. 

 
Smack Tripper said:
Really a strange choice for a candidate with standing trust issues to try to say that sanders supports:

-bans on clean energy

-GWB

-the Koch brothers

amongst other things. 

When the same invective is used to speak out against trump, can I believe her when she's attacking him?  Or delivering any version of the truth if she's so willing and able to lie to our face?  

Plenty of places and things to go after Bernie on, without being a Mary Sue about everything. 
Click to expand...
Let's see how Hillary has painted Sanders:

  • Capital 'S' socialist
  • For whites only
  • Wasn't anywhere near the civil rights movement
  • Anti-Obama
  • Pro-guns
  • Anti-environmentalist
  • In alliance with the Kochs
 
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
257K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Back
Top