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 (9 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that the Clinton campaign was making a big deal about a picture up on Bernie's website regarding a sit in from college where they thought it wasn't really Bernie in the picture?  I believe they were saying it is false advertising although IIRC the picture actually was of Bernie.  Seems like Hillary's picture of the woman and his business with the implied message that the coffee store owner is supporting Hillary falls under the same argument they were just recently making against Bernie.

 
Would you find it petty if Bernie had a picture of you online with a caption insinuating that you supported him?
You mean would I be upset? If he said "happy to drink delicious coffee with this Bernie voter" or something like that, I'd probably clarify. But that's not what happened here. Just looks like Hillary is trying to say something nice about the place she had coffee that morning and the barista decided to get prickly about it.

 
Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that the Clinton campaign was making a big deal about a picture up on Bernie's website regarding a sit in from college where they thought it wasn't really Bernie in the picture?  I believe they were saying it is false advertising although IIRC the picture actually was of Bernie.  Seems like Hillary's picture of the woman and his business with the implied message that the coffee store owner is supporting Hillary falls under the same argument they were just recently making against Bernie.
It was some reporter with the Washington Post, I thought.

 
It was some reporter with the Washington Post, I thought.
The reporter's boyfriend is either in the Clinton campaign, or moves in the Clinton circles.  i.e. the reporter - he is not really a reporter, which is how he got in a bit of quicksand over this "story" - he is on the OpEd board of the WaPo - likely got the impetus to run with the story from Clinton surrogates.

 
The reporter's boyfriend is either in the Clinton campaign, or moves in the Clinton circles.  i.e. the reporter - he is not really a reporter, which is how he got in a bit of quicksand over this "story" - he is on the OpEd board of the WaPo - likely got the impetus to run with the story from Clinton surrogates.
Did they not get married yet? He should make an honest man out of his boyfriend.  

 
Such nonsense. I didn't care about the last photo and I don't care about this one.

We're trying to choose a President and 90% of the stuff that gets discussed is such total crap. 

 
Did they not get married yet? He should make an honest man out of his boyfriend.  
I don't know if they got married - its possible...quick search does not show anything.

During one exchange a Twitter user points out that Capehart's partner, Nick Schmit, works for the Clinton campaign, adding the hashtag "#conflictofinrerest." Capehart responds to the tweet, saying, "No. He does not."

While it's technically true that Nick Schmit does not work for the Clinton Campaign, Capehart is really splitting hairs here. According to Schmit's LinkedInprofile, he did work on the Hillary Clinton for President campaign in 2008 and for the Clinton Foundation. He also seems to have managed to land a job in the State Department during her time there.

 
Such nonsense. I didn't care about the last photo and I don't care about this one.

We're trying to choose a President and 90% of the stuff that gets discussed is such total crap. 
This raises a question that has been running through my head:

What do you think are the top 3-5 qualities we should be looking for as we interview these candidates?

For me, in no particular order:

- Leadership - can the person lead - both as a national figurehead, and also in a practical sense

- Agenda - what are the candidates' priorities

- Judgment - will they make a sound judgment based on the facts as they understand them (Not necessarily will I agree with the judgement)

- Trustworthiness - really, none of the other stuff matters, if I can't trust what the candidate is selling me.

 
This raises a question that has been running through my head:

What do you think are the top 3-5 qualities we should be looking for as we interview these candidates?

For me, in no particular order:

- Leadership - can the person lead - both as a national figurehead, and also in a practical sense

- Agenda - what are the candidates' priorities

- Judgment - will they make a sound judgment based on the facts as they understand them (Not necessarily will I agree with the judgement)

- Trustworthiness - really, none of the other stuff matters, if I can't trust what the candidate is selling me.
This sounds pretty reasonable to me. In terms of agenda I think the candidate's priorities have to be measured against what is realistic in terms of Congress. 

My view of trustworthiness is based on what the person has done in the past and what I expect him or her to do now, and not on what they'll say while running for office. 

That being said, all of these arguments are being made in a bubble. For me, the reality is we are facing the possibility of Donald Trump as our next President. That makes my choice a whole lot easier. I would vote for Ted Cruz over Donald Trump. I would vote for Maxine Waters over Donald Trump. 

 
This sounds pretty reasonable to me. In terms of agenda I think the candidate's priorities have to be measured against what is realistic in terms of Congress. 

My view of trustworthiness is based on what the person has done in the past and what I expect him or her to do now, and not on what they'll say while running for office. 

That being said, all of these arguments are being made in a bubble. For me, the reality is we are facing the possibility of Donald Trump as our next President. That makes my choice a whole lot easier. I would vote for Ted Cruz over Donald Trump. I would vote for Maxine Waters over Donald Trump. 
On trustworthiness you just have that low on the ranking. For Democrats prioritizing that Hillary only gets 10-15% of the Dem vote in some primaries.

Note also the loss of trust in government is IMO partially driving the rise of Sanders and Trump (although one is a genuine reformer and the other a poseur). Hillary as president (likely scenario) will just throw gas on that flame. 

 
I liked what Hillary had to say about trustworthiness last night. I liked her admission that she was not a natural politician like her husband or Obama. 

I find her pretty likable. I wish the country would change its mind about this. 

 
I liked what Hillary had to say about trustworthiness last night. I liked her admission that she was not a natural politician like her husband or Obama. 

I find her pretty likable. I wish the country would change its mind about this. 
Because what she says matters, not what she does. - Well for those for whom this issue is foremost you would be in a 10% minority, at least in Michigan.

 
I liked what Hillary had to say about trustworthiness last night. I liked her admission that she was not a natural politician like her husband or Obama. 

I find her pretty likable. I wish the country would change its mind about this. 
I think she's fine from a cocktail-party-likeability standpoint, but she's a manipulative liar and her positions change with political winds.  It's not that I don't like her, I don't trust her.

 
I liked what Hillary had to say about trustworthiness last night. I liked her admission that she was not a natural politician like her husband or Obama. 

I find her pretty likable. I wish the country would change its mind about this. 
This is why you shouldn't like her Tim, and why you're mocked for liking her. Every move she has made in her life since the day Bill was elected has been for this job. She is the embodiment of the phony, sleazy politician. If her lips are moving, she's lying.  

 
Hillary Clinton on email indictment: 'That's not going to happen'

Hillary Clinton insisted Wednesday night that she would not be indicted over her email controversy, firing back at debate moderators who asked whether she would drop out of the contest under those circumstances.

"Oh for goodness, that is not going to happen," Clinton said. "I'm not even answering that question."



Here's what @HillaryClinton said when asked if she'd drop out of the race if indicted #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/H2v5ja9B3D

— Mashable News (@MashableNews) March 10, 2016



...The FBI is currently investigating whether Clinton's use of the server broke any laws. ...

http://mashable.com/2016/03/09/hillary-clinton-emails-indictment/#ZJablya0u8q3

How exactly does Hillary "know" as she said that she will not be indicted? She probably does know.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CdKRzkdUMAAoxcM.jpg


Clinton violates DNC rules - allegedly...

The story is a non-story, but the photo made me chuckle...the Queen and her Court...

 
I liked what Hillary had to say about trustworthiness last night. I liked her admission that she was not a natural politician like her husband or Obama. 

I find her pretty likable. I wish the country would change its mind about this. 
I saw someone who was pretending to be real as to combat her image of being deceitful. As if that natural politician line wasn't scripted and rehearsed. 

 
This sounds pretty reasonable to me. In terms of agenda I think the candidate's priorities have to be measured against what is realistic in terms of Congress. 

My view of trustworthiness is based on what the person has done in the past and what I expect him or her to do now, and not on what they'll say while running for office. 

That being said, all of these arguments are being made in a bubble. For me, the reality is we are facing the possibility of Donald Trump as our next President. That makes my choice a whole lot easier. I would vote for Ted Cruz over Donald Trump. I would vote for Maxine Waters over Donald Trump. 


Something I find odd about this:

- with Sanders the argument by Team Hillary is that he will be powerless and ineffectual, that he will just be a babe in the woods vs those evil Republicans whereas she is this tough armadillo who knows how to get things done!

- with Trump the argument is that he will run roughshod and destroy America.

- at the same time, Trump is a super weak candidate who has no shot at getting elected.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did she hire the Sanders look a like for mock debates or to just yell at him when she wants too?
I think so, and if you look closely his arm is in a sling.  She probably took a bat to him when he asked tough questions. Poor fella.

 
Last edited:
RAMOS: OK, next question. I want to continue with the issue of trust. Secretary Clinton, on the night of the attacks in Benghazi, you sent an e-mail to your daughter Chelsea...saying, that Al Qaida was responsible for the killing of the Americans.  However, some of the families claim that you lied to them. To that speed, the mother of the information officer, Chesney. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: Hillary and Obama and Panetta and Biden and all of -- and Susan Rice, all told me it was a video, when they knew it was not the video. And they said that they would call me and let me know what the outcome was.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAMOS: Secretary Clinton, did you lie to them?

CLINTON: You know, look. I feel a great deal of sympathy for the families of the four brave Americans that we lost at Benghazi. And I certainly can't even imagine the grief that she has for losing her son, but she's wrong. She's absolutely wrong.

I and everybody in the administration, all the people she named, the president, the vice president, Susan Rice, we were scrambling to get information that was changing, literally by the hour. And when we had information, we made it public. But then sometimes we had to go back and say we have new information that contradicts it. ... ..

...

RAMOS: But Secretary Clinton, what they're saying is that -- what the families are saying is that you told your daughter Chelsea one thing and a different thing to them.

CLINTON: Jorge, that makes my point. At the time I e-mailed with my daughter, a terrorist group had taken credit for the attacks on our facility in Benghazi. Within 16, 18 hours, they rescinded taking credit. They did it all on social media. And the video did play a role.

We have captured one of the lead terrorists and he admits it was both a terrorist attack and it was influenced by the video. This was fog of war. This was complicated. The most effective, comprehensive reports and studies demonstrate that.

Look, as I said in the beginning, I deeply regret that we lost four Americans....  And I of course sympathize with members of the families who are still, you know, very much grieving. And I wish that there could be an easy answer at the time, but we learned a lot, and the intelligence kept... improving, and we learned enough to say what we think happened at Benghazi.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/transcript-the-post-univision-democratic-debate-annotated/

- Hillary says she did not tell the family the movie played a role... and yet here she is saying it did play a role? Why wouldn't she have told the family it played a role if it did? And why would that be so awful now if she did? Isn't this bizarre self-contradiction?

- Let's say this is true. Can someone explain when Hillary did say a movie had caused spontaneous attacks? If she didn't tell the families that, and if as she told Congress she did not tell the American public that, when did she ever say it? Has she ever said that the movie caused the attack? It seems like she contradicts the administration at every turn on this issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
they look awfully comfortable together..    I'm sure they both know things about eachother's skeletons in the closet
Just four chummy co-oligarchicist multimultimillionaire Manhattanites sharing some jokes over who gets to go first at world domination.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RAMOS: ... And now I have a question about your emails. Your Republican opponents say that those emails have endangered our national security. When you were secretary of state, you wrote 104 emails in your private server that the government now says contain classified information according to The Washington Post analysis.

That goes against a memo that you personally sent to your employees in 2011 directing all of them to use official email, precisely because of security concerns. So it seems that you issued one set of rules for yourself and a different set of rules for the rest of the State Department.

So who specifically gave you permission to operate your email system as you did? Was it President Barack Obama? And would you drop out of the race if you get indicted?

CLINTON: [blahblahblah]

RAMOS: Secretary Clinton, the questions were, who gave you permission to operate? Was it President Obama?

CLINTON: There was no permission to be asked. It had been done by my predecessors. It was permitted.

RAMOS: If you get indicted would you drop out?

...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/transcript-the-post-univision-democratic-debate-annotated/

Now that is a gutsy question.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This raises a question that has been running through my head:

What do you think are the top 3-5 qualities we should be looking for as we interview these candidates?

For me, in no particular order:

- Leadership - can the person lead - both as a national figurehead, and also in a practical sense

- Agenda - what are the candidates' priorities

- Judgment - will they make a sound judgment based on the facts as they understand them (Not necessarily will I agree with the judgement)

- Trustworthiness - really, none of the other stuff matters, if I can't trust what the candidate is selling me.
I would add Experience - not sure if you consider that a quality but one of my biggest issues with Trump early on was the experience - honestly I didn't know a whole lot about him other than he was a "successful" businessman.  I want someone with actual political experience. 

NOTE - I've since learned Trump may be insane and a bigot so the experience thing has gone down the list a little with him.

 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/transcript-the-post-univision-democratic-debate-annotated/

- Hillary says she did not tell the family the movie played a role... and yet here she is saying it did play a role? Why wouldn't she have told the family it played a role if it did? And why would that be so awful now if she did? Isn't this bizarre self-contradiction?

- Let's say this is true. Can someone explain when Hillary did say a movie had caused spontaneous attacks? If she didn't tell the families that, and if as she told Congress she did not tell the American public that, when did she ever say it? Has she ever said that the movie caused the attack? It seems like she contradicts the administration at every turn on this issue.
:goodposting:

 
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.
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.
I have a hard time buying into the individual that wants to expand our exploration of fossil fuels (which contribute directly to our climate change) who's also supposedly pounding the drum to do something about climate change.  Factor in the potential risks associated with drilling off our coasts and I'll pass.  Put that money towards more concrete alternative sources of energy.  One of the things I have praised Obama for was his focus on solar.  I'd much rather they continue to put money towards those sorts of initiatives.

You'll have to ask those who stay home why they do so.  That's not for me.  I don't stay home, but I also don't subscribe to the "well, you either vote D or R unless you want to waste your vote" concept either.  My vote is my vote and it's my voice in this goat rodeo of a process we have and that doesn't change regardless of who I pull the lever (or push the button) for in elections.

 
I have a hard time buying into the individual that wants to expand our exploration of fossil fuels (which contribute directly to our climate change) who's also supposedly pounding the drum to do something about climate change.  Factor in the potential risks associated with drilling off our coasts and I'll pass.  Put that money towards more concrete alternative sources of energy.  One of the things I have praised Obama for was his focus on solar.  I'd much rather they continue to put money towards those sorts of initiatives.

You'll have to ask those who stay home why they do so.  That's not for me.  I don't stay home, but I also don't subscribe to the "well, you either vote D or R unless you want to waste your vote" concept either.  My vote is my vote and it's my voice in this goat rodeo of a process we have and that doesn't change regardless of who I pull the lever (or push the button) for in elections.
Nice work on the double-quoting, clearly you've mastered this new board format.

Two errors here worth clarifying.  First, it's not clear that the net climate impact of fracking is as negative as you portray it to be. Yes there are concerns associated with the process, and of course all fossil fuels have negative impacts on climate change.  But the fuel it produces burns clearer than coal and oil, and as long as we want our lights to turn on and don't have renewable resources capable of addressing our demand we have to burn something. And then the inquiry goes even further, asking if having so much access to cheap "clean" natural gas will encourage consumption and discourage development of renewables.  And even beyond climate change there's complex issues of drinking water risks on one side, economic and security benefits (it boosts domestic production and thus domestic jobs and also reduces dependency on foreign sources of fossil fuels) on the other side, and so on and so on.  It's a complicated issue, which is why I have no problem with Hillary essentially saying "it's complicated.  I have no problem with Sanders' position either; if you've looked at it and arrived at the position that the cons outweigh the pros that's fine too.

One other clarification- there's no money thrown at fracking and offshore drilling that could be diverted to alternative energy or elsewhere.  In fact it's the opposite- offshore drilling generates billions in royalties, much of which goes to environmental protection/mitigation.  Same is true of fracking if we allow it on public lands, the additional production means additional revenue.

Anyway, if you don't stay home in November I've got no quarrel with you.  My only quarrel was with those who said they were gonna stay home in November and then blame the Dems for nominating Hillary instead of Sanders if Trump or Cruz wins.  Screw that.  If you've got a chance to help oppose those bozos and you choose to stay home instead you lose the right to complain IMO.

 
One difference maker in Michigan for Hillary might have been the black vote.

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/mi/Dem

Hillary got 68% of the black vote as opposes to the mid to high 80s she got in MS & SC. I'm not sure if it's regional or a trend, but that was something that happened.
I am curious if Bernie's line about the White people not knowing about Ghettos actually worked.  Something happened leading up that really changed some people minds according to polls.

 
I am curious if Bernie's line about the White people not knowing about Ghettos actually worked.  Something happened leading up that really changed some people minds according to polls.
Nate Silver's take:

Nate Silver@NateSilver538 Mar 8

I said this afternoon I had a “gut feeling” that Sanders could beat his polling in MI. Here's what was behind that. http://53eig.ht/221kabX 
Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 Mar 8


Basically:

1) Demographics suggested a closer race than polls.

2) Possible Clinton voter complacency.

3) History of bad polling in Michigan.


 
Nice work on the double-quoting, clearly you've mastered this new board format.

Two errors here worth clarifying.  First, it's not clear that the net climate impact of fracking is as negative as you portray it to be. Yes there are concerns associated with the process, and of course all fossil fuels have negative impacts on climate change.  But the fuel it produces burns clearer than coal and oil, and as long as we want our lights to turn on and don't have renewable resources capable of addressing our demand we have to burn something. And then the inquiry goes even further, asking if having so much access to cheap "clean" natural gas will encourage consumption and discourage development of renewables.  And even beyond climate change there's complex issues of drinking water risks on one side, economic and security benefits (it boosts domestic production and thus domestic jobs and also reduces dependency on foreign sources of fossil fuels) on the other side, and so on and so on.  It's a complicated issue, which is why I have no problem with Hillary essentially saying "it's complicated.  I have no problem with Sanders' position either; if you've looked at it and arrived at the position that the cons outweigh the pros that's fine too.

One other clarification- there's no money thrown at fracking and offshore drilling that could be diverted to alternative energy or elsewhere.  In fact it's the opposite- offshore drilling generates billions in royalties, much of which goes to environmental protection/mitigation.  Same is true of fracking if we allow it on public lands, the additional production means additional revenue.

Anyway, if you don't stay home in November I've got no quarrel with you.  My only quarrel was with those who said they were gonna stay home in November and then blame the Dems for nominating Hillary instead of Sanders if Trump or Cruz wins.  Screw that.  If you've got a chance to help oppose those bozos and you choose to stay home instead you lose the right to complain IMO.
To this point, I was referring to the monies they would allocate as part of their policies.  If they say "give them $50 billion for offshore drilling" I'd rather that $50 billion go elsewhere whether it's into research for alternate sources or the refinement of existing sources.

I guess people will blame others.  I don't know.  All I know is I won't be directly contributing to the election of Hillary or Trump/Cruz with my vote.  I will sleep well knowing that.

 
Odds of a Hillary email grand jury underway just went much higher


By Thomas Lifson
I have speculated that, given the immunity offered to Bryan Pagliano, it is possible that a grand jury has been convened.  But I am not a lawyer, much less a former U.S. attorney.  Joseph E. diGenova, on the other hand, is one of a small group of attorneys generally considered a super-lawyer, and not only a veteran U.S. attorney, but the former U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., at the very top of federal prosecutors.  So when Joe diGenova offers an opinion on the likelihood of a grand jury being empaneled, we (a group that includes Hillary Clinton! – possibly the first time I have even included myself in a grouping with Hillary) should pay attention. 

Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller News Foundation spoke with him:
 

“My long experience as the United States Attorney and an independent counsel makes me conclude as a matter of professional judgment that a grand jury exists,” diGenova told TheDCNF.  “It is readily apparent to me that there is at least a grand jury impaneled for the purposes of issuing subpoenas,” he said.



The specifics of diGenova’s expert opinion are daunting for Hillary.  It is not just that violations of law over classified information that are likely at issue.


The Bureau has between 100 and 150 agents assigned to the case. They would not have that many people assigned to a classified information case[.]



Remember that diGenova has actually run investigations.  So he knows about resource allocation and subject matter for inquiry.

“Based on reports that agents are asking questions about the foundation, it seems to me to properly the subject is a second prong of the investigation,” he said.

And what might that second prong be?  He doesn’t say, but Pollock offers this helpful reminder:


The Department of State’s Inspector General (IG) subpoenaed documents from the Clinton Foundation last fall to determine if State Department policies had been influenced by foundation activities. The State IG asked for records held by the foundation and Huma Abedin, who for six months simultaneously worked for former Secretary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

A number of the 55,000 pages of government-related emails that were released under a court order also show numerous emails between Clinton’s aides and the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director, Amitabh Desai.



And another anonymous source says:


The corruption probe is being led by the Justice Department’s public integrity division, a former FBI agent who requested anonymity told TheDCNF.



That would be consistent with bribery charges and the like – far beyond abuses of classified information, and if successfully prosecuted, opening the possibility of prison.  Reports that the FBI forensic team has recovered the erased emails from Hillary’s server open the door to many other charges, including destruction of evidence and criminal conspiracy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To this point, I was referring to the monies they would allocate as part of their policies.  If they say "give them $50 billion for offshore drilling" I'd rather that $50 billion go elsewhere whether it's into research for alternate sources or the refinement of existing sources.

I guess people will blame others.  I don't know.  All I know is I won't be directly contributing to the election of Hillary or Trump/Cruz with my vote.  I will sleep well knowing that.
As far as I know nobody is allocating or proposing to allocate any money for offshore drilling and fracking, other than minor administrative costs and environmental research and whatnot. They're both net revenue generators for the feds by a substantial amount.

If by "they" you mean energy companies that might make more sense, but I seriously doubt that Exxon Mobil would just throw up their hands and move to an alternative-only business plan if we barred domestic fracking and offshore drilling.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top