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 (12 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
It won't make any difference. We've been through this before. Don't you remember the mom in Texas who blamed Bush for her son dying in Iraq? At the time I remember thinking I was sorry for her loss but that she was being irrational. It's the same thing here. 
Click to expand...
Ok - there was no dispute as to how Cindy Sheehan's son died, right? I mean, Pres. Bush didn't tell Mrs. Sheehan in front of her son's coffin, "Well, ma'am, er, confidentially, the Russians did it!"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Is it the smoking gun you've been counting on? 
Click to expand...
Hillary: "FYI worth distributing."

Blumenthal - presumably this is forwarded intelligence from Larry Johnson and Tyler Drumheller:

the Benghazi attacks were funded by these financiers in Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
http://imgur.com/oWwzlD0

Well it's not turning up in the State email database, that much is true. It may have to do with the lateness of it (2/16/13), though there are emails at least into January 2013 and as late as February 1st 2013 in the Foia documents.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
It won't make any difference. We've been through this before. Don't you remember the mom in Texas who blamed Bush for her son dying in Iraq? At the time I remember thinking I was sorry for her loss but that she was being irrational. It's the same thing here. 
Click to expand...
The difference is, there is tape of Hillary lying to spin into a sound byte

 
Henry Ford said:
Don't get me wrong, I think she should be charged, and I think the FBI wants it done.  But I don't think an uninvolved former prosecutor has the insight to say there's already a grand jury because he's a "super lawyer."
Click to expand...
Charged with what?   

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hillary: "FYI worth distributing."

Blumenthal - presumably this is forwarded intelligence from Larry Johnson and Tyler Drumheller:

http://imgur.com/oWwzlD0

Well it's not turning up in the State email database, that much is true. It may have to do with the lateness of it (2/16/13), though there are emails at least into January 2013 and as late as February 1st 2013 in the Foia documents.
Click to expand...
You've accused me in the past of attaching myself to any and every conspiracy theory.  I'll take the criticism and won't fall into the trap, admitting that connecting too many dots here is premature and too convenient...

But the Guccifer extradition and its timing are more than a little curious, and certainly raise an eyebrow as to whether there's a grand jury hearing testimony.  

Edit: Just read your second link and it's so incredibly riveting.  If she did sit on that Intel, it's shocking...  But regardless the fact that that info is bouncing between AOL and a private server is mind boggling.  

Tim -- come on, even you must be sort of intrigued by the implications here, right?

 
Last edited:
Hey remember that time Hillary was told by her hired gun intelligence team that Saudis funded the Benghazi attack?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
You've accused me in the past of attaching myself to any and every conspiracy theory.  I'll take the criticism and won't fall into the trap, admitting that connecting too many dots here is premature and too convenient...

But the Guccifer extradition and its timing are more than a little curious, and certainly raise an eyebrow as to whether there's a grand jury hearing testimony.  

Edit: Just read your second link and it's so incredibly riveting.  If she did sit on that Intel, it's shocking...  But regardless the fact that that info is bouncing between AOL and a private server is mind boggling.  

Tim -- come on, even you must be sort of intrigued by the implications here, right?
Click to expand...
Not really, no. At this point I'm only interested in the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Everything else is irrelevant. Since the stuff you're talking about will never make news beyond internet conspiracy theories, it's not interesting to me at all. 

 
timschochet said:
Not really, no. At this point I'm only interested in the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Everything else is irrelevant. Since the stuff you're talking about will never make news beyond internet conspiracy theories, it's not interesting to me at all. 
Click to expand...
That level of Intel floating around on AOL.  Oh -- nothing to see here.  Hacker extradited to US when facing charges oversees.  Oh, nothing to see.  This woman and her duplicity may ultimately elect Trump and she never should have been thrust on us.  I almost think we deserve to have our noses cut off to spite our face.

Hillary is toxic, and it's all her doing.   

 
Mr. Ham said:
That level of Intel floating around on AOL.  Oh -- nothing to see here.  Hacker extradited to US when facing charges oversees.  Oh, nothing to see.  This woman and her duplicity may ultimately elect Trump and she never should have been thrust on us.  I almost think we deserve to have our noses cut off to spite our face.

Hillary is toxic, and it's all her doing.   
Click to expand...
None of this is going anywhere. When you wrote "nothing to see", that's about as accurate as you've been. It really is nothing to see, because there's not going to be any indictment, and there's not going to be any grand jury, and there's not going to be any FBI people recommending indictment either. There may be a report issued criticizing Hillary Clinton, or there may be one absolving her; either way, nobody is going to pay too much attention to it. People like you will no doubt be convinced that it's all a cover up, and the rest of the country will yawn and move on. 

Hillary is not toxic; she's going to be our next President. I think she will be a pretty good one. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
You've accused me in the past of attaching myself to any and every conspiracy theory.  I'll take the criticism and won't fall into the trap, admitting that connecting too many dots here is premature and too convenient...

But the Guccifer extradition and its timing are more than a little curious, and certainly raise an eyebrow as to whether there's a grand jury hearing testimony.  

Edit: Just read your second link and it's so incredibly riveting.  If she did sit on that Intel, it's shocking...  But regardless the fact that that info is bouncing between AOL and a private server is mind boggling.  

Tim -- come on, even you must be sort of intrigued by the implications here, right?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I enjoy foreign policy, history and all the minutiae that goes with this. What we the public is seeing is original documentation that usually isn't seen until 50-75 years after it's happening. I've had this conversation with Tim, who's a history buff, and this is the stuff of history. But Tim views this as witchcraft essentially. Sort of like how Squizz won't so much as look at Hillary's own testimony, avert ye eyes.

One other thing on that 2/13/13 Blumenthal/Hillary email - note the part about "extremely sensitive sources" and "individual with sensitive access." Now how are Drumheller and Larry Johnson getting inside information from (in various emails) all of Libya, Sudan, Algeria, the UK and "as well as the highest levels of European governments and Western intelligence and security services"?

Are they just FOS? They are ex-CIA and Hillary (or Blumenthal or the Foundation or Hillary's friends) was paying them, doubtful. Note also the "Source Comment" entries. Apparently that is a formal template used in US intelligence services.

It's an open question how these guys where getting their intelligence. If it was coming from human intelligence sources of their own, well that's possible but that's a lot of ground to cover. Getting info like this, human source or signals intelligence, from inside the US intelligence community would make sense though. If so there's a word for that: spying.

 
timschochet said:
None of this is going anywhere. When you wrote "nothing to see", that's about as accurate as you've been. It really is nothing to see, because there's not going to be any indictment, and there's not going to be any grand jury, and there's not going to be any FBI people recommending indictment either. There may be a report issued criticizing Hillary Clinton, or there may be one absolving her; either way, nobody is going to pay too much attention to it. People like you will no doubt be convinced that it's all a cover up, and the rest of the country will yawn and move on. 

Hillary is not toxic; she's going to be our next President. I think she will be a pretty good one. 
Click to expand...


She's a criminal.  

 
timschochet said:
None of this is going anywhere. When you wrote "nothing to see", that's about as accurate as you've been. It really is nothing to see, because there's not going to be any indictment, and there's not going to be any grand jury, and there's not going to be any FBI people recommending indictment either. There may be a report issued criticizing Hillary Clinton, or there may be one absolving her; either way, nobody is going to pay too much attention to it. People like you will no doubt be convinced that it's all a cover up, and the rest of the country will yawn and move on. 

Hillary is not toxic; she's going to be our next President. I think she will be a pretty good one. 
Click to expand...
Perhaps the only time he has been accurate in this thread.

 
timschochet said:
None of this is going anywhere. When you wrote "nothing to see", that's about as accurate as you've been. It really is nothing to see, because there's not going to be any indictment, and there's not going to be any grand jury, and there's not going to be any FBI people recommending indictment either. There may be a report issued criticizing Hillary Clinton, or there may be one absolving her; either way, nobody is going to pay too much attention to it. People like you will no doubt be convinced that it's all a cover up, and the rest of the country will yawn and move on. 

Hillary is not toxic; she's going to be our next President. I think she will be a pretty good one. 
Click to expand...
This is roughly what I thought would happen with Petraeus.  It wasn't what happened.

 
timschochet said:
You thought Petraeus would be our next President? 

The two situations are hardly comparable. 
Click to expand...
No, that's true.  Petraeus is a highly decorated officer who has been internationally recognized as a superior military mind and was a 4-Star General and Director of the CIA.

 
timschochet said:
None of this is going anywhere. When you wrote "nothing to see", that's about as accurate as you've been. It really is nothing to see, because there's not going to be any indictment, and there's not going to be any grand jury, and there's not going to be any FBI people recommending indictment either. There may be a report issued criticizing Hillary Clinton, or there may be one absolving her; either way, nobody is going to pay too much attention to it. People like you will no doubt be convinced that it's all a cover up, and the rest of the country will yawn and move on. 

Hillary is not toxic; she's going to be our next President. I think she will be a pretty good one. 
Click to expand...
Not worth personally quibbling about.  If any of this is true, then I doubt it can or will be buried.

So we carry on and wait.  But as a candidate, Hillary is the equivalent of having felt an odd lump on your ball.  It's growing and sure it may be benign -- but carrying on ignoring it seems odd.

But hey, it may be malignant and you'll remove it and win the Tour de France by cheating...

Congrats on that.

 
KingPrawn said:
I think what you mean is that she's so good at being a criminal
Click to expand...
Well that's another point. She has to be pretty damn brilliant at it, because according to her enemies she's been doing #### for decades and yet she's never been charged with anything. She's a female Lex Luthor. 

 
timschochet said:
Well that's another point. She has to be pretty damn brilliant at it, because according to her enemies she's been doing #### for decades and yet she's never been charged with anything. She's a female Lex Luthor. 
Click to expand...
Why can't she be catwoman, or harley quinn or something?

 
timschochet said:
Don't know who Harley is. 

But she can't be Catwoman because Catwoman is stupid and always gets caught and thrown into jail. 
Click to expand...
Look, if you want to be wrong about real life that's fine.  But stop being completely wrong about comic book characters.  It's beneath you.

 
4azhcBU.jpg


 
timschochet said:
None of this is going anywhere. When you wrote "nothing to see", that's about as accurate as you've been. It really is nothing to see, because there's not going to be any indictment, and there's not going to be any grand jury, and there's not going to be any FBI people recommending indictment either. There may be a report issued criticizing Hillary Clinton, or there may be one absolving her; either way, nobody is going to pay too much attention to it. People like you will no doubt be convinced that it's all a cover up, and the rest of the country will yawn and move on. 

Hillary is not toxic; she's going to be our next President. I think she will be a pretty good one. 
Click to expand...
I don't know if there will be an indictment.  I don't know if there is a cover up.  I don't know what any reports will say.  I do know that her judgment in this whole affair was exceedingly poor.  I do know that her ability to stand up and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding this affair is nonexistent.  IMO, that, along with a number of other ethical lapses and incidents of poor judgment, are enough to disqualify her from office, IMO.  And that's really the important thing.

 
timschochet said:
Not really, no. At this point I'm only interested in the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Everything else is irrelevant. Since the stuff you're talking about will never make news beyond internet conspiracy theories, it's not interesting to me at all. 
Click to expand...
Back to one of my earlier points.  You're willing to ignore all of Hillary's failings, all in the name of defeating Trump.  In other words, the end justifies the means.

For those of us concerned with, say, integrity, we actually look at things like this, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/5-times-hillary-clinton-has-played-fast-and-loose-with-the-facts-on-bernie-sanderss-record/, and we don't like what we see.

 
Tim takes the cynical position that the campaign process is designed to placate the stupid, and therefore anything is excusable because the populace doesn't deserve the truth.  The real process he believes is played out beyond their paltry understanding, so screw them.  We can sort out what the candidates believe after they win, and even then we have to assume they'll work for some public interest then.  As long as the people get sausages and they're tasty, people don't need to see how they're made.  Doesn't matter what's in them or how much they cost.  Take what you're given and say, "More please."  

 
Rich Conway said:
Back to one of my earlier points.  You're willing to ignore all of Hillary's failings, all in the name of defeating Trump.  In other words, the end justifies the means.

For those of us concerned with, say, integrity, we actually look at things like this, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/5-times-hillary-clinton-has-played-fast-and-loose-with-the-facts-on-bernie-sanderss-record/, and we don't like what we see.
Click to expand...
Can't copy from your link, but the last point is vile.  The woman is just gross.  Not only is her attavk untrue about Bernie supporting deregulation, but she's attacking him for supporting something Bill signed into law. 

Why?  Truth doesn't matter.  She knows there's no truth to all of these stocks, but it's a tactic to make him try to defend complicated subject matter than spans beyond sound bites.  It's malicious and evil.  

 
timschochet said:
Good morning. I see I'm being psychoanalyzed again. As if supporting Hillary is an irrational position, lol. 
Click to expand...
"She's better than Trump" isn't irrational.  "She did nothing wrong" is irrational.  "She's basically an honest person" is irrational.  "The alternative is Trump, so we shouldn't criticize Clinton" is irrational.  "The alternative is Trump, so we need to pretend Clinton's many flaws don't exist" is irrational.

 
Rich Conway said:
"She's better than Trump" isn't irrational.  "She did nothing wrong" is irrational.  "She's basically an honest person" is irrational.  "The alternative is Trump, so we shouldn't criticize Clinton" is irrational.  "The alternative is Trump, so we need to pretend Clinton's many flaws don't exist" is irrational.
Click to expand...
I'll own the first two statements, and I don't believe they are irrational. The latter two statements are ones I did not make and would not make. 

 
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
258K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Back
Top