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.
timschochet said:
I don't want to get into a terminology argument with you. I'll probably lose. 

Heres the point- per that letter, the FBI won't confirm or deny that any law was broken. The Washington Post doesn't know if any law was broken and all their sources will confirm is that the FBI is trying to figure it out. Hillary says no law was broken. When the FBI says a law was broken, when they recommend charges against somebody for breaking that law, then I'll believe it. Until then I won't? Isn't that a reasonable position? 
Click to expand...
Just an update - the FBI has made another filing in federal court.

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000153-b325-d479-abd3-bfe7399c0000

This one (pages 9-10) describes Hillary's email repository "from server equipment and related devices" as "potential evidence" which could affect "law enforcement actions."

Additionally the FBI suggests releasing any such data recovered could lead to individuals taking "defensive actions to conceal their activities, elude detection, and/or suppress or fabricate evidence." Also it could lead to the "public identification of potential witnesses"  and "compromising witnesses."

More here:

https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-server-details

(eta - btw I agree with your position, I think it's reasonable, but let's remember our discussion was about WaPo and Fox describing this as a criminal investigation. It sure sounds like one.).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
National Journal political reporter Ron Fournier argued that there should be a higher bar to bring charges against Hillary Clinton because she is running for president.

“Legally though, there is a big bar that you have to get over to prosecute anybody for these crimes, much less somebody who is running for president. …I do understand that when somebody is running for president, there is a higher bar that you have to get over because we can’t have a system in which we are constantly charging people who are running for president of crimes.”
Click to expand...
Yes there are a different set of rules for the haves.  

 
Dr Oadi said:
National Journal political reporter Ron Fournier argued, 

Dr Oadi said:
“Legally though, there is a big bar that you have to get over to prosecute anybody for these crimes, much less somebody who is running for president. …I do understand that when somebody is running for president, there is a higher bar that you have to get over because we can’t have a system in which we are constantly charging people who are running for president of crimes.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I guess the answer is to stop running criminals for President. :shrug:

 
Dr Oadi said:
National Journal political reporter Ron Fournier argued that there should be a higher bar to bring charges against Hillary Clinton because she is running for president.

Yes there are a different set of rules for the haves.  
Click to expand...
lawnewz.com/video/msnbc-guest-argues-for-higher-bar-to-prosecute-clinton-because-shes-running-for-president/

Came on the post a synopsis of the same.  I find it heartening, actually, that you have this professional punditry class, and their job is to make everything political theater.  Then you have law.  And every week you have that punditry galaxy being pulled into the black hole vortex of law.  This sense that the pundits have that this is about the election and partisan politics is group think that's not recognizing (and failing to report on the details) of the truth of what occurred, which is becoming clearer and clearer and suggests shady dealings at Foggy Bottom.  

 
I am guessing the 150 or so FBI agents investigating the criminal activity of Sir Rodham Hillary might be looking into a bit more than just whether she mishandled classified information.  It would not be shocking if they stumbled on to evidence that Hillary used her position to sell political favors to foreign nationals.  

 
jon_mx said:
I am guessing the 150 or so FBI agents investigating the criminal activity of Sir Rodham Hillary might be looking into a bit more than just whether she mishandled classified information.  It would not be shocking if they stumbled on to evidence that Hillary used her position to sell political favors to foreign nationals.  
Click to expand...
Worst case scenario is it's as you say plus more than one foreign government also have her emails in entirety and could blackmail her while president or just cause havoc a la wikileaks.

 
jon_mx said:
I am guessing the 150 or so FBI agents investigating the criminal activity of Sir Rodham Hillary might be looking into a bit more than just whether she mishandled classified information.  It would not be shocking if they stumbled on to evidence that Hillary used her position to sell political favors to foreign nationals.  
Click to expand...
I heard that 500 agents are currently investigating her for genocide.

 
I don't care if there's 5, 147, or the entire agency on this case. I'm not burying my head in the sand that there's an investigation. I'm pointing out the absurdity of people saying "oh boy this is it there are a kajillion investigators" and then just randomly tossing "selling favors to foreign countries" as a likely discovery.

Again, as I've said since the beginning if she gets indicted I'm the first one out the door, but this is just high comedy right now.

Let it play out.

 
Trey said:
I don't care if there's 5, 147, or the entire agency on this case. I'm not burying my head in the sand that there's an investigation. I'm pointing out the absurdity of people saying "oh boy this is it there are a kajillion investigators" and then just randomly tossing "selling favors to foreign countries" as a likely discovery.

Again, as I've said since the beginning if she gets indicted I'm the first one out the door, but this is just high comedy right now.

Let it play out.
Click to expand...
That's a better argument. It's also possible they're putting extra men on it so they can wrap it up by May.

 
Yeah, definitely looking forward to that discussion in Trump/Hillary. 

"I don't take money from special interests.  Hillary does.  She says it doesn't influence her.  Let me tell you, I was a contributor to the Clinton's for many years, and I didn't do it because I like them.  You seen the pictures of me in the Lincoln bedroom?"

 
Henry Ford said:
Yeah, definitely looking forward to that discussion in Trump/Hillary. 

"I don't take money from special interests.  Hillary does.  She says it doesn't influence her.  Let me tell you, I was a contributor to the Clinton's for many years, and I didn't do it because I like them.  You seen the pictures of me in the Lincoln bedroom?"
Click to expand...

I've noticed you doing this whole shtick where you come up with Trump's potential attacks on Clinton over and over.  Seems like maybe you haven't been paying attention to Trump's MO. It doesn't matter whether what he's saying is true or not, or whether it's relevant or substantive or whether he's a hypocrite to bring it up. If Sanders is the candidate Trump will attack him by calling him a communist, or an impotent old man, or a whiner, or some other nonsense I can't even imagine. And it doesn't matter if it's true, he'll just repeat it ad nauseum and his cult of personality will do the same.  He's the laziest campaigner, craziest nutjob and biggest liar we've ever seen on the trail and yet he was able to brand other guys with tags like "low energy," "pathological," and "lyin' Ted."

The best way to counter Trump is with a candidate who makes him look juvenile and uninformed and dangerous on the issues, not by finding someone who is immune from attack, because there's no such thing as someone who is immune from insults and lies. Thankfully both Democratic candidates are mature and intelligent, so it shouldn't really be an issue.

 
bananafish said:
It's Time for Hillary Clinton to Concede the Democratic Nomination to Bernie Sanders

"It’s not pragmatic or realistic to champion Clinton, knowing that Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin, without an FBI investigation, and with the highest favorability ratings of any candidate in 2016. I explain in another interview on CNN International with John Vause that voters should choose Bernie Sanders, if indeed they fear Donald Trump.

Remember, Trump can’t ask Bernie Sanders for his Goldman Sachs speech transcripts during a televised debate. Clinton’s campaign can’t even stand being pointed at, so just imagine Trump explaining why he donated to Clinton’s Senate campaigns during a debate. Bernie is by far the superior candidate, and already matches up better against GOP rivals; without the myriad of issues faced by Clinton. For the country, and especially the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton should concede the nomination to Bernie Sanders."
Click to expand...
This is good shtick, but in case anyone is taking it seriously:

- Sanders has good favorability ratings right now. So did Ben Carson in late 2015, before Trump went after him. There's no guarantee it stays that way. You could even argue that this cuts in favor of Clinton- she's a known entity, her numbers won't move much unless something significant happens, while Sanders is exactly the sort of unknown quantity that gives a juvenile bully like Trump a blank canvas. I bet within a week of Sanders winning the nomination Trump would be putting the dead bodies of the veterans who died due to the VA hospital scandal at Sanders' feet. It won't be fair, but that doesn't matter.

- Trump can't ask Clinton for the Goldman Sachs transcripts during a debate without leaving his ### hanging out because he still hasn't released his taxes or the transcript of his NY Times interview.

 
Ok, I'm open to criticism of the source here but it's actually a local scoop/news blog from the South Bronx and it's too good to check:

As the Clinton Campaign Falters, Tension Erupts Between “Bill’s Crew” and “Huma’s Crew” over Who Has Final Say


Jittery staffers at Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters have gone into full panic mode, in the wake of five straight landslide losses to Bernie Sanders and the candidate’s plummeting numbers in three national polls.

“This was the worst week so far in the campaign,” said a Democratic party insider, “and everybody is blaming everybody else for the setbacks. Bill Clinton called (campaign chairman) John Podesta (once his White House Chief of Staff) and screamed, ‘Those snotty-nosed kids over there are blowing this thing because nobody is listening to me.’”

By “snotty-nosed kids”, the former president, 69, is referring to campaign manager Robby Mook, 36; press secretary Brian Fallon, 35; and campaign vice chairwoman Huma Abedin, 39, who in actuality wields the most power of anyone in the organization by virtue of her status as Mrs. Clinton’s soulmate and alter ego since 1996.

Former president Clinton believes his wife made a mistake in wrapping herself so tightly in the mantle of Barack Obama just before the Southern primaries. He warned her not to do it and blames her recent crushing defeats on that miscalculation. Mrs. Clinton felt it was a strategy she had to employ, in that it energized her base in the Southern states. Nonetheless, astute observers remember that her longtime lackey Sid Blumenthal regularly sent emails to her when she was Secretary of State that ridiculed and insulted President Obama, and instead of remonstrating, Hillary forwarded them to Huma.

Last week, as the primaries and caucuses moved west and voters paid more attention to what they call “her lack of authenticity”, she got creamed. Mrs. Clinton received only 18% of the Democratic vote in Alaska; 20% in Utah; 21% in Idaho; 27% in Washington state; and 30% in Hawaii. Sanders got all the rest, a staggering series of victories, which was underplayed by the mainstream media, who want the Clintons to have a third term.

Also last week, when Mr. Clinton made a campaign speech characterizing the Obama administration as “the awful legacy of the last eight years”, the blowback against him from the Brooklyn politburo was white hot. The insider source tells us, “After Podesta and Mook told him to stop trashing Obama, President Clinton was furious and cancelled two campaign appearances the following day.”

...Back in Brooklyn, the campaign organization is de facto divided into two factions, informally known as  “Bill’s crew” and “Huma’s crew” and the tension between them is palpable. Although the candidate does not want to alienate her husband/business partner because she needs him, her primary confidence and trust rests, we are told, in Ms. Abedin, with whom she has a deeper and more fulfilling relationship.

It is not unusual for ambitious sycophants to vie for the ear of presidential candidates (in fact, they usually encourage rivalries among staffers), but the current schism among Hillary’s troopers is significant. Mr. Podesta, the adult in the room, is trying to stay neutral between the opposing Bill and Huma factions, but he is losing patience. Every day, Mr. Clinton keeps calling calling calling with new demands and strategies, and his former employee can hardly refuse to take his calls.

Another frustration for the former president is that he can’t get through on the telephone to his wife, the candidate, without going through Ms. Abedin, who carries the cell phone and screens all calls. When Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin are traveling, they always share a suite, which they lock from the inside to bar the Secret Service. If Hillary is not in the mood to listen to her husband kvetching about problems in the campaign, she instructs Huma to tell Bill she is sleeping and cannot be disturbed. Naturally, this sends the ex-president into paroxysms of rage.

There are two other factors in play here. The Clintons are not seriously worried that she will go to the convention with fewer pledged delegates than the 74-year-old left-wing curmudgeon and the nomination will be awarded to Sanders. What they are concerned about is that the latest national polls show her popularity declining so rapidly that the powers-that-be, i.e. the “superdelegates”, will decide to substitute a Biden or a Warren or someone else who is not so polarizing and abrasive.

And the new numbers are indeed concerning. The NY Times/CBS poll says that enthusiasm for her candidacy among Democrat voters versus that of Sanders has gone down a net 17 points in the past month. Her favorability rating among all voters is now the lowest for any Democrat front-runner in the history of the poll—31% favorable and 52% unfavorable. Forty percent of Democrat primary voters told exit pollsters they think Hillary is dishonest and a liar. Among independent primary voters, 65 percent think she is dishonest and a liar.

The new Bloomberg poll says Sanders has passed her nationally as the candidate that Democrats would most like to see as the next president. And the recent NY Times, CNN, and Bloomberg polls all show Bernie running stronger than Hillary versus the three remaining Republican candidates (e.g., he beats Kasich by six points, she loses by six points). Lest we forget, twelve months ago nobody outside of Vermont had ever heard of Bernie Sanders, and Hillary has been in our faces for a quarter of a century.

The other factor which no one is addressing is what role Bill Clinton will arrogate for himself in a Hillary administration. He has told associates he plans to have his office in the West Wing, the center of gravity. (“The East Wing is for arranging flowers and planning menus”, he harumphed.) Even more problematical is that Bill will almost certainly insist on attending meetings of the National Security Council and of the Cabinet. (As he put it, “Rosalynn Carter sat in on Cabinet meetings—and they think they could keep me out?”) Since as a former two-term president he is barred by the Constitution from being a de jure president and exercising its powers, will his insistence on helping formulate policy violate the provisions of the 22d Amendment? (That will be a nice case for the Supreme Court to decide, will it not?) In any event, Bill has made clear that he has no objections to Huma’s undertaking the ceremonial duties of an unofficial First Spouse. (“Let Huma pick the curtains; I’ll worry about Syria.”) ...
Click to expand...
http://www.orbmagazine.com/the-orbiter/as-the-clinton-campaign-falters-tension-erupts-between-bills-crew-and-humas-crew-over-who-has-final-say/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It really has become a full fledged realty show this election.  Remarkable.  The only thing we are missing is the scene where the guy drags the girl out of the house while she holds on to the blanket and screams.  (MTV right?  Real World?  Man I'm old.)

 
Come on, Saints.  Like I always say, this is some "boy who cried wolf" crap.  When you and other Clinton-haters post that sort of thing it's harder to take the legitimate complaints seriously.

Setting aside all the silly mud-slinging, I particularly liked this bit:

Last week, as the primaries and caucuses moved west and voters paid more attention to what they call “her lack of authenticity”, she got creamed. Mrs. Clinton received only 18% of the Democratic vote in Alaska; 20% in Utah; 21% in Idaho; 27% in Washington state; and 30% in Hawaii. Sanders got all the rest, a staggering series of victories, which was underplayed by the mainstream media, who want the Clintons to have a third term.
Click to expand...
Love how the writer leaves out the fact that the voters also got a whole lot whiter in those states in favor of some other more subjective reasoning behind the results, and then in the next sentence accuses other members of the media of creating a false narrative to support their preferred candidate.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Love how the writer leaves out the fact that the voters also got a whole lot whiter in those states in favor of some other more subjective reasoning behind the results, and then in the next sentence accuses other members of the media of creating a false narrative to support their preferred candidate.
Click to expand...
This is my riff with the media in general.  Same thing happened during the southern state boat race.  Race was brought up a little bit during that tour but not a lot.  It was all about the Hillary slaughter.  It's tough to consume any of this stuff from the media unless it's for the amusement of it all.  Until they go into a substantive analysis of why things are happening, it's of little use to me personally.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
Come on, Saints.  Like I always say, this is some "boy who cried wolf" crap.  When you and other Clinton-haters post that sort of thing it's harder to take the legitimate complaints seriously.

Setting aside all the silly mud-slinging, I particularly liked this bit:

Last week, as the primaries and caucuses moved west and voters paid more attention to what they call “her lack of authenticity”, she got creamed. Mrs. Clinton received only 18% of the Democratic vote in Alaska; 20% in Utah; 21% in Idaho; 27% in Washington state; and 30% in Hawaii. Sanders got all the rest, a staggering series of victories, which was underplayed by the mainstream media, who want the Clintons to have a third term.
Click to expand...
Love how the writer leaves out the fact that the voters also got a whole lot whiter in those states in favor of some other more subjective reasoning behind the results, and then in the next sentence accuses other members of the media of creating a false narrative to support their preferred candidate.
Click to expand...
Hey I explained the nature of the blog and that the scoop about Huma shacking with Hillary and the inside baseball on Bill's little machinations were too fun to pass up. This is what we get with the Clintons. We only have 9 more years of this look to forward to.

As for the political stuff, look at their home page, they're not doing Cook Report analysis up there but they will likely have some info on Fashion Week.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hey I explained the nature of the blog and that the scoop about Huma shacking with Hillary and the inside baseball on Bill's little machinations were too fun to pass up. This is what we get with the Clintons. We only have 9 more years of this look forward to.
Click to expand...
The use of the passive voice is a little disingenuous here.

 
The Commish said:
This is my riff with the media in general.  Same thing happened during the southern state boat race.  Race was brought up a little bit during that tour but not a lot.  It was all about the Hillary slaughter.  It's tough to consume any of this stuff from the media unless it's for the amusement of it all.  Until they go into a substantive analysis of why things are happening, it's of little use to me personally.  
Click to expand...
Ok let's keep in mind this is a blog in the South Bronx, not the Cook Political Report. It was really posted for the sake of the fun neighborhood scoop about Huma and Bill.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok let's keep in mind this is a blog in the South Bronx, not the Cook Political Report. It was really posted for the sake of the fun neighborhood scoop about Huma and Bill.
Click to expand...
I wasn't taking issue with your piece specifically even though that may have been TF's angle.  It was just an observation I've made and it seems to be getting worse in today's world, not better.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I've noticed you doing this whole shtick where you come up with Trump's potential attacks on Clinton over and over.  Seems like maybe you haven't been paying attention to Trump's MO. It doesn't matter whether what he's saying is true or not, or whether it's relevant or substantive or whether he's a hypocrite to bring it up. If Sanders is the candidate Trump will attack him by calling him a communist, or an impotent old man, or a whiner, or some other nonsense I can't even imagine. And it doesn't matter if it's true, he'll just repeat it ad nauseum and his cult of personality will do the same.  He's the laziest campaigner, craziest nutjob and biggest liar we've ever seen on the trail and yet he was able to brand other guys with tags like "low energy," "pathological," and "lyin' Ted."

The best way to counter Trump is with a candidate who makes him look juvenile and uninformed and dangerous on the issues, not by finding someone who is immune from attack, because there's no such thing as someone who is immune from insults and lies. Thankfully both Democratic candidates are mature and intelligent, so it shouldn't really be an issue.
Click to expand...
I've noticed you call opinions and scenarios that suggest that Clinton is an inferior candidate to Sanders "shtick".  I wonder if you're paying attention to the fact that other people have valid beliefs based on evidence and reasoned opinion that conflict with yours and aren't a joke or gag, and sometimes they are worth listening to.

And I agree, sort of. The best way to counter Trump is with an adult who tells the truth.  Not someone who uses (as an example) Trump's "he's being mean, so I'm not going to debate him" tactic, when we all know the reason the candidate won't debate is that debates lower the candidate's numbers when the candidate loses.

No, you don't have to be bulletproof to win an election. You do have to differentiate yourself from the other candidate.  Trump's tactics and history are an easy mark for Sanders.  Not so much for Clinton.

 
Henry Ford said:
I've noticed you call opinions and scenarios that suggest that Clinton is an inferior candidate to Sanders "shtick".  I wonder if you're paying attention to the fact that other people have valid beliefs based on evidence and reasoned opinion that conflict with yours and aren't a joke or gag, and sometimes they are worth listening to.

And I agree, sort of. The best way to counter Trump is with an adult who tells the truth.  Not someone who uses (as an example) Trump's "he's being mean, so I'm not going to debate him" tactic, when we all know the reason the candidate won't debate is that debates lower the candidate's numbers when the candidate loses.

No, you don't have to be bulletproof to win an election. You do have to differentiate yourself from the other candidate.  Trump's tactics and maturity level are an easy mark for Sanders.  Not so much for Clinton. 
Click to expand...
I disagree with the bolded- in fact I personally think Sanders is probably the superior candidate.  When I said "shtick" I was referring only to this particular style where you suggest a possible Trump attack on Clinton- usually with a hypothetical quote- and consider that an obvious weakness. My point is that you can do that with anyone, because Trump attacks and insults don't need to have any basis in truth; in fact they're usually more about personality traits than they are about events or scandals.

Sure, Trump will go after Clinton in a lot of ways, including probably the stuff you mention. But he'll also go after Sanders, possibly with even more ridiculous stuff since he's not friends with Sanders and since it will be easier to redefine him in the eyes of the public since he's less well known. Everyone is equally vulnerable to unfair, illogical attacks.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the tactics/maturity level thing.  Clinton has many weaknesses, but immaturity is not one of them IMO. She's well-positioned to be the adult in the room (as is Sanders) and to make him look dangerous and stupid on foreign policy (as is Sanders or any other politician, only slightly less so).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
I disagree with the bolded- in fact I personally think Sanders is probably the superior candidate.  When I said "shtick" I was referring only to this particular style where you suggest a possible Trump attack on Clinton- usually with a hypothetical quote- and consider that an obvious weakness. My point is that you can do that with anyone, because Trump attacks and insults don't need to have any basis in truth; in fact they're usually more about personality traits than they are about events or scandals.

Sure, Trump will go after Clinton in a lot of ways, including probably the stuff you mention. But he'll also go after Sanders, possibly with even more ridiculous stuff since he's not friends with Sanders and since it will be easier to redefine him in the eyes of the public since he's less well known. Everyone is equally vulnerable to unfair, illogical attacks.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the tactics/maturity level thing.  Clinton has many weaknesses, but immaturity is not one of them IMO. She's well-positioned to make him look dangerous and stupid on foreign policy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I replaced the post ten seconds later with "history" rather than maturity level.  Wrong term.

The problem with Clinton is that he doesn't have to be illogical with her on several things people really care about. He gets to hit her hard on a few points that actually make sense, and she can't hit back without being a hypocrite. Which gives legitimacy to his other B.S. arguments. That's not shtick, that's a real concern I have.

 
Hillary fans, Bernie has a message for you...

One of the great accomplishments of this campaign is proving to candidates everywhere that you don’t have to beg millionaires and billionaires for money to run a successful campaign.

And that is important because you cannot start to change a rigged economy, combat climate change, or take on people who profit from high drug prices by relying on their money.

So I want you to imagine what that will mean when we win and politicians decide they don’t need to take money from the financial elite who are buying our candidates and elections. It will mean we can start to create an economy that works for everyone and not just wealthy campaign contributors, that we can stop fracking and leave fossil fuels in the ground, that we can provide health care as a right for every man, woman and child in this country.

When we talk about a political revolution in this country, we are not talking about tinkering around the edges or incremental change. Our political system is corrupt and big money controls much of what happens in Washington, D.C. This moment in our history requires transformational change.

 
I'd also like to point out to the Clinton supporters, I don't think Bernie - or his supporters - believe that Clinton gets a phone call on a red phone to tell her what to do as a result of getting campaign contributions.  

I do think that some sweeping reforms are a good idea in our country, and sweeping reforms that affect major campaign contributors are unlikely to pass.  Primarily because when someone brings a bill to, say, end fossil fuel dependence in this country by 2050, no candidate can get on board. Or a bill to limit drug patent/profitability protections.  Or a bill to repeal the rule of State regulations on insurance rather than federal in what is increasingly an interstate commercial enterprise.

It's not that politicians take constant marching orders. It's that there are ideas we can't even consider.  There should never be ideas our government can't even consider because of special interest money in my opinion.

 
Henry Ford said:
I'd also like to point out to the Clinton supporters, I don't think Bernie - or his supporters - believe that Clinton gets a phone call on a red phone to tell her what to do as a result of getting campaign contributions.  

I do think that some sweeping reforms are a good idea in our country, and sweeping reforms that affect major campaign contributors are unlikely to pass.  Primarily because when someone brings a bill to, say, end fossil fuel dependence in this country by 2050, no candidate can get on board. Or a bill to limit drug patent/profitability protections.  Or a bill to repeal the rule of State regulations on insurance rather than federal in what is increasingly an interstate commercial enterprise.

It's not that politicians take constant marching orders. It's that there are ideas we can't even consider.  There should never be ideas our government can't even consider because of special interest money in my opinion.
Click to expand...


No, she will move the people swapping back and forth between Goldman Sachs and her campaign staff to positions in the administration so they can pick up the red phone.

 
Henry Ford said:
I'd also like to point out to the Clinton supporters, I don't think Bernie - or his supporters - believe that Clinton gets a phone call on a red phone to tell her what to do as a result of getting campaign contributions.  

I do think that some sweeping reforms are a good idea in our country, and sweeping reforms that affect major campaign contributors are unlikely to pass.  Primarily because when someone brings a bill to, say, end fossil fuel dependence in this country by 2050, no candidate can get on board. Or a bill to limit drug patent/profitability protections.  Or a bill to repeal the rule of State regulations on insurance rather than federal in what is increasingly an interstate commercial enterprise.

It's not that politicians take constant marching orders. It's that there are ideas we can't even consider.  There should never be ideas our government can't even consider because of special interest money in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Hillary (the Clintons) does two things:

- Provide access like no one else for those who pay for it. It is a true Pay To Play scheme.

- She puts insider industry players into the rule making authority positions in administration. The access is not even necessary here, the actual industry personnel and lobbyists are made into federal employees who write the rules just as the industry wants.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Saints I had to stop and laugh after the first line of the title: "As the Clinton campaign falters..." Really? 
Click to expand...
Ok if you laugh at it I'm ok with it. Look at the site. Now I do think some of the inside neighborhood gossip about Bill and Huma is fun and it was meant to jibe on that front. It's funny to me the stuff I didn't highlight is getting discussed. My guess is the blogger is a Sanders supporter. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone in HillaryLand is getting nervous about being replaced at the convention for instance. I do think that people from the campaign who are drinking in bars in Brooklyn/South Bronx are talking about growing unease about Sanders' recent resurgence, I have to confess I thought he was going down too. But apparently, not at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm not sure she can contain herself anyway. They also got Petraeus for lying to the FBI.
Click to expand...
They got Petraeus for intentionally sharing 8 binders full of top secret information with his mistress -- who was not authorized to see it.  Literally no one with any sense thinks there's a parallel with this case.

 
wdcrob said:
They got Petraeus for intentionally sharing 8 binders full of top secret information with his mistress -- who was not authorized to see it.  Literally no one with any sense thinks there's a parallel with this case.
Click to expand...
Well, except for the statute she can be convicted under. Which was the significantly lesser charge he pled to. 

 
wdcrob said:
They got Petraeus for intentionally sharing 8 binders full of top secret information with his mistress -- who was not authorized to see it.  Literally no one with any sense thinks there's a parallel with this case.
Click to expand...
Actually they also got him for lying to the FBI. Lying to the FBI is lying to the FBI.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to talk parallels though:

- intentionally risking national classified secrets on the open unencrypted web, at least 2000 times, is probably not comparable to anything we have seen before, I'd agree with that.

 
My 5-year old kid likes to run out ahead of me and hide in the third row of seats before I get to the car.  Same exact place every time.

Now when I go to the car and don't see him I just get behind the wheel without looking and tell him to get in his seat.  

He asks how I know where he is, and I try to explain to him that when you try the same trick over and over again it eventually stops working.  But he's five.  So he doesn't really understand yet.

No idea why that came to mind just now.

 
wdcrob said:
They got Petraeus for intentionally sharing 8 binders full of top secret information with his mistress -- who was not authorized to see it.  Literally no one with any sense thinks there's a parallel with this case.
Click to expand...
I thought Broadwell actually held top secret clearance...

 
wdcrob said:
My 5-year old kid likes to run out ahead of me and hide in the third row of seats before I get to the car.  Same exact place every time.

Now when I go to the car and don't see him I just get behind the wheel without looking and tell him to get in his seat.  

He asks how I know where he is, and I try to explain to him that when you try the same trick over and over again it eventually stops working.  But he's five.  So he doesn't really understand yet.

No idea why that came to mind just now.
Click to expand...
Different argument entirely but granted. This is also what happens when people argue the shocking headline (she's gonna be indicted fur shore this time!) instead of just the facts. I doubt you and your son would disagree that a car is a car is a car.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top