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 (11 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although Martin Luther King Jr. never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for Adlai Stevenson orDwight Eisenhower, but that "In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket."[254] In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one." King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy for a second Kennedy term, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."[255] In 1964, King urged his supporters "and all people of goodwill" to vote against Republican Senator Barry Goldwater for president, saying that his election "would be a tragedy, and certainly suicidal almost, for the nation and the world."[256] King supported the ideals of democratic socialism, although he was reluctant to speak directly of this support due to the anti-communist sentiment being projected throughout America at the time, and the association of socialism with communism. King believed that capitalism could not adequately provide the basic necessities of many American people, particularly the African American community.[257]

 
cap'n grunge said:
Although Martin Luther King Jr. never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for Adlai Stevenson orDwight Eisenhower, but that "In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket."[254] In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one." King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy for a second Kennedy term, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."[255] In 1964, King urged his supporters "and all people of goodwill" to vote against Republican Senator Barry Goldwater for president, saying that his election "would be a tragedy, and certainly suicidal almost, for the nation and the world."[256] King supported the ideals of democratic socialism, although he was reluctant to speak directly of this support due to the anti-communist sentiment being projected throughout America at the time, and the association of socialism with communism. King believed that capitalism could not adequately provide the basic necessities of many American people, particularly the African American community.[257]
Click to expand...
There was a vast body of voters opposed to Barry Goldwater. In fact, I can't think of one reasonable person who endorsed Goldwater.

 
cap'n grunge said:
King supported the ideals of democratic socialism, although he was reluctant to speak directly of this support due to the anti-communist sentiment being projected throughout America at the time, and the association of socialism with communism. King believed that capitalism could not adequately provide the basic necessities of many American people, particularly the African American community.
Click to expand...
I never think of King as abandoning capitalism or being opposed to it. However I think there was also something to the idea that in the 50s it looked like neither party would put racial equality forward at the front of their platform for the foreseeable future.

 
cap'n grunge said:
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950),[1] who used the pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist, and critic. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and outspoken support of democratic socialism.[2][3]
Click to expand...
There's something called Fabianism which calls for the gradual amelioration of capitalism's ills through the gradual, democratic introduction of social programs curing them. I think the UK is a prime example of that and that's what I think of with Sanders. It's not implausible and it's sort of what we're doing anyway. One thing different from Sanders and most Democrats though is that IMO he is rigorously steeped in economic argument and dialecticic. His reasons for what he does are economically and ideologically based and there is almost no one in the Democratic party which I can think of who does that, it's one reason he is such a good arguer. He also loves the subject. He should be arguing against Buckley or his heirs, not the poor uninstructed pols who are usually just prepared to fire and dodge talking points.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Everything she does is so phony.  The subway stunt yesterday was just silly.  
Click to expand...


Do we know if she can work the buttons on the front of a microwave? What other tricks can we make her perform?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I never think of King as abandoning capitalism or being opposed to it. However I think there was also something to the idea that in the 50s it looked like neither party would put racial equality forward at the front of their platform for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
That is because his wealth redistribution and reparation speeches have been conveniently ignored in his rise to American sainthood.  

 
timschochet said:
I've evolved in my viewpoint of Hillary Clinton. Seriously I've come to believe that my previous views, which matched many of yours, were media driven, and that she's a much better person than I thought. That's my impression anyhow. I don't know her...
Click to expand...
To be clear, I have no views of her personally.  I don't know the woman.  I have views of her actions.  I have views of her judgment, integrity and ethics based on those actions.  I am waiting to see the positive indicators/behaviors she exhibits while talking about children, education and healthcare exhibited while she's talking about other topics.  So far nothing.  If your suggestion is that the media has somehow managed edit years and years of coverage to remove those indicators/behaviors from all topics outside of children, education and healthcare you're welcome to believe that's possible.  That's right up there with truthers and birthers from where I stand....that's quite the coup.  

 
Insurmountable lead is based on fuzzy math

Finally, someone in the media paying attention to reality.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The mainstream media is misleading the public by adopting a “fuzzy math” in treating the delegate counts for the Democratic nominating convention as carved in stone.

Given its bias against Donald Trump, the media are happy to parrot the Republican establishment’s prediction that their convention in Cleveland will be an “open convention” — that is, open to manipulation by the apparatchiks and the rules they set.

By the same token, given its pronounced bias in favor of Hillary Clinton, the media gladly repeat the spin of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic establishment by portraying that party’s contest as essentially over.

Not only compromised television anchors like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, whose wife is drawing support from various Clintonites in her bid for a congressional seat in Maryland, are implying that the Democratic frontrunner’s lead in delegates is insurmountable. As a rule, pundits and even print reporters glibly adopt the inevitability spin.

So when campaign strategists for Bernie Sanders hint at a contested convention, the Clinton campaign is quick to tweet “delusional,” and the press is happy to fall in line.

Even the redoubtable Nate Silver, whose FiveThirtyEight team so brilliantly charted Barack Obama’s electoral victories in 2008 and 2012, has gone along with the presumptions and polls that make a Clinton nomination all but certain.

Even so, Silver and his team have enough sense to leave the superdelegates out of the equation for the present.

Having set a target of how many delegates the two candidates must get in each primary to reach the 2,026 needed for a majority of pledged delegates, the FiveThirtyEight tracking currently has Clinton at 107% of her target and Sanders at 93%.

However, Sanders has met or exceeded his targets in seven of the last eight contests, while Clinton has fallen short six out of eight, so the momentum suggests Sanders will continue to narrow that gap.

The delegate math that considers Clinton the inevitable winner, then, is based on the presumption that the 469 superdelegates — elected officials and party leaders — who have previously declared their support for Clinton will in fact vote for her.

Yes, they may, but the fact is they are not “bound” in the same way pledged delegates in the primary contests are. They can change their minds at will.

The objective of Sanders campaign is to create sufficient political pressure for them to do so in large numbers.

The strategy depends on Clinton not winning enough pledged delegates in the primaries to clinch the nomination before the convention.

Even though Clinton currently has a lead of 211 among pledged delegates, 1,301 to 1,089 for Sanders, she would need to win more than 60% of the remaining primary delegates to reach the 2,383 needed to clinch the nomination, according to Slate’s Josh Vorhees.

That’s a steep hill to climb for a candidate who has lost seven of the last eight primary contests. If Sanders can win or keep the margins narrow in the big-state contests of New York, Pennsylvania and California, he will certainly succeed in keeping Clinton from clinching the nomination with pledged delegates.

Then the choice at the convention in Philadelphia comes down to the superdelegates.

There is little reason at present to presume they would abandon their support for Clinton but any number of things could change their minds between now and July — a Sanders victory in New York or another big state, further damaging news on the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s email practices, a major gaffe or embarrassing video by the frontrunner, among others.

For the sake of argument, a graphic in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal showed that if superdelegates switched their endorsements in proportion to how their states voted, Sanders’s deficit would shrink to 19 (202 for Clinton vs. 183 for Sanders) from the current lopsided 438 (469 vs. 31). Note there are 712 superdelegates altogether.

Of course, if Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates at the convention and superdelegates were to vote in the same proportion, the former secretary of state would get the nomination.

But the superdelegates are there precisely to use their seasoned judgment about which candidate in a contested primary is better suited to win the general election.

Clearly the Democratic establishment at least for now feels that would be Clinton.

But if Sanders continues to win primaries, rack up delegates, raise tens of millions of dollars a month in campaign contributions, draw massive crowds to his rallies, and score double-digit leads against Clinton in demographics the party needs to win the general election — they will have to ask themselves some hard questions if the final count is close.

Who will lead the Democratic Party in the general election is a political question, not a mathematical one. If Sanders’s momentum continues to grow, the superdelegates would ignore that fact at their peril.

 
Uwe Blab said:
This has got to be parody.  This crap seriously needs to be seen by a much wider audience.
Click to expand...
Bush and his staged press conferences with slogan banners was a front for opacity that severely set this country back.  This is the kind of thing that makes my head spin...  And she doesn't even have power yet.  Wait until she does.  And as she reminds Bernie's camp, she knows how to be President.  She got a front row view.  She also knows how to push limits and isn't afraid to do so.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
There's something called Fabianism which calls for the gradual amelioration of capitalism's ills through the gradual, democratic introduction of social programs curing them. I think the UK is a prime example of that and that's what I think of with Sanders. It's not implausible and it's sort of what we're doing anyway. One thing different from Sanders and most Democrats though is that IMO he is rigorously steeped in economic argument and dialecticic. His reasons for what he does are economically and ideologically based and there is almost no one in the Democratic party which I can think of who does that, it's one reason he is such a good arguer. He also loves the subject. He should be arguing against Buckley or his heirs, not the poor uninstructed pols who are usually just prepared to fire and dodge talking points.
Click to expand...
I like the Fabian description for Sanders, but your reply implies Orson Wells was a Fabian.  He was earlier in life but later junked it, claiming the Fabians were Machiavellian in their motives.  Fabians claim to move like turtles against capitalism but their end goal is always to strike hard and kill capitalists, just like the communists.  Otherwise all the Fabian gains could slip away at the last moment.  

 
Mister CIA said:
There was a vast body of voters opposed to Barry Goldwater. In fact, I can't think of one reasonable person who endorsed Goldwater.
Click to expand...
This has long been the bugaboo of the right and the achilles heel of the left. Corporatism and anti-patriotism vs. rubes and extremist views on decentralization and association issues. It's been going on since 1964, and shows no signs of letting up. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When liberals start linking to the Washington Examiner to make points, we are truly in silly season.

I look forward to the links to tweets from Tucker Carlson, and op-ed's from Karl Rove.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
When liberals start linking to the Washington Examiner to make points, we are truly in silly season.

I look forward to the links to tweets from Tucker Carlson, and op-ed's from Karl Rove.  
Click to expand...
It's in articles from a number of sources, WE just has the link everyone's finding.  I know you prefer Washington Post links:

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper -- who could be a contender in the veepstakes -- hosted Hillary for a fundraiser at his home in Denver last night. Isaac Slade, lead vocalist for The Fray, performed for the 530 attendees. A white noise machine was set up to prevent reporters standing across the street from hearing Hillary's comments in the governor's back yard,according to the local CBS affiliate
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/04/08/daily-202-bill-clinton-s-argument-with-black-lives-matter-protesters-is-2016-s-sister-souljah-moment/570675c2981b92a22ddf2fd2/

 
AnonymousBob said:
She's never getting my vote. Never. 
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight: you're OK with skipping the general election if Clinton is the candidate, and thus contributing to the increased possibility of rollback of abortion rights, gay rights, the voting rights act, and any number of other things that might occur if someone like Ted Cruz gets to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices, not to mention the cancellation of the Clean Power Plan and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, not to mention countless other clear policy issues on which Clinton is more progressive than Cruz or Trump.

And the straw that broke the camel's back for you is that, according to a TV reporter who posted less-than-clear audio and video on Twitter, Clinton decided to have one of her fundraisers outdoors instead of behind closed doors and thus enforced the standard "no media" policy for such events embraced by virtually every politician who has ever had one via a static noise machine as a replacement for walls?

Is that accurate?

 
TobiasFunke said:
So let me get this straight: you're OK with skipping the general election if Clinton is the candidate, and thus contributing to the increased possibility of rollback of abortion rights, gay rights, the voting rights act, and any number of other things that might occur if someone like Ted Cruz gets to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices, not to mention the cancellation of the Clean Power Plan and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, not to mention countless other clear policy issues on which Clinton is more progressive than Cruz or Trump.

And the straw that broke the camel's back for you is that, according to a TV reporter who posted less-than-clear audio and video on Twitter, Clinton decided to have one of her fundraisers outdoors instead of behind closed doors and thus enforced the standard "no media" policy for such events embraced by virtually every politician who has ever had one via a static noise machine as a replacement for walls?

Is that accurate?
Click to expand...
Perhaps Paul Krugman understated it? 

 
tommyGunZ said:
When liberals start linking to the Washington Examiner to make points, we are truly in silly season.

I look forward to the links to tweets from Tucker Carlson, and op-ed's from Karl Rove.  
Click to expand...
Stan Bush is a reporter for Ch. 4 CBS in Denver.


Stan Bush Verified account ‏@StanBushTV


Guess @HillaryClinton campaign dsn't want reporters to hear fundraiser speech. Turned on a static noise machine pointed at us when she spoke
Stan Bush ‏@StanBushTV 14h14 hours ago
Here's what it sounds like with that static noise machine turned off at the @HillaryClinton campaign fundraiser

https://twitter.com/StanBushTV/status/718241724057915393
 
As I wrote earlier, transparency/integrity issues were one of the main reasons I didn't like Hillary at the start of the 2016 campaign.  Since the campaign began, she's done nothing to alleviate those concerns in any way, but rather, has exacerbated them over and over again.

 
Rich Conway said:
As I wrote earlier, transparency/integrity issues were one of the main reasons I didn't like Hillary at the start of the 2016 campaign.  Since the campaign began, she's done nothing to alleviate those concerns in any way, but rather, has exacerbated them over and over again.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, who was the most transparent President in recent times, and how did that transparency contribute to our prosperity? 

 
timschochet said:
In your opinion, who was the most transparent President in recent times, and how did that transparency contribute to our prosperity? 
Click to expand...
You could start with LBJ, FOIA may not have been his idea but it was a great liberal reform under his administration.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
In your opinion, who was the most transparent President in recent times, and how did that transparency contribute to our prosperity? 
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between being transparent and being dirty...no one expects the President to be an open book but we also hope they are not creating their own communication system so they have no public accountability...

 
squistion said:
Those typical flip-flopping politicians. :hophead:

Wall Street JournalVerified account ‏@WSJ 22m22 minutes ago

In reversal, Bernie Sanders says "of course" Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president http://on.wsj.com/1WhMhSY
Click to expand...
Thank you missed the point of his rhetoric.  He was saying if she wanted to suggest he's unqualified, then he could just as easily turn it around.  I don't think either has actually suggested sincerely that the other is unqualified.

 
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: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Back
Top