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.
Neofight said:
Good work here by the Clinton Propaganda Machine: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-11/washington-watchdog-adjusts-to-life-with-partisan-roommates
Click to expand...
Yeah this is something.

CREW was a liberal citizens group. They were the ones who perhaps first exposed the gap in the Hillary email trail in 2012-13. When Hillaryites like to focus on a group like Judicial Watch which is suing aside from the news agencies there have also been progressive and liberal groups like DeSmog and CREW waiting forever on documents from FOIA.

And guess who took it over recently? As the article says, David Brock. They are now silent - as to Hillary. They won't be bothering her anymore.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trey said:
One week out and New York polling is very stable. Consistent Clinton lead in the 10-15 point range. Very strong position.
Click to expand...
We still have a debate and countless opportunities for on-color jokes from the candidate and self-righteous outbursts from her husband to go...

buckle up.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Yeah this is something.

CREW was a liberal citizens group. They were the ones who perhaps first exposed the gap in the Hillary email trail in 2012-13. When Hillaryites like to focus on a groups like Judicial Watch which is suing aside from the news agencies there have also been progressive and liberal groups like DeSmog and CREW waiting forever on documents from FOIA.

And guess who took it over recently? As the article says, David Brock. They are now silent - as to Hillary.
Click to expand...
If you can beat 'em...

 
Trey said:
One week out and New York polling is very stable. Consistent Clinton lead in the 10-15 point range. Very strong position.
Click to expand...
Btw, you can perhaps answer something for me. Why in the wide wide world of sports did the Clinton campaign hijack an old Goldwater logo for 2016?

 
Trey said:
One week out and New York polling is very stable. Consistent Clinton lead in the 10-15 point range. Very strong position.
Click to expand...
Very. I don't think anyone expects any NY voters to move before the debate, though.  Last week's polls and Thursday day polls should be stable.  Friday will be moving day.

 
In a sign that this will all get surreal before it's over, Scarborough making the excellent point that even in commenting on the case and saying politics won't interfere, Obama undermined the FBI investigation with his comments and politicized it.  Don't want to interfere: Don't interfere!  Pretty damn clear where he stands on the issue and on Hillary's candidacy. 

 
Last edited:
In a bungled attempt to tie Sanders to gun  violence in NY, Clinton claims most of the guns used in violent crimes in NY come from Vermont.

Federal data shows of the nearly 4600 guns recovered in NY state, just 55 were from Vermont. Or precisely 11 times the number of shell companies the Clinton's set up in a little tax haven to the northeast of New York called Vermont.

*ETA gun data from 2014

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cap'n grunge said:
The FBI does security reviews? Stop parroting false propaganda talking points and think for yourself.
Click to expand...
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf


Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails






IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral - it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.
 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
So how did the FBI get involved again?

Is the FBI part of the IC?
Click to expand...
Well... yeah.  The FBI definitely has a branch that is part of the IC. Not sure where that's going.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well IMO yes in dry, neutral terms it should be a jury decision. IMO, it should go to court. Admittedly I'm not qualified, someone like Henry can speak to that stuff, but to me if two normal people could differ on the application of the facts that's a jury decision. But we already know there is different treatment for the Royals vs the Plebeians. And I don't think Obama (or Jarrett) has to actually talk to Lynch about this, Lynch is going to do what protects the president (and now not only is the Dem nominee at risk, but the president himself has put his credibility on the line twice), he knows that. - I think the FBI has to come up with a bombshell at this point: Lazar/Guccifer to testify he accessed Hillary's data and that it was incredibly easy, like the Password was "Chelsea", such that every foreign intelligence agency and probably some kids in their parents' basement had it, or maybe Pagliano and Samuelson testify that what Hillary told them consciously to do to hide/destroy classified data or Foundation secrets, or Pagliano says Hillary told him the point was to avoid or defy or work around the NSA, or after the interview Hillary is found to have lied because of prior testimony. There is also the Pagliano employment situation at State which is definitely a two person crime, he was the payee, Hillary was the payor. There has to be one or more game-changers. But as we know this thing has only marched forward, never backward.
Click to expand...
Everything you say makes sense.  I just find it so unbelievably oppressive.  I was always proud of America's scrappy roots and thought us the antithesis of a Monarchy that is forced to accept what a ruling class dictates.  We've lost our fire completely.  Subtly and with a court of lawyers, Obama sought Sunday to end this by discrediting Comey, obscuring the issue to the public and signaling to Lynch that hell-or-high-water she is to protect Hillary (but with NO political interference).  

In the end, it's clear what happened.  Someone who knows how to dance on the line and knows she can occasionally step over decided it was more beneficial to her to work the shady levers of back room foundation deals and favor peddling, and to grease the political wheels, by operating with opacity.  The collateral damage as that she had to ignore some of the rules keeping the country safe -- because those really weren't for her anyway.  She's above it.  A few eggs broken making the omelette of a dynasty, no big deal.  That this inconveniently coincided with a period in our history where the People are fed up -- no matter.  She just worked the media and her connections, and the Party, and it's all as if it didn't happen.  In fact, if anything it rallied her base around her. 

I so wish we'd remember who we are, and that we founded this nation on principle and rejection of the precise avarice we're so reluctantly being forced into electing.

 
I'll try to be respectful to Obama, because you see the pictures of first day and last day of the Presidency and how much it ages someone.  But I think he started off an idealist, back when he gave the speech as a Junior senator in 2000.  I think he had aspirations of having integrity.  I think that as soon as he got in the sausage grinder he decided it was more expedient to adapt to these games than to oppose them.  I believe he wanted to be the most transparent Administration, but his nature to compromise instead of take a stand defined his terms.  As he exits, his legacy may be that he became the very thing he hoped to oppose, and he lets loose if not the very worst, a virulent strain of what the People elected him to oppose. 

 
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/04/11/60-minutes-lawmakers-say-redacted-pages-of-911-report-shows-saudi-official-met-hijackers-in-la/

Let me predict the NEXT Clinton scandal that will have teeth in it.  It won't hit in earnest until after she's elected, but the email she got from Blumenthal that said the Saudis funded Benghazi -- yeah, it's going to matter that she tried to hide that.  Because Congress will put ungodly pressure on the Administration to release details on the Saudi connection to 911 (the 28 pages from last night's 60 Minutes report).  And when it's revealed the the US government has protected the Saudis despite their murdering 3,000 of our own that day, and it is then realized the Hillary Clinton is a part of that effort -- there's the first of many calls for her impeachment.

Going to be a fun, productive 4 years.  Congrats to her loyal supporters.  It's everything this country needs. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
I'll try to be respectful to Obama, because you see the pictures of first day and last day of the Presidency and how much it ages someone.  But I think he started off an idealist, back when he gave the speech as a Junior senator in 2000.  I think he had aspirations of having integrity.  I think that as soon as he got in the sausage grinder he decided it was more expedient to adapt to these games than to oppose them.  I believe he wanted to be the most transparent Administration, but his nature to compromise instead of take a stand defined his terms.  As he exits, his legacy may be that he became the very thing he hoped to oppose, and he lets loose if not the very worst, a virulent strain of what the People elected him to oppose. 
Click to expand...
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I believe people are judging Obama far too harshly given what he stepped into in 2009.  He will tell you himself that he has made mistakes but an open-minded person will look back and see how far the country has advanced since Bush left office.  The work isn't done but we're on the right track.

Think back to 2008 and imagine Bernie getting this close to the Presidency - hard to do, right?  Much of Bernie's success is a direct result of Obama's groundwork.  Whether Bernie wins or someone else has to take up the progressive agenda there is now a large part of the country that wants things to change from the way they have always been.

 
Clinton Aide: Sanders "trying to rig the system" by trying to flip superdelegates to him.

You know...the same superdelegates that declared their support for her after being paid off and before a single voter cast a ballot.

Un...#######...believable. No shame.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I believe people are judging Obama far too harshly given what he stepped into in 2009.  He will tell you himself that he has made mistakes but an open-minded person will look back and see how far the country has advanced since Bush left office.  The work isn't done but we're on the right track.

Think back to 2008 and imagine Bernie getting this close to the Presidency - hard to do, right?  Much of Bernie's success is a direct result of Obama's groundwork.  Whether Bernie wins or someone else has to take up the progressive agenda there is now a large part of the country that wants things to change from the way they have always been.
Click to expand...
I don't see it that way at all- the reason Bernie (and to a lesser extent Trump) have done so well is because nothing much has changed under Obama, despite the promises.  Now people are saying "screw it" and supporting people who will shake up the system (for better or worse).

 
Am I the only one that is amazed that the Democratic presumptive nominee is under FBI investigation and her direct staff all have the same lawyer (normally something you only associate with organized crime)?

 
cap'n grunge said:
Clinton Aide: Sanders "trying to rig the system" by trying to flip superdelegates to him.

You know...the same superdelegates that declared their support for her after being paid off and before a single voter cast a ballot.

Un...#######...believable. No shame.
Click to expand...
Totally perplexed with the fascination over super delegates. If you get the most pledged delegates you win. If you don't you lose. Clinton saw a mass exodus of super delegates from her camp in 2008 because she lost to Obama. That's not happening in 2016 because she is winning. Seems pretty simple. 

 
Trey said:
Totally perplexed with the fascination over super delegates. If you get the most pledged delegates you win. If you don't you lose. Clinton saw a mass exodus of super delegates from her camp in 2008 because she lost to Obama. That's not happening in 2016 because she is winning. Seems pretty simple. 
Click to expand...
I'm perplexed that you are perplexed.

The #1 reason, BY FAR, that people support Hillary is that they believe she is the "most electable," and when popular media outlets report upon Hillary's near "insurmountable lead" they fail to cite that their reporting is essentially bull#### and that super delegates don't really matter, as you just stated.

You could be one of the good guys, Trey.

 
Trey said:
Totally perplexed with the fascination over super delegates. If you get the most pledged delegates you win. If you don't you lose. Clinton saw a mass exodus of super delegates from her camp in 2008 because she lost to Obama. That's not happening in 2016 because she is winning. Seems pretty simple. 
Click to expand...
The willful ignorance of Clinton supporters (in fact all zealots) is astounding.  She bought the superdelegates before a vote was cast -- at lest in 33 states, with a deal that played fast and loose with campaign finance laws, and which millions were syphoned from rich donors to the DNC in those states.  

 
Last edited:
Solid points here:

freebeacon.com/politics/obama-defense-clinton-email-scandal/

Summarizes New York Times findings that Obama's claim that there is classified and then classified is directly counter to the Adminstration's prior and aggressive stance.  When you were amongst the 9 cases prosecuted, guess what -- you didn't get to make that distinction.  Also, in a true circling of wagons the Administration recently started softening markings of Secret and Top Secret after 7 years of doing otherwise.  Pieces of #### -- all of them.  This is corruption, pure and simple,  

 
Mr. Ham said:
In a sign that this will all get surreal before it's over, Scarborough making the excellent point that even in commenting on the case and saying politics won't interfere, Obama undermined the FBI investigation with his comments and politicized it.  Don't want to interfere: Don't interfere!  Pretty damn clear where he stands on the issue and on Hillary's candidacy. 
Click to expand...
As a liberal, I know I always look to Joe Scarborough for my moral compass when it comes to the issues.  

 
Mr. Ham exhibits the traits of the true conspiracy theorist: if Obama had hinted that Hillary was guilty of wrongdoing (as Ham confidently predicted beforehand), Ham would be celebrating. When Obama pretty clearly indicated that Hillary was innocent of wrongdoing, Ham decided that Obama must himself be part of the corruption. Never once does Ham seriously consider that Hillary might actually be innocent: the only question in Ham's mind is who is involved in the cover-up? 

There is no way to argue with a conspiracy theorist; no means to disprove the accusations, because in the mind of the conspiracy theorist anyone who disagrees is either a dupe or part of the conspiracy. 

 
timschochet said:
Mr. Ham exhibits the traits of the true conspiracy theorist: if Obama had hinted that Hillary was guilty of wrongdoing (as Ham confidently predicted beforehand), Ham would be celebrating. When Obama pretty clearly indicated that Hillary was innocent of wrongdoing, Ham decided that Obama must himself be part of the corruption. Never once does Ham seriously consider that Hillary might actually be innocent: the only question in Ham's mind is who is involved in the cover-up? 

There is no way to argue with a conspiracy theorist; no means to disprove the accusations, because in the mind of the conspiracy theorist anyone who disagrees is either a dupe or part of the conspiracy. 
Click to expand...
Aunt Nehru is dirty and you know it. Then again, you've stated over and over you prefer our corrupt system.

 
timschochet said:
Mr. Ham exhibits the traits of the true conspiracy theorist: if Obama had hinted that Hillary was guilty of wrongdoing (as Ham confidently predicted beforehand), Ham would be celebrating. When Obama pretty clearly indicated that Hillary was innocent of wrongdoing, Ham decided that Obama must himself be part of the corruption. Never once does Ham seriously consider that Hillary might actually be innocent: the only question in Ham's mind is who is involved in the cover-up? 

There is no way to argue with a conspiracy theorist; no means to disprove the accusations, because in the mind of the conspiracy theorist anyone who disagrees is either a dupe or part of the conspiracy. 
Click to expand...
Tim you're the only one who has seriously referenced a conspiracy in this thread and you've done it repeatedly.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Tim you're the only one who has seriously referenced a conspiracy in this thread and you've done it repeatedly.
Click to expand...
Mr. Ham hasn't used the word "conspiracy" (he wouldn't) but he is accusing President Obama of taking a stand on Hillary's behalf, and he and several others have suggested Obama would be part of a cover-up. What else would you call that? 

 
Honestly, I don't think Obama wants Hillary to get off easy. At the very least, nothing he has said indicates that he is covering for her. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/04/11/60-minutes-lawmakers-say-redacted-pages-of-911-report-shows-saudi-official-met-hijackers-in-la/

Let me predict the NEXT Clinton scandal that will have teeth in it.  It won't hit in earnest until after she's elected, but the email she got from Blumenthal that said the Saudis funded Benghazi -- yeah, it's going to matter that she tried to hide that.  Because Congress will put ungodly pressure on the Administration to release details on the Saudi connection to 911 (the 28 pages from last night's 60 Minutes report).  And when it's revealed the the US government has protected the Saudis despite their murdering 3,000 of our own that day, and it is then realized the Hillary Clinton is a part of that effort -- there's the first of many calls for her impeachment.

Going to be a fun, productive 4 years.  Congrats to her loyal supporters.  It's everything this country needs. 
Click to expand...
Is there any evidence that Clinton was involved with a 911/Saudi cover up, or that there was a Saudi/Benghazi connection?   The article that you linked didn't say anything about either.   

 
If anything I bet Obama is privately irritated at her for creating this issue and doesn't want it to rub off on his legacy at all. He wants it to go away so he doesn't get dragged into it, just like anyone would.

 
bananafish said:
I posted this in the Saudi Arabia thread already, but here it is again. To me the deleted emails are a bigger concern to Hillary than the separate server. I think the whole purpose of the separate server was to keep her emails from the public. If we never hear any more about them (not just Saudi Arabia, but all of them) then there's no doubt in my mind there's a cover-up. I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt until then.
Click to expand...
Until never?

 
bananafish said:
I posted this in the Saudi Arabia thread already, but here it is again. To me the deleted emails are a bigger concern to Hillary than the separate server. I think the whole purpose of the separate server was to keep her emails from the public. If we never hear any more about them (not just Saudi Arabia, but all of them) then there's no doubt in my mind there's a cover-up. I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt until then.
Click to expand...
Interesting article, but it didn't say Saudi Arabia (the government)- it said Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia.   Nothing new there - we've known for a long time that Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia are funding all sorts of terrorist ####.   Gonna need a little more evidence.

 
Neofight said:
Honestly, I don't think Obama wants Hillary to get off easy. At the very least, nothing he has said indicates that he is covering for her. 
Click to expand...


I would not say a cover necessarily, but Obama did play defense lawyer for Hillary while in the same breath saying he would not interfere in the case and had no insight into the investigation outside of what is reported in the news.  Obama made several speculative statements (if we really belief Obama words that he has no special insight) favoring Hillary which were aimed at convincing the DOJ/FBI and public that Hillary did not break the spirit of the law.  

 
Interesting choice of words for a routine security review, from ABC News:

The White House on Tuesday was under pressure to reconcile those two statements — asserting Obama's public defense of Clinton was not an attempt to meddle in an ongoing probe and that federal investigators will not be swayed by the boss' views.

"The president is committed to ensuring that individuals who are conducting criminal prosecutions do their work without influence from politicians or anybody that's involved in politics," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

 
bananafish said:
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was a connection to the Saudi government (though there very well could be), only that Hillary hid evidence of Saudi Arabians being connected to Benghazi. The 9/11 issue is a separate can of worms, I should have made that clear.
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, WTF do you mean by "Hillary hid evidence of Saudi Arabians being connected to Benghazi."   ?.

 
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: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top