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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's in her actual contracts, the client was to pay for the transcription service as a standard rider. The contract also says they are solely her property.

My guess is it makes sense that she wanted it for her book(s) or speeches.

eta - is it so bad if she said positive things to audiences that were paying truckloads of money? Try seeing things in context. What if she actually believes in Wall Street and the financial industry as important to America's well-being, would that be so bad?
Click to expand...
Wait.  You are defending her?

 
squistion said:
So what. Have you noticed no one ever asks that of the GOP candidates? Have any of them said in response to Hillary, "Yes I will be glad to have transcripts of all my speeches to private donors/groups released?" They don't want to go there and have something taken out of context and become an internet YouTube meme that could cost them the Presidency.  
Click to expand...
deflect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  deflect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  deflect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  deflect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  deflect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

:lol:

 
The Future Champs said:
Seriously?   Ever hear the names "Rove" and "Stone"?
Click to expand...
You can throw Stone into that group but until Trump he was in the wilderness for some time IIRC.

Rove is a campaign manager, different breed but I'm not saying he hasn't engaged in the dark arts, it's just Brock's & Blumenthal's specialty. Stone's an outright whacko bird. If you want to put them in the same class yeah I agree but the B&B boys use a scalpel while Stone lurks around with a rock ax.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pantherclub said:
Wait.  You are defending her?
Click to expand...
Point there was to draw Squiz out on the point. That's who Hillary is IMO, and there's a damn good chance she wasn't just telling 'the OBL capture moment' story over and over again in countless corporate speeches. My guess is she was telling those audiences pleasing things they wanted to hear after they had just shelled out a few hundred thou. Squiz supports her I'm sure he's anticipated this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Tim, have her enemies ever missed an opportunity to take a line out of one of her speeches completely out of context to mean something entirely different and try to use it against her? Why give them ammunition when the playing field will not be equal? It is not smart politics, as she could end up wasting time and energy trying to explain something that has been completely misrepresented.
Click to expand...
Sort of how she will represent Sanders being in favor of things like gun control or cherry pick other small items of a vote to paint him a certain way. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
I'd say generally people thinks she's dodging and hiding something and would like her to release them.
Click to expand...
I doubt there is anything important in those speeches except for maybe praising wal-street and banks for doing a great job which probably contradicts her message to the base.  But no one believes she is sincere in anything she says so no big deal.  Just reinforcing who she is.  

 
jon_mx said:
I doubt there is anything important in those speeches except for maybe praising wal-street and banks for doing a great job which probably contradicts her message to the base.  But no one believes she is sincere in anything she says so no big deal.  Just reinforcing who she is.  
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I have to agree with jon, which is pretty rare. Except that I do tend to believe she is sincere about a lot of stuff. 

But many people do not and this sort of stuff does rem force that perception. It's very aggravating to me. 

 
Tim, curious if you have an explanation for Cattle Futures?  I know it was a long time ago, but in their rise to power, it certainly appears as though the Clintons were accepting laundered bribe payments.  Would love to hear your explanation.  I find it troubling if before they even ran for the White House, they should have served time.  

 
Last edited:
The Commish said:
I don't know if this is true or not, but the fact that it's even possible is pretty comical given she was that state's senator for those years.
Click to expand...
If you listened to the opening, Hillary camp (and the DNC) made sure the audience was over-represented by Hillary enthusiasts.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
Tim, curious if you have an explanation for Cattle Futures?  I know it was a long time ago, but in their rise to power, it certainly appears as though the Clintons were accepting laundered bribe payments.  Would love to hear your explanation.  If find it troubling if before they even ran for the White House, they should have served time.  
Click to expand...
There's a book from the 90s by Joe Conason called The Hunting of the President that goes into this in depth and thoroughly debunks it, along with all of the other "scandals" of the time. Admittedly Conason is a Clinton supporter but I remember  being impressed by what I read. But I do t remember any of the details. It's not an issue I find the least bit important moving forward, I'm sorry. 

 
timschochet said:
There's a book from the 90s by Joe Conason called The Hunting of the President that goes into this in depth and thoroughly debunks it, along with all of the other "scandals" of the time. Admittedly Conason is a Clinton supporter but I remember  being impressed by what I read. But I do t remember any of the details. It's not an issue I find the least bit important moving forward, I'm sorry. 
Click to expand...
Did the book mention the environmental damage caused by Tyson in AR under Clinton?

 
timschochet said:
There's a book from the 90s by Joe Conason called The Hunting of the President that goes into this in depth and thoroughly debunks it, along with all of the other "scandals" of the time. Admittedly Conason is a Clinton supporter but I remember  being impressed by what I read. But I do t remember any of the details. It's not an issue I find the least bit important moving forward, I'm sorry. 
Click to expand...


You use the the phrase 'thoroughly debunks' a lot.  It does not mean to offer a remotely plausible explaination.  HTH.  

 
timschochet said:
There's a book from the 90s by Joe Conason called The Hunting of the President that goes into this in depth and thoroughly debunks it, along with all of the other "scandals" of the time. Admittedly Conason is a Clinton supporter but I remember  being impressed by what I read. But I do t remember any of the details. It's not an issue I find the least bit important moving forward, I'm sorry. 
Click to expand...
This is your answer to every single one of these, isn't it.  "I remember reading about it once, and the pro-Hillary explanation sounded convincing.  I don't remember the details, and I've never actually looked into it myself, but I'm sure it's nothing.  Just a vast right-wing conspiracy."

 
Rich Conway said:
This is your answer to every single one of these, isn't it.  "I remember reading about it once, and the pro-Hillary explanation sounded convincing.  I don't remember the details, and I've never actually looked into it myself, but I'm sure it's nothing.  Just a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Click to expand...
Sorry you find that repetitive and tiresome. But it seems to me that if somebody charges that Hillary is guilty of criminal behavior, the burden of proof is on them, not on me to argue against it. 

 
@timschochet

The factor that makes the cattle futures scandal relevant is that Hillary Clinton received her trading advice from Tyson Food’s outside counsel. Tyson was a major agricultural producer in Arkansas and had numerous issues that Attorney General and later Governor Bill Clinton could affect.

One such issue involved enforcement of environmental regulations affecting Tyson’s chicken-processing plants. It can be costly for factory farmers to properly dispose of chicken manure, but the failure to do so can cause serious damage. This was demonstrated by an incident at the company’s Green Forest plant in northwest Arkansas. As The New York Times reported in March 1994:

In 1977, the state pollution control agency reissued the license for Tyson's Green Forest plant on the condition that the company meet with city officials to work out a plan for treating its wastes. But the state never enforced the order, and in May 1983, the waste from the plant seeped into the town's drinking water. Residents became ill, and 15 months later Governor Clinton declared the town a disaster area.

So it is possible to link Tyson’s support for the Clintons to water contamination, an ironic circumstance given Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Governor Rick Snyder’s handling of the Flint water crisis.

The Times also reported, “During Mr. Clinton's tenure in Arkansas, Tyson benefited from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans, the placement of company executives on important state boards and favorable decisions on environmental issues.”

Tyson appears to have obtained these results for what looks like a bribe delivered though Hillary Clinton’s commodities account. To quote the company’s former chairman: politics is “a series of unsentimental transactions between those who need votes and those who have money.”

This perspective should provide cause for concern today, since Hillary Clinton made $2.9 million in speaking fees from large financial institutions between 2013 and 2015. That total includes $675,000 from the much reviled Goldman Sachs. One is left to wonder whether Goldman and the other financial industry behemoths stand to gain any transactional benefits for their money.

While paid speech-making is not illegal, bribery is. Tyson might have simply made a campaign contribution to Bill Clinton back then, but that would have violated limits then in effect.  ...
Click to expand...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-37-old-clinton-financial-103000172.html

- This is also why Whitewater matters btw. Hillary represented a bank before her husband's appointees and thereby obtained state approval for self-loans which ultimately resulted in the bank's failure harming its customers and the state of Arkansas.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
This is your answer to every single one of these, isn't it.  "I remember reading about it once, and the pro-Hillary explanation sounded convincing.  I don't remember the details, and I've never actually looked into it myself, but I'm sure it's nothing.  Just a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Click to expand...
Sorry you find that repetitive and tiresome. But it seems to me that if somebody charges that Hillary is guilty of criminal behavior, the burden of proof is on them, not on me to argue against it. 
Click to expand...
You've missed his point yet again.

 
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
This is your answer to every single one of these, isn't it.  "I remember reading about it once, and the pro-Hillary explanation sounded convincing.  I don't remember the details, and I've never actually looked into it myself, but I'm sure it's nothing.  Just a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Click to expand...
Sorry you find that repetitive and tiresome. But it seems to me that if somebody charges that Hillary is guilty of criminal behavior, the burden of proof is on them, not on me to argue against it. 
Click to expand...
It's not that it's repetitive and tiresome, it's that it's stupid.  How can someone prove to you that Hillary did something unethical if you refuse to review the information?

Me:  What Hillary did in instance X was shameful, unethical, and possibly criminal.
timschochet:  Vast right-wing conspiracy.  You're buying into a false narrative.
Me:  Well, I've done this reading on the subject, and it makes sense to me.  Here are six links for you to review, so you can come to your own conclusions.
timschochet:  No need.  I heard on the radio once that Hillary did nothing wrong and the whole thing is just made up.
Me:  So you won't even look at all the information I've compiled?
timschochet:  No, the burden of proof is on you.
Me:  :wall:

 
Rich Conway said:
It's not that it's repetitive and tiresome, it's that it's stupid.  How can someone prove to you that Hillary did something unethical if you refuse to review the information?

Me:  What Hillary did in instance X was shameful, unethical, and possibly criminal.
timschochet:  Vast right-wing conspiracy.  You're buying into a false narrative.
Me:  Well, I've done this reading on the subject, and it makes sense to me.  Here are six links for you to review, so you can come to your own conclusions.
timschochet:  No need.  I heard on the radio once that Hillary did nothing wrong and the whole thing is just made up.
Me:  So you won't even look at all the information I've compiled?
timschochet:  No, the burden of proof is on you.
Me:  :wall:
Click to expand...
I've concluded Tim's POV on these things is the 'greater good.' Hillary is the greater good thus anything that affects her negatively affects the greater good which is bad and thus must be resisted. Thus if he can take a fig leaf from Hillary herself or her campaign then that works, that's all he needs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I've concluded Tim's POV on these things is the 'greater good.' Hillary is the greater good thus anything that affects her negatively affects the greater good which is bad and thus must be resisted. Thus if he can take a fig leaf from Hillary herself or her campaign then that works, that's all he needs.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, we all know this.  He is very much a "end justifies the means" guy (although he denies it).

 
timschochet said:
Unfortunately, I have to agree with jon, which is pretty rare. Except that I do tend to believe she is sincere about a lot of stuff. 

But many people do not and this sort of stuff does rem force that perception. It's very aggravating to me. 
Click to expand...
You and Squiz have very opposite POV's here, it's funny how he doesn't shake his fist at you and declare that you must be telling a falsie. Like I said it's likely you and Jon are right here, but obviously you think it's a good thing. That was my question to Squiz, why would it be so bad if it were true that she said sweet things to finaciers? I wonder if most of her supporters would agree but rather declare it was all a lie taken out of context.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
How do you possibly obtain a telephone transcript.  NSA?
Click to expand...
I think State probably memorializes all such phone calls, there are likely translators on the phone too. Otherwise I don't know, but I'm going to guess it has not been included in Foia and Congressional responses before now, until JW thought of it and demanded it specifically.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I've concluded Tim's POV on these things is the 'greater good.' Hillary is the greater good thus anything that affects her negatively affects the greater good which is bad and thus must be resisted. Thus if he can take a fig leaf from Hillary herself or her campaign then that works, that's all he needs.
Click to expand...
You're over generalizing my position. In fact I don't even have a position on this. Everything depends on the issue in question. 

The only general rule I have about political scandals is this: they bore me. This is true whether I like or detest the candidate. In almost all cases I tend to assume the political figure is innocent unless and until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would much prefer to discuss the issues. 

If I had to analyze the reason I feel this way I suppose it's because scandal talk gives opponents of the political figure the excuse to demonize him or her, and that's the sort of politics I despise on both sides. The reaction to Hillary is one of the great examples of this and it was on display last night in the debate thread. There were no "I disagree with what Hillary just said and here's why," posts that I can recall. Instead almost all of the anti-Hillary posts were "I ####### HATE her so much!!"  variety. Just really ugly stuff. Hell I'd even defend Donald Trump against that kind of attack. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
You and Squiz have very opposite POV's here, it's funny how he doesn't shake his fist at you and declare that you must be telling a falsie. Like I said it's likely you and Jon are right here, but obviously you think it's a good thing. That was my question to Squiz, why would it be so bad if it were true that she said sweet things to finaciers? I wonder if most of her supporters would agree but rather declare it was all a lie taken out of context.
Click to expand...
Please. Not a lie taken out of context. Just a statement taken out of context (see "We didn't lose a single person in Libya" or "What difference does it make?") that will run in attack ads and misrepresent what Hillary meant. It would be a lose/lose situation for any politician which is why you haven't heard any of the Republican candidates demand she publish the transcripts (because they have probably more to fear than she does).  And I am sure she probably did say things financiers found favorable, but releasing the transcripts is just not smart politics unless it is an equal playing field for everyone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
The only general rule I have about political scandals is this: they bore me. This is true whether I like or detest the candidate. In almost all cases I tend to assume the political figure is innocent unless and until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would much prefer to discuss the issues. 
Click to expand...
The difference here is that many of us believe that ethics, transparency, and political cronyism ARE the issues.  You don't care about those issues, so you want to ignore them.

 
Rich Conway said:
The difference here is that many of us believe that ethics, transparency, and political cronyism ARE the issues.  You don't care about those issues, so you want to ignore them.
Click to expand...
That's true. I certainly care less about those issues than others: unemployment, the debt, climate change, immigration, foreign policy, etc. 

 
Rich Conway said:
The difference here is that many of us believe that ethics, transparency, and political cronyism ARE the issues.  You don't care about those issues, so you want to ignore them.
Click to expand...
And the other problem with these issues, Rich, is that one gets to arbitrarily pick and choose. For instance if I were a partisan Democrat I could devote all my time to pointing out examples of Republican unethical behavior, non-transparency, cronyism, etc. There are lots of examples. But it would be cherry picking because partisan Republicans can do the same for Democrats. Look at his thread for instance. 99% of the people who are convinced that Hillary did something wrong with her email server already dislike Hillary for other reasons. 

 
squistion said:
Please. Not a lie taken out of context. Just a statement taken out of context (see "We didn't lose a single person in Libya" or "What difference does it make?") that will run in attack ads and misrepresent what Hillary meant. It would be a lose/lose situation for any politician which is why you haven't heard any of the Republican candidates demand she publish the transcripts (because they have probably more to fear than she does).  And I am sure she probably did say things financiers found favorable, but releasing the transcripts is just not smart politics unless it is an equal playing field for everyone.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear I did not mean that Hillary would be said to be lying to the financiers she was speaking to. It's as you have it.

The 'not smart politics' is never ok really. I can handle the argument that they are private and she is under no obligation to release them but 'not smart politics' sounds like she is hiding it because people will view it negatively.

 
timschochet said:
You're over generalizing my position. In fact I don't even have a position on this. Everything depends on the issue in question. 

The only general rule I have about political scandals is this: they bore me. This is true whether I like or detest the candidate. In almost all cases I tend to assume the political figure is innocent unless and until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would much prefer to discuss the issues. 

If I had to analyze the reason I feel this way I suppose it's because scandal talk gives opponents of the political figure the excuse to demonize him or her, and that's the sort of politics I despise on both sides. The reaction to Hillary is one of the great examples of this and it was on display last night in the debate thread. There were no "I disagree with what Hillary just said and here's why," posts that I can recall. Instead almost all of the anti-Hillary posts were "I ####### HATE her so much!!"  variety. Just really ugly stuff. Hell I'd even defend Donald Trump against that kind of attack. 
Click to expand...
That's because you view them as scandals and not issues. Bill & Monica is a "scandal." Bill suborning perjury is an issue.

 
timschochet said:
And the other problem with these issues, Rich, is that one gets to arbitrarily pick and choose. For instance if I were a partisan Democrat I could devote all my time to pointing out examples of Republican unethical behavior, non-transparency, cronyism, etc. There are lots of examples. But it would be cherry picking because partisan Republicans can do the same for Democrats. Look at his thread for instance. 99% of the people who are convinced that Hillary did something wrong with her email server already dislike Hillary for other reasons. 
Click to expand...
Do you find her divisive?

 
timschochet said:
She obviously is. We'd probably disagree on the reasons why. 
Click to expand...
Ok...there are two reasons...one is politics but in fairness it doesn't matter who you are the "other side" will dislike/hate you no matter how much they claim otherwise...two is her personality/ethics...she is a Marie Antoniette "let them eat cake" personality who is both corrupt and basically willing to do anything to obtain money and power and than tell the rest of us we suck...a Hillary Presidency would be the final nail in the coffin for any unity in this country (not that there is a candidate out there that can accomplish this...but she is the worst)...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
And the other problem with these issues, Rich, is that one gets to arbitrarily pick and choose. For instance if I were a partisan Democrat I could devote all my time to pointing out examples of Republican unethical behavior, non-transparency, cronyism, etc. There are lots of examples. But it would be cherry picking because partisan Republicans can do the same for Democrats. Look at his thread for instance. 99% of the people who are convinced that Hillary did something wrong with her email server already dislike Hillary for other reasons. 
Click to expand...
I disagree.  One can arbitrarily pick and choose points of criticism on any topic, not just ethics, transparency, and cronyism.  Supporters of virtually every politician do it all the time.  Look at those who criticize Hillary for flip-flopping but ignore the same behavior in their own candidate/politician.  Ditto for votes on this bill or that bill.  Ditto for speech gaffes.

Now, if you want to complain that I criticize Hillary on ethics and such much more than I do for, say, Trump or Cruz, it's a fair point.  However, the reason isn't because I'm giving Cruz or Trump a pass on those topics, it's because I don't believe there's a serious chance that either one of them can win, so I don't think it's worth my time to try to convince others that they are poor candidates.

 
timschochet said:
Really? If you can refute what I wrote please do so. 
Click to expand...
Oh please....it's absurd to think that 99% of the people that think Hillary did something wrong with the handling of her email are people that already disliked her. That is how you view things in your warped view of Hillary. Once again you try and pass off an opinion as fact.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
@timschochet

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-37-old-clinton-financial-103000172.html

- This is also why Whitewater matters btw. Hillary represented a bank before her husband's appointees and thereby obtained state approval for self-loans which ultimately resulted in the bank's failure harming its customers and the state of Arkansas.
Click to expand...
Makes me so damn angry.  There is no logical conclusion on that scandal other than she was taking laundered bribes.  Sorry, but it's just what happened.  The Tyson connection is the most likely explanation, but one need not even conclude that to understand that the transactions themselves were masking corruption.  

Squis says she wasn't convicted, so it doesn't matter.  Tim says it was explained away by a book.  Meanwhile, a town was declared a disaster area, water polluted, but no matter.

The fact this wasn't discovered until the 90s in no failing of anyone.  No one outside of Arkansas would have known to look for it, and the Clintons controlled the state.

What this is is proof of character and a mindset...  Favors done for personal gain.  The fact that this transpired and now the Clintons have more than a hundred million in personal wealth, and Hillary has pandered to big money interests both publicly and privately doesn't ring alarm bells?  

And this is the greater good?  Good God!

 
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: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top