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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Commish said:
The use of the :lmao:  is not a sign of being bothered, it's of being entertained, especially on the background of the incessant whining that the GOP uses the "fear card" to win support and votes.
Click to expand...
This isn't a typical Democrat/Republican thing. Trump represents something new, and frightening. I don't find his chance of being President entertaining. 

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
Any decent human being would know they are a tarnished candidate and just drop out.   I don't understand why she continues to run, it only hurts the democratic party.  
Click to expand...
If one assumes Hillary is a decent human being, it would be understandable why one might not understand why she continues to run.  She's hurting the party and the country, which any decent human being would not do.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
You were told that you were picking the weakest arrow from the quiver, threw all the other arrows out, now you say the stakes are incredibly higher than ever if this one shot doesn't hit the target, maybe you should reconsider how we got here.
Click to expand...
She's the arrow left in the quiver that the vast majority of bowmen wanted all along.

 
pantagrapher said:
The Commish said:
The use of the :lmao:  is not a sign of being bothered, it's of being entertained, especially on the background of the incessant whining that the GOP uses the "fear card" to win support and votes.
Click to expand...
The GOP taps into irrational fears—like Muslims taking over America and instituting Shariah Law while the government confiscates your guns. If you think talking about the danger of a Trump presidency is similarly irrational, that's cool. I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
You guys are free to try and make excuses or distinctions (whichever helps you guys sleep at night) if you like.  Most of you are acting completely irrational from my point of view.  I think Trump becoming dictator and destroying the world is as equally absurd as Muslims taking over America and instituting Shariah Law so.......

 
It's still incredible to me to hear Bernie and his supporters argue, now, that the super delegates should defy the will of the majority and nominate Bernie. It's so desperate and hypocritical. 

 
timschochet said:
It's still incredible to me to hear Bernie and his supporters argue, now, that the super delegates should defy the will of the majority and nominate Bernie. It's so desperate and hypocritical. 
Click to expand...
Bernie's argument on SD's is that he wants the will of the people in the state of the SD to be honored. He doesn't believe a state that voted for him in large numbers should all have SDs pledged to Clinton.  He is on record that his focus is not on states Hillary won by large numbers.

 
timschochet said:
It's still incredible to me to hear Bernie and his supporters argue, now, that the super delegates should defy the will of the majority and nominate Bernie. It's so desperate and hypocritical. 
Click to expand...
I've tended to agree with you on the Superdelegate issue, I might even totally agree with you - btw I mean re the practice or fact of it, not what you say about Bernie supporters which is incredibly cutting and unfair - however remember superdelegates are there to ensure the party is not saddled with a loser who will get crushed in the general. If Hillary's troubles continue apace they are going to have some decisions to make.

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
Bernie's argument on SD's is that he wants the will of the people in the state of the SD to be honored. He doesn't believe a state that voted for him in large numbers should all have SDs pledged to Clinton.  He is on record that his focus is not on states Hillary won by large numbers.
Click to expand...
Uh no. As Chuck Todd has pointed out, that would still lock it up for Hillary. When pressed on this, Bernie argues that the SD have a responsibility to support the "strongest" candidate. 

 
timschochet said:
It's still incredible to me to hear Bernie and his supporters argue, now, that the super delegates should defy the will of the majority and nominate Bernie. It's so desperate and hypocritical. 
Click to expand...
Its just reality.  Super delegates are there to ensure the Dems pick the best candidate to defeat the GOP in the general election.

They may very well conclude that is Clinton.  But, they might spend the next few months mulling over what a general election looks like, down ticket, when the candidate is hemorrhaging heavily.  They owe a debt to Clinton, but even that may not be enough to keep them in her camp if she starts sinking lower. 

 
timschochet said:
Three million more votes for Hillary than Bernie. Of course it's the case. 
Click to expand...
Running against a 73 year old socialist jew, one would hope the establishment candidate with all the advantages--and proclaimed by some as the most qualified candidate ever--would have swatted away like a fly off her shoulder...and not lost 21 contests or had to carry the fight into June because she didn't have the required number of delegates. 

 
timschochet said:
It's still incredible to me to hear Bernie and his supporters argue, now, that the super delegates should defy the will of the majority and nominate Bernie. It's so desperate and hypocritical. 
Click to expand...
I agree here.  Though, this is the web you weave when you continue to play that fear card as a way of unification.  Plenty of people out there are scared that Hillary isn't enough to beat Trump.  That coupled with the uncertainty of where this FBI investigation is going leaves a sufficient hole that Bernie is filling.  If I were Bernie, I'd not even mention it personally.  Let all the surrogates do that and be done with it.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I've tended to agree with you on the Superdelegate issue, I might even totally agree with you - btw I mean re the practice or fact of it, not what you say about Bernie supporters which is incredibly cutting and unfair - however remember superdelegates are there to ensure the party is not saddled with a loser who will get crushed in the general. If Hillary's troubles continue apace they are going to have some decisions to make.
Click to expand...
No they're not. 

People keep saying that if the Republicans had had super delegates Trump would never have been the nominee. That's simply not true because SD are human and they would NEVER have gone against what the majority wanted. They won't here either. Hillary has won a strong majority of Democratic voters, fairly, and she will be the nominee because she is who the voters want. Nothing else is relevant. 

 
timschochet said:
No they're not. 

People keep saying that if the Republicans had had super delegates Trump would never have been the nominee. That's simply not true because SD are human and they would NEVER have gone against what the majority wanted. They won't here either. Hillary has won a strong majority of Democratic voters, fairly, and she will be the nominee because she is who the voters want. Nothing else is relevant. 
Click to expand...
Am I mistaken.  Didn't the SD go against the majority in Obama-Clinton?

 
timschochet said:
No they're not. 

People keep saying that if the Republicans had had super delegates Trump would never have been the nominee. That's simply not true because SD are human and they would NEVER have gone against what the majority wanted. They won't here either. Hillary has won a strong majority of Democratic voters, fairly, and she will be the nominee because she is who the voters want. Nothing else is relevant. 
Click to expand...
Why do they exist Tim?

 
timschochet said:
No they're not. 

People keep saying that if the Republicans had had super delegates Trump would never have been the nominee. That's simply not true because SD are human and they would NEVER have gone against what the majority wanted. They won't here either. Hillary has won a strong majority of Democratic voters, fairly, and she will be the nominee because she is who the voters want. Nothing else is relevant. 
Click to expand...
The GOP has superdelegates built into the state convention system, they were facing what Hillary is facing now just a little over a month ago. Trump was *never looking at a majority of votes then but the convention could have easily turned against him if NY, PA & IN had gone differently, which IMO they would have been right to. 

You're arguing against your own theory of superdelegates here btw, obviously they're there to prevent another McGovern, regardless of how the primaries turn out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The GOP has superdelegates built into the state convention system, they were facing what Hillary is facing now just a little over a month ago. Trump was *never looking at a majority of votes then but the convention could have easily turned against him if NY, PA & IN had gone differently, which IMO they would have been right to. 

You're arguing against your own theory of superdelegates here btw, obviously they're there to prevent another McGovern, regardless of how the primaries turn out.
Click to expand...
It isn't my theory. 

I love it when the establishment candidates win but even I know you can't force that to happen. You have to win the majority.

 
timschochet said:
They exist because some elites in the Democratic Party too smart for their own good wanted to prevent future McGoverns from winning out. But it can't be done. 
Click to expand...
The rules say otherwise :shrug:

Tim, it's ok to admit this for what it is.  Your tap dancing around it, while amusing, is absurd.

 
Superdelegates came about in 1982 because party leaders wanted to exercise more control over the nomination process. Having superdelegates would ensure that members of the Democratic Party had some weight in case the Democratic voters picked a dud, as they did in 1972 when anti-Vietnam War liberal Sen. George McGovern won the nomination and not much else. They would also prevent another Jimmy Carter, whom party leaders viewed as an ineffective president because Carter wasn't friendly with the major figures in the party, according to Mayer. They hoped to force candidates like Carter to get to know the party during the nomination fight and therefore build up loyalty before taking office.
"They were a bit controversial when they were put into effect," says Mayer. "In a party that is obsessed with an appearance of democracy, they give more power to party leaders...the Democrats are not an obvious party to endorse those kinds of ideas."
While the percentage of superdelegates increased throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, there were some efforts to get rid of them, according to Mayer. They remained mostly because they didn't have much of an effect on the outcome of the races.
But in 1984, superdelegates had an impact. Walter Mondale (with a narrow lead in votes and pledged delegates) put out a call to superdelegates when he was 40 votes shy of clinching the Democratic nomination. He got the votes and the nomination.
Click to expand...
Snopes link on superdelegates.

 
bananafish said:
The problem with the "3 million more voters" argument is the Hillary we know today is not the same Hillary they voted for. The Superdelegates are well within their rights, some might say obligated, to consider Hillary's mounting problems when deciding for whom to cast their ballot.

This isn't helping.
Click to expand...
She is delusional which is more dangerous then Trump.   Crooked Hill needs to step down.   She will go out shamed(more than she is already), it is only a matter of when.

 
Also, in case of an insane situation like a moron candidate getting indicted  by the FBI and not being willing to step aside.  But that's so unlikely to ever happen.

 
timschochet said:
That's technically true, but the Supers are not going to defy the majority; they never have. So after New Jersey the networks will report that Hillary has clinched and they should. 
Click to expand...
Tim credit where credit is due. You predicted a contested convention, only with the wrong party. I will give you half credit on that one. So you still think there is going to be violence at the Democrat contested convention? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
You were told that you were picking the weakest arrow from the quiver, threw all the other arrows out, now you say the stakes are incredibly higher than ever if this one shot doesn't hit the target, maybe you should reconsider how we got here.
Click to expand...
Well there is no such thing as a "weak" arrow. However a very poor quality arrow would be one that is crooked. 

 
Loan Sharks said:
Tim credit where credit is due. You predicted a contested convention, only with the wrong party. I will give you half credit on that one. So you still think there is going to be violence at the Democrat contested convention? 
Click to expand...
I never predicted a contested Republican  convention.I hoped for one; that result would be far less shameful than what is going to happen. 

I hope there is no violence at either convention. 

 
timschochet said:
It's still incredible to me to hear Bernie and his supporters argue, now, that the super delegates should defy the will of the majority and nominate Bernie. It's so desperate and hypocritical. 
Click to expand...
As a Bernie supporter I agree.  However, I've thought he should stay in until the end to a) keep spreading his message, especially since large states like NY and CA were saved for the end of primaries and b) Hillary could actually get indicted.

 
cstu said:
As a Bernie supporter I agree.  However, I've thought he should stay in until the end to a) keep spreading his message, especially since large states like NY and CA were saved for the end of primaries and b) Hillary could actually get indicted.
Click to expand...
No question. Bernie has fought the good fight. He needs to keep fighting and stay in through next week for sure. 

But after that, I don't see the point. Staying in the race until the election, hoping against hope that either the SDs will reconsider or that Hillary will get indicted...I know that will make the die hards here happy but all it will achieve IMO is a further division that will only help Donald Trump. 

My guess is that, whatever he says this week, he won't take this route. I think Bernie will gracefully bow out within a few days after next Tuesday like the classy guy he is. 

 
timschochet said:
No question. Bernie has fought the good fight. He needs to keep fighting and stay in through next week for sure. 

But after that, I don't see the point. Staying in the race until the election, hoping against hope that either the SDs will reconsider or that Hillary will get indicted...I know that will make the die hards here happy but all it will achieve IMO is a further division that will only help Donald Trump. 

My guess is that, whatever he says this week, he won't take this route. I think Bernie will gracefully bow out within a few days after next Tuesday like the classy guy he is. 
Click to expand...
Now what would happen if HRC had that kind of class?

 
Mr. Ham said:
71% Democrats believe Hillary should keep trucking right on through indictment. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2016/50_say_clinton_should_keep_running_even_if_indicted

We get the leaders we deserve.  I guess we utterly and totally suck.  

Would Nixon even have to leave office in 2016?  

Depends on who "the other guy" is?  

Sad.
Click to expand...
I mean, look no further than this thread for evidence of how ####ed we are.  There are a few obvious posters here--probably equally distributed in the general population--who are so rigid and incapable of incorporating new data to their political calculator that they resolve their cognitive dissonance by saying, "meh...criminal indictment, whatevs...Hillary's my candidate, I'm sticking to it."  

It's mind-blowing, not that folks would support Hillary for what they think she represents, but that they would support Hillary when it is learned that she systematically was engaged in criminal activity.  We do not have to be stuck with Hillary v. Trump.  I agree with Jon Stewart when he says I'd prefer "Mr. T. over Trump."  In fact, I'd prefer Hillary behind bars to be president over Trump.  But, I'm realistic that not many others feel that way.  And, putting up a crippled candidate to face Trump is probably not in the best interests of the party or the country.

There are other options.  And, frankly, after the OIG report, it is irresponsible--for the DNC, the voters at large, and posters here--to not consider an alternative to Hillary for the general.  If we collectively decide that we want to wait for the FBI report, that's fine, but that comes with a lot of risk...again, with Trump looming and very little time to establish a new candidate.  Alternatively, pressure should start now to nudge Hillary aside and start warming up Kerry/Biden/Warren in the bullpen.

 
Mr. Ham said:
71% Democrats believe Hillary should keep trucking right on through indictment. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2016/50_say_clinton_should_keep_running_even_if_indicted

We get the leaders we deserve.  I guess we utterly and totally suck.  

Would Nixon even have to leave office in 2016?  

Depends on who "the other guy" is?  

Sad.
Click to expand...
Richard Nixon was never indicted of anything. Barry Goldwater gave him a visit, as the senior party member, and told Nixon he would be impeached if he didn't resign. The pending impeachment was not a direct result of the Watergate break in; it was the result of the "Saturday Night Massacre" in which Nixon fired two men who would not replace the special prosecutor, until he found someone who would (Robert Bork). 

The situations, and the events surrounding them, aren't analogous at all. 

 
timschochet said:
No question. Bernie has fought the good fight. He needs to keep fighting and stay in through next week for sure. 

But after that, I don't see the point. Staying in the race until the election, hoping against hope that either the SDs will reconsider or that Hillary will get indicted...I know that will make the die hards here happy but all it will achieve IMO is a further division that will only help Donald Trump. 

My guess is that, whatever he says this week, he won't take this route. I think Bernie will gracefully bow out within a few days after next Tuesday like the classy guy he is. 
Click to expand...
If Hillary is indicted before the convention, Bernie would have a strong claim to the nomination.  There's every reason to stay in the race.  For him.

Personally, I'd prefer other stronger candidates.  But, to claim that he has no reason is simply false.

 
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
264K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top