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 (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
Just heard an interview with Hillary on MSNBC. She was very clear about the email story, maintained what she's said all along, and did not appear to contradict earlier statements. She also hotly denied telling anyone not to discuss it. 
Click to expand...
So is she tripling-down on the lies?  Or are we at a higher iteration?

 
MaxThreshold said:
Hey, I respect you Willie.  I wasn't trying to be an ###.  I just think that his years "teaching" didn't prepare him for anything.  Experience is usually the best indicator, IMO, none of which he had.  NO private sector experience at all to boot.
Click to expand...
He's been an above average President, for sure. But Hillary should be even better. 

 
Hillary:   "I don't recall".   Actually, what's the point?   I can throw out blatant lies of hers & you dismiss.   I'm learning something here.   Political leanings take over fact.

 
timschochet said:
Just heard an interview with Hillary on MSNBC. She was very clear about the email story, maintained what she's said all along, and did not appear to contradict earlier statements. She also hotly denied telling anyone not to discuss it. 
Click to expand...
Oh, well if she said so.  Come on Tim.  You're better than this.  You have to be better than this.

 
cobalt_27 said:
She talked you into a believer, so she must be legit. ?
Click to expand...
She's given many such speeches all over the world. I like the content of those speeches. 

That being said, she has taken money for her Foundation from Saudi Arabia and other countries that mistreat women terribly. I think this is a legitimate criticism. It doesn't make her a hypocrite necessarily, but it is open to question. She deserves to be challenged and criticized for this. 

Look, I don't think Hillary is perfect and there are issues that I am concerned about like this one. But it's small potatoes compared to the alternative. 

 
sho nuff said:
I think both would be bad.

She would most likely be another 4-8 years of Obama.  To the right, that is the worst ever.  To most, that is not great, but not terrible.  Internationally, I don't think she gets us into anything (but also don't think she handles issues that well.

Trump?  He can't control his mouth.  What happens when he says these things and is the President?  How does the market react to a leader saying such things?  I think he is more likely to get us into something crappy internationally.  Something we don't belong in at all.  He would have to surround himself with great people (not "they will be great, trust me"...but real great people).

I have zero faith in either of them being good.
Click to expand...
He gets us a bunch of goodies like Iran did?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Yep. Pres. Obama had the advantage of being likeable and relatable, so even if you're not sure or in disagreement  you can end up giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Hillary is *never going to have that facility.
Click to expand...
I believe she will work with Republicans better than Obama did, despite the fact that currently they claim otherwise. Three main reasons for this: 

1. As I've noted in the past, one of Obama's biggest weaknesses is he has a patronizing "I'm smarter than you" contempt of Congress that is similar to Woodrow Wilson. Hillary does not share this. 

2. She is more pragmatic than Obama, who remains in his heart an ideologue forced to govern as a centrist more by circumstance than by what he really wanted. Hillary is more of a deal maker. 

3. I still expect Hillary to win in November fairly easily, and, call me an optimist, but I think Trump's huge defeat is going to cause the Republicans to reassess their position over the last 8 years of essentially being the party of "No". I expect them to seek more bipartisan agreement over the next few years in order to recapture public opinion of the GOP as a reasonable, non extreme alternative to the Democrats. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Yep. Pres. Obama had the advantage of being likeable and relatable, so even if you're not sure or in disagreement  you can end up giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Hillary is *never going to have that facility.
Click to expand...
It is more than that.  The "greats" when it comes to the presidency almost all had some major ordeal to navigate the country through such as a major war or economic crisis.  Obama made relatively light work of the Great Recession and used diplomacy rather than might to achieve foreign policy objectives.  In most other things like immigration, global warming, healthcare etc he made tiny adjustments that will pay of much more in the long term than the short term.  That just doesn't look as impressive.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
It is more than that.  The "greats" when it comes to the presidency almost all had some major ordeal to navigate the country through such as a major war or economic crisis.  Obama made relatively light work of the Great Recession and used diplomacy rather than might to achieve foreign policy objectives.  In most other things like immigration, global warming, healthcare etc he made tiny adjustments that will pay of much more in the long term than the short term.  That just doesn't look as impressive.
Click to expand...
Wow.  This is some crazy revisionist history and Obama's not even out of office yet.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Lets see, off the top of my head:

  • Sanctions against Iran that led to nuclear deal
  • China's agreement at Copenhagen (?) to reduce carbon emissions
  • Ceasefire deal between Israel ad Hamas
  • START with Russia
  • Groundwork for Cuba
  • Seems by most accounts to have an elevated role in the Osama decision
  • Libya is obviously still up in the air and may turn out as a negative
  • As is Myanmar
  • Oh and rebuilt the relationships with our allies that were strained with the "your with us, or against us" nonsense..
  • ...while spreading values including but not limited to treatment of women and children around the world.
Click to expand...
I'm not in agreement with you on some of those but Copenhagen was a big gamble with possible huge payoff in the future.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Lets see, off the top of my head:

  • Sanctions against Iran that led to nuclear deal
  • China's agreement at Copenhagen (?) to reduce carbon emissions
  • Ceasefire deal between Israel ad Hamas
  • START with Russia
  • Groundwork for Cuba
  • Seems by most accounts to have an elevated role in the Osama decision
  • Libya is obviously still up in the air and may turn out as a negative
  • As is Myanmar
  • Oh and rebuilt the relationships with our allies that were strained with the "your with us, or against us" nonsense..
  • ...while spreading values including but not limited to treatment of women and children around the world.
Click to expand...
:lmao:  Can't forget that one, a favorite of Tim's, too.  What does this even mean?  
Click to expand...
I should also add this speech 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Lets see, off the top of my head:

  • Sanctions against Iran that led to nuclear deal
  • China's agreement at Copenhagen (?) to reduce carbon emissions
  • Ceasefire deal between Israel ad Hamas
  • START with Russia
  • Groundwork for Cuba
  • Seems by most accounts to have an elevated role in the Osama decision
  • Libya is obviously still up in the air and may turn out as a negative
  • As is Myanmar
  • Oh and rebuilt the relationships with our allies that were strained with the "your with us, or against us" nonsense..
  • ...while spreading values including but not limited to treatment of women and children around the world.
Click to expand...
I might point out that the deal with Iran was great for Iran - terrible for the rest of the world.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
It is more than that.  The "greats" when it comes to the presidency almost all had some major ordeal to navigate the country through such as a major war or economic crisis.  Obama made relatively light work of the Great Recession and used diplomacy rather than might to achieve foreign policy objectives.  In most other things like immigration, global warming, healthcare etc he made tiny adjustments that will pay of much more in the long term than the short term.  That just doesn't look as impressive.
Click to expand...
Is there anyone who did not know the US would bounce back from the real estate collapse?  

 
Henry Ford said:
I'm not in agreement with you on some of those but Copenhagen was a big gamble with possible huge payoff in the future.
Click to expand...
It you really look at the deal and what China agreed to, it was a joke.  They are allowed to grow unlimitedly until 2035 before they even establish a baseline from where voluntary unbundling cuts occur.  Now China economy collapsed and emissions have flatlined, but that was despite of Coppenhagen.  

 
BassNBrew said:
Seems to me like the crazy guys get some pretty good deals at the negotiating table.  Not saying that this is how we should operate, but don't you think it's true to an extent?
Click to expand...
I think plenty here misrepresent the Iran deal.

And no, I do t think his crazy gets deals done for this country.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
It is more than that.  The "greats" when it comes to the presidency almost all had some major ordeal to navigate the country through such as a major war or economic crisis.  Obama made relatively light work of the Great Recession and used diplomacy rather than might to achieve foreign policy objectives.  In most other things like immigration, global warming, healthcare etc he made tiny adjustments that will pay of much more in the long term than the short term.  That just doesn't look as impressive.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute.  Doesn't matter if you like, love, or loathe the ACA, that was not some tiny adjustment.  What Obama did was a massive political achievement.

 
cobalt_27 said:
:lmao:  Can't forget that one, a favorite of Tim's, too.  What does this even mean?  
Click to expand...
Sorry cobalt, but if you're going to argue that Hillary hasn't been an outspoken advocate for women and children's rights around the globe, it's hard to take your views seriously.  That's a point that shouldn't be at issue, and if you are arguing otherwise, you're simply uninformed.  

 
MaxThreshold said:
Obama was just as unqualified - probably even more so - yet people voted for him in droves.  So whenever I hear a liberal (not saying you are) talk of wanting their candidates "qualified", I laugh hysterically at the sheer hypocrisy of that statement.

I agree, qualifications would be great, but unless everyone is willing to apply it consistently to all candidates then it's nothing more than wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
This is bat#### crazy.

 
timschochet, can you explain exactly what Judicial Watch is doing that's upsetting you?  As I understand it, all of these records are supposed to be public.  JW is requesting that they actually be made public.  Because Hillary and State have been so obstructionist about making them public, JW is forced to court to obtain information that should have been public years ago.  Am I missing something?  Unless I'm missing something, then your hatred of JW is just pure "I hate it when I lose" emotion.

 
jon_mx said:
Is there anyone who did not know the US would bounce back from the real estate collapse?  
Click to expand...
There were plenty of people in control of the money supply that were ####ting in their pants.  But I'm sure you were in a better position than Paulson and Geithner to know we were all good.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Well, the world still hates us.  Obama calls Libya his worst mistake - which many cite as Clinton's best accomplishment.  Syria?  She let Russia have whatever they wanted in Ukraine.  She really has no accomplishments.  I know she got the ball rolling in Iran, but thats the easy part, and we still have to see how it turns out.

She was great for ISIS though.  So, she has that going for her.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep repeating this, when you're far too intelligent to believe it.  You are extremely well informed, so I'm left to conclude you're simply being dishonest.

Obama stands by his and Hillary's decision to intervene.  He says his biggest mistake was not planning well enough for the aftermath. I know you know this, but apparently it doesn't fit your smear Hillary agenda, so you simply spread falsehoods.  

Why do you do this? 

 
OK, while i don't trust a lot of the sources here, I DO trust Politifact: 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-her-email-pra/

Our ruling

Regarding her decision to use a private email server, Clinton said, "It was allowed."

No one ever stopped Clinton from conducting work over her private email server exclusively. But that’s not the same thing as it being allowed. Offices within the State Department told an independent inspector general that if she had asked, they would not have allowed it.

The report from the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General shatters one of Clinton’s go-to phrases about her email practice. We rate her claim False.

So I will accept this as the final word. It doesn't necessarily mean to me that Hillary was lying. IMO, it certainly doesn't disqualify Hillary for the Presidency. And I don't believe she should face criminal charges for anything related to this; it's just not that important. But it's certainly something that she deserves criticism for, one way or the other. She should have sought permission. 

 
timschochet said:
OK, while i don't trust a lot of the sources here, I DO trust Politifact: 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-her-email-pra/

Our ruling

Regarding her decision to use a private email server, Clinton said, "It was allowed."

No one ever stopped Clinton from conducting work over her private email server exclusively. But that’s not the same thing as it being allowed. Offices within the State Department told an independent inspector general that if she had asked, they would not have allowed it.

The report from the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General shatters one of Clinton’s go-to phrases about her email practice. We rate her claim False.

So I will accept this as the final word. It doesn't necessarily mean to me that Hillary was lying. IMO, it certainly doesn't disqualify Hillary for the Presidency. And I don't believe she should face criminal charges for anything related to this; it's just not that important. But it's certainly something that she deserves criticism for, one way or the other. She should have sought permission. 
Click to expand...


This isn't news.  It's been true from day one.

 
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
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