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.
I thought it was an above average speech delivered in a mediocre to decent fashion.  Clearly a Hillary-Trump race sets up as the classic style vs. substance tussle.  Sadly image is everything in presidential elections. I thought in terms of style she was better today but she's still about as stiff as they come and frankly botched and/or blew past some of the best lines in the speech. I can't remember the exact line but I do remember thinking she had a great line that she just dropped.  That says everything. She did have a nice moment when she said Trump was probably tweeting nasty things that very minute about 30 seconds after he actually had.  We'll see how much staying power this speech has and whether or not Trump easily swats it out of the news cycle like he's done over and over.

If it is the two of them it comes down to who can make gains at what the other seen as the other candidate's strength.  Can Trump find substance in his positions and vision?  Can Hillary come off as natural and likeable? I don't think either is going to happen.

 
Willie Neslon said:
I thought it was an above average speech delivered in a mediocre to decent fashion.  Clearly a Hillary-Trump race sets up as the classic style vs. substance tussle.  Sadly image is everything in presidential elections. I thought in terms of style she was better today but she's still about as stiff as they come and frankly botched and/or blew past some of the best lines in the speech. I can't remember the exact line but I do remember thinking she had a great line that she just dropped.  That says everything. She did have a nice moment when she said Trump was probably tweeting nasty things that very minute about 30 seconds after he actually had.  We'll see how much staying power this speech has and whether or not Trump easily swats it out of the news cycle like he's done over and over.

If it is the two of them it comes down to who can make gains at what the other seen as the other candidate's strength.  Can Trump find substance in his positions and vision?  Can Hillary come off as natural and likeable? I don't think either is going to happen.
Click to expand...
did you shed a tear too?

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
No, they couldn't and didn't, and it shouldn't have been difficult. They couldn't overcome his cult of personality, that's the alarming part. 
Click to expand...
The problem was that they were hamstrung by an audience that wants red meat instead of nuance.  Jeb Bush had a good chance to beat Hillary in the general and was right that a Republican would have to lose the primary to win the general. 

 
And yet there are 11 articles on CNN's front page about Trump and Clinton's name is mentioned once

(of course let's be fair--They both are taking a backseat to Prince today  :P ) 

 
psychobillies said:
Not shocking that you see it that way.  Maybe you're right, but I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...
I'm no fan of Hillary -- though I don't want Trump elected.

But having watched what she she did in her speech vs the likes of Cruz, Rubio or anyone else on the GOP potus stage, and she was much better at driving home resonating points. Maybe the GOPers were scared for their own skin when giving such talks? She seems far stronger and more convincing then any of them ever were.

 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-in-2008-opposed-e_b_10245288.html

:whistle:

In 2008, in a move that surprised Democratic superdelegates as well as many in the media, Hillary Clinton issued a stern warning via letter to both the media and elected Democratic officials clarifying that “at this point, we do not yet have a nominee.”
Even more surprising, Clinton’s letter to the most powerful members of her party and the entirety of American media noted that even “when the last votes are cast in early June,” neither she nor her primary opponent would “have secured the nomination. It will be up to automatic delegates...to help choose our party’s nominee.”
:potkettle:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did I mention Hillary is getting indicted?

http://bients.com/unbeknownst-clinton-firm-emails-stored-cloud-now-fbis-hands/

Yet another cloud backup of the emails emerges, and was handed over to the FBI Tuesday (and presumably contains the highly classified data).  Oh, and in case they don't already have them - 31,000 "private" ones.

"Platte River spokesman Andy Boian said the firm bought a device from Datto that constantly snaps images of a server’s contents and connected it to the Clinton server at a New Jersey data storage facility. Platte River never asked Datto to beam the images to an off-site cloud storage node and never was billed for that service, he said. Company officials were bewildered when they learned of the cloud storage, he said."

Wow that's bad!!!!

 
Last edited:
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-in-2008-opposed-e_b_10245288.html

:whistle:

In 2008, in a move that surprised Democratic superdelegates as well as many in the media, Hillary Clinton issued a stern warning via letter to both the media and elected Democratic officials clarifying that “at this point, we do not yet have a nominee.”
Even more surprising, Clinton’s letter to the most powerful members of her party and the entirety of American media noted that even “when the last votes are cast in early June,” neither she nor her primary opponent would “have secured the nomination. It will be up to automatic delegates...to help choose our party’s nominee.”
:potkettle:
Click to expand...
If Sanders follows Clinton's script from 2008 from now up to and including what she did at the convention, I don't think anyone in Clinton's camp or elsewhere will have the slightest complaint about Sanders when all is said and done. Let's hope he does so, assuming he does not win a majority of the elected delegates or the popular vote.

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-in-2008-opposed-e_b_10245288.html

:whistle:

In 2008, in a move that surprised Democratic superdelegates as well as many in the media, Hillary Clinton issued a stern warning via letter to both the media and elected Democratic officials clarifying that “at this point, we do not yet have a nominee.”
Even more surprising, Clinton’s letter to the most powerful members of her party and the entirety of American media noted that even “when the last votes are cast in early June,” neither she nor her primary opponent would “have secured the nomination. It will be up to automatic delegates...to help choose our party’s nominee.”
:potkettle:
Click to expand...
Yet 5 days after the California primary, she shut down her campaign.

So it doesn't really matter what Bernie is saying right now. If after the last primary, (which I think is June 14, DC?) he refuses to shut down, then we have a problem on our hands. 

 
Hey, when is someone gong to play the age card? She is almost as old as Reagan was when he became President, and much was made of his age.

 
Tim - every time new information breaks, it's really bad for your hero.  His new cloud backup revelation is horrific.  Her staff didn't even know about this backup!

 
timschochet said:
Yet 5 days after the California primary, she shut down her campaign.

So it doesn't really matter what Bernie is saying right now. If after the last primary, (which I think is June 14, DC?) he refuses to shut down, then we have a problem on our hands. 
Click to expand...
There used to be conversation (here, Bernie thread...) early on whether Bernie was really trying to win it.

When he gave her a pass on the corruption and email issues early on, I thought (and some argued) well he's not getting in the mud, which is a positive vote getter in comparison to her, and also his main goal is to drag Hillary left, affect the platform and the national political conversation along the way.

But I think he wanted some respect too, and maybe something from Hillary in the way of an embrace. Maybe before New York, some time after Super Tuesday, this was still the case. I don't know when Bernie got his back up - maybe it was when Hillary b1+chslapped him after the win in WI and sandbagged him in NY. Maybe it was when she tried to make him look like someone who was promoting Isis or that he was really responsible for her husband's financial deregulation, or maybe when she claimed that he wasn't really a part of the civil rights movement, or maybe it was when she accused him of being in league with the Newtown killer, not sure, I dunno.

But at that point Bernie said ' :censored: it, I'm 74, I've never backed down from anything in my life, and I'd rather go down standing on my feet than bend the knee to her.'

 
Mr. Ham said:
Tim - every time new information breaks, it's really bad for your hero.  His new cloud backup revelation is horrific.  Her staff didn't even know about this backup!
Click to expand...
The only new information regarding Hillary that will be on the news tonight was her outstanding speech today. And that was all good news.

Oh and by the way, she's my heroine, not my hero. Isn't it correct to say heroine anymore? 

 
timschochet said:
The only new information regarding Hillary that will be on the news tonight was her outstanding speech today. And that was all good news.

Oh and by the way, she's my heroine, not my hero. Isn't it correct to say heroine anymore? 
Click to expand...
Sexist maybe?

 
timschochet said:
The only new information regarding Hillary that will be on the news tonight was her outstanding speech today. And that was all good news.

Oh and by the way, she's my heroine, not my hero. Isn't it correct to say heroine anymore? 
Click to expand...
Yes.  You are on heroine.  

 
timschochet said:
Yet 5 days after the California primary, she shut down her campaign.

So it doesn't really matter what Bernie is saying right now. If after the last primary, (which I think is June 14, DC?) he refuses to shut down, then we have a problem on our hands. 
Click to expand...
Problem?   Bernie staying in and fighting all the way to the convention is part of the process.  

 
Just realized the Datto revelation was in October.  I'd missed just how sloppy that was.  No idea even where the data was stored! 

Sounds like Feds have the 31k emails though, which is awesome.  Probably why it's taken so long, to build the case.

 
timschochet said:
The only new information regarding Hillary that will be on the news tonight was her outstanding speech today. And that was all good news.

Oh and by the way, she's my heroine, not my hero. Isn't it correct to say heroine anymore? 
Click to expand...
Only intolerant hateful people would use gender specific terms. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
Just realized the Datto revelation was in October.  I'd missed just how sloppy that was.  No idea even where the data was stored! 

Sounds like Feds have the 31k emails though, which is awesome.  Probably why it's taken so long, to build the case.
Click to expand...
Do they? I thought it was only retained for 30 days.

 
cstu said:
Do they? I thought it was only retained for 30 days.
Click to expand...
Quote in the original article says people didn't use Datto if they wanted data deleted.  They retained snapshots outside of Platte River's software.  Complete snapshots.

 
I feel sorry for the FBI agent who is looking at Hillary's yoga exercises right now. "Crap- I have to read another 29,000 of these?" 

 
timschochet said:
I feel sorry for the FBI agent who is looking at Hillary's yoga exercises right now. "Crap- I have to read another 29,000 of these?" 
Click to expand...
I'm thinking there's more of a wall with photos and a timeline.  Payment made here, political favor made here.  Clinton correspondence (that she thought would never get beyond that private server - whoops) in the middle.

 
Mr. Ham said:
I'm thinking there's more of a wall with photos and a timeline.  Payment made here, political favor made here.  Clinton correspondence (that she thought would never get beyond that private server - whoops) in the middle.
Click to expand...
Sure.

So let me get this latest conspiracy theory correct:

1. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton took bribes in return for political favors.

2. Hillary was dumb enough to confirm these bribes on emails.

3. Hillary attempted to erase these emails (a) not knowing that they could be retrieved by the FBI and (b) not realizing that whomever she sent the emails to in the first place would have evidence of her crimes.

Is that right? Am I missing anything? 

 
timschochet said:
Sure.

So let me get this latest conspiracy theory correct:

1. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton took bribes in return for political favors.

2. Hillary was dumb enough to confirm these bribes on emails.

3. Hillary attempted to erase these emails (a) not knowing that they could be retrieved by the FBI and (b) not realizing that whomever she sent the emails to in the first place would have evidence of her crimes.

Is that right? Am I missing anything? 
Click to expand...


timschochet said:
No it's absolutely a vast right wing conspiracy.

Every supposed leak from the FBI is coming from Republican sources, and they're leaking to the major newspapers. The newspapers have to compete with each other so they report these sources without any confirmation, and often as not they don't turn out to be true, and they're coming from the exact same people every time. So yeah, this exactly the same way the various Clinton scandals in the 90s went on and on and on. 
Click to expand...


Tim you already have one conspiracy and you already have this answered.

 
Suppose Hillary was actually the nefarious crook that Mr. Ham and others assumes she is. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to use a .gov email account for official business, and then to use a private separate account in order to conduct all her criminal activities? That way, nobody would ever have demanded to see her private emails, right? By combining the two, didn't she put her entire corruption at risk? 

 
timschochet said:
Suppose Hillary was actually the nefarious crook that Mr. Ham and others assumes she is. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to use a .gov email account for official business, and then to use a private separate account in order to conduct all her criminal activities? That way, nobody would ever have demanded to see her private emails, right? By combining the two, didn't she put her entire corruption at risk? 
Click to expand...
Tim, try using a fact. Any fact will do.

 
timschochet said:
Sure.

So let me get this latest conspiracy theory correct:

1. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton took bribes in return for political favors.

2. Hillary was dumb enough to confirm these bribes on emails.

3. Hillary attempted to erase these emails (a) not knowing that they could be retrieved by the FBI and (b) not realizing that whomever she sent the emails to in the first place would have evidence of her crimes.

Is that right? Am I missing anything? 
Click to expand...
1. Yes, technically.  Quid pro quo with Clinton Foundation donors, just as she would do with political donors (i.e. Wall Street if elected)

2. No, technically.  She would not "confirm a bribe", but the nature of the relationship can be inferred, and it won't be good for her.  (She's often proven to be less sharp than some think - see few real accomplishments)

3.  Yes.  She thought it unrealistic that a sprawling investigation would piece together correspondence and took efforts to ensure her own correspondence was controlled - and deleted. 

 
Last edited:
BigSteelThrill said:
I'm no fan of Hillary -- though I don't want Trump elected.

But having watched what she she did in her speech vs the likes of Cruz, Rubio or anyone else on the GOP potus stage, and she was much better at driving home resonating points. Maybe the GOPers were scared for their own skin when giving such talks? She seems far stronger and more convincing then any of them ever were.
Click to expand...
I hear you, and I'm not a Trump guy, but it just seems like the strategy of making her whole platform about Trump and not herself has backfired several times already.  Maybe the stylistic differences will matter.  I doubt it, and I don't think her talking about Trump being dishonest for 30 minutes is going to move the needle for her very much, if at all.  

 
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