Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (10 Viewers)

[timschochet]

I can't believe how ludicrous this discussion has become. I mean JFC guys. 

 

[NutterButter]

  People love a good conspiracy 

 

[Tom Servo]

I'm going to leave this here...
 

Victoria Claflin Woodhull, later Victoria Woodhull Martin (September 23, 1838 – June 9, 1927) was an American leader of the woman's suffrage movement.

In 1872, Woodhull was the first female candidate for President of the United States. An activist for women's rights and labor reforms, Woodhull was also an advocate of free love, by which she meant the freedom to marry, divorce, and bear children without government interference.

[snip]

At her peak of political activity in the early 1870s, Woodhull is best known as the first woman candidate for the United States presidency, which she ran for in 1872 from the Equal Rights Party, supporting women's suffrage and equal rights.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Snopes weighs in on this ridiculousness.  Their conclusion:

It is true that the Twitter video's claims checked out. The campaign's e-mail was sent out after the 6 June 2016 call by Associated Press, and the embedded image was ambiguously titled "secret-win-V2-060416c_02.png" But "V2" implied at least two versions of the graphic existed, another of which might have shown an entirely different outcome to  the 7 June 2016 primaries.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I can't believe how ludicrous this discussion has become. I mean JFC guys. 

You'd think people had never read The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  Clinton opponents are only hurting themselves and their cause with this nonsense.

 

[timschochet]

Heh, I guess I just feel that the AP is so used to following orders for access, the reporter didn't even think twice. Quite often they just follow instructions blindly. That's the whole point of the media bias thread. There was a quote posted in there from a White House publicity guy saying that the reporters covering them need to be fed the news because they don't do any research themselves, they just take press releases and experts to quote provided by the White House and only barely bother to retype it in their own words. There's no digging involved, it's hand feeding. Feel free to peruse the bias thread for plenty of examples. 

You should go back to quoting my novel. At least then your posts were lucid. 

 

[cstu]

You'd think people had never read The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  Clinton opponents are only hurting themselves and their cause with this nonsense.

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would think it was Hillary planting all of these stories.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Heh, I guess I just feel that the AP is so used to following orders for access, the reporter didn't even think twice. Quite often they just follow instructions blindly. That's the whole point of the media bias thread. There was a quote posted in there from a White House publicity guy saying that the reporters covering them need to be fed the news because they don't do any research themselves, they just take press releases and experts to quote provided by the White House and only barely bother to retype it in their own words. There's no digging involved, it's hand feeding. Feel free to peruse the bias thread for plenty of examples. 

I thought the whole point of media bias thread was that there's a liberal media bias, in which case they would presumably seek to help Sanders over Clinton, not vice versa.

You guys need to get your stories straight.  Maybe next time you run into each other buying aluminum foil you can hash it out.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Again, this doesn't explain how the exact text was ready beforehand. It disproves nothing, only begs the question. The Snopes guy doesn't address the issue. 

If the Hillary campaign had a V1 and a V2 ready for either outcome of 6/7, how, on 6/4, did they get the exact words and picture of 6/6?

The "So This Just Happened" text and background was probably created on 6/4, and then they added the relevant image when the announcement was made.

This doesn't seem complicated.

 

[cstu]

Update (2:20 p.m. PT): The veepstakes is heating up ... for Warren

When progressives aren't talking about the Hail Mary pass that could win the Democratic presidential nomination for Bernie Sanders (see below), they're talking about who they want as vice president on the Democratic ticket.

It's not Sanders: His fans only want him at the top of the ticket. Bernie or Bust, remember?

The answer to the veep question is Elizabeth Warren, the U.S. senator from Massachusetts who was the progressive wing's favorite until she refused entreaties to run against Hillary Clinton and Sanders stepped in to fill the void.

Just a month ago, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he would oppose any sitting senator being chosen for VP who was from a state with a Republican governor. A state's governor typically chooses the interim replacement when a senator leaves mid-term.

"If we have a Republican governor in any of those states the answer is not only no, but hell no," Reid said last month.

But now Reid -- and Clinton and the rest of the Democratic establishment -- apparently is suddenly warming to a Hillary-Liz ticket.

"He thinks Warren is a good choice to unify the party," a source "close to Reid" told Politico.

But Warren's appeal to Sanders' voters might not be the only reason she might end up as Clinton's second banana.

Vox's Dylan Matthews argues that "the real reason Warren is dominating the conversation is simple: The rest of Clinton's options are very, very weak."

Matthews has a point: the bench for the Democratic national team is surprisingly shallow this year. Matthews says HUD Secretary Julian Castro, who is frequently mentioned in discussions of potential vice-presidential candidates, is "laughably unqualified." He also points out that Tim Kaine, the senator from Virginia, "has a strong anti-abortion record that wouldn't be a great addition to the first woman-headed major-party ticket in American history."

Another person who's often mentioned, Labor Secretary Tom Perez, is surely too unknown and uncharismatic to make the final cut.

And that leaves ... Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown? Too blah, goes conventional thinking. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker? Might make Clinton look too blah. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper? Too goofy. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo? Too New York. (Clinton, after all, is from the Empire State -- and so is Donald Trump.) Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf? Too easily confused with the famous author. New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan? Too ... who?

So there you have it, Warren's the one almost everyone in the Democratic Party can agree on.

 

[TobiasFunke]

There is no "so this just happened" text in the image on the server that I see?

Yeah that's in the email.  Maybe they created the background that day?  It doesn't matter- the point is that there's other reasonable explanations for the html address that don't require you to believe that both Clinton and a 170 year old and almost universally respected Associated Press put their reputations on the line in order to provide something of little to no benefit to Clinton over a more liberal and media-friendly candidate. 

 

[Don Quixote]

The AP was still working the numbers on Monday.  Shaun King posted an image of this e-mail showing the AP was trying to count superdelegates on Monday:  https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/740252636025348096  (ignore Shaun King inferring something sinister about this)

Hello? *bangs mic* Is this thing on?

 

[CBusAlex]

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j325/CBusAlex/20160607/walking-boot-060716.jpg

HOW DID I KNOW THE EXACT WORDING OF YOUR POST YESTERDAY, WALKING BOOT?

 

[TobiasFunke]

And even if the text was there, that scenario admits that the campaign was tipped off to the announcement beforehand and had two days to prepare for it. Which was what was alleged. 

No, it admits that the campaign knew that there would be some sort of announcement about her getting enough delegates to secure the nomination in the coming days, which they knew because it was an inevitability.  Everyone knew it. 

 

[NutterButter]

After reading a yahoo article on it, I'd think Brown would be a more logical choice than Warren if targeting progressives is the goal of the vp pick as the Ohio appeal comes along with him.  That is unless Brown doesn't want it.   

 

[BassNBrew]

Well hopefully the FBI can stop the morons, bigots, Wall Street, and criminals standing behind this disgrace of a human being. 

 

[cstu]

After reading a yahoo article on it, I'd think Brown would be a more logical choice than Warren if targeting progressives is the goal of the vp pick as the Ohio appeal comes along with him.  That is unless Brown doesn't want it.   

Democrats don't want to lose his Senate seat in Ohio.  Warren doesn't help the swing-state issue, but she's well-known, liked by Progressives, and what left leaning woman isn't going to vote for an all-female ticket against Donald?

 

[The Commish]

Heh, I guess I just feel that the AP is so used to following orders for access, the reporter didn't even think twice. Quite often they just follow instructions blindly. That's the whole point of the media bias thread. There was a quote posted in there from a White House publicity guy saying that the reporters covering them need to be fed the news because they don't do any research themselves, they just take press releases and experts to quote provided by the White House and only barely bother to retype it in their own words. There's no digging involved, it's hand feeding. Feel free to peruse the bias thread for plenty of examples. 

I thought the whole point of media bias thread was that there's a liberal media bias, in which case they would presumably seek to help Sanders over Clinton, not vice versa.

You guys need to get your stories straight.  Maybe next time you run into each other buying aluminum foil you can hash it out.

I've been assured, despite my pessimism, that Hillary is, in fact, liberal so I have no idea why they'd presumably seek to help Sanders over Clinton.  

 

[cobalt_27]

Democrats don't want to lose his Senate seat in Ohio.  Warren doesn't help the swing-state issue, but she's well-known, liked by Progressives, and what left leaning woman isn't going to vote for an all-female ticket against Donald?

What left-leaning woman isn't going to vote for Hillary if she picked a piece of plywood to be her running mate?  I like--I love!--Warren. But, strategically, Warren adds very little distinguishing value to the ticket.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've been assured, despite my pessimism, that Hillary is, in fact, liberal so I have no idea why they'd presumably seek to help Sanders over Clinton.  

Because there's more than two spots on the spectrum of political views, snarky mcsnarkface.

It doesn't matter anyway.  It appears the have given up on this one.  Can't wait to see what's next.

 

[Parrothead]

What left-leaning woman isn't going to vote for Hillary if she picked a piece of plywood to be her running mate?  I like--I love!--Warren. But, strategically, Warren adds very little distinguishing value to the ticket.  

you mean Al Gore?

 

[dparker713]

In other words, come July, it's highly likely Hillary has the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination.  Still not seeing how this is any different than May, April, March, or February.

Well, even bound delegates could vote for someone else, so really no one can completely secure the nomination until the convention.  

 

[cobalt_27]

you mean Al Gore?

Only if you paint the plywood in warm earth tones.

 

[cobalt_27]

Well, even bound delegates could vote for someone else, so really no one can completely secure the nomination until the convention.  

This is true.  And Warren would make many of us happy with--and even root for--indictment.

 

[The Commish]

Well, even bound delegates could vote for someone else, so really no one can completely secure the nomination until the convention.  

Don't know if this is true in the GOP and that's what you're referring to, but in the DNC, bound delegates are bound to the vote of the people in their state in a proportional manner.

 

[NutterButter]

What left-leaning woman isn't going to vote for Hillary if she picked a piece of plywood to be her running mate?  I like--I love!--Warren. But, strategically, Warren adds very little distinguishing value to the ticket.  

I'm with you regarding warren and her ability to attract even more woman voters.  If a woman isn't voting for someone not named Trump, then no VP choice is going to get that woman to change her vote.

 

[NutterButter]

Democrats don't want to lose his Senate seat in Ohio.  Warren doesn't help the swing-state issue, but she's well-known, liked by Progressives, and what left leaning woman isn't going to vote for an all-female ticket against Donald?

Good point on the senate seat.  I don't think warren makes any difference regarding the woman vote.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So it took two days and two versions to put together a red square for the background? I think that's more damning of the campaign administration

But it doesn't matter, you've already conceded the point that it's reasonable the campaign got a tip from the AP, that's all that was said. Nothing speaks to dismiss any of that.

This has all been addressed above.  I didn't concede the point that it's reasonable the campaign got a tip from AP.  There's a link with an email from an AP reporter clearly showing that they were attempting to do a superdelegate count on Monday, which immediately invalidates your theory that they all knew about it on Saturday (not to mention the fact that the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico also hadn't yet been added to her total on Saturday). In addition, multiple perfectly reasonable explanations have been offered for the html tag that is your only evidence of conspiracy.  You also haven't bothered to explain why any of the relevant parties would be motivated to risk the significant downside of a conspiracy for what is basically zero upside.

If you want to keep selling crazy there's multiple Trump threads where you'll find far more willing buyers.  Maybe take this nonsense over there?

 

[Willie Neslon]

Honestly can't imagine the first female nominee opting for an all-female ticket.  It's too much, too soon.  Despite his denials I still say it's Castro.  He lines up better with Clinton's ideology and she'll spin him as a progressive choice even though he isn't.  Warren didn't want to run for president saying she thought she'd have more of an impact as senator.  So she'd give it up now for the far less impactful job of vp?  On top of that she sees right through Clinton.  Her lack of an endorsement at this stage of the race is deafening.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Warren is a no-brainer. And she'll accept. I'm sure she'll angle for some real power within the administration a la Biden, but what politician turns down an almost guaranteed ticket to the White House?

The only way she turns it down is if she absolutely loathes Hillary and detests the idea of working with/for her, which is entirely possible, but considerably less likely than an indictment.

Squiz is the one who has maintained that Warren is not interested in being VP. It seems like a natural to me. Otoh I really wonder if Hillary wants her on board. She doesn't really need Warren to beat Trump IMO but obviously it solves a problem for her and unifying the party is a priority right now. 

 

[dparker713]

LOL

Don't be so freaking naive. If course it was. It's smart politics. It's all about narrative. Always was, always will be. No need to vote Bernie fans, he's already done.

Anyone that could do math knew he was done well before Monday.

 

[NutterButter]

Ok if not Brown, I'm going with Kaine.  I moderate to draw in some independents as well as the Virginia association.   Hillary gets VA and it could be lights out.

 

[HellToupee]

Honestly can't imagine the first female nominee opting for an all-female ticket.  It's too much, too soon.  Despite his denials I still say it's Castro.  He lines up better with Clinton's ideology and she'll spin him as a progressive choice even though he isn't.  Warren didn't want to run for president saying she thought she'd have more of an impact as senator.  So she'd give it up now for the far less impactful job of vp?  On top of that she sees right through Clinton.  Her lack of an endorsement at this stage of the race is deafening.

Only thing Warren brings is it makes Hillary more likable standing next to this shrew

 

[TobiasFunke]

Only thing Warren brings is it makes Hillary more likable standing next to this shrew

If Clinton's motivation was to win over Trump supporters like yourself by appearing likable in comparison to her VP in your eyes she'd just pick a brown person.

 

[squistion]

So amusing. I am off the site for a few days and the Hillary haters think I am using an alias.

For the record. I am not tone1oc, nor is that an alias of mine. That should have been obvious to anyone who has looked at our postings, as we have quite different writing styles.

Looks like I missed the celebration of Hillary clinching the nomination. But Tim and friends did fine in my absence.

#ImWithHer

 

[Willie Neslon]

Only thing Warren brings is it makes Hillary more likable standing next to this shrew

Obviously the reasoning would be to appease the Bernie supporters.  I think, like some of her supporters here, Hillary severely underestimates the resolve of the Sanders contingent. The thinking that they'll just fall in line because Trump is the alternative is both condescending and naive.  She is the very thing the Bernie supporters lined up against. She can say she's progressive until her flapjacks turn blue but it won't change a thing because we know she's full of it. She says one thing and does another. That's how it's always been and that's how it will be. The worst of the worst.

 

[Gr00vus]

So amusing. I am off the site for a few days and the Hillary haters think I am using an alias.

For the record. I am not tone1oc, nor is that an alias of mine. That should have been obvious to anyone who has looked at our postings, as we have quite different writing styles.

Looks like I missed the celebration of Hillary clinching the nomination. But Tim and friends did fine in my absence.

#ImWithHer

The lack of retweets was a dead giveaway.

 

[The Commish]

The lack of retweets was a dead giveaway.

  I just figured his twitter had been taken from him and he was in meltdown mode.

 

[Gr00vus]

Obviously the reasoning would be to appease the Bernie supporters.  I think, like some of her supporters here, Hillary severely underestimates the resolve of the Sanders contingent. The thinking that they'll just fall in line because Trump is the alternative is both condescending and naive.  She is the very thing the Bernie supporters lined up against. She can say she's progressive until her flapjacks turn blue but it won't change a thing because we know she's full of it. She says one thing and does another. That's how it's always been and that's how it will be. The worst of the worst.

She needs to think about the map a little bit here. She needs to scare up someone from Ohio, Penn, Florida, something like that. Warren doesn't make any sense. Better to leave her in the Senate and lead things there if possible.

 

[cobalt_27]

Hope Hillary picks a great VP

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm not disagreeing there are many explanations. I've never said otherwise. I've never even said it was certain we know what happened. I don't understand why you need to resort to ad hominem attacks. I've put forth one of many possible and reasonable explanations that fits the facts that are known. No tinfoil hat required. No nonsense.

Instead all you do is sling mud, and all the other little bullies gang up and make it personal.

Nice thread you guys have here.

No it doesn't, as has been explained over and over and over again.  To the extent anyone has slung mud (minimal), it's because you steadfastly refuse to address those many explanations as to why your theory cannot be true and continue to spread this garbage in spite of them.  And you didn't hedge on your theory anywhere near like you're doing here- you alleged a conspiracy, not merely the remote possibility of one. And in any event, even raising conspiracy theories without any evidence to support is silly and irresponsible even if there wasn't mountains of evidence to invalidate the theory, which of course there is here.

 

[Jeremy]

So amusing. I am off the site for a few days and the Hillary haters think I am using an alias.

For the record. I am not tone1oc, nor is that an alias of mine. That should have been obvious to anyone who has looked at our postings, as we have quite different writing styles.

Looks like I missed the celebration of Hillary clinching the nomination. But Tim and friends did fine in my absence.

#ImWithHer

I assumed tone1oc was JuniorNB? 

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Ok if not Brown, I'm going with Kaine.  I moderate to draw in some independents as well as the Virginia association.   Hillary gets VA and it could be lights out.

Kaine was the favorite for quite awhile as Clinton's VP pick on an election odds site I periodically visit, but Warren has now moved into a slight lead.  The site has it as a toss-up between those two with Thomas Perez (US Secretary of Labaor) and Julian Castro coming in at third and fourth best odds.  But who knows?

https://electionbettingodds.com/VicePresident.html

 

[timschochet]

So amusing. I am off the site for a few days and the Hillary haters think I am using an alias.

For the record. I am not tone1oc, nor is that an alias of mine. That should have been obvious to anyone who has looked at our postings, as we have quite different writing styles.

Looks like I missed the celebration of Hillary clinching the nomination. But Tim and friends did fine in my absence.

#ImWithHer

We missed you! 

 

[timschochet]

I don't think the problem with Warren is the two women thing. It's the fact that the Republican governor gets to appoint a Republican Senator in her place.

Now if the Dems think they're going to gain back the Senate well beyond any margin of error, then losing that single seat is OK. But if control of the Senate is going to come down to the wire, then I don't think they can take the chance. Still I'd love to see it, because I believe it would truly energize the base. 

 

[HellToupee]

I assumed tone1oc was JuniorNB? 

That's my assumption

 

[Willie Neslon]

So amusing. I am off the site for a few days and the Hillary haters think I am using an alias.

For the record. I am not tone1oc, nor is that an alias of mine. That should have been obvious to anyone who has looked at our postings, as we have quite different writing styles.

Looks like I missed the celebration of Hillary clinching the nomination. But Tim and friends did fine in my absence.

#ImWithHer

Like Tone, you doth protest too much. Crazy coincidence how you show when he leaves and vice-versa.

You did it wrong to boot.  When you realize that your original username is strongly disliked and being ignored because all you do is antagonize people, the move is to use an alias as a lightning rod that becomes even more vilified than the original account. Then you swoop in with the non-alias and come off as the voice of reason as to rehabilitate your image. (aka The Jack White Maneuver)

To deny an alias because you "have different writing styles" is a level of denial that someone with nothing to hide wouldn't ever make. It's inaccurate as well because there's a quirk you've used with both accounts that was the obvious giveaway.  And again, it's already been confirmed. I'll leave it alone now.  I'm sure you'll mock this post, continue to deny and tone1oc will appear from time to time. I'll go back to completely ignoring everything you post. Tootles.

 

[psychobillies]

I don't see what Warren brings to the table.  I think Tim is right that Bernie will be old news in a matter of a couple weeks and he will ultimately endorse Hillary anyway.  The vast majority of Bernie voters will without a doubt fall in line to vote against against Trump.  Hillary is in the general now.  It's time for her to tack right.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Obviously the reasoning would be to appease the Bernie supporters.  I think, like some of her supporters here, Hillary severely underestimates the resolve of the Sanders contingent. The thinking that they'll just fall in line because Trump is the alternative is both condescending and naive.  She is the very thing the Bernie supporters lined up against. She can say she's progressive until her flapjacks turn blue but it won't change a thing because we know she's full of it. She says one thing and does another. That's how it's always been and that's how it will be. The worst of the worst.

She says she's progressive, votes progressive, supports other progressives, and uses her stature to further progressive causes. 

But of course those facts don't matter, b/c you know better. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't see what Warren brings to the table.  I think Tim is right that Bernie will be old news in a matter of a couple weeks and he will ultimately endorse Hillary anyway.  The vast majority of Bernie voters will without a doubt fall in line to vote against against Trump.  Hillary is in the general now.  It's time for her to tack right.

I will be impressed if she brings Warren on. I think it's a trust thing and if people see Warren in there then maybe that will allay concerns of forthcoming White House hijinks.