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 (15 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
I have been accused several times in this thread of having my head buried up Hillary's ###; now you accuse me of having my head buried up my own ###. I only have one head, so you'll have to choose, because it can't be both places at once.
Click to expand...
I think it's more you're entirely up her ### and while in there you stick your head up your ###.

 
cobalt_27 said:
If you don't have any background on the emails, then there isn't any "old stuff."  By definition it's new.  To you. Because your head is buried up your ###, remarkably by your own choosing.  Nonetheless, a lot of new stuff has emerged, but you wouldn't know because you are rigid in adhering to your unique brand of ignorance.
Click to expand...
You sure do talk a lot of #### for a guy who's basically been consistently wrong about Hillary for months now, while tim's been proven correct over and over again.

 
tommyGunZ said:
You sure do talk a lot of #### for a guy who's basically been consistently wrong about Hillary for months now, while tim's been proven correct over and over again.
Click to expand...
Plus he keeps claiming that he prefers Hillary, even though he has predicted several times now that she will lose. And he seems to take gleeful pleasure in every negative story about her, even though most of them turn out to be meaningless. But he is certainly not hesitant to throw out personal insults. 

 
timschochet said:
I think it's an interesting subject, much more interesting to me than repeating the same old stuff about the emails. I note that the news media generally agrees with me on this.  But if you want to discuss the emails, I can't stop you. Have at it. 

And no, everything I just wrote is my own analysis. 
Click to expand...
And you conclude the news media agrees with you because there are 50,000 stories on the email issue and maybe 50 on Hillary's VP pick?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
You sure do talk a lot of #### for a guy who's basically been consistently wrong about Hillary for months now, while tim's been proven correct over and over again.
Click to expand...
Not even sure why you continue posting in here with zero credibility and respect.  You've been proven to be a far left acolyte willing to do or say anything no matter how wrong or misguided simply to deflect from the truth or to advance some agenda.

When you post something we can almost be guaranteed that the complete opposite of that is the actual truth.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gopher State said:
The Commish said:
Guess I'm not saying it correctly.  It's every employee's job to minimize spillage.  That falls on everyone.  The rule isn't "well, she spilled it so I'm going to dump out the rest" or "That's on her, she can clean it up".  That's not how any of our contracts work within the government.  There's a problematic method of personal accountability on a good bit of this stuff.

In this case Hillary's put herself in a position where she's on a server where she's the only one left to monitor.  She's outside the government's reach to help.  That doesn't decrease her responsibility, it increases it ten fold.  She didn't recognize that, or she didn't care.  That leaves an open door, hiding in plain site as it pertains to our national security and no one is watching the door.

It doesn't even matter if no one knew about the door (which we can bet isn't true).
Click to expand...
Does the average American care I bet not
Click to expand...
The average American doesn't understand, I'm sure.  That has zero impact on her actions and how they demonstrate her lack in judgment :shrug:  

 
timschochet said:
 Paul Ryan, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, John Edwards, **** Cheney, Joe Liebermann. 

These are the last 6 VP candidate selections. Some good, some bad, most had no real effect on the election. 

Still it's considered the campaign's single most important decision. 
Click to expand...
I'm sorry? Palin had no effect on the election?

What kind of revisionist history is that?

She singlehandedly moved McCan's campaign from quite interesting to borderline nuts.

That said in the context of this campaign, she wouldn't matter on a Trump ticket

 
The world according to the Sanders people...

Possibility a) dozens of FBI agents and its highly respected Director, appointed by a Republican President, fix this investigation.  100%

Possibility b) Hillary ignored State directives trying to avoid having her communications public, but didn't commit a crime. 0%

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
The world according to the Sanders people...

Possibility a) dozens of FBI agents and its highly respected Director, appointed by a Republican President, fix this investigation.  100%

Possibility b) Hillary ignored State directives trying to avoid having her communications public, but didn't commit a crime. 0%
Click to expand...
No one has claimed Comey is fixing anything, I don't recall seeing that once.

However some people do have confusion between the FBI, the DOJ, US Attorneys, and the top-4 at the DOJ.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
No one has claimed Comey is fixing anything, I don't recall seeing that once.
Click to expand...
Who thinks purposefully hiding communications from the public ISN'T a crime?

And Comey was appointed by Barack Obama as FBI Director, not "a Republican President":

FBI Director[SIZE=small][[/SIZE]edit]



 


 
Comey (left), alongside PresidentBarack Obama (center) and outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller (right) at Comey's nomination to become the seventh Director of the FBI




In May 2013, it was reported,[37][38] and in June 2013 it was made official, that President Barack Obama would nominate Comey to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, replacing outgoing director Robert Mueller.[39] Comey was reportedly chosen over finalist Lisa Monaco, who had overseen national security issues at the Justice Department during the attack on the U.S. consulate inBenghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.[40][41]

Comey was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2013, for a full ten-year term running the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[42] He was sworn in as FBI director at 4:32 pm on September 4, 2013.[43]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
No one has claimed Comey is fixing anything, I don't recall seeing that once.

However some people do have confusion between the FBI, the DOJ, US Attorneys, and the top-4 at the DOJ.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that if the FBI wants charges filed they'll be ignored? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, yes, Obama appointed Comey to the FBI.  I was sloppy there -- he was originally appointed as Deputy AG by Bush.

Otherwise, no.  I don't believe it's possible that Comey and his dozens of investigators come back with a formal finding that she should be charged and the DOJ ignores it.

 
wdcrob said:
Are you suggesting that if the FBI wants to file charges they'll be prevented from doing so? 
Click to expand...
The FBI doesn't file charges.

The only outright claim of conspiracy to date has come from the Hillary campaign (as opposed to Internet posters) which suggested that the State IG had conspired to frame her. You going to defend that?

 
wdcrob said:
Are you suggesting that if the FBI wants charges filed they'll be ignored? 
Click to expand...
Let's just say the bar will be very high to convince a former appointee of Bill Clinton to file charges against Hillary Clinton.  

Now if Holder was still in charge, there would be no chance of charges.  Lynch has some integrity, so there is at least a slight chance.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I think John Edwards was almost as bad a pick as Palin. Edwards was young and good looking, and those were his only attributes. In the debate against Cheney, a competent guy (say like a Richard Gephart or Russ Feingold) would have been able to put Cheney on the ropes. But Edwards looked so young and naive it may Cheney look wise and knowledgeable by comparison. 

Joe Biden and **** Cheney were basically taken for the same reason: the young candidate takes an older trusted hand whom the public feels can guide the ship. Both times that worked. Hillary doesn't need to do that. 

Leibermann was chosen because he criticized Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky thing and Gore wanted to separate himself from Clinton. That was pretty stupid. Bill Clinton had a 65% approval rating, and Gore did everything he could to run away from him. I think it's the main reason he lost the election, frankly. 

As for Paul Ryan, it was a dull, uninteresting choice. Ryan is a very competent guy but he is way too wonky. No color. He didn't lose the election for Romney, but he did nothing to help Romney win it either. This is the sort of thing Hillary needs to avoid, which is why I don't think she should pick someone like Tim Kaine. 
Click to expand...
First thing I think of when I think of Paul Ryan is P90X.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We may not find out what the FBI recommends of finds. Those things are not published and they are not talked about. What we will find out is what the DOJ, which is really the top 4 persons in the DOJ, decides, which is likely non-indictment.

Then the question is what happens if the FBI report or recommendation or the basic conclusions or findings of fact or evidence would be leaked and that would suggest that indictment was warranted. And then there would be a claim that a political decision was made at the top of the DOJ or WH. A problem for Hillary is that this could happen at any time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry if this was posted above - it appears the DOJ has weighed in on the Immunity Agreement with Pagliano - filing a brief with the court in the Judicial Watch litigation.

Essentially, they do not want the Agreement made public, as it "relates to an ongoing law enforcement investigation...[and] could prematurely reveal the scope and focus of the pending investigation."

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The FBI doesn't file charges.

The only outright claim of conspiracy to date has come from the Hillary campaign (as opposed to Internet posters) which suggested that the State IG had conspired to frame her. You going to defend that?
Click to expand...
Why would I defend that?

But you're changing the subject.  There's page after page after page of people saying if there are no charges it's because the fix is in.

Let's do it this way...if there are charges I'll gladly admit I was wrong about this whole affair.  Will you accept that what she did wasn't illegal if there are none?

 
wdcrob said:
Why would I defend that?

But you're changing the subject.  There's page after page after page of people saying if there are no charges it's because the fix is in.

Let's do it this way...if there are charges I'll gladly admit I was wrong about this whole affair.  Will you accept that what she did wasn't illegal if there are none?
Click to expand...
I'm really not changing the subject. I view the IG and the FBI being on the same ethical ground. I view the top leadership at the DOJ as being partly political creatures, it's inevitable.

It will depend on if she's interviewed first and foremost. I've said before that even that amount of accountability could be enough for me. I'd also like to see an answer on whether the destroyed emails have been recovered, searched and if necessary recovered.

I've argued on the facts, I've invited others to do the same. Somewhere in here I've said the likelihood of indictment is 5% and that the likelihood of an FBI recommendation justifying indictment is 50/50. If the DOJ doesn't indict I guess I will be right. If  it turns out that the FBI interviewed Hillary and they recommended no indictment I will fall on my sword and concede I have it wrong. But I think my treatment of the facts has been fair so I will never feel bad about that, it's just been my opinion, I'm wrong all the time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer said:
I'm sorry? Palin had no effect on the election?

What kind of revisionist history is that?

She singlehandedly moved McCan's campaign from quite interesting to borderline nuts.

That said in the context of this campaign, she wouldn't matter on a Trump ticket
Click to expand...
I wrote that of the last 6 VP candidates, MOST had no real effect. Palin is the obvious exception, though while she helped McCain lose the election, I'm not sure he could have chosen anyone else that would have helped him win it. 

 
timschochet said:
I wrote that of the last 6 VP candidates, MOST had no real effect. Palin is the obvious exception, though while she helped McCain lose the election, I'm not sure he could have chosen anyone else that would have helped him win it. 
Click to expand...
Nixon's pick of Ford was important, hard to imagine Agnew taking over as president in that time of crisis.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm really not changing the subject. I view the IG and the FBI being on the same ethical ground. I view the top leadership at the DOJ as being partly political creatures, it's inevitable.

It will depend on if she's interviewed first and foremost. I've said before that even that amount of accountability could be enough for me. I'd also like to see an answer on whether the destroyed emails have been recovered, searched and if necessary recovered.

I've argued on the facts, I've invited others to do the same. Somewhere in here I've said the likelihood of indictment is 5% and that the likelihood of an FBI recommendation justifying indictment is 50/50. If the DOJ doesn't indict I guess I will be right. If  it turns out that the FBI interviewed Hillary and they recommended no indictment I will fall on my sword and concede I have it wrong. But I think my treatment of the facts has been fair so I will never feel bad about that, it's just been my opinion, I'm wrong all the time.
Click to expand...
This.  Exactly 100% this.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Nixon's pick of Ford was important, hard to imagine Agnew taking over as president in that time of crisis.
Click to expand...
That was an appointment, made after the election if I recall correctly. 

I'm racking my brain trying to think of a VP choice, for either the winner or loser, about whom one can say with confidence that if the choice had not been made the election would have gone the other way. Perhaps Kennedy's selection of LBJ in 1960...

 
If the FBI recommends criminal charges against Hillary that will be very damaging to me, no matter what the DOJ does. I will still support Hillary for President given her opponent, but if this happens I would be forced to reassess my like and respect for her. For me, that would be a game changer. I do not expect it to happen, however. 

 
timschochet said:
That was an appointment, made after the election if I recall correctly. 

I'm racking my brain trying to think of a VP choice, for either the winner or loser, about whom one can say with confidence that if the choice had not been made the election would have gone the other way. Perhaps Kennedy's selection of LBJ in 1960...
Click to expand...
Well you are narrowing yourself to just a few elections decided by only a few states then to begin with, there haven't been many of those. And then you'd likely have to find a VP who was a favored son who swung a state. Sure  LBJ was important but he only brought TX's EVs and JFK won the EV count handily he won the rest of the South anyway. The lack of those doesn't really mean the VP pick is insignificant though. I think people look to it as proof of good judgement and also as a signal of ideological bona fides.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
So if she's cleared by the FBI/DOJ you'll feel better about all of this?
Click to expand...
:lmao:

You have me confused with those who say that unless she's taken away in handcuffs and thrown in jail then all the wrongdoing and corruption she's engaged in were perfectly fine.

She won't be "cleared" by the FBI. The best she can hope for is no indictment, then all her supporters can celebrate and mis-characterize what it means.

However, I will be the first to admit I'm wrong if the 30,000 emails turn out to actually be all personal communications and don't reflect any corruption, cover-ups, quid-pro-quo, or straight up criminal activity. I don't think that will happen - in fact, it's quite possible that it's worse than we imagine and that she will in fact get indicted. So far, we've never once "discovered" anything good or honest or noble about her character once people dig.

The emails were deleted on purpose, and for a reason. There's a reason her staff is making plea deals. There's a reason her people are invoking the 5th amendment. There's a reason her aides are hiding behind attorney-client privilege even when they weren't acting in the capacity of her attorney.

But hey, if it's all yoga routines and love notes to Bill, yes, I'll feel better about it all.

 
timschochet said:
That was an appointment, made after the election if I recall correctly. 

I'm racking my brain trying to think of a VP choice, for either the winner or loser, about whom one can say with confidence that if the choice had not been made the election would have gone the other way. Perhaps Kennedy's selection of LBJ in 1960...
Click to expand...
You are correct. Agnew resigned for taking bribes in connection to his time as Governor of (I think) Maryland and Nixon then selected Ford as his successor.  LBJ was chosen to deliver Texas, but I don't know if JFK would still have won anyway.  Outside of LBJ, I don't think any pick in the last 60 years has decided the election.

 
timschochet said:
Plus he keeps claiming that he prefers Hillary, even though he has predicted several times now that she will lose. And he seems to take gleeful pleasure in every negative story about her, even though most of them turn out to be meaningless. But he is certainly not hesitant to throw out personal insults. 
Click to expand...
I have not predicted that she will lose.  I have, however, repeatedly said that she is a compromised to the extent that she is vulnerable to losing to a monster, and that's not a good thing.  I can simultaneously (1) prefer Hillary over Trump and (2) be highly concerned that she is a bad candidate.  I don't take any glee in posting negative stories about Hillary, but I do believe she is the worst opponent for Trump and hope she does get indicted sooner rather than later so that a stronger candidate can step in.  The stories I have posted are not meaningless, except to those too ignorant and those so willfully and deliberately blind to Hillary's faults to understand their significance.  

And, yes, Tim I have called your character into question, as well as your brand of "analysis," which relies greatly on passing off others' opinions you support as your own.  I will continue to do so when appropriate.  I disagree with the analysis of BFS and dparker at times, but I also hold them in high regard because they do not present themselves as attention whores or phonies.  They don't come to the defense of criminals, like Richard Nixon or a rapist like Roman Polanski in an effort to give everyone your hot take and elicit a reaction or present themselves as edgy intellectuals who can look beyond the crimes and see the big picture of their greatness the way you have presented it.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
:lmao:

You have me confused with those who say that unless she's taken away in handcuffs and thrown in jail then all the wrongdoing and corruption she's engaged in were perfectly fine.

She won't be "cleared" by the FBI. The best she can hope for is no indictment, then all her supporters can celebrate and mis-characterize what it means.

However, I will be the first to admit I'm wrong if the 30,000 emails turn out to actually be all personal communications and don't reflect any corruption, cover-ups, quid-pro-quo, or straight up criminal activity. I don't think that will happen - in fact, it's quite possible that it's worse than we imagine and that she will in fact get indicted. So far, we've never once "discovered" anything good or honest or noble about her character once people dig.

The emails were deleted on purpose, and for a reason. There's a reason her staff is making plea deals. There's a reason her people are invoking the 5th amendment. There's a reason her aides are hiding behind attorney-client privilege even when they weren't acting in the capacity of her attorney.

But hey, if it's all yoga routines and love notes to Bill, yes, I'll feel better about it all.
Click to expand...
This...

 
squistion said:
You are correct. Agnew resigned for taking bribes in connection to his time as Governor of (I think) Maryland and Nixon then selected Ford as his successor.  LBJ was chosen to deliver Texas, but I don't know if JFK would still have won anyway.  Outside of LBJ, I don't think any pick in the last 60 years has decided the election.
Click to expand...
Even if JFK lost TX he'd have still won the election. He would have had to lose TX & IL, the spread was 303-219.

 
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
253K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 14 (members: 0, guests: 14)
Back
Top