Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)

[squistion]

CSPANVerified account ‏@cspan 11m11 minutes ago

.@HillaryClinton: "If you're too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America."

 

[whoknew]

After the whining about not being on topic with the media in this thread, I decided to go backwards and requote the first thing I felt was "interesting" that Tim had brought up in an effort to help him out.  Oddly enough, Tim has done little to combat what he was whining about, but this post is the first interesting tidbit I came across.

So the question is, Tim, why do you think it's in Hillary's best interest to support the FBI being able to have so much power via their "list" that they can control the citizens who are not allowed to buy guns?

This is a CRAZY proposal. 

Please - check out the no fly list. See how that is going. Its a nightmare if you are improperly put on there. But that's basically what Tim (and others) are proposing.

 

[Guest]

Drones are the most effective cost-effective and safest way to combat terrorists and result in a lower loss of civilian lives than boots on the ground. 

State would need a good reason to object to a CIA drone strike.

This is an entirely different debate.  I find killing people from what amounts to a game arcade from thousands of miles away to be inherently evil.  I do not at all push back on its pragmatism, but technology usually falls onto enemy hands in 10-15 years, and when terrorists start using drones effectively (which is coming), it will showcase what a Pandora's box this opened.  And then the war of technology will escalate to new and better ways to kill, innovative ways to counter-defined.  In long term, defense companies benefit -- while the bar to kill en masse and anonymously gets lower.  I wish we'd taken a stand as a nation on a number of things on their principle, this being one of the key ones IMO.

 

[whoknew]

CSPANVerified account ‏@cspan 11m11 minutes ago

.@HillaryClinton: "If you're too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America."

Again, this ONLY works if there is there is a set process for getting on the list and a legitimate appeal process/check and balance on the no fly list. In other words, there has to be due process. There is not right now.

 

[The Commish]

ISIS is getting weaker every day and the Middle East is closer to democracy than it ever has been.  We should continue to support democratic movements.

If we were doing things correctly, ISIS would have never gotten to be the force it is/was.  That's something few want to hear or take into consideration.  Everything after that statement is so vague I can't really comment other than to say, "if you say so....."

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Again, this ONLY works if there is there is a set process for getting on the list and a legitimate appeal process/check and balance on the no fly list. In other words, there has to be due process. There is not right now.

I agree

 

[The Commish]

After the whining about not being on topic with the media in this thread, I decided to go backwards and requote the first thing I felt was "interesting" that Tim had brought up in an effort to help him out.  Oddly enough, Tim has done little to combat what he was whining about, but this post is the first interesting tidbit I came across.

So the question is, Tim, why do you think it's in Hillary's best interest to support the FBI being able to have so much power via their "list" that they can control the citizens who are not allowed to buy guns?

This is a CRAZY proposal. 

Please - check out the no fly list. See how that is going. Its a nightmare if you are improperly put on there. But that's basically what Tim (and others) are proposing.

Am I surprised that after all the whining about 'email discussions' that Tim is MIA when a valid question is posed on a different topic in interest of spurring discussion?  No...no I am not.  I am the furthest thing one could imagine from a "gun lover" but I recognize completely idiotic and poorly thought out.  That's what this position would be, but it appears she's running with it.  Why not?  It's only a Donald Trump presidency on the line.

 

[timschochet]

Am I surprised that after all the whining about 'email discussions' that Tim is MIA when a valid question is posed on a different topic in interest of spurring discussion?  No...no I am not.  I am the furthest thing one could imagine from a "gun lover" but I recognize completely idiotic and poorly thought out.  That's what this position would be, but it appears she's running with it.  Why not?  It's only a Donald Trump presidency on the line.

Busy at work. I'll address this in detail a little later. 

 

[bueno]

Tough call, but having two bad candidates is nothing new.  Remember 2004 when W. went up against John Kerry?  That was all-time bad. 

Until now, yeah.

 

[bueno]

I join Americans in praying for the victims of the attack in Orlando, their families and the first responders who did everything they could to save lives. 

This was an act of terror. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are hard at work, and we will learn more in the hours and days ahead. For now, we can say for certain that we need to redouble our efforts to defend our country from threats at home and abroad. That means defeating international terror groups, working with allies and partners to go after them wherever they are, countering their attempts to recruit people here and everywhere, and hardening our defenses at home. It also means refusing to be intimidated and staying true to our values.

This was also an act of hate. The gunman attacked an LGBT nightclub during Pride Month. To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies across our country. I am one of them. We will keep fighting for your right to live freely, openly and without fear. Hate has absolutely no place in America. 

Finally, we need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals. This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets. 

This is a time to stand together and resolve to do everything we can to defend our communities and country.

Actually, Wounded Knee was the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, but I guess indigenous people don't count.

I also found an article that said Hillary blocked an investigation into the killer's mosque while she was SOS - I'm trying to find out if that is true before I link, but if she did, that's going to bite her.

 

[timschochet]

Am I surprised that after all the whining about 'email discussions' that Tim is MIA when a valid question is posed on a different topic in interest of spurring discussion?  No...no I am not.  I am the furthest thing one could imagine from a "gun lover" but I recognize completely idiotic and poorly thought out.  That's what this position would be, but it appears she's running with it.  Why not?  It's only a Donald Trump presidency on the line.

I apologize for the delay in answering this. 

I see two aspects here: the practical and the political. You may very well be right that it would be impractical to attempt to enforce this. I'm not sure. I would need more information about how these terrorists lists are determined before I could answer you. Right now background checks are performed on most non-private gun sales (I think these should be extended to private sales as well) and if one is found to be a convicted felon, one is not able to purchase a firearm. I see no reason, at least theoretically, why this could not be extended to those on a terrorist watch list. But there may be practical applications I am not considering. While WhoKnew has a point about the problems with the "no fly" lists, I tend to believe those are all correctable- but maybe not. I also have to add that I'm not all that concerned about suspects losing their privilege to purchase firearms. As I commented earlier, it's not like we're sending them to jail. My understanding of the Second Amendment is that the personal ownership of firearms is a privilege and not a right- the Founding Fathers only intended the right to be given for the purpose of forming a militia, and this is how that amendment was interpreted for most of our history, until a recent decision which hopefully will be overturned at some point in the future.

On the political side, this should be a big winner for Hillary- most Americans don't think that suspected terrorists should have access to firearms, yet the NRA is doing everything they can to prevent us from making laws about it. Hillary can make Trump look like a hypocrite here- he's supposed to be "tough" on these guys, yet they're still able to buy guns whenever they want? I think she should press the issue. 

 

[The Commish]

Am I surprised that after all the whining about 'email discussions' that Tim is MIA when a valid question is posed on a different topic in interest of spurring discussion?  No...no I am not.  I am the furthest thing one could imagine from a "gun lover" but I recognize completely idiotic and poorly thought out.  That's what this position would be, but it appears she's running with it.  Why not?  It's only a Donald Trump presidency on the line.

Busy at work. I'll address this in detail a little later. 

Please address the question I actually asked.  It's straight forward and to the point.  Don't bother with reinterpretation or "i thought you meant" or "well, this wasn't really all that interesting a question, so I decided to answer a different question"...none of that shtick is necessary or wanted really.

 

[whoknew]

I apologize for the delay in answering this. 

I see two aspects here: the practical and the political. You may very well be right that it would be impractical to attempt to enforce this. I'm not sure. I would need more information about how these terrorists lists are determined before I could answer you. Right now background checks are performed on most non-private gun sales (I think these should be extended to private sales as well) and if one is found to be a convicted felon, one is not able to purchase a firearm. I see no reason, at least theoretically, why this could not be extended to those on a terrorist watch list. But there may be practical applications I am not considering. While WhoKnew has a point about the problems with the "no fly" lists, I tend to believe those are all correctable- but maybe not. I also have to add that I'm not all that concerned about suspects losing their privilege to purchase firearms. As I commented earlier, it's not like we're sending them to jail. My understanding of the Second Amendment is that the personal ownership of firearms is a privilege and not a right- the Founding Fathers only intended the right to be given for the purpose of forming a militia, and this is how that amendment was interpreted for most of our history, until a recent decision which hopefully will be overturned at some point in the future.

On the political side, this should be a big winner for Hillary- most Americans don't think that suspected terrorists should have access to firearms, yet the NRA is doing everything they can to prevent us from making laws about it. Hillary can make Trump look like a hypocrite here- he's supposed to be "tough" on these guys, yet they're still able to buy guns whenever they want? I think she should press the issue. 

I agree with you on this - I think they are correctable. 

1) Have set, transparent standards for how someone gets on the terror list (this won't be easy and will be constantly evolving). 

2) Have judicial overview/appeals. 

The problem (I suspect) is that the FBI doesn't want to be transparent about it. 

Here's a short article on the ACLU's lawsuit re: the no-fly list. A quote:

 "[T]he government still keeps its full reasons secret. It also withholds evidence and exculpatory information from our clients and refuses to give them a live hearing to establish their credibility or cross-examine witnesses. Because of these and other serious problems, the ACLU has challenged the revised process as unconstitutional.

Until the government fixes its unconstitutional new process, people on the No Fly List are barred from commercial air travel with no meaningful chance to clear their names, resulting in a vast and growing group of individuals whom the government deems too dangerous to fly but too harmless to arrest."

 

[timschochet]

So the question is, Tim, why do you think it's in Hillary's best interest to support the FBI being able to have so much power via their "list" that they can control the citizens who are not allowed to buy guns?

I don't really believe restricting who can buy guns gives the FBI tremendous "power". It's in Hillary's best interest to support what I proposed (which it turns out she already is, actually) because it may weaken Donald Trump. 

 

[timschochet]

I would like to see Hillary call Trump out on his implication that Obama is a fan of radical Islam. 

 

[The Commish]

I don't really believe restricting who can buy guns gives the FBI tremendous "power". It's in Hillary's best interest to support what I proposed (which it turns out she already is, actually) because it may weaken Donald Trump. 

There's so little here I don't have a follow up other than to ask for clarity around your belief that the FBI being able to keep guns out of the hands of American citizens by putting them on a list.  This is your position?  Can you explain how it ISN'T a significant grab of power to have a federal agency be able to single-handedly take away a right granted us by the Constitution by simply putting them on a list?

 

[dparker713]

The "anyone but Trump" guys beg to differ.  If you ask them, we're in the middle of the apocalypse.  

I'm an anyone but Trump guy.  I'm just not a pansy equivocator that refuses to acknowledge that means backing Clinton - not trying to void his nomination or throw a vote away on a third party candidate.

 

[dparker713]

Not really.  Tim has become increasingly frustrated by the fact that most of the discussion in here revolves around Clinton's role in various scandals.  He wants everyone to talk about how awesome she is, what a great week she supposedly had, praise her, etc.  This has been a relatively new tact for Tim where he tries to change the subject, albeit awkwardly and without a segue, and it always falls flat and never takes off.  He's like that guy at a dinner function who doesn't know how to fit in when everyone's talking sports, so he butts in to mention he's reading a fascinating book about cement mixing techniques.  Nobody cares because it's irrelevant to the current discussion, and everyone goes back to talking about the Pens, the Warriors-Cavs series, and OTAs.

I can't believe you aren't getting tired of rehashing the same stuff over and over.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I can't believe you aren't getting tired of rehashing the same stuff over and over.

The truth never gets old.

 

[cobalt_27]

I can't believe you aren't getting tired of rehashing the same stuff over and over.

Much harder to believe Tim doesn't get tired of his nonesense. 

 

[squistion]

I can't believe you aren't getting tired of rehashing the same stuff over and over.

They have been rehashing the exact same crap in this thread on a daily basis about for about two years. They can't talk about the issues in the campaign, so they just recycle the old scandals interspersed with supposedly new revelations about the emails, which never lead to anything.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

They have been rehashing the exact same crap in this thread on a daily basis about for about two years. They can't talk about the issues in the campaign, so they just recycle the old scandals interspersed with supposedly new revelations about the emails, which never lead to anything.

 

 

[Sinn Fein]

I wonder why Biden is not endorsing Clinton.

 

[Gopher State]

They have been rehashing the exact same crap in this thread on a daily basis about for about two years. They can't talk about the issues in the campaign, so they just recycle the old scandals interspersed with supposedly new revelations about the emails, which never lead to anything.

Good posting

 

[MaxThreshold]

They have been rehashing the exact same crap in this thread on a daily basis about for about two years. They can't talk about the issues in the campaign, so they just recycle the old scandals interspersed with supposedly new revelations about the emails, which never lead to anything.

Says the guy with his head in the sand.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

they just recycle the old scandals interspersed with supposedly new revelations about the emails, which never lead to anything.

Has the FBI finished their investigation?

 

[squistion]

I wonder why Biden is not endorsing Clinton.

He did:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/joe-biden-endorses-hillary-clinton-224162

Joe Biden endorses Hillary Clinton

Vice President Joe Biden backed Hillary Clinton on Thursday, hours after President Barack Obama issued his own endorsement of the former secretary of state.

Biden, speaking Thursday night at the American Constitution Society convention a few blocks from the White House, didn't squarely endorse Clinton. But he made his preferences clear in what seemed like an unplanned aside amid remarks about the need to confirm fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Republicans have refused to grant a hearing to Obama's nominee, federal judge Merrick Garland, let alone a floor vote.

"Keep in mind, we have another entire term of this potential confusion if the vote is not allowed this year. Anybody who thinks that whatever the next president — and God willing, in my view, it'll be Secretary Clinton," Biden said. "Now, I don't say that for political reasons, but whoever it is, even if it is a Democrat, the idea this will be brought up within a month or two or three is highly unlikely."
 

 

[dutch]

I wonder why Biden is not endorsing Clinton.

He did

 

[Sinn Fein]

He did  NOT:

Biden, speaking Thursday night at the American Constitution Society convention a few blocks from the White House, didn't squarely endorse Clinton.
 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Vice President Biden offered high praise for Bernie Sanders after a meeting with the presidential candidate on Thursday and stopped short of endorsing his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Biden is expected to back Clinton, but he declined to offer her a quick endorsement like President Obama did.

After an afternoon meeting at the Naval Observatory, the vice president congratulated Sanders for “energizing so many new voters and bringing them into the Democratic Party,” a spokesperson said.

“They discussed the need for the national conversation to continue to focus on the defining fight of our time: retaining and expanding access to the middle class, and the need for the Democratic Party to continue to embrace these new voters as we work toward victory in November,” according to Biden’s office.

 

[Gopher State]

I wonder why Biden is not endorsing Clinton.

He already did

 

[cstu]

Biden endorses... "whoever the next president is, and in my view, god willing, it'll be Secretary Clinton"

5:43 PM - 9 Jun 2016

 

[Paulymaggs]

Biden endorses... "whoever the next president is, and in my view, god willing, it'll be Secretary Clinton"

That's a stronger 'endorsement' statement than any fluffed up press release would've done.

 

[Sinn Fein]

  

This is an endorsement:  “I’m with her, I am fired up, and I cannot wait to get out there to campaign for Hillary,” Mr. Obama said in the video.

This is an endorsement:  “I’m ready,” Warren said, according to the Globe. “I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.”

Not, "god willing, it'll be Secretary Clinton"

 

[Mister CIA]

Regarding thread title, has Hillary shot anyone yet? ... That we know of? Kind of goes without saying, I suppose.

 

[cstu]

  

This is an endorsement:  “I’m with her, I am fired up, and I cannot wait to get out there to campaign for Hillary,” Mr. Obama said in the video.

This is an endorsement:  “I’m ready,” Warren said, according to the Globe. “I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.”

Not, "god willing, it'll be Secretary Clinton"

Invoking God's help isn't an endorsement? 

 

[Paulymaggs]

  

This is an endorsement:  “I’m with her, I am fired up, and I cannot wait to get out there to campaign for Hillary,” Mr. Obama said in the video.

This is an endorsement:  “I’m ready,” Warren said, according to the Globe. “I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.”

Not, "god willing, it'll be Secretary Clinton"

       I knew better than to argue semantics with a Bernie supporter

 

[dparker713]

That's a stronger 'endorsement' statement than any fluffed up press release would've done.

That's stronger than all the Republicans backing "the nominee"

 

[tommyboy]

She's a moron 

 

[The Commish]

I'm an anyone but Trump guy.  I'm just not a pansy equivocator that refuses to acknowledge that means backing Clinton - not trying to void his nomination or throw a vote away on a third party candidate.

I'm not sure what this little rant has to do with my comment about your "The sky isn't falling" comment.  To some, it most certainly is.  And a lot of that "some" is the "anyone but Trump" guys.  If that's not you, good, I guess.

The way you keep Trump out of office is by not voting for him.  It's not that complicated but it is hard to understand why one would consider a vote for someone other than Trump "throwing a vote away" simply because that vote wasn't for Clinton.  I've heard it a billion times and it still makes no sense.

 

[The Commish]

They have been rehashing the exact same crap in this thread on a daily basis about for about two years. They can't talk about the issues in the campaign, so they just recycle the old scandals interspersed with supposedly new revelations about the emails, which never lead to anything.

Feel free to chime in on my question to Tim if you're so eager to talk about "issues in the campaign".  No one seems to want to address why it's a positive thing for Hillary Clinton to encourage a division of our federal government to walk on our Constitutional rights.  If you don't like the idea, perhaps you could get through to guys like Tim.  He's not going to listen to "the enemy" regardless how correct we are.

 

[dparker713]

I'm not sure what this little rant has to do with my comment about your "The sky isn't falling" comment.  To some, it most certainly is.  And a lot of that "some" is the "anyone but Trump" guys.  If that's not you, good, I guess.

The way you keep Trump out of office is by not voting for him.  It's not that complicated but it is hard to understand why one would consider a vote for someone other than Trump "throwing a vote away" simply because that vote wasn't for Clinton.  I've heard it a billion times and it still makes no sense.

Because if the vote in the state is 34, 33, 33 or 26, 25, 25, 24 or whatever breakdown you want - there's a winner.  When you recognize that there is a base of support that Trump will not lose, you need to figure out how to get someone, anyone, more votes than that base.  If your vote isn't going to overcome that base, than its meaningless.

 

[timschochet]

Feel free to chime in on my question to Tim if you're so eager to talk about "issues in the campaign".  No one seems to want to address why it's a positive thing for Hillary Clinton to encourage a division of our federal government to walk on our Constitutional rights.  If you don't like the idea, perhaps you could get through to guys like Tim.  He's not going to listen to "the enemy" regardless how correct we are.

I don't understand how not allowing suspected terrorists from buying guns tramples on your Constitutional rights. Are you a suspected terrorist? 

 

[Guest]

Julian Assange says Wikileaks has the goods on Hillary and will soon publish "enough to indict her".  But he predicts corruption will likely prevent it.

 

[The Commish]

Because if the vote in the state is 34, 33, 33 or 26, 25, 25, 24 or whatever breakdown you want - there's a winner.  When you recognize that there is a base of support that Trump will not lose, you need to figure out how to get someone, anyone, more votes than that base.  If your vote isn't going to overcome that base, than its meaningless.

This is where it goes off the rails, because NO ONE's single vote is going to overcome.  It's faulty logic IMO.  You guys want so desperately for a person's vote to be something it's not, or more than it is.  It's just not how things work.  We get a single vote.  That's it.  For most of us, candidates have to justify why they deserve our vote.  Of course some set the bar at "lesser of two evils" or "in opposition of".  That's cool, but every vote counts and none of them are meaningless.  You're as correct in saying my vote is meaningless as I am in saying your vote is meaningless.  That is to say WRONG.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't understand how not allowing suspected terrorists from buying guns tramples on your Constitutional rights. Are you a suspected terrorist? 

I don't get how people don't get that there are uncountable illegal guns right now. They would just do what criminals already do. Heck law abiding citizens will probably go get them too.

 

[The Commish]

I don't understand how not allowing suspected terrorists from buying guns tramples on your Constitutional rights. Are you a suspected terrorist? 

I'm an American citizen.  It's my right to have a gun.  Anything you put in the way of that if it hasn't been through a court of law to determine is a direct rejection of my right.  It's not complicated.  There's no court proceeding to get me put on a "suspected terrorist" list.  

But to the original question, all I have heard from you for why it's in Hillary's best interest to support this is that it MAY hurt Trump.  Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water...holy cripes!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Julian Assange says Wikileaks has the goods on Hillary and will soon publish "enough to indict her".  But he predicts corruption will likely prevent it.

Kid Dotcom said this last year.

 

[dparker713]

This is where it goes off the rails, because NO ONE's single vote is going to overcome.  It's faulty logic IMO.  You guys want so desperately for a person's vote to be something it's not, or more than it is.  It's just not how things work.  We get a single vote.  That's it.  For most of us, candidates have to justify why they deserve our vote.  Of course some set the bar at "lesser of two evils" or "in opposition of".  That's cool, but every vote counts and none of them are meaningless.  You're as correct in saying my vote is meaningless as I am in saying your vote is meaningless.  That is to say WRONG.

So basically, you're just going to rely on others to prevent the worst option so you can stand on principle.  

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

She's a moron 

Insightful analysis, hadn't contemplated that nuance.