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 (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Max's point wasn't that they don't agree with her.  It's that America's not sure they can trust her when she says it....two completely different things.  I've noticed this a lot out of you yesterday and today.
Max believes that Hillary is SO untrustworthy that you can't trust what she will do (or at least try to do) on ANY issue. I don't think the majority of the public believe this. 

 
Max's point wasn't that they don't agree with her.  It's that America's not sure they can trust her when she says it....two completely different things.  I've noticed this a lot out of you yesterday and today.
Max believes that Hillary is SO untrustworthy that you can't trust what she will do (or at least try to do) on ANY issue. I don't think the majority of the public believe this. 
Not sure what "majority" means in Tim land, but here on earth, it's a term that means over 50%.  The last polls posted here in the FFA a month or so ago had her passing 50% untrustworthy in her sleep.  Both her and Donald were over the 55% mark....maybe even 60% (I don't remember since I am not really suppose to be paying attention to polls).

So even your sidebar tangent here doesn't appear to be correct.

 
Not sure what "majority" means in Tim land, but here on earth, it's a term that means over 50%.  The last polls posted here in the FFA a month or so ago had her passing 50% untrustworthy in her sleep.  Both her and Donald were over the 55% mark....maybe even 60% (I don't remember since I am not really suppose to be paying attention to polls).

So even your sidebar tangent here doesn't appear to be correct.
I find Hillary Clinton to be generally an untrustworthy person. 

I trust that Hillary Clinton will attempt to do what she says about guns, about infrastructure spending, about certain other issues that I know are important to her. 

These two statements are not necessarily contradictory. 

 
Two wrong don't make a right now, do they?

Besides, we always talk of wanting our politicians to be better but now you're just ready to throw that out the window because "everyone does it"?  Also, to be fair, Hillary is a lot more slimy and dishonest more so than the average politician. 
None of what you posted is what I said at all.  She's running for president..just like Trump and Sanders and Bush and Obama and Reagan and her husband.   They all say/said what they think we want to hear.

Answer the question.

 
Not sure what "majority" means in Tim land, but here on earth, it's a term that means over 50%.  The last polls posted here in the FFA a month or so ago had her passing 50% untrustworthy in her sleep.  Both her and Donald were over the 55% mark....maybe even 60% (I don't remember since I am not really suppose to be paying attention to polls).

So even your sidebar tangent here doesn't appear to be correct.
I find Hillary Clinton to be generally an untrustworthy person. 

I trust that Hillary Clinton will attempt to do what she says about guns, about infrastructure spending, about certain other issues that I know are important to her. 

These two statements are not necessarily contradictory. 
wonderful....has nothing to do with what you replied to.  For someone who was whining about this thread being about things it shouldn't be, you aren't pulling your weight to get it out of that proverbial gutter.  

 
None of what you posted is what I said at all.  She's running for president..just like Trump and Sanders and Bush and Obama and Reagan and her husband.   They all say/said what they think we want to hear.

Answer the question.
Sure.  Paul Ryan.  I can trust him.

 
Someone should tell poor Nate that there was never any leverage.  Establishment wants nothing to do with Sanders.  The platitudes tell you everything you need to know.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sanders and Clinton wrapped up 2 hour meeting. I imagine what we will see in the end:

Superdelegates gone

DWS steps down after the election

1-3 additional planks added to platform pulling it leftward

I'd like to see a more comprehensive overhaul of the primary system but I imagine there will be some resistance on many levels there.

 
wonderful....has nothing to do with what you replied to.  For someone who was whining about this thread being about things it shouldn't be, you aren't pulling your weight to get it out of that proverbial gutter.  
I really should stop responding to you because at this point most of your posts have become total nonsense. What I wrote had EVERYTHING to do with what I replied to. If you don't understand that, I'm forced to question your reading comprehension skills. 

 
From Hillary's website, here is a "snapshot" list of her achievements as Secretary of State: 


 
Max believes that Hillary is SO untrustworthy that you can't trust what she will do (or at least try to do) on ANY issue. I don't think the majority of the public believe this. 
Max is insane. He said he thought Hillary was more slimy and dishonest than the average politician.  :shock:  That's crazy - only "above average" ?!?!?! She's he freaking high water mark.

One day Hillary will be the standard unit of measurement for dishonest politicians. Candidates who rate one hundred to two hundred HillaWhats are in good shape to get elected. 300 - 400 HillaWhats and the candidate is in deep trouble. Anyone registering over 500 HillaWhats will suspend their candidacy immediately.

 
Max's point wasn't that they don't agree with her.  It's that America's not sure they can trust her when she says it....two completely different things.  I've noticed this a lot out of you yesterday and today.
I think most people are fairly confident that even if she's lying, she's not going to say something bat#### crazy every other day

 
Voting for a third party is the same as not voting. You're neither helping not hurting Donald's chances
Maybe the point of the vote is to help neither the crook or idiot win. Who are you to tell people why or who to vote for?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sanders and Clinton wrapped up 2 hour meeting. I imagine what we will see in the end:

Superdelegates gone

DWS steps down after the election

1-3 additional planks added to platform pulling it leftward

I'd like to see a more comprehensive overhaul of the primary system but I imagine there will be some resistance on many levels there.
Someone in the Sanders thread said he might demand to be named chair of the Senate Budget Commit. Funny how some people think Sanders could ask for all this and Hillary could not have demanded and gotten the SOS position in 2008 with more delegates, more sway with core party leadership, more sway with SDs and holding the challenges from MI & FL.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really should stop responding to you because at this point most of your posts have become total nonsense. What I wrote had EVERYTHING to do with what I replied to. If you don't understand that, I'm forced to question your reading comprehension skills. 
You've probably benefited more from the removal of nested quotes than anyone on this board.  It's easier to spew :bs:  that way, but I"m up to the task.  Max's post was about Hillary's trustworthiness and that it didn't matter what she said because people don't trust her.  You said (without any sort of qualification) that you didn't believe that was true for a majority of people.  I point out to you that here in the real world "majority" is generally accepted as over 50% and I commented that the last poll we saw here in the FFA had Hillary blowing by 50% in untrustworthy questions with ease.  You then go on this tangent where I THINK your point is that one can find her untrustworthy overall but trust her on a specific issue.  FWIW, I fit that category, but that has little to do with the original conversation unless you are now moving the goalposts to talk about a specific topic while the initial conversation was of her overall trustworthiness.  Yeah, it's me

 
Max's point wasn't that they don't agree with her.  It's that America's not sure they can trust her when she says it....two completely different things.  I've noticed this a lot out of you yesterday and today.
I think most people are fairly confident that even if she's lying, she's not going to say something bat#### crazy every other day
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?!?!?!?!?!?

This is the bar...wonderful

 
The Trump folks are a hoot with the "Hillary is so unpopular!" stuff.

Clinton +43/-55, net favorability of -12;  Trump +29/-70, net favorability of -41.  And 56% say it's "strongly unfavorable" with Trump.  If those numbers hold it'll be an electoral wipeout for Republicans across the entire country.

 
The Trump folks are a hoot with the "Hillary is so unpopular!" stuff.

Clinton +43/-55, net favorability of -12;  Trump +29/-70, net favorability of -41.  And 56% say it's "strongly unfavorable" with Trump.  If those numbers hold it'll be an electoral wipeout for Republicans across the entire country.
If we're being fair...both groups shouldn't really be going there, should they?  The numbers are embarrassing all the way around.

 
Max believes that Hillary is SO untrustworthy that you can't trust what she will do (or at least try to do) on ANY issue. I don't think the majority of the public believe this. 
"On ANY issue" was the  "qualification" that Commish says didn't exist. This is why, Commish, I questioned your reading skills. 

 
Max believes that Hillary is SO untrustworthy that you can't trust what she will do (or at least try to do) on ANY issue. I don't think the majority of the public believe this. 
"On ANY issue" was the  "qualification" that Commish says didn't exist. This is why, Commish, I questioned your reading skills. 
I made clear I wasn't interested in the things that YOU added to the comment.  I was talking about the comment exactly as he made it.  Again....this has been a pattern with you the last week or so.  This is the comment that started this whole thing Tim:

  11 hours ago, MaxThreshold said:
That would be fantastic if we could, y'know, trust what she says.  But we can't and as far as most people are concerned she's saying this only because it's what you want to hear.

Next week it will most likely be something completely opposite.
 
So how come nobody's talking about the Bloomberg poll? This is the first meaningful head to head poll we've had in this election cycle, because it's the first time we've had a poll featuring two presumptive nominees. And Hillary has a double digit lead. 

Back when we had meaningless polls showing a tight race between Trump and Clinton (meaningless because Hillary was still fighting it out with Sanders at the time) there were dozens of posts in here about how weak a candidate Hillary was, how she was going to lose the election, etc. etc. Now? Silence. 

 
So how come nobody's talking about the Bloomberg poll? This is the first meaningful head to head poll we've had in this election cycle, because it's the first time we've had a poll featuring two presumptive nominees. And Hillary has a double digit lead. 

Back when we had meaningless polls showing a tight race between Trump and Clinton (meaningless because Hillary was still fighting it out with Sanders at the time) there were dozens of posts in here about how weak a candidate Hillary was, how she was going to lose the election, etc. etc. Now? Silence. 
You and your buddies have told us not to pay attention to the polls until Bernie has dropped out :shrug:  

 
You and your buddies have told us not to pay attention to the polls until Bernie has dropped out :shrug:  
For all practical purposes he dropped out last week. When he officially drops out (likely in a few days) it should only result in an even more positive outcome for Hillary. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top