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 (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hillary's statement that she turned over all  public records has always been a lie. It's just being demonstrated more and more. The server setup and the culling of the emails are definitely important, it's more important than it should be, it's remarkable the activity, investigation and cover up around those issues.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it was just this one she didn't hand over

 
timschochet said:
You still have the chance to support Hillary. It's not too late for YOU. 
Click to expand...
0% chance I will support or vote for Clinton.

0% chance I will support or vote for Trump.

A low, but non-0%, chance that I could vote for a different GOP candidate if they come to their senses at their convention.

When you find yourself looking at this as "the lesser of two evils" the smart play is to not chose either evil - no matter who wins its bad for the average American.

 
Sinn Fein said:
0% chance I will support or vote for Clinton.

0% chance I will support or vote for Trump.

A low, but non-0%, chance that I could vote for a different GOP candidate if they come to their senses at their convention.

When you find yourself looking at this as "the lesser of two evils" the smart play is to not chose either evil - no matter who wins its bad for the average American.
Click to expand...
Your second sentence contradicts your first. If you won't vote for Hillary, you ARE supporting Trump. If that's your choice fine, but don't delude yourself. Any Bernie supporter who refuses to vote for Hillary is contributing to a Trump victory. 

 
Prominent GOP Neoconservative to Fundraise for Hillary Clinton



A prominent neoconservative intellectual and early promoter of the Iraq War is headlining an official campaign fundraiser for Hillary Clinton next month, Foreign Policy has learned. The move signals a shift in the Clinton campaign’s willingness to associate with prominent Republicans and is the latest sign of how far some GOP defectors are willing to go to block a Donald Trump presidency.

Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, will speak at a Hillary for America fundraiser in Washington’s Logan Circle neighborhood on July 21. According to an invite obtained by FP, the “event will include an off-the-record conversation on America’s continued investment in NATO, key European allies and partners, and the EU.”

Kagan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.



The Clinton campaign has made clear it believes Trump’s high unfavorable ratings and provocative comments have created an opening for her candidacy among traditional GOP voters, and will soon begin actively courting the Republican electorate.

The campaign has been careful about such overtures in the past as it fended off criticisms from the left by her primary rival Bernie Sanders, who highlighted her 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War, ties to controversial Republican figures like Henry Kissinger, and warm relationship with Wall Street.

“In her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger,” Sanders said during a February debate. “Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country.”

While dozens of Republican foreign-policy insiders have publicly renounced Trump, far fewer have announced their support for Clinton. But cracks are beginning to emerge.

On Wednesday, Clinton picked up the endorsement of Republican Brent Scowcroft, who served as a national security adviser to Presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford, and held formal or advisory positions in the administrations of former Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.

“She brings deep expertise in international affairs and a sophisticated understanding of the world, which I believe are essential for the commander-in-chief,” Scowcroft said in a statement.

But while Scowcroft hails from the GOP’s realist school of thought, a less-interventionist worldview that some liberals subscribe to, Kagan remains firmly in the neoconservative wing — an ideology centered around the use of military force, the forcible removal of dictators, and the importance of spreading democracy around the world.

During the heat of the Democratic primary campaign, prominent Sanders supporters sought to tie Clinton to the more hawkish foreign policy of Kagan and other neoconservatives, noting his favorable remarks toward the former first lady.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Kagan told the New York Times in 2014. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

In more recent years, Kagan has loudly criticized the Obama administration for not intervening more forcefully in the five-year civil war in Syria or pushing back more aggressively against Russia in the Ukraine conflict. He routinely calls for defense spending to take up a larger share of the federal budget. Many of his beliefs were encapsulated in his New Republic cover story “Super Powers Don’t Get to Retire” advocating for an expansive U.S. diplomatic and military presence around the world.

As a staunch defender of NATO, Kagan’s views clash starkly with Trump, who has called the military alliance “obsolete” and castigated European allies for failing to pay at least two percent of their gross domestic product on defense — a benchmark that the vast majority of the 28 NATO members have failed to meet. Clinton, meanwhile, has been an outspoken defender of NATO in recent speeches.

Kagan is also the husband of Victoria Nuland, who served as the spokesperson for the State Department during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, and is currently the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. Internally, Nuland has pressed the Obama administration to play a more aggressive role in the Ukraine conflict.

A ticket to the event at the Cambria hotel rooftop is $100. A VIP ticket, which includes access to a reception with the event’s speakers and hosts, costs $250. It costs $500 to earn the title of “host.”

 
timschochet said:
Your second sentence contradicts your first. If you won't vote for Hillary, you ARE supporting Trump. If that's your choice fine, but don't delude yourself. Any Bernie supporter who refuses to vote for Hillary is contributing to a Trump victory. 
Click to expand...
:deadhorse:  

The more and more you say it.

 
Sinn Fein said:
0% chance I will support or vote for Clinton.

0% chance I will support or vote for Trump.

A low, but non-0%, chance that I could vote for a different GOP candidate if they come to their senses at their convention.

When you find yourself looking at this as "the lesser of two evils" the smart play is to not chose either evil - no matter who wins its bad for the average American.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your "lesser of two evils" statement, but even if we accept is as true this is remarkably poor logic. One of the your so-called "lesser evils" is going to be foisted upon you whether you like it or not, an you will have to live with it for the next four years.  The smart play is to do all you can to ensure that you're dealt the lesser of two evils.

 
"Hey, Sinn Fein, it's dinner time. Do you want Arby's or this steaming pile of elephant ####?"

"Ewww, I hate them both. Can't I have a porterhouse steak?  If not I'll sit this one out, you guys decide."

 
timschochet said:
Your second sentence contradicts your first. If you won't vote for Hillary, you ARE supporting Trump. If that's your choice fine, but don't delude yourself. Any Bernie supporter who refuses to vote for Hillary is contributing to a Trump victory. 
Click to expand...
Well, using your logic, if I won't vote for trump, does that mean I am supporting Clinton. 

If Trump wins, it has nothing to do with Bernie supporters, and everything to do with terrible candidates. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
I disagree with your "lesser of two evils" statement, but even if we accept is as true this is remarkably poor logic. One of the your so-called "lesser evils" is going to be foisted upon you whether you like it or not, an you will have to live with it for the next four years.  The smart play is to do all you can to ensure that you're dealt the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...
Evil is evil. It is folly to argue over the degrees. 

I choose not to support either variety. I will be unhappy with either choice. 

 
The take-my-ball-and go-home kids usually come back to the playground fellas. Let's give the Bernie guys a little more time to finish their temper tandrums.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Polling averages for the last couple weeks have Clinton up a pretty steady 6-7%.

Larry Sabato's gang also put out an updated EC map yesterday that had Clinton winning 347 EC votes.

If election were held tomorrow Clinton would win, so the unstable environment is to Trump's advantage.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I find great irony in typically liberal posters who defiantly support Clinton, the most conservative candidate since Reagan. 
Click to expand...
I find great confusion in adult human beings who apparently don't understand that life often requires you to choose between less than perfect options.  Most people grow out of "you can't always get what you want" petulance by the time they hit puberty.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
No amount of cutting and pasting is going to make your interpretation correct.   The Secretary of States e-mails (among others) were being caught by the spam filters,  That is the "delivery problem" with Hillary's secret server that no one at State, especially in IT was aware of  that is being discussed by State IT.  Turning off these spam filters meant that State was vulnerable to having its employee receive phishing emails.  That created the potential that someone would click on something that would infect the network.  
Click to expand...
Yeah, sorry, let's look at a technical expert's opinion:

Emails Show Hillary Clinton's Email Server Was A Massive Security Headache, Set Up To Route Around FOIA Requests


More bad news for Hillary Clinton and her ill-advised personal email server. Another set of emails released by the State Department shows the government agency had to disable several security processes just to get its server to accept email from Clinton's private email address.


The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton's private server.

"This should trump all other activities," a senior technical official, Ken LaVolpe, told IT employees in a Dec. 17, 2010, email. Another senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote days later in an email that deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin personally was asking for an update about the repairs. Abedin and Clinton, who both used Clinton's private server, had complained that emails each sent to State Department employees were not being reliably received.

After technical staffers turned off some security features, Lawrence cautioned in an email, "We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective."



While trial-and-error is generally useful when solving connection problems, the implication is undeniable: to make Clinton's private, insecure email server connect with the State Department's, it had to -- at least temporarily -- lower itself to Clinton's security level. The other workaround -- USE A DAMN STATE DEPARTMENT EMAIL ADDRESS -- was seriously discussed.

This latest stack of emails also exposed other interesting things... like the fact that Clinton's private email server was attacked multiple times in one day, resulting in staffers taking it offline in an attempt to prevent a breach. (h/t Pwn All The Things)

In addition to the security issues, there's also some discussion about why Clinton was choosing to use her own server.

In one email, the State Department's IT person explains the agency already has an email address set up for Clinton, but offers to delete anything contained in it -- and points out that using the State Dept. address would make future emails subject to FOIA requests.


[W]e actually have an account previously set up: SSHRC@state.gov. There are some old emails but none since Jan '11 -- we could get rid of them.

You should be aware that any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.



So, there's one reason Clinton would have opted to use a personal email address and server. More confirmation of the rationale behind this decision appears in an earlier email (2010) from Clinton to her aide, Huma Abedin.


Abedin: We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email to the department so you are not going to spam.

Clinton: Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible.



There appears to be some intent to dodge FOIA requests -- either by ensuring "no documents found" when Clinton's State Department email address was searched, or by being able to control any release by being the chokepoint for responsive documents.

To accomplish this, Clinton's team set up a private email server that was insecure and did not follow State Department guidelines. In fact, her team brushed off the agency more than once before finally informing it that they simply would not comply with State Department regulations.


In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded that Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff "the matter was not to be discussed further," the report said.



The FBI investigation that Clinton refuses to call an investigation continues. There may be no criminal charges forthcoming, but there's already plenty of evidence that Clinton's use of a private email server was not only dangerously insecure, but put into place in hopes of limiting her accountability.
Click to expand...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160623/09170034795/emails-show-hillary-clintons-email-server-was-massive-security-headache-set-up-to-route-around-foia-requests.shtml

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
You realize that's more of an indictment of the IT staff at State than of Hillary, right?
Click to expand...
That's a contention of yours, and I think I've covered that pretty well, but the answer there is yes and no. Ultimately however the fault was with Hillary. The fact that her poor IT minions had to "scramble" (as AP put it) to put out the fires she caused later on in time earns my sympathy more than my contempt.

 
dparker713 said:
You realize that's more of an indictment of the IT staff at State than of Hillary, right?
Click to expand...
Odd that that's how you see this.  I see it as an example of institutional ineptitude at the hands of leadership utterly unconcerned with rules or laws versus personal interests, regardless of consequences.  Give the Queen what she wants at all costs, and heads role of you question her.  For those who see our politicians as our representatives and not parents, this is a dangerous behavior to invite.  Like licking your hand when you know it has a dangerous virus on it.  

 
The Commish said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Commish said:
jon_mx said:
Citizen United was about Private spending on speech relating to candidates and not on contributions to candidates, which is where the corruption is.  
Click to expand...
Isn't this already addressed by the $2500 limit an individual can make :oldunsure:   Corruption is in the loopholes provided via PACs and Super PACs as best I understand it, which is a direct result of CU.
Click to expand...
Citizens United was about whether a movie could be censored because it was about politics. It was not about campaign contributions.
Click to expand...
Apologies then.  Guess I am confused.  Which case was the one that ended up providing the loophole allowing people to donate whatever they wanted to the PACs / Super PACs who could then "support" candidate campaigns with no such restriction?
Click to expand...
That was Citizens United. The key distinction is between campaign contributions and independent expenditures.

Let's say you really dislike Hillary Clinton, and you want to help fund negative ads about her. One option is that you could donate money to her opponent's campaign, and her opponent will use the funds to create negative ads (or just blow it all on hats). You can do this to a limited extent if you are an individual, but you can't do it at all if you are a corporation or a union. Corporations are barred from contributing to federal election campaigns. This is perfectly constitutional because the Constitution doesn't provide a right to donate to campaigns.

Another option is to hire some actors and a director and make the ads yourself, and then buy a few spots during "America's Got Talent" to air the ads just before the election. You can do this if you are an individual, but if you are a corporation or a union, this was made illegal by McCain-Feingold. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that that part of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional because the First Amendment bars the government from discriminating against certain speech based on its content -- especially based on its political content. If people want to make ads or movies about politicians, they can do so free of censorship. Moreover, if people want to donate money to corporations or PACs for the purpose of making ads or movies about politicians, they can do that as well. The Constitution doesn't provide a right to donate to campaigns, but it does provide a right to free speech, even if the speech is about politicians. Corporations, unions, and other organizations (including PACs) can speak freely as long as they don't coordinate their activity with the campaigns themselves. (My understanding is that this isn't enforced very well, and plenty of PACs do coordinate to some extent with campaigns.)

In Citizens United, a non-profit corporation made a movie about Hillary Clinton and wanted to buy air time to show it on some cable channel. The FEC said, "No, you can't do that. It's about Hillary, who is running for federal office. We don't allow corporations to publish speech about candidates right before an election." The Supreme Court said, "Yes, actually, the First Amendment says that laws can't discriminate against political speech. If they're allowed to air a movie about the Kardashians, they should be allowed to air a movie about Hillary Clinton as well." (Not a direct quote.)

The corrosive effect of special-interest money in politics is a huge problem, but you can see how it's challenging to limit people's ability to spend their own money spreading messages about politicians (as opposed to donating their money to campaigns) without running afoul of the Constitution. Any law that says, "You can make a movie about the Kardashians, but not about the Clintons" should be constitutionally DOA, IMO, which is what Citizens United said.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
That was Citizens United. The key distinction is between campaign contributions and independent expenditures.

Let's say you really dislike Hillary Clinton, and you want to help fund negative ads about her. One option is that you could donate money to her opponent's campaign, and her opponent will use the funds to create negative ads (or just blow it all on hats). You can do this to a limited extent if you are an individual, but you can't do it at all if you are a corporation or a union. Corporations are barred from contributing to federal election campaigns. This is perfectly constitutional because the Constitution doesn't provide a right to donate to campaigns.

Another option is to hire some actors and a director and make the ads yourself, and then buy a few spots during "America's Got Talent" to air the ads just before the election. You can do this if you are an individual, but if you are a corporation or a union, this was made illegal by McCain-Feingold. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that that part of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional because the First Amendment says you can't discriminate against certain speech based on its content -- especially not based on its political content. If people want to made ads or movies about politicians, they can do so free of censorship. Moreover, if people want to donate money to corporations or PACs for the purpose of making ads or movies about politicians, they can do that as well. The Constitution doesn't provide a right to donate to campaigns, but it does provide a right to free speech, even if the speech is about politicians. Corporations, unions, and other organizations (including PACs) can speak freely as long as they don't coordinate their activity with the campaigns themselves. (My understanding is that this isn't enforced very well, and plenty of PACs do coordinate to some extent with campaigns.)

In Citizens United itself, a non-profit corporation made a movie about Hillary Clinton and wanted to buy air time to show it on some cable channel. The FEC said, "No, you can't do that. It's about Hillary, who is running for federal office. We don't allow corporations to publish speech about candidates right before an election." The Supreme Court said, "Yes, actually, the First Amendment says that laws can't discriminate against political speech. If they're allowed to air a movie about the Kardashians, they should be allowed to air a movie about Hillary Clinton as well." (Not a direct quote.)

The corrosive effect of special-interest money in politics is a huge problem, but you can see how it's challenging to limit people's ability to spend their own money spreading messages about politicians (as opposed to donating their money to campaigns) without running afoul of the Constitution. Any law that says, "You can make a movie about the Kardashians, but not about the Clintons" should be constitutionally DOA, IMO, which is what Citizens United said.
Click to expand...
I now follow the distinctions you and jon_mx were making.  Thanks!  However, in practical terms, does this matter all that much?  CU allows whomever to donate to a PAC/Super PAC whether it's positive for the candidate or against the candidate and we all know the "collusion" part of this is great in text, but practically pointless since there is no real way to monitor that stipulation.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
I now follow the distinctions you and jon_mx were making.  Thanks!  However, in practical terms, does this matter all that much?  CU allows whomever to donate to a PAC/Super PAC whether it's positive for the candidate or against the candidate and we all know the "collusion" part of this is great in text, but practically pointless since there is no real way to monitor that stipulation.  
Click to expand...
There's not much of a practical difference between donating to a pro-Trump PAC and just donating to Trump's campaign. But there's a significant constitutional difference. The government can restrict donations to organizations on the basis of whether an organization is an election campaign or not. But if it tries to restrict donations to organizations on the basis of whether they will publish speech about the Kardashians or about the Clintons, that gets pretty dicey. There's a real challenge in doing something like that without violating the First Amendment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Commish said:
I now follow the distinctions you and jon_mx were making.  Thanks!  However, in practical terms, does this matter all that much?  CU allows whomever to donate to a PAC/Super PAC whether it's positive for the candidate or against the candidate and we all know the "collusion" part of this is great in text, but practically pointless since there is no real way to monitor that stipulation.  
Click to expand...
There's not much of a practical difference between donating to a pro-Trump PAC and just donating to Trump's campaign. But there's a significant constitutional difference. The government can restrict donations to organizations on the basis of whether an organization is an election campaign or not. But if it tries to restrict donations to organizations on the basis of whether they will publish speech about the Kardashians or the Clintons, that gets pretty dicey. There's a real challenge in doing something like that without violating the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
Which is why PACs and Super PACs exist in the first place, correct?  The linchpin that seems to be holding this whole thing together as far as distinctions go is that the campaigns and other organizations aren't in cahoots with one another.

 
Sinn Fein:

Evil is evil. It is folly to argue over the degrees.
Click to expand...
I used this same logic to get my uber-religious girlfriend to have sex in high school.

"Come on baby, all sins are equal. In God's eyes, it doesn't matter if we do oral or go all the way."

 
While Trump is probably enough to make sure every Democrat and leaning Independent gets out to vote anyway, I just think Kaine doesn't help Clinton in any meaningful way and actually hurts her in women's issues which is obviously a main differentiator for her. I also just don't see him as strong in the "attack dog" role. I think he'd get chewed up by Gingrich in a debate if that's the direction Trump goes.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
There's not much of a practical difference between donating to a pro-Trump PAC and just donating to Trump's campaign. But there's a significant constitutional difference. The government can restrict donations to organizations on the basis of whether an organization is an election campaign or not. But if it tries to restrict donations to organizations on the basis of whether they will publish speech about the Kardashians or about the Clintons, that gets pretty dicey. There's a real challenge in doing something like that without violating the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
If we can restrict certain gun rights in spite of the 2nd Amendment, then why can we not limit the timing of political speech under the 1st Amendment?

 
cstu said:
If we can restrict certain gun rights in spite of the 2nd Amendment, then why can we not limit the timing of political speech under the 1st Amendment?
Click to expand...
We can restrict the timing of speech, but without a really super good reason, we can't base the restrictions on the content of the speech. That's First Amendment 101.

 
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
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top