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 (12 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not. And perhaps I am the only one here left who doesn't think so (but I believe there are a few others.)

Hillary is a typical politician and she skirts the lines of what is ethical and legal at times. But I do not believe she crosses those lines, and I do not regard her as corrupt. 
:lmao:

 
"Chuck, I am not going to comment on the process. I have no knowledge, any timeline is entirely up to the department."

I have no knowledge - thats a no.  

As for the other one, why?  It sounded like Bill had a security detail, but not a staff with him.  The security detail wasn't going to disclose anything.  And Lynch's staff wasn't going to compound the problem by alerting Hillary's staff.  So it's either Bill told her directly or her staff found out through the media.  Considering how quickly this came out, it's entirely plausible that she found out from the news report.  


Edward Mejia Davis@TeddyDavisCNN


Sources tell CNN's Evan Perez: expectation is that there will be announcement of no charges in Clinton email probe w/in next two weeks or so

2:02 PM - 2 Jul 2016
- Now, who would know such a thing at that time?

(fyi checking out for a while :banned: thanks for the discussion)
 
PolitiFactVerified account @PolitiFact 2h2 hours ago

Trump wrong on claim that Hillary Clinton 'laundered' money to Bill
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/01/donald-trump/did-hillary-clinton-launder-millions-dollars-while/ 

Did Hillary Clinton launder millions of dollars while she was secretary of state? [...]

Trump claimed that Clinton used her role as secretary of state as a vehicle to funnel government money to her husband.

the email said. "Clinton's State Department provided $55.2 million in grants to Laureate Education from 2010-2012. Laureate thanked Bill for providing unbelievable access to the secretary of state by paying him off $16.5 million. This is yet another example of how Clinton treated the State Department as her own personal hedge fund, and sold out the American public to fund her lavish lifestyle." [...]

We decided to investigate Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton, who was secretary from 2009 through early 2013, "laundered" money to Laureate to pay off her husband’s salary. We ultimately found that there is zero evidence that Laureate received any money from the federal government while Clinton was at the State Department.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not. And perhaps I am the only one here left who doesn't think so (but I believe there are a few others.)

Hillary is a typical politician and she skirts the lines of what is ethical and legal at times. But I do not believe she crosses those lines, and I do not regard her as corrupt. 
So she plays in the grey area and then is super secretive about it (with private servers, aides and associates taking the fifth) and the American people are suppose to trust her?  When you are in grey areas you better be open and transparent about it.  She works for the public and should have to earn their trust.  It makes very little sense that people support her, but it is all about party and agenda.  

 
So she plays in the grey area and then is super secretive about it (with private servers, aides and associates taking the fifth) and the American people are suppose to trust her?  When you are in grey areas you better be open and transparent about it.  She works for the public and should have to earn their trust.  It makes very little sense that people support her, but it is all about party and agenda.  
I trust her to be a typical politician.

 
So she plays in the grey area and then is super secretive about it (with private servers, aides and associates taking the fifth) and the American people are suppose to trust her?  When you are in grey areas you better be open and transparent about it.  She works for the public and should have to earn their trust.  It makes very little sense that people support her, but it is all about party and agenda.  
It's her or Trump.  When faced with that choice her trustworthiness issues fade into the background. 

 
So she plays in the grey area and then is super secretive about it (with private servers, aides and associates taking the fifth) and the American people are suppose to trust her?  When you are in grey areas you better be open and transparent about it.  She works for the public and should have to earn their trust.  It makes very little sense that people support her, but it is all about party and agenda.  
about the only reason anyone who identifies as a republican could support Trump

 
It's her or Trump.  When faced with that choice her trustworthiness issues fade into the background. 
Exactly. She does have issues (which I can live with), yet Trump has multiple number of issues which disqualify him from being President. It is as simple as that 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's her or Trump.  When faced with that choice her trustworthiness issues fade into the background. 
So corruption isn't a disqualifier for you concerning Hillary?  Wow.

So I guess it's safe to say that HRC supporters are 100% for corruption, lying and general shadiness bordering on criminality.  That's fine. However, you NEVER get to complain about any else with those same qualities either.

So the next time I hear a lefty complain about corruption (corporate, government or otherwise) I will laugh in your face and say, "Yeah, that's funny.  Remember when you voted for Hillary?".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
So corruption isn't a disqualifier for you concerning Hillary?  Wow.
Corrupt < Petulant <<< Ignorant <<<<<<<< Bigoted <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Stupid

That's the disqualification scale.  So yes, her corruption pales in comparison to Trump's various traits.  

 
MaxThreshold said:
So corruption isn't a disqualifier for you concerning Hillary?  Wow.

So I guess it's safe to say that HRC supporters are 100% for corruption, lying and general shadiness bordering on criminality.  That's fine. However, you NEVER get to complain about any else with those same qualities either.

So the next time I hear a lefty complain about corruption (corporate, government or otherwise) I will laugh in your face and say, "Yeah, that's funny.  Remember when you voted for Hillary?".
I just dont find Trump to have any upperhand regarding shadiness or lying.  And both are better then Cruz. Imagine that.

 
MaxThreshold said:
So corruption isn't a disqualifier for you concerning Hillary?  Wow.

So I guess it's safe to say that HRC supporters are 100% for corruption, lying and general shadiness bordering on criminality.  That's fine. However, you NEVER get to complain about any else with those same qualities either.

So the next time I hear a lefty complain about corruption (corporate, government or otherwise) I will laugh in your face and say, "Yeah, that's funny.  Remember when you voted for Hillary?".
:lol:

 
MaxThreshold said:
So the next time I hear a lefty complain about corruption (corporate, government or otherwise) I will laugh in your face and say, "Yeah, that's funny.  Remember when you voted for Hillary?".
There's nothing funny about this choice for president.   

 
Those of you that are certain that she is corrupt- doesn't it bother you at all that one after another accusation against her turns out to be false? (Like the one squistion just linked that Politifact debunked). Doesn't this give you pause? 

 
In this entire thread, literally two people have this position.  Two.  
When you count, what number did you start with?  Tim and Squisloc for sure but the guy that started the integrity comments counts too.  That's 3 without even looking but many others get really defensive of Clinton the second her integrity gets questioned; not just in relation to Trump.

 
Those of you that are certain that she is corrupt- doesn't it bother you at all that one after another accusation against her turns out to be false? (Like the one squistion just linked that Politifact debunked). Doesn't this give you pause? 
Doesn't it bother you that scandal always seems to find her and Bill? Would you just consider for one moment - where there is smoke there is fire?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doesn't it bother you that scandal always seems to find her and Bill? Would you just consider for one momant - where there is smoke there is fire?
In Bill and Hillary's case, where there is smoke, there is a republican playing with matches.

 
Hillary's got some trust issues, probably a touch of corruption, certainly hard to believe everything she says at times.  She still the most qualified Presidential candidate we've seen in a long time, has credibility, experience and the temperament to handle all parts of the job of President and is by far the best candidate this year. This is about as objective as you can be if you survey most people, especially media people plugged into politics. 

Not sure why it always has to be all or nothing within these threads. Go out on your decks and enjoy a beer and a hot dog for a few hours mates. It's a holiday weekend :banned:

 
Hillary's got some trust issues, probably a touch of corruption, certainly hard to believe everything she says at times.  She still the most qualified Presidential candidate we've seen in a long time, has credibility, experience and the temperament to handle all parts of the job of President and is by far the best candidate this year. This is about as objective as you can be if you survey most people, especially media people plugged into politics. 

Not sure why it always has to be all or nothing within these threads. Go out on your decks and enjoy a beer and a hot dog for a few hours mates. It's a holiday weekend :banned:
TTPOD

 
Those of you that are certain that she is corrupt- doesn't it bother you at all that one after another accusation against her turns out to be false? (Like the one squistion just linked that Politifact debunked). Doesn't this give you pause? 
There are plenty of evidence that the Clintons are corrupt but you'll say Hillary is more innocent than a baby even if she's caught red handed.  No, it doesn't give me pause because we know you've been living in an alternate realty for quite some time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

 
Hillary's got some trust issues, probably a touch of corruption, certainly hard to believe everything she says at times.  She still the most qualified Presidential candidate we've seen in a long time, has credibility, experience and the temperament to handle all parts of the job of President and is by far the best candidate this year. This is about as objective as you can be if you survey most people, especially media people plugged into politics. 

Not sure why it always has to be all or nothing within these threads. Go out on your decks and enjoy a beer and a hot dog for a few hours mates. It's a holiday weekend :banned:
Yes, alcohol will numb your conscience when you vote to be Hillary's accomplice.

 
Doesn't it bother you that scandal always seems to find her and Bill? Would you just consider for one moment - where there is smoke there is fire?
That's way more of a bother of the entire Republican Party. An entire decade of pure conservative scandal crap in the 90s.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those of you that are certain that she is corrupt- doesn't it bother you at all that one after another accusation against her turns out to be false? (Like the one squistion just linked that Politifact debunked). Doesn't this give you pause? 
The reason the corruption angle sticks to her so well is that she never, ever been able to clearly articulate WHY she wants to be president.  Trump articulates it very well in that he believes we need to change the culture of getting offended at everything and he strongly believe getting tough on immigration solves a lot of problems and that he can fix these things as president.  

I do not know why Hillary wants to be president other than she just wants to be president.  She wants the power just because.  And it is very easy to label a person like that as corrupt.

The vacuum on Hillary's resume is that she is not associated with fighting for a specific cause.  

 
I also think the "I'm with Hillary" slogan is terrible.  It actually highlights the fact that her campaign is about her and not something she is fighting for.

 
The difference in my opinion is that Hilary's corruption and shadiness has largely happened while she was public servant. I can't stomach that. 

 
Those of you that are certain that she is corrupt- doesn't it bother you at all that one after another accusation against her turns out to be false?
Just because the accusations are dismissed - or not "criminal" - doesn't make them false.  The accusations that she set up a private server for official business, that she deleted 30,000 emails, and that she lied about it all, are all very true accusations.

 
Just because the accusations are dismissed - or not "criminal" - doesn't make them false.  The accusations that she set up a private server for official business, that she deleted 30,000 emails, and that she lied about it all, are all very true accusations.
This, Tim.  This.  She is guilty of these things and has been exposed - regardless of charges.  

 
Those of you that are certain that she is corrupt- doesn't it bother you at all that one after another accusation against her turns out to be false? (Like the one squistion just linked that Politifact debunked). Doesn't this give you pause? 
Tim your argument for why the Clintons aren't corrupt reads like a shorthand for why most people think modern politics are corrupt. You think viewing business as a constituency is good. Most people Dem, Ind & GOP don't think that.

The Clintons will do this again because they are reckless and impulsive. The ultimate reason this happens repeatedly is they mix private and public and they think they won't get caught. At the bottom of all these events you have Hillary representing a bank regulated by her husband, Hillary taking a stock tip from an employee of a company regulated by her husband, maybe four different instances of hiding documents, and with the Foundation and Teneo taking money from (again) corporations they regulate. Over and over and over again. That's what they believe is fundamentally ok.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This, Tim.  This.  She is guilty of these things and has been exposed - regardless of charges.  
In the abstract, minus the accusations of tampering with classified information or accepting bribes to the Clinton Foundation in return for favors- why is setting up a private email system so bad? 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top