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 (13 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is a huge and significant difference between viewing big business as a constituency and corrupt behavior. Hillary is certainly "guilty" of the first, which you're correct I don't see as a bad thing. I don't believe she is guilty of corruption. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also regarding Mr Ham's accusation that she lied about her email server: there have been a few modifications in her story but for the most part it's been fairly consistent. If you're going to accuse her of lying about the emails, please come up with a concrete example. 

 
What gets me is why *we* all of us indies liberals conservatives progressives are unable to stop what is 4-8 years of dysfunctionalism straight ahead. 

Conservatives are soooo opposed to the Clintons but Bill Clinton was *the best conservative administration outside of Reagan. With Hillary's and Bill's record together you've got welfare reform, financial deregulation, anti crime bill, DADT, RFRA & DOMA, balanced budget, pro Iraq intervention, pro Libya invasion, pro Wall Street - find me a Republican with that track record today. Seriously.

Liberals/progs - I guess you get the USSC out of this. And big social wedge issues (what's left though?). However you have the most Wall Street embedded president since the 1920s awaiting you. I guess you can always *believe Hillary is telling the truth to you, right?

And you get played against each other. Triangulation. Third way,

The Bill/Lynch thing is a good example. At a minimum it was incredibly stupid. Was Lewinski any different? Creating a private server for all SOS documents? Representing a bank before a board appointed by your husband to ask for an illegal loan? Taking a stock tip from a corporate rep? Hiding documents in closets? Forget criminal: Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, as the day is long dumb.

Yes it will happen again.

ETA - and oh wait, why must we vote for them? Why because their old friend, a super wealthy eccentric soap salesman just happens to be running, creating the most polarizing race in American history! Well what choice do you have after all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
There is a huge and significant difference between viewing big business as a constituency and corrupt behavior. Hillary is certainly "guilty" of the first, which you're correct I don't see as a bad thing. I don't believe she is guilty of corruption. 
Click to expand...
I think most people disagree with you, liberal, con, and in between. The people are the constituency.

 
John Bender said:
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:
Click to expand...
Get that passport yet?  :thumbup:

 
Riversco said:
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.  
Click to expand...
Please articulate why George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Barack Obama wanted to be President.  

This is a standard we've rarely applied to Presidential politics. 

Besides, the why behind Trump is ego.  If candy for everyone got as much traction as building a wall, that would be his main message.  

 
timschochet said:
Also regarding Mr Ham's accusation that she lied about her email server: there have been a few modifications in her story but for the most part it's been fairly consistent. If you're going to accuse her of lying about the emails, please come up with a concrete example. 
Click to expand...
"There was never any classified information!"  > "Never sent or received information that was marked classified" > "Well, yeah...  But...  Never intended to harm national security."

"My legal team reviewed my emails and determined what was personal" > "a single aide did" > [a bunch of emails that smelled bad were held back]

"I set up the sever as a mean of convenience, not to hide records and defy policy"

And so on.

 
Last edited:
bueno said:
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?
Click to expand...
Conservative media and politicians drumming up fake scandals is on them, not the Clintons. Of course they know you guys will lap it up regardless of the facts, and then when it's proven false you'll just ignore the results and move onto the next conspiracy theory. 

If anyone should be annoyed, it should be conservative consumers of conservative media.  You guys are marks, and their are a ton of peeps in conservative media getting rich off of exploiting your gullibility.  

 
Restating that my fundamental belief is that the representatives we elect in this country are our employees.  We should be able to audit their behavior and hold them accountable - even if for national security reasons everything cannot be public.  

If you believe as I do, then you revile anyone who jockeys for more opacity and who lies and lawyers every detail as a strategy to avoid transparency, and hide the nature of their financial relationships.  I do not want to create the conditions for embezzlement or ambiguity in how I monitor the state of my business.  And so I demand controls and the right to vet the basic honesty of my executives.

I would never be okay with my employees double dipping while in my employ.  I would expect to own their IP and the majority of the fruits of their labor while they were under contract.  

So pretty much eveything the Clintons do, their entire operating model, is antithetical to the relationship I want from my politicians.  They are sneaky, duplicitous and self-serving.  Not good hires.

 
Last edited:
tommyGunZ said:
Conservative media and politicians drumming up fake scandals is on them, not the Clintons. Of course they know you guys will lap it up regardless of the facts, and then when it's proven false you'll just ignore the results and move onto the next conspiracy theory. 

If anyone should be annoyed, it should be conservative consumers of conservative media.  You guys are marks, and their are a ton of peeps in conservative media getting rich off of exploiting your gullibility.  
Click to expand...
Wow.  This is really something coming from the guy that constantly spews DNC talking points - no questions asked.  You are the epitome of the lapdog.  The reason HRC is where she is IS because of sycophants like you covering her and making up excuses at every turn.

 
timschochet said:
Also regarding Mr Ham's accusation that she lied about her email server: there have been a few modifications in her story but for the most part it's been fairly consistent. If you're going to accuse her of lying about the emails, please come up with a concrete example. 
Click to expand...
Wow. It's not lying - it's modifying. I can't believe you believe your own bs sometimes.

 
Another reason why I dislike the Clintons and their acolytes so much: can you believe Reich pulls an editorial like this for Independence Day? Any other day, I might agree with him, at least partially. But his timing - on a weekend when we should all be feeling good about ourselves. Well it just pissed me off.

Opinion

The two types of patriotism


By Robert Reich

We hear a lot about patriotism, especially around the Fourth of July. But in 2016, we’re hearing about two very different types of patriotism. One is an inclusive patriotism that binds us together. The other is an exclusive patriotism that keeps others out.

Through most of our history we’ve understood patriotism the first way. We’ve celebrated the values and ideals we share in common: democracy, equal opportunity, freedom, tolerance and generosity.

We’ve recognized these as aspirations to which we recommit ourselves on the Fourth of July.

This inclusive patriotism prides itself on giving hope and refuge to those around the world who are most desperate — as memorialized in Emma Lazarus’ famous lines engraved on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

By contrast, we’re now hearing a strident, exclusive patriotism. It asserts a unique and superior “Americanism” that’s determined to exclude others beyond our borders.

Donald Trump famously wants to ban all Muslims from coming to America, and to build a wall along the Mexican border to keep out Mexicans.

Exclusive patriotism tells us to fear foreign terrorists in our midst — even though almost every terrorist attack since 9/11 has been perpetrated by American citizens or holders of green cards living here for a decade or more.

Exclusive patriotism is not welcoming or generous. Since the war in Syria began in 2011, we’ve allowed in only 3,127 out of the more than 4 million refugees who have fled that nation.


Republicans in Congress reacted to the Orlando massacre with a proposal to ban all refugees to the United States indefinitely. Rep. Brian Babin of Texas wants to place “an immediate moratorium on all refugee resettlement programs ... to keep America safe and defend our national security.”

With El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua convulsed in drug-related violence, thousands of unaccompanied children and nearly as many mothers and children have fled northward. But rather than welcome them, we’ve detained them at the border and told others contemplating the journey to stay home.

Another difference: Inclusive patriotism instructs us to join together for the common good.

We’ve understood this to require mutual sacrifice — from frontier settlers who helped build one another’s barns, to neighbors who volunteered for the local fire department, to towns and cities that sent off their boys to fight wars for the good of all.

Such patriotism requires taking on a fair share of the burdens of keeping America going — including a willingness to pay taxes.

But the strident voices of exclusive patriotism tell us that no sacrifice should be required, especially by the well-off.

Exclusive patriotism celebrates the acquisitive individual and lone entrepreneur. It tells us that taxes on the wealthy slow economic growth and deter innovation.

Trump wants to reduce the highest income tax rate to 25 percent from today’s 39.6 percent. No matter that this would result in higher deficits or cuts in Social Security, Medicare and programs for the poor. They’re supposedly good for growth.

A third difference: Inclusive patriotism has always sought to protect our democracy — defending the right to vote and seeking to ensure that more Americans are heard.

But the new voices of exclusive patriotism seem not to care about democracy. They’re willing to inundate it with big money that buys off politicians, and they don’t seem to mind when politicians create gerrymandered districts that suppress the votes of minorities or erect roadblocks to voting such as stringent voter ID requirements.

Finally, inclusive patriotism doesn’t pander to divisiveness, as does the alternative patriotism that focuses on who “doesn’t belong” because of racial or religious or ethnic differences. Inclusive patriotism isn’t homophobic or sexist or racist.

To the contrary, inclusive patriotism confirms and strengthens the “we” in “we the people of the United States.”

So will it be inclusive or exclusive patriotism? A celebration of “us” or contempt for “them”?

Inclusive patriotism is our national creed. It is born of hope. Mean-spirited, exclusive patriotism is new to our shores. It is born of fear.

Let us hope that this Fourth of July and in the months and years ahead we choose inclusion over exclusion, hope over fear.

© 2016 By Robert Reich
Click to expand...
What a ####. Way to try to bring the country together.

 
bueno said:
Wow. It's not lying - it's modifying. I can't believe you believe your own bs sometimes.
Click to expand...
Isn't the core of this whether or not she mishandled classified information?  She's been pretty consistent that she did not.  And if it turns out she was using secure channels when she was supposed to, then her lies are around an issue that's fairly unimportant.  

 
timschochet said:
Also regarding Mr Ham's accusation that she lied about her email server: there have been a few modifications in her story but for the most part it's been fairly consistent. If you're going to accuse her of lying about the emails, please come up with a concrete example. 
Click to expand...
Tim you purposefully prefer ignorance on this subject.

 
dparker713 said:
Please articulate why George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Barack Obama wanted to be President.  

This is a standard we've rarely applied to Presidential politics. 

Besides, the why behind Trump is ego.  If candy for everyone got as much traction as building a wall, that would be his main message.  
Click to expand...
It killed Ted Kennedy's chances when he couldn't answer it. Bush Sr. had problems with "the vision thing." - Against any other candidate it would be a bigger problem for Hillary. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno said:
Another reason why I dislike the Clintons and their acolytes so much: can you believe Reich pulls an editorial like this for Independence Day? Any other day, I might agree with him, at least partially. But his timing - on a weekend when we should all be feeling good about ourselves. Well it just pissed me off.

What a ####. Way to try to bring the country together.
Click to expand...
Which days are we supposed to let bigotry and xenophobia slide?  Is there a calendar?  Is it all national holidays, or only the really patriotic ones?  What about Christmas and Easter?  Super Bowl Sunday?

 
dparker713 said:
Which days are we supposed to let bigotry and xenophobia slide?  Is there a calendar?  Is it all national holidays, or only the really patriotic ones?  What about Christmas and Easter?  Super Bowl Sunday?
Click to expand...
Those would be good days just to be an American rather than a divisive American, yes.

 
The racial language and kooky concepts mask some very real similarities between Hillary and Trump. I don't see Trump as being classical conservative on abortion, gun control, welfare. I think historically he's been a liberal in these things and IMO his personal beliefs fall that way.

He obviously is ok with overt identity politics.

He & Hillary both want to see the 1st Amendment amended or reinterpreted, both as to actual speech and protection of religious liberties... though obviously in different ways.

 
Another reason Hillary is bad for America, even if she were honest...  We are in a major state of decline. When you travel outside of the U.S., many parts of the world have caught up, and many have passed us right by.  We ought not to be content with maintaining a status quo and protecting wealth of those who already have it.  As wealth transitions from West to East and technology commoditizes the heart of the U.S. Economy (knowledge worker), the results of Clinton status quo politics will be more degradation and erosion of the Middle Class.  Things may get dire -- though Clintons really won't give a ####, because they'll further distance themselves from the herd of fellow millionaires, which is all they care about.  

4 or 8 years of treading water in terms of what matters: education, technology, trade...  And we're just an also ran county.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Not really, he had a legit shot at beating Carter twice, I can't remember if it was 76 or 80 but he was asked why he wanted to be president and he stammered through the response.
Click to expand...
It was 80.  That wasn't good, but Chappaquiddick resurfaced during that campaign, as it should have.  Plus the Iranian hostage situation made it hard to get people behind primarying the sitting president.

 
The way i see it, The Clintons are squeeky clean aside from fibbing about marital infidelity. Their enemies continue to spend countless dollars investigating, and yet we haven't seen any convictions.

Forthright says I.

Ken Starr covering up sexual assaults. That should be investigated.

 
crnerblitz said:
The way i see it, The Clintons are squeeky clean aside from fibbing about marital infidelity. Their enemies continue to spend countless dollars investigating, and yet we haven't seen any convictions.

Forthright says I.

Ken Starr covering up sexual assaults. That should be investigated.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing this is a joke, right?  No logical thinking human being believes this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry Bueno, I want to be divisive about bigotry. I want to be unforgiving about xenophobia. Those don't represent the America I believe in. 

Reich's piece was spot on IMO. 

 
timschochet said:
Sorry Bueno, I want to be divisive about bigotry. I want to be unforgiving about xenophobia. Those don't represent the America I believe in. 

Reich's piece was spot on IMO. 
Click to expand...
But I am objecting to his timing. Lay off it for a day - start the hate mail on Tuesday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
Another reason Hillary is bad for America, even if she were honest...  We are in a major state of decline. When you travel outside of the U.S., many parts of the world have caught up, and many have passed us right by.  We ought not to be content with maintaining a status quo and protecting wealth of those who already have it.  As wealth transitions from West to East and technology commoditizes the heart of the U.S. Economy (knowledge worker), the results of Clinton status quo politics will be more degradation and erosion of the Middle Class.  Things may get dire -- though Clintons really won't give a ####, because they'll further distance themselves from the herd of fellow millionaires, which is all they care about.  

4 or 8 years of treading water in terms of what matters: education, technology, trade...  And we're just an also ran county.  
Click to expand...
Rome was a great empire and corruption contributed to its decline.  It boggles my mind when I hear people say it's okay to elect someone who is corrupt.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Another reason Hillary is bad for America, even if she were honest...  We are in a major state of decline. When you travel outside of the U.S., many parts of the world have caught up, and many have passed us right by.  We ought not to be content with maintaining a status quo and protecting wealth of those who already have it.  As wealth transitions from West to East and technology commoditizes the heart of the U.S. Economy (knowledge worker), the results of Clinton status quo politics will be more degradation and erosion of the Middle Class.  Things may get dire -- though Clintons really won't give a ####, because they'll further distance themselves from the herd of fellow millionaires, which is all they care about.  

4 or 8 years of treading water in terms of what matters: education, technology, trade...  And we're just an also ran county.  
Click to expand...
This stuff may fly on a Brietbart board, but folks here are far too bright to buy this doomsday nonsense.  

 
‘President Hillary Clinton?’ She Wants Progress on Immigration and to Drink With G.O.P.


Should she win the presidency, Hillary Clinton would quickly try to find common ground with Republicans on an immigration overhaul and infrastructure spending, risking the wrath of liberals who would like nothing more than to twist the knife in a wounded opposition party.

In her first 100 days, she would also tap women to make up half of her cabinet in hopes of bringing a new tone and collaborative sensibility to Washington, while also looking past Wall Street to places like Silicon Valley for talent — perhaps wooing Sheryl Sandberg from Facebook, and maybe asking Tim Cook from Apple to become the first openly gay cabinet secretary.

...

Mrs. Clinton would even schmooze differently than the past few presidents have. Not one to do business over golf or basketball, she would bring back the intimate style of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Lyndon B. Johnson, negotiating over adult beverages. Picture a steady stream of senators, congressmen and other leaders raising a glass and talking policy in the Oval Office with her and her likely chief of staff, John D. Podesta, as her husband pops in with a quick thought or a disarming compliment.

Deeply confident that she would perform better as the president than as a political candidate, Mrs. Clinton wants to pursue a whole new approach at the White House to try to break through years of partisan gridlock, according to a dozen campaign advisers and allies who described her goals and outlook. From policy goals and personnel to her instinct for patiently cultivating the enemy, Mrs. Clinton thinks she would be a better dealmaker than President Obama if she finds willing partners on the other side.

...
Click to expand...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-president.html?referer=

- Founded the DLC, folks. Governed in 70s-90s Arkansas.

- Corporate cabinet.

- Yellow dogs and GOP welcome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All signs indicate to her being a great President IMO.

Foreign policy? She can be tough as nails on areas that support or allow islamic extremism to exist. I honestly thing she'll do great at keeping diplomatic relationships while still being a tough MF'er on foreign policies where needed. I wouldn't #### with her.

Economy? Just do what Bill did :shrug:  things were good. Control the Fed - let's not get crazy with tax raises (and I don't believe she will)

Gun control? I'm sure it'll be much of the same - hopefully slightly tighter restrictions without taking away the 2nd amendment completely - but allowing it to be a bit more interpretive. 

SC Justices? It's time we got another liberal or two in there. Abortion stances by conservatives are pretty ridiculous in this day and age. 

Healthcare? Obamacare was a joke...needs to be reworked - she's got the skills to do it.

honestly couldnt think of a better leader for us right now.  Wish I could vote 1000 times instead of once. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Bender said:
All signs indicate to her being a great President IMO.

Foreign policy? She can tough as nails on areas that support or allow islamic extremism to exist

Economy? Just do what Bill did :shrug:  things were good. Control the Fed - let's not get crazy with tax raises (and I don't believe she will)

Gun control? I'm sure it'll be much of the same - hopefully slightly tighter restrictions without taking away the 2nd amendment completely - but allowing it to be a bit more interpretive. 

SC Justices? It's time we got another liberal or two in there. Abortion stances by conservatives are pretty ridiculous in this day and age. 

Healthcare? Obamacare was a joke...needs to be reworked - she's got the skills to do it.

honestly couldnt think of a better leader for us right now.
Click to expand...
So:

- Republican

- Republican

- Liberal

- Liberal

- Yellow Dog / Mod Republican.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
258K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 13 (members: 0, guests: 13)
Back
Top