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 (10 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
cobalt_27 said:
FWIW, I've decided over the past week I can't vote for Hillary.  No matter how awful Trump is, I'm only rewarding Hillary's behavior and the smugness of the DNC by giving her a vote, and I think rewarding that behavior has worse long term consequences than the damage Trump would cause over 4 years.

I'm voting Johnson.  Haven't felt this good all election season.
Click to expand...
How naive.

 
Mr. Ham said:
This is very similar to my line of thought, with one exception.  I'm check mated.  Trump really is that bad and I have to pull the Not Trump lever most likely to lead to his ouster.  I hate that it's come to this.  

Given that most Americans revile these candidates, I'd like to see a grassroots movement to install special checks and balances, accountability and penalties in the incoming President.  Unprecedented clipping of wings to ensure the Constitution and laws are followed.  Hint:  They won't be otherwise with these goons.
Click to expand...
That is hardly a given.  Revile is much stronger than unfavorable.  And even though some revile one, they're generally fine with the other.  The amount of people that revile both would be fairly small.

You're mostly in an echo chamber on this site.

 
bueno said:
She is probably better than Trump, which means she might be able to get things done - I sometines would rather have someone who can't get things done
Click to expand...
The President can act unilaterally.  So the President can always get some things done.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
That's cool. I'm sure there are some conservatives who are happy with Nixon's presidency. I think it was a disaster and an embarrassment regardless of his appointments. I think Hillary will make Nixon look like a rank amateur. I have a feeling whoever her VP pick is will be her Ford and will eventually give her a pardon.
Click to expand...
Anyone claiming Nixon's presidency was a complete disaster is lying to themselves.  He accomplished some very beneficial things for the US.

 
MaxThreshold said:
Every time she opens her mouth she lies.   The fact that you WON'T see that is because you're so far up her butt you can see what she had for dinner last night.  

But in the real world, we know better.  When Hillary's lips move you can be guaranteed another lie was born.  THAT, my squishy friend, is undeniable fact.
Click to expand...
Fact checkers rated her the most honest candidate in the primaries.  So, no.  Not an undeniable fact.  

 
timschochet said:
Can you provide a specific quote in which she lied? And again, how would you go about proving this lie? 
Click to expand...
Tim, I'm not going to play this game with you.  You know the relevant quotes, you're not this much of an idiot.  I've already conceded that the inquiry is foolish.

 
Politician Spock said:
Managing classified information may not be the purpose of the job of SoS, but it is a fundamental requirement of the job. She failed. 
Click to expand...
Is it a requirement to notice (c) in a few paragraphs down in the body of an email chain of multiple forwarded/replied messages next to all of the <<<<<<<<> in 3 out of 30,000 emails when there is no indication of classification in the subject heading or top of the email?

 
msommer said:
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on in this thread (and in most other political threads) - on both sides of every argument

I found this article interesting

Why we close our ears to the facts
Click to expand...
Not any discussion on the Chilcot Report around here. I don't know that's a good topic for Hillary either. (And yeah). The old historical example was Bay of Pigs. - Hillary has her advocates though, it's just the facts of her career plainly don't favor her. The tendency is to recite campaign positions and pronouncements, there's no lack of that. The VRWC claim inoculates Hillary from criticism. So does Trump's presence on the other side. typically when good points are made about Hillary they are Republicanish accomplishments/virtues (TPP, support for anticrime legislation, etc,). - Considering that the country is almost certainly moving forward with Hillary as president, and has already picked her as nominee, well who's really 'not listening'?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
Anyone claiming Nixon's presidency was a complete disaster is lying to themselves.  He accomplished some very beneficial things for the US.
Click to expand...
Well I said "Disaster" not "complete disaster". In other words, I think Watergate overshadows his accomplishments. We can agree to disagree but I'm certainly not lying to myself about Nixon - he's not that important to me. I just think it's an example of what we're headed for with Hillary: she may accomplish something but the corruption (and the cover ups) will be what she is remembered for imo.

 
dparker713 said:
Fact checkers rated her the most honest candidate in the primaries.  So, no.  Not an undeniable fact.  
Click to expand...
The public thinks by a 56-35 count that she should be indicted. And hey she's winning.

Maybe Democrats need to learn to accept that Hillary is running an almost unopposed election.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Not unexpected. Which is why I wrote last week that the timing was perfect for her campaign. She'll have a bad 2-3 weeks, if that, and then it will be forgotten by the voters. 

If Comey had made his announcement in October she could have been in real trouble. 
Click to expand...
She's running against someone who didn't run any ads in June while she ran $20 million dollars worth. Have a drink and relax.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
I suspect Rs will pull this staffing stuff together before November and it won't have any impact on the election, but if not it's possible the polls underestimate Clinton's strength a bit.

I'm not really convinced it's true yet, but there's some evidence supporting that possibility in the polling.  Republicans typically improve their standing in the polls when you subset registered voters to include only likely voters, but there have been some polls this year where Dems have actually improved their results among likely voters vs registereds.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
I suspect Rs will pull this together before November and it won't have any impact on the election, but if not it's possible the polls underestimate Clinton's strength a bit.

I'm not really convinced it's true yet, but there's some evidence supporting that possibility in the polling.  Republicans typically improve their standing in the polls when you subset registered voters to include only likely voters, but there have been some polls this year where Dems have actually improved their results among likely voters vs registereds.
Click to expand...
You're talking about normal elections.

Let's list the things that Trump is doing which are not typical:

- No fundraising until July. Romney picked up more in a week than Trump has gotten to date.

- Possible challenge at the convention. Failing that, the party is split.

- No media arm.

- Again: Minuscule fundraising. -> Take Romney, subtract $1 billion and occasionally moderate positions on things like race.

- No advertising into July.

- Completely off message. Like completely. Like Hillary does something bad or negative, Trump does something bad/negative.

- Highest unfavorable of all time (albeit neck and neck with we know who) in combination with near total name recognition.

- No ground game.

- No data operation.

- Zero real policy points.

- Tons of flaws: foundation, taxes, corporate connections, foreign money. I'm talking Trump here.

- Campaign walks the line of illegality in spending and soliciting.

Take those elements, throw them into Romney and McCain results, add in changing demographics, and what do you have?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not saying Trump will win, just that my guess is the polling will capture the results pretty well despite all that stuff.  Maybe Clinton outperforms by a little bit, and giving away even 1% is campaign malpractice, but I don't think the gap between the polls and the results will be huge.  

 
Behind a Bill Clinton speaking engagement: A $1,400 hotel phone bill and $700 dinner for two


...

Contracts and internal emails connected to half a dozen speeches Clinton gave in the Bay Area soon after departing the White House offer a glimpse into the unusual demands and outsize expense reports associated with bringing him to town. The events took place as part of a speaker series sponsored by the Foothill Deanza Community College District, another by UC Davis and another run by a for-profit firm. The community college hosted him again in 2012. The documents became public through an open-records request filed by the Republican National Committee amid a presidential race in which the lucrative speaking fees paid to the Clintons are being closely examined.  

They show a former president who deftly avoided discussing past scandals by refusing questions that were not screened by his staff in advance. There is the nearly $1,400 bill for a day’s worth of phone calls from San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel and the $700 dinner for two. And they also show that an agency representing Clinton continued to pursue a deal with an event host who emailed a racist remark about audiences and jokingly referred to the male aides Clinton traveled with as his mistresses.

...

Despite the soaring costs, event organizers say the speeches did not drain the budgets of the community colleges or university, which used a combination of ticket revenue and scaling back their spending on other speakers and performers to keep Clinton from breaking the bank. Those interviewed by The Times say they have no regrets about bringing Clinton to their audiences.

But they may have some lingering heartburn.

Henning worked with UC Davis and an entrepreneur named Bruce Vogel, who ran another speaker series in the Bay Area, to hire Clinton for consecutive events each group held independently in 2002. Henning and Vogel seemed to be deeply frustrated as they tried to negotiate with Clinton’s people over what questions would be acceptable to ask him while he was on stage.

“Terrible, and terribly general,” is how Vogel described some queries proposed by the former president’s staff, which included the question: “Is the world a better place now than when you entered politics, with a view to making a difference?”

“I’m almost embarrassed to ask them,” Vogel wrote in an email. Henning had warned in a separate message: “People will fall asleep.”

Apparently, even Clinton agreed. After a lackluster question-and-answer exchange at Henning’s first event, the former president encouraged him to ask some tougher questions the next night.

Clinton aides involved with the events at the time said they insisted on screening questions to protect the integrity of a former president at unfamiliar venues controlled by unknown hosts. There was a risk, one said, of it becoming a “circus act” if too much was left to chance.

Henning asked Clinton about his pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, who had been indicted in one of the biggest tax evasion cases in history.

As Clinton was delivering a fiery response, according to Henning’s emails, Clinton advisor Doug Band “came out on to the stage, whacked me on the back and said, ‘Get him off the stage; he is dying out there.’”
The negotiations that led to Clinton’s speeches in California would at time take bizarre turns. Vogel inserted a brief racist rant into one of his negotiating emails. “Our audiences are white,” he wrote to the Harry Walker Agency in January of 2001; “some of them actually have morals/ethics.”

He also mockingly referred to Band and another Clinton aide who would be traveling with him as “monica, monica,” a reference to Clinton’s philandering with Monica Lewinsky. The Harry Walker Agency, which represent Bill and Hillary Clinton, did not let any of it interfere with closing a deal.
...... Clinton would demand in his contract to be shuttled by private jet from San Francisco to UC Davis, where he spoke at the Mondavi Center. The center had to appeal to its network of donors to find someone able to fly him the 70 miles, something it had never done and hasn’t since. “That is the one and only time,” said Jeremy Ganter, director of programming at the Mondavi Center.

The center also found itself, along with the other event hosts on that Clinton swing, in the awkward position of having to pay some oddly large expenses.

Fearful that their costs would get out of hand, the event organizers worked with the Fairmont to discreetly view the charges being rung up by Clinton and his entourage on each of the five days they stayed there. Assurances from the Harry Walker Agency that they were “reasonable expenses for a president traveling on the road for week” and that “we have never had a client complain” provided little comfort to the event hosts.

They ultimately got socked with the $1,400 hotel phone bill and $700 dinner for two.

There were other worries, too, like a limo ride. Who would the president ride with? It so happened that one of the Mondavi Center’s big donors, Angelo Tsakopoulas, is also a whale for the Democrats, so his name emerged. Organizers could not recall whether that limo ride happened.  

Then, there were the people to keep away from Clinton. “Are there any restrictions of who introduces him at the lecture?” said notes sent around by UC Davis organizers. There was only one name listed, that of the unpopular governor who within a year would find himself recalled from office: “Gray Davis.”
Click to expand...
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-bill-clinton-speeches-20160711-snap-story.html?campaign_id=A100&campaign_type=Email

- Stick him in the limo with the whale.

- $120K plus "extras" from a community college.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Leeroy Jenkins said:
Is it a requirement to notice (c) in a few paragraphs down in the body of an email chain of multiple forwarded/replied messages next to all of the <<<<<<<<> in 3 out of 30,000 emails when there is no indication of classification in the subject heading or top of the email?
Click to expand...
Managing classified information is more than just looking for markings on emails. If the information is classified, it is classified regardless of whether the person communicating it to you marked it classified or not. Really the only reason for the markings on emails is so that people receiving emails on the secure government network don't assume everything they get on the secure government network is classified. It's not so emails with classified info can be identified when sent on non-secure non-government networks. Classified info should never be sent using non-secure government networks, let alone non-government networks. 

 
timschochet said:
Saints, I think she lied, or at least misled people regarding the emails. I have stated that several times now. 

But perjury is a higher standard. I don't believe she has said anything, ever, which rises to the standard of perjury. If you disagree, please provide the evidence. 
Click to expand...
So the Clintons are resting on what the definition of "lie" is. 

Shocking.  :coffee:

 
timschochet said:
Saints, I think she lied, or at least misled people regarding the emails. I have stated that several times now. 

But perjury is a higher standard. I don't believe she has said anything, ever, which rises to the standard of perjury. If you disagree, please provide the evidence. 
Click to expand...
Go look back at my response to MT. However my point to you has to be the simultaneous avoiding knowledge of all facts combined with wildly extreme statements challenging others who have been looking at the facts to lay out a case for you. Do your homework, make your own case.

 
Hilary's lead has dropped to 3 points now. It's been truly a masterful and bold campaign by trump. Trumps next move is to tap meet as his veep. The purpose of newt is bait. Trump wants to bait democrats into hysterically attacking newt. The goal is to remind voters that democrats did this to palin, bush, and also newt. This is a way of discrediting the democrats by recasting them as a party that does this no matter who the nominee or leader is. Democrats will think they are scoring points by attacking newt when they are just helping trump make his case. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Go look back at my response to MT. However my point to you has to be the simultaneous avoiding knowledge of all facts combined with wildly extreme statements challenging others who have been looking at the facts to lay out a case for you. Do your homework, make your own case.
Click to expand...
I don't need to. Nobody has responded to my challenge, because as squistion has pointed out, they can't. There is no case for prosecuting Hillary Clinton. But that doesn't stop people from repeating it. And sadly now 50% of the American public believes she committed some indictable crime as well. They should have followed up that question with: "What should Hillary be indicted for?" The result of that poll would be hilarious, I'm betting. 

 
timschochet said:
I don't need to. Nobody has responded to my challenge, because as squistion has pointed out, they can't. There is no case for prosecuting Hillary Clinton. But that doesn't stop people from repeating it. And sadly now 50% of the American public believes she committed some indictable crime as well. They should have followed up that question with: "What should Hillary be indicted for?" The result of that poll would be hilarious, I'm betting. 
Click to expand...
Good. SOS really.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trumps not only trying to win but he's trying redefine the democrat party. Seems to be working too. Guys has huge balls. Gotta give him that. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Riversco said:
Trumps not only trying to win but he's trying redefine the democrat party. Seems to be working too. Guys has huge balls. Gotta give him that. 
Click to expand...
Trump is running *** 35 points behind Romney with white women right now.

He's losing married white women, something the GOP hasn't lost since WW2.

Do the math.

 
Hillary ClintonVerified account ‏@HillaryClinton 6m6 minutes ago

$7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. So sorry Donald, if you’re watching, we’re not cutting the minimum wage, we’re raising the minimum wage.
 
squistion said:
Hillary ClintonVerified account ‏@HillaryClinton 6m6 minutes ago

$7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. So sorry Donald, if you’re watching, we’re not cutting the minimum wage, we’re raising the minimum wage.
Click to expand...
Minimum wage should be decided by the states. Not all areas have the same cost of living. I doubt someone could survive on $7.25 in New York City, but could (barely) in Spokane WA.

 
"Today I stand in front of you and pretend to care about the things that Bernie cares about!"

Applause

"I will pretend to care about these things as long as it takes to get your vote!"

Applause

 
Willie Neslon said:
"Today I stand in front of you and pretend to care about the things that Bernie cares about!"

Applause

"I will pretend to care about these things as long as it takes to get your vote!"

Applause
Click to expand...
"But that's not all.  In exactly four years, I will pretend to care about them even more!"

 
Willie Neslon said:
"Today I stand in front of you and pretend to care about the things that Bernie cares about!"

Applause

"I will pretend to care about these things as long as it takes to get your vote!"

Applause
Click to expand...
Clinton has always been a strong supporter of increasing the minimum wage and expanding health care coverage for low-income families and voted accordingly after winning a Senate seat, as I'm sure you know.  And she has a long record of working of other groups of disadvantaged groups who offered her little or nothing in terms of advancing her career, including children and women's groups (who support her over male candidates anyway), as I'm sure you also know. And she's always had far more in common with Sanders' platform than Trump, as I'm sure you also know. 

Assuming you know these things, why buy into the lazy "Clinton is an unprincipled shill" analysis that the GOP and the right wing media have pushed for years?  You know they're not doing it because they plan to win your support so they can carry on Sanders' fight for a progressive economic agenda and protection of the environment and civil rights, yes?

 
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: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top