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.
TobiasFunke said:
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?
Click to expand...
My view of Clinton isn't lazy and has nothing to do with what the GOP is pushing.  Your blind support and factual ignorance of her record, that's lazy.  Anyone who has been paying attention knows that what she said today is completely meaningless and was said only for political purpose. If it helps her politically, she's for it.  If not, she isn't. See: marriage, gay.

 
Willie Neslon said:
My view of Clinton isn't lazy and has nothing to do with what the GOP is pushing.  Your blind support and factual ignorance of her record, that's lazy.  Anyone who has been paying attention knows that what she said today is completely meaningless and was said only for political purpose. If it helps her politically, she's for it.  If not, she isn't. See: marriage, gay.
Click to expand...
My support is not blind, nor am I "factually ignorant" or her record, whatever that means. I'm familiar with her history and her current platform. I provided concrete examples of issues she's been consistent on in the past that jibe with Sanders' platform, and would be happy to provide many more if you're interested.

Your only example of of this opportunism is that she has reversed herself on gay marriage, which is fair. Of course so did virtually every other politician (or for that matter any American over the age of 50) who is not a Christian Conservative dooshbag.  Why would you want to value consistency on that issue over being on the right side of the issue?

 
bueno said:
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.
Click to expand...
While true that's also a problem on the state level.  I'm sure the cost of living is drastically different in Walla Walla than it is in Seattle. Plus, this is the minimum - states can raise their own minimum above the federal level.   Also, the problem is that in some states the minimum wage would never, ever be raised.  The only means to provide protection for everyone is to do so through Congress.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Willie Neslon said:
My view of Clinton isn't lazy and has nothing to do with what the GOP is pushing.  Your blind support and factual ignorance of her record, that's lazy.  Anyone who has been paying attention knows that what she said today is completely meaningless and was said only for political purpose. If it helps her politically, she's for it.  If not, she isn't. See: marriage, gay.
Click to expand...
Just curious if you know any baby boomers that have changed their minds regarding LGBT rights over the past 30 years?

 
Willie Neslon said:
it's an example of what she is, a serial panderer. She'll do nothing as president except strengthen corporate control of government. 
Click to expand...


Yes she panders ... like all politicians do. It's not always a bad thing.  In fact I'd say it's part of democracy, catering to the desires of the electorate to win their support. Ask Sanders, whose moderate positions on gun control stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of his ultra-progressive platform but helped him win over the rural voters of Vermont ... and which he backed away from during the national campaign for Democratic primary votes.

As for her supposed "do nothing" presidency, consider the Supreme Court if nothing else. That matters a lot, and Clinton and Trump differ greatly on who they'd likely nominate.

 
Willie Neslon said:
She didn't change her mind, she changed her political position.
Click to expand...
So then you either believe that when she first spoke on this issue she was lying for political gain or when she now speaks on this issue she was lying for political gain.  That she's had a consistent internal position since she entered public life on the issue of gay marriage.  So, was she an ultra-progressive hiding her stripes or a conservative betraying her principles?  

 
dparker713 said:
So then you either believe that when she first spoke on this issue she was lying for political gain or when she now speaks on this issue she was lying for political gain.  That she's had a consistent internal position since she entered public life on the issue of gay marriage.  So, was she an ultra-progressive hiding her stripes or a conservative betraying her principles?  
Click to expand...
So she either lied for political gain, or she lied for political gain.

Gee, I can't decide which one seems better than the other.

 
Heard Hillary say to Bernie, "Thank you for your lifetime fighting injustice!"  It was on the radio so I couldn't see...  Was she flipping him off?

 
Question:  AG, is it legal or illegal to store, house, or retain classified information in a non-secured location?

L. Lynch: Again, I would refer you to the statute.  One could, in fact, have liability... again, depending upon the nature of the facts and circumstances.

Follow-up:  Any examples of where it's legally acceptable to retain classified in a non-secured location?

Lynch:  I can't think of any hypothetical.  

Question:  Is it legal or illegal to provide false testimony under oath?

Lynch: There are a number of statues that cover that, at both the federal and state level.. um, there are a number of ways in which that can be found.

Congressman:  <....>  These questions are pretty simple... is it legal or not?

Lynch: If we had a specific facts situation, that could be reviewed.  

Congressman:  I'm just asking is it legal or illegal?

Lynch: When it comes to a hypothetical situation, it would be unfair to to come up with a blanketed answer to someone without reviewing all the facts of their situation.

Congressman:  I'm just asking is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn't have a security clearance.

Lynch: Again, I would refer you to the appropriate statutes, refer you to the facts that every situation... it would be unfair to give a blanket answer to ever hypothetical.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't appear that he is giving her a hypothetical in the questioning.. just asking if it is legal or not.  She won't give an answer to even those simple questions.  Does she not know if it is illegal or not?  She's an attorney... the attorney general.  Does she think answering a simple law question will somehow indict her?   Is she hiding something?  Is she just trying to protect the hand that will feed her into next year, HRC?  

Am I missing something here?  She isn't on trial.  Why the refusal to answer a yes or no question?  

 
Willie Neslon said:
it's an example of what she is, a serial panderer. She'll do nothing as president except strengthen corporate control of government. 
Click to expand...
Wait, in the Brexit thread I was told that the British Parliament HAD to pander to their voters because of the results of a non-binding referendum.  

 
Willie Neslon said:
We've been through it all already guys.  I'm not having these same arguments again. Good luck.
Click to expand...
You too, GB.  Hope you take a good long look at Donald Trump and decide to join us in fighting the good fight ... and then work to make the winning team better by working for change from the inside, just as Sanders has successfully done in recent weeks :thumbup:

 
TobiasFunke said:
You too, GB.  Hope you take a good long look at Donald Trump and decide to join us in fighting the good fight ... and then work to make the winning team better by working for change from the inside, just as Sanders has successfully done in recent weeks :thumbup:
Click to expand...
You're going to find that Sanders hasn't changed ####.

 
Jayrok said:
Question:  AG, is it legal or illegal to store, house, or retain classified information in a non-secured location?

L. Lynch: Again, I would refer you to the statute.  One could, in fact, have liability... again, depending upon the nature of the facts and circumstances.

Follow-up:  Any examples of where it's legally acceptable to retain classified in a non-secured location?

Lynch:  I can't think of any hypothetical.  

Question:  Is it legal or illegal to provide false testimony under oath?

Lynch: There are a number of statues that cover that, at both the federal and state level.. um, there are a number of ways in which that can be found.

Congressman:  <....>  These questions are pretty simple... is it legal or not?

Lynch: If we had a specific facts situation, that could be reviewed.  

Congressman:  I'm just asking is it legal or illegal?

Lynch: When it comes to a hypothetical situation, it would be unfair to to come up with a blanketed answer to someone without reviewing all the facts of their situation.

Congressman:  I'm just asking is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn't have a security clearance.

Lynch: Again, I would refer you to the appropriate statutes, refer you to the facts that every situation... it would be unfair to give a blanket answer to ever hypothetical.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't appear that he is giving her a hypothetical in the questioning.. just asking if it is legal or not.  She won't give an answer to even those simple questions.  Does she not know if it is illegal or not?  She's an attorney... the attorney general.  Does she think answering a simple law question will somehow indict her?   Is she hiding something?  Is she just trying to protect the hand that will feed her into next year, HRC?  

Am I missing something here?  She isn't on trial.  Why the refusal to answer a yes or no question?  
Click to expand...
Because you can't know whether it's illegal to share classified information with someone who doesn't have security clearance unless you have more information about the circumstances, most importantly whether the person did so intentionally and the nature of the information. It's a terrible question.

Same goes for the perjury question- it's not illegal to provide false testimony under oath unless you do so willfully, knowing that what you are saying is false.  Without more information it would be irresponsible for her to answer, although I guess she could have said "it depends if it's done willfully with the knowledge that the information is not true," but that wouldn't have sounded any better to critics of Lynch/Clinton.

 
Jayrok said:
Question:  AG, is it legal or illegal to store, house, or retain classified information in a non-secured location?

L. Lynch: Again, I would refer you to the statute.  One could, in fact, have liability... again, depending upon the nature of the facts and circumstances.

Follow-up:  Any examples of where it's legally acceptable to retain classified in a non-secured location?

Lynch:  I can't think of any hypothetical.  

Question:  Is it legal or illegal to provide false testimony under oath?

Lynch: There are a number of statues that cover that, at both the federal and state level.. um, there are a number of ways in which that can be found.

Congressman:  <....>  These questions are pretty simple... is it legal or not?

Lynch: If we had a specific facts situation, that could be reviewed.  

Congressman:  I'm just asking is it legal or illegal?

Lynch: When it comes to a hypothetical situation, it would be unfair to to come up with a blanketed answer to someone without reviewing all the facts of their situation.

Congressman:  I'm just asking is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn't have a security clearance.

Lynch: Again, I would refer you to the appropriate statutes, refer you to the facts that every situation... it would be unfair to give a blanket answer to ever hypothetical.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't appear that he is giving her a hypothetical in the questioning.. just asking if it is legal or not.  She won't give an answer to even those simple questions.  Does she not know if it is illegal or not?  She's an attorney... the attorney general.  Does she think answering a simple law question will somehow indict her?   Is she hiding something?  Is she just trying to protect the hand that will feed her into next year, HRC?  

Am I missing something here?  She isn't on trial.  Why the refusal to answer a yes or no question?  
Click to expand...
Pretty simple, she's unwilling to answer the question.  Too bad.  I thought highly of her until she met with Bill (and now it sounds like she consulted with Hillary while under investigation).  

Some shady ####.

 
Jayrok said:
Question:  AG, is it legal or illegal to store, house, or retain classified information in a non-secured location?

L. Lynch: Again, I would refer you to the statute.  One could, in fact, have liability... again, depending upon the nature of the facts and circumstances.

Follow-up:  Any examples of where it's legally acceptable to retain classified in a non-secured location?

Lynch:  I can't think of any hypothetical.  

Question:  Is it legal or illegal to provide false testimony under oath?

Lynch: There are a number of statues that cover that, at both the federal and state level.. um, there are a number of ways in which that can be found.

Congressman:  <....>  These questions are pretty simple... is it legal or not?

Lynch: If we had a specific facts situation, that could be reviewed.  

Congressman:  I'm just asking is it legal or illegal?

Lynch: When it comes to a hypothetical situation, it would be unfair to to come up with a blanketed answer to someone without reviewing all the facts of their situation.

Congressman:  I'm just asking is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn't have a security clearance.

Lynch: Again, I would refer you to the appropriate statutes, refer you to the facts that every situation... it would be unfair to give a blanket answer to ever hypothetical.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't appear that he is giving her a hypothetical in the questioning.. just asking if it is legal or not.  She won't give an answer to even those simple questions.  Does she not know if it is illegal or not?  She's an attorney... the attorney general.  Does she think answering a simple law question will somehow indict her?   Is she hiding something?  Is she just trying to protect the hand that will feed her into next year, HRC?  

Am I missing something here?  She isn't on trial.  Why the refusal to answer a yes or no question?  
Click to expand...
Because she's a lawyer and she's trained to look for ambiguities.  There's a ton of them in those questions.  Hell, by illegal does the questioner mean criminal?  If so, does he mean felony or misdemeanor?  Or maybe he just wants to know if it violates a statute.  Maybe it violates a rule or a signed contract.  Specifics matter, so that's what a lawyer tries to deal in.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
Because you can't know whether it's illegal to share classified information with someone who doesn't have security clearance unless you have more information about the circumstances, most importantly whether the person did so intentionally and the nature of the information. It's a terrible question.

Same goes for the perjury question- it's not illegal to provide false testimony under oath unless you do so willfully, knowing that what you are saying is false.  Without more information it would be irresponsible for her to answer, although I guess she could have said "it depends if it's done willfully with the knowledge that the information is not true," but that wouldn't have sounded any better to critics of Lynch/Clinton.
Click to expand...
So when Hillary said she did not send or receive emails that contained classified information, that was not a statement of fact?  What she was really saying is she didn't know if was classified or not?  Why didn't she say "I don't know.. I don't think I did" when asked that question?  

 
TobiasFunke said:
You too, GB.  Hope you take a good long look at Donald Trump and decide to join us in fighting the good fight ... and then work to make the winning team better by working for change from the inside, just as Sanders has successfully done in recent weeks :thumbup:
Click to expand...
It's these kind of posts that help steel my resolve to never give in and vote for this woman. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Because you can't know whether it's illegal to share classified information with someone who doesn't have security clearance unless you have more information about the circumstances, most importantly whether the person did so intentionally and the nature of the information. It's a terrible question.

Same goes for the perjury question- it's not illegal to provide false testimony under oath unless you do so willfully, knowing that what you are saying is false.  Without more information it would be irresponsible for her to answer, although I guess she could have said "it depends if it's done willfully with the knowledge that the information is not true," but that wouldn't have sounded any better to critics of Lynch/Clinton.
Click to expand...
And even then, a hypothetical defendant could have a literal gun to her head, which would be an affirmative defense.

Whether something is illegal always depends on specific facts. The Congressman was being lame by not providing any.

(ETA: Lynch was also being unnecessarily evasive. She could have provided her own set of facts as an example if she felt like being helpful. "It would be illegal if [yadda, yadda], but not if [some such].")

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrok said:
So when Hillary said she did not send or receive emails that contained classified information, that was not a statement of fact?  What she was really saying is she didn't know if was classified or not?  Why didn't she say "I don't know.. I don't think I did" when asked that question?  
Click to expand...
I have no idea what Clinton meant or why she said or didn't say anything.  You asked me why Lynch couldn't answer those specific hypothetical questions without more information and I explained it as best I could :shrug:

 
dparker713 said:
Because she's a lawyer and she's trained to look for ambiguities.  There's a ton of them in those questions.  Hell, by illegal does the questioner mean criminal?  If so, does he mean felony or misdemeanor?  Or maybe he just wants to know if it violates a statute.  Maybe it violates a rule or a signed contract.  Specifics matter, so that's what a lawyer tries to deal in.  
Click to expand...
So if you say something is illegal, it means that it is against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc., and could be a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances.  So if she answered the question with a simple yes or no, it would have satisfied the question.  

Yes - it is against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc..  the severity and outcome will depend on the specific circumstances.

No - It is not against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc..  

He didn't ask her if it was criminal, or a felony or misdemeanor.  He just asked was it legal of illegal.  She didn't say yes or no with any other details.. she just gave other details.  I guess that's what lawyers do.  Thanks.

 
Jayrok said:
So if you say something is illegal, it means that it is against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc., and could be a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances.  So if she answered the question with a simple yes or no, it would have satisfied the question.  

Yes - it is against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc..  the severity and outcome will depend on the specific circumstances.

No - It is not against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc..  

He didn't ask her if it was criminal, or a felony or misdemeanor.  He just asked was it legal of illegal.  She didn't say yes or no with any other details.. she just gave other details.  I guess that's what lawyers do.  Thanks.
Click to expand...
If she had answered with a simple yes or no, her answer would have been wrong since both of those answers are contradicted by exceptions.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I have no idea what Clinton meant or why she said or didn't say anything.  You asked me why Lynch couldn't answer those specific hypothetical questions without more information and I explained it as best I could :shrug:
Click to expand...
Thanks, I appreciate the explanation.  

 
Jayrok said:
So if you say something is illegal, it means that it is against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc., and could be a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances.  So if she answered the question with a simple yes or no, it would have satisfied the question.  

Yes - it is against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc..  the severity and outcome will depend on the specific circumstances.

No - It is not against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc..  

He didn't ask her if it was criminal, or a felony or misdemeanor.  He just asked was it legal of illegal.  She didn't say yes or no with any other details.. she just gave other details.  I guess that's what lawyers do.  Thanks.
Click to expand...
"Is it legal or illegal to provide false testimony under oath?" does not have a yes or no answer.  There are five elements that must be met for there to be perjury, and the question only gave two of the elements.  It's a maybe.

 
Jayrok said:
So if you say something is illegal, it means that it is against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc., and could be a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances.  So if she answered the question with a simple yes or no, it would have satisfied the question.  

Yes - it is against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc..  the severity and outcome will depend on the specific circumstances.

No - It is not against some type of law, statute, ruling, etc..  

He didn't ask her if it was criminal, or a felony or misdemeanor.  He just asked was it legal of illegal.  She didn't say yes or no with any other details.. she just gave other details.  I guess that's what lawyers do.  Thanks.
Click to expand...
Everyone hates lawyers... until they need one.

 
dparker713 said:
Everyone hates lawyers... until they need one.
Click to expand...
We need bold and forthright leadership, within the context of unprecedented technological changed and a shift in global power and economic influence.  Hillary is almost as bad of a leader for these times as you could draft.  

She's going to lawyer us into an abyss. 

 
Last edited:
Mr. Ham said:
We need bold and forthright leadership, within the context of unprecedented technological changed and a shift in global power and economic influence.  Hillary is almost as bad of a leader for these times as you could draft.  

She's going to lawyer us into an abyss. 
Click to expand...
She's not great, but she's miles better than Donald.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Pretty simple, she's unwilling to answer the question.  Too bad.  I thought highly of her until she met with Bill (and now it sounds like she consulted with Hillary while under investigation).  

Some shady ####.
Click to expand...
Lynch was hired by Bill some time ago as a promotion to some Federal legal position.   Their ties go way back.

 
dparker713 said:
She's not great, but she's miles better than Donald.
Click to expand...
I agree, but the center of my angst is that in a country of 330 million (and incredible talent) her shortcomings and ethical lapses are essentially absolved because oddly somone is arguably worse.  It's dizzying.

 
Last edited:
Politician Spock said:
dparker713 said:
So then you either believe that when she first spoke on this issue she was lying for political gain or when she now speaks on this issue she was lying for political gain.  That she's had a consistent internal position since she entered public life on the issue of gay marriage.  So, was she an ultra-progressive hiding her stripes or a conservative betraying her principles?  
Click to expand...
So she either lied for political gain, or she lied for political gain.

Gee, I can't decide which one seems better than the other.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest she never particularly cared about that issue at all, and is happy to go whichever way garners more votes.

 
dparker713 said:
Or, she changed her mind, as did many Americans, regarding the rights the LGBT community deserves.  
Click to expand...
She changed her position for her own political benefit. What she actually believes is irrelevant as she's proven to be a sell out her entire career. 

 
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
253K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top