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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
squistion said:
Not surprisingly, he thinks it is Hillary's fault.

The Int'l Spectator‏@intlspectator 2h2 hours ago

BREAKING: Donald Trump says what's happening in Turkey is evidence that Hillary Clinton has been a 'disaster on foreign policy'
Click to expand...
Trump, standing at a mirror.  What do we know about Turkey?  Nothing?  Can we blame it on Hillary? Yeah...ok, le me tweet that quick.  Good meeting guys.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Really interesting article in Hillary

For those who like a little behind the scenes stuff.
Click to expand...


“She’s very methodical and driven by lists,” said a veteran staffer. “She has to check her list off, she has to talk about this policy, and that policy, thank these people. Once you get through the lists, the speech can be very boring. Few people can break through with Hillary in that.”
Click to expand...
 
 
It occurs to me that this election is becoming almost a psychological battle of id vs ego.

 
timschochet said:
I hope she reconsiders now and goes back to Warren. Kaine, like Pence, is a dull choice. Let's get some excitement and passion going.
Click to expand...
Warren is not out of running, contrary to some reports.

I still want her to pick Sherrod Brown. Solid progressive and might make the difference in Ohio.

 
Poppa said:
Any article that suggests Clinton is  "the most experienced person to ever run for the White House" can safely be regarded as fawning ###-lickery...
Click to expand...
Only in the conservative bubble in which you apparently live. In the real world, it's only stating the obvious. 

 
dparker713 said:
It's an exaggeration, but it's hardly an enormous one.  
Click to expand...
It is when none of the experience includes an executive position. I think governors have far more relavent experience than former Senators.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hillary Clinton vows to overturn Citizens United through the promotion of a Constitutional amendment. 

This is highly unrealistic. It would be far more realistic to promise to appoint progressive Supreme Court justices, and if a challenge to campaign financing appears in the future, then the SC could potentially overturn it. But an amendment is not going to happen and she knows better. 

 
timschochet said:
Hillary Clinton vows to overturn Citizens United through the promotion of a Constitutional amendment. 

This is highly unrealistic. It would be far more realistic to promise to appoint progressive Supreme Court justices, and if a challenge to campaign financing appears in the future, then the SC could potentially overturn it. But an amendment is not going to happen and she knows better. 
Click to expand...
It's a sop to Bernie's supporters

 
In addition to this constitutional amendment, the Clinton spokesman said, she will sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose their shareholders’ spending, while also pushing “for federal legislation to require effective public disclosure of political spending.”

This is called going off the deep end - as crazy as some of the things Trump has said and even more unrealistic. No way would I tell a company that I own stock in anything remotely resembling my spending. Your candidate has gone insane, Tim.
 
bueno said:
In addition to this constitutional amendment, the Clinton spokesman said, she will sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose their shareholders’ spending, while also pushing “for federal legislation to require effective public disclosure of political spending.”

This is called going off the deep end - as crazy as some of the things Trump has said and even more unrealistic. No way would I tell a company that I own stock in anything remotely resembling my spending. Your candidate has gone insane, Tim.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that makes no sense to me. 

 
timschochet said:
Yeah, that makes no sense to me. 
Click to expand...
And the other thing - if I'm a shareholder, I don't care who the corporation is donating money to. I care about what their stock price is doing. Absolutely insane that she would even propose this kind of nonsense. She must have overdosed on Trump pills, because this is dumber than anything that has come out of Trumps mouth in the past several weeks..

 
bueno said:
It is when none of the experience includes an executive position. I think governors have far more relavent experience than former Senators.
Click to expand...
She has federal executive branch experience and federal legislative experience.  It's few and far between for candidates that have both.

 
dparker713 said:
She has federal executive branch experience and federal legislative experience.  It's few and far between for candidates that have both.
Click to expand...
Well I suppose she is better than Kerry (very low bar) but she doesn't have experience with governance, only with working in the executive branch. There is a subtle but important distinction there, at least to me.

 
Poppa said:
Any article that suggests Clinton is  "the most experienced person to ever run for the White House" can safely be regarded as fawning ###-lickery...
Click to expand...
Seriously, I repeat that Obama was being sarcastic when said that because it was how ran against him in 2008.  Anyone who really believes it is just not too bright.

 
http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-should-challenge-trump-a-debate-every-week-until-the-election-2016-7

Josh Barro

Clinton should challenge Trump: A debate every week until the election

If I were Hillary Clinton, I would pose a challenge to Donald Trump: Let's have much more than the usual three presidential debates.

She should challenge him to debate every week from the end of the Democratic National Convention until Election Day — a series of 14 debates in all.

Clinton's best moments in this campaign have been when she is able to make the case directly to the voters, for herself and against Trump. Her strongest argument is that Trump is dangerously unfit to be president, and when she makes that argument, she is convincing.

But she lacks control of the media narrative. She can't maintain constant attention for anti-Trump speeches that rehearse the same material. On days when voters aren't focused on the comparison between the two candidates, they may instead think about why they're not keen on either of them.

Clinton could get more airtime by giving near-constant interviews, as Trump did during the primary, but she is deeply suspicious of the media and reasonably fears that such interviews will be sidetracked into discussions of her email server and other scandals.

But unlike interviews, any debate between the two candidates will necessarily be focused on a question that Clinton can argue very successfully: Who would be a less bad president?

A debate every week would do a lot to block out the sun on other coverage, and keep the media conversation focused on the direct comparison between the two candidates and their relative fitness for office.

Clinton is a strong debater. I believe she was hurt by the weekend burial of the debates in the Democratic primary contest.

Of course, there is the question of whether Trump would agree to so many debates. But if he didn't, Clinton could hammer him relentlessly for ducking the proposal. If his appeal is that he is supposed to be so strong, why is he afraid of debates?

Plus, Trump is an egomaniac and might not want to admit, even to himself, that a long series of debates would be bad for him.

She might be able to corner him into accepting the proposal and transform the campaign into one that is much more substantive — and much more favorable to her.

 
squistion said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-should-challenge-trump-a-debate-every-week-until-the-election-2016-7

Josh Barro

Clinton should challenge Trump: A debate every week until the election

If I were Hillary Clinton, I would pose a challenge to Donald Trump: Let's have much more than the usual three presidential debates.

She should challenge him to debate every week from the end of the Democratic National Convention until Election Day — a series of 14 debates in all.

Clinton's best moments in this campaign have been when she is able to make the case directly to the voters, for herself and against Trump. Her strongest argument is that Trump is dangerously unfit to be president, and when she makes that argument, she is convincing.

But she lacks control of the media narrative. She can't maintain constant attention for anti-Trump speeches that rehearse the same material. On days when voters aren't focused on the comparison between the two candidates, they may instead think about why they're not keen on either of them.

Clinton could get more airtime by giving near-constant interviews, as Trump did during the primary, but she is deeply suspicious of the media and reasonably fears that such interviews will be sidetracked into discussions of her email server and other scandals.

But unlike interviews, any debate between the two candidates will necessarily be focused on a question that Clinton can argue very successfully: Who would be a less bad president?

A debate every week would do a lot to block out the sun on other coverage, and keep the media conversation focused on the direct comparison between the two candidates and their relative fitness for office.

Clinton is a strong debater. I believe she was hurt by the weekend burial of the debates in the Democratic primary contest.

Of course, there is the question of whether Trump would agree to so many debates. But if he didn't, Clinton could hammer him relentlessly for ducking the proposal. If his appeal is that he is supposed to be so strong, why is he afraid of debates?

Plus, Trump is an egomaniac and might not want to admit, even to himself, that a long series of debates would be bad for him.

She might be able to corner him into accepting the proposal and transform the campaign into one that is much more substantive — and much more favorable to her.
Click to expand...
Trump could easily counter that two debates are sufficient and she is just trying to distract him from campaigning.

 
bueno said:
In addition to this constitutional amendment, the Clinton spokesman said, she will sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose their shareholders’ spending, while also pushing “for federal legislation to require effective public disclosure of political spending.”

This is called going off the deep end - as crazy as some of the things Trump has said and even more unrealistic. No way would I tell a company that I own stock in anything remotely resembling my spending. Your candidate has gone insane, Tim.
Click to expand...
True. Imagine if Trump said it.

 
squistion said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-should-challenge-trump-a-debate-every-week-until-the-election-2016-7

Josh Barro

Clinton should challenge Trump: A debate every week until the election

If I were Hillary Clinton, I would pose a challenge to Donald Trump: Let's have much more than the usual three presidential debates.

She should challenge him to debate every week from the end of the Democratic National Convention until Election Day — a series of 14 debates in all.

Clinton's best moments in this campaign have been when she is able to make the case directly to the voters, for herself and against Trump. Her strongest argument is that Trump is dangerously unfit to be president, and when she makes that argument, she is convincing.

But she lacks control of the media narrative. She can't maintain constant attention for anti-Trump speeches that rehearse the same material. On days when voters aren't focused on the comparison between the two candidates, they may instead think about why they're not keen on either of them.

Clinton could get more airtime by giving near-constant interviews, as Trump did during the primary, but she is deeply suspicious of the media and reasonably fears that such interviews will be sidetracked into discussions of her email server and other scandals.

But unlike interviews, any debate between the two candidates will necessarily be focused on a question that Clinton can argue very successfully: Who would be a less bad president?

A debate every week would do a lot to block out the sun on other coverage, and keep the media conversation focused on the direct comparison between the two candidates and their relative fitness for office.

Clinton is a strong debater. I believe she was hurt by the weekend burial of the debates in the Democratic primary contest.

Of course, there is the question of whether Trump would agree to so many debates. But if he didn't, Clinton could hammer him relentlessly for ducking the proposal. If his appeal is that he is supposed to be so strong, why is he afraid of debates?

Plus, Trump is an egomaniac and might not want to admit, even to himself, that a long series of debates would be bad for him.

She might be able to corner him into accepting the proposal and transform the campaign into one that is much more substantive — and much more favorable to her.
Click to expand...
I think you are giving Hillary way to much credit here.  Debates should be entertaining but you have already crowned Hillary as the champion.   I would not be surprised at all if Trump owned her in the debates. 

 
Don't Noonan said:
I think you are giving Hillary way to much credit here.  Debates should be entertaining but you have already crowned Hillary as the champion.   I would not be surprised at all if Trump owned her in the debates. 
Click to expand...
And Trey Gowdy and friends were going to own her at the Benghazi hearing, according to the usual suspects here, but it was her 11 hours of testimony in front of a GOP tag team that was the start of turning around her campaign (along with the first debate).

And I said many moons ago that Hillary did well in the 2008 debates and only lost the nomination by facing a once in a generation charismatic opponent like Obama. She came across well in this year's debates and was hindered by the fact she had to pull her punches against Bernie if she did not want to alienate his supporters (and initial indications are that strategy has worked).

Although it fit the conventional wisdom, it was a mistake in retrospect to limit the number of debates against Bernie. The debates that were added during the primaries, helped her more than hurt her.

In a one-on-situation with moderators who would force the candidates to answer questions rather than avoid them, Hillary would shine as her knowledge of the issues, particularly foreign policy, which will reveal Trump deficiencies - and if you don't believe that, look at her and Trump's response to the attempted coup in Turkey.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
That was Josh Barrow's recommendation, not a statement by Hillary.
Click to expand...
If I were advising Hillary, I would avoid as many debates as I could, just as she did with Bernie.  She comes off poorly in that format, especially when challenged and gets called out. When she can't follow script, she's hopeless.

 
bueno said:
And the other thing - if I'm a shareholder, I don't care who the corporation is donating money to. I care about what their stock price is doing. Absolutely insane that she would even propose this kind of nonsense. She must have overdosed on Trump pills, because this is dumber than anything that has come out of Trumps mouth in the past several weeks..
Click to expand...
Not everyone has such a dismissive attitude toward corporate responsibility.  

 
timschochet said:
I know. But I hate it. 

I hate to generalize, but these Bernie supporters aren't really that much different from the Trump crowd. They want instant gratification, and they don't care how they get it. Populism run amok. 
Click to expand...
You're blaming the Bernie supporters for Hillary's pandering and empty promises?

 
cobalt_27 said:
If I were advising Hillary, I would avoid as many debates as I could, just as she did with Bernie.  She comes off poorly in that format, especially when challenged and gets called out. When she can't follow script, she's hopeless.
Click to expand...
She debated Bernie 10 times.  She only ducked him after the nomination was basically decided.

 
dparker713 said:
She debated Bernie 10 times.  She only ducked him after the nomination was basically decided.
Click to expand...
The DNC decided in 2015 to have 6 debates ahead of the first primary.  After losing New Hampshire, Hillary's people scrambled for another debate, but Bernie made a stipulation that he would agree to this on the condition that 4 additional debates be scheduled.  Her camp capitulated, but was unhappy and conceded only because she felt she needed to get the immediate post-NH response.  

Lets not forget, Hillary's camp tried to schedule debates On the same day as the NCAA tourney final and in the wee hours of the morning to minimize exposure.

Lets not pretend she is particularly fond of debates or any environment that requires her to react spontaneously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno said:
In addition to this constitutional amendment, the Clinton spokesman said, she will sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose their shareholders’ spending, while also pushing “for federal legislation to require effective public disclosure of political spending.”

This is called going off the deep end - as crazy as some of the things Trump has said and even more unrealistic. No way would I tell a company that I own stock in anything remotely resembling my spending. Your candidate has gone insane, Tim.
Click to expand...
This has to be some kind of a mischaracterization of what she actually said.  Nobody running for president would really say that corporations should have to track and report private political advocacy by individual stakeholders.  That's on the same order as deporting all the Muslims in terms of prenatal totalitarianism.  

Edit: Surely she meant "disclose to their shareholders" not "disclose their shareholders."

 
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
252K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top