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:
Translation: "No I don't have a link to back up my inference that Hillary is against making things in America".
Click to expand...
When you favor things that encourage capitalists to build things offshore, that is an action. Tweeting is just words. It is not a difficult concept. She doesn't have to say she is against making things in America if she supports legislation that makes it more difficult to do so - she has proven that she is. Of course she won't say it that way - it will cost her votes.

 
bueno said:
When you favor things that encourage capitalists to build things offshore, that is an action. Tweeting is just words. It is not a difficult concept. She doesn't have to say she is against making things in America if she supports legislation that makes it more difficult to do so - she has proven that she is. Of course she won't say it that way - it will cost her votes.
Click to expand...
Globalization is merely an economic reality - it was happening/will continue with or without a change in tariffs.  Manufacturing is still a major sector of the US economy and lessening trade restrictions won't change that.  

 
dparker713 said:
Globalization is merely an economic reality - it was happening/will continue with or without a change in tariffs.  Manufacturing is still a major sector of the US economy and lessening trade restrictions won't change that.  
Click to expand...
Just pointing out a little Clinton hypocrisy here, not trying to give an economics lesson, but lessening trade restrictions does accelerate manufacturing moving offshore. So does a number of other issues relating to environmental law, land use, etc. But that is not the main point. The main point is Hillary is a hypocrite with that tweet. You know she invests offshore too right?

 
bueno said:
Just pointing out a little Clinton hypocrisy here, not trying to give an economics lesson, but lessening trade restrictions does accelerate manufacturing moving offshore. So does a number of other issues relating to environmental law, land use, etc. But that is not the main point. The main point is Hillary is a hypocrite with that tweet. You know she invests offshore too right?
Click to expand...
Her tweet referenced making things, not investing.  I've no idea where the shirt and stickers et al. for her campaign come from, but where her money is invested is fairly irrelevant to the discussion.

 
bueno said:
Just pointing out a little Clinton hypocrisy here, not trying to give an economics lesson, but lessening trade restrictions does accelerate manufacturing moving offshore. So does a number of other issues relating to environmental law, land use, etc. But that is not the main point. The main point is Hillary is a hypocrite with that tweet. You know she invests offshore too right?
Click to expand...
I don't think it matters. Hillary Clinton should be judged on trade based on her positions as a Senator from New York, and in particular as Secretary of State. (I don't think that as First Lady she was involved in trade deals). In both capacities she helped negotiate deals that brought many jobs to the USA- I can attest to this because the deals she did on behalf of Boeing created hundreds of jobs in neighboring Long Beach and are still highly productive: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

Donald Trump on the other hand, has a reputation for creating American jobs and really hasn't done a very good job of it. 

 
dparker713 said:
Her tweet referenced making things, not investing.  I've no idea where the shirt and stickers et al. for her campaign come from, but where her money is invested is fairly irrelevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Trump invests in manufacturing off-shore. Clinton does the same. Neither actually makes things. The difference is with Trump, he is the majority investor. You're parsin words.

So, promising to go after Cayman Island Tax havens while having three Cayman Island accounts doesn't seem hypocritical to you?

 
bueno said:
When you favor things that encourage capitalists to build things offshore, that is an action. Tweeting is just words. It is not a difficult concept. She doesn't have to say she is against making things in America if she supports legislation that makes it more difficult to do so - she has proven that she is. Of course she won't say it that way - it will cost her votes.
Click to expand...
Going to have to help me with the hypocrisy.  Not only did you create a straw man, but you insinuate that she was taking the other side of the argument.  Way I read it, she was merely bringing Trump down to her level, acknowledging what is an economic reality in today's world.  She is calling Trump out for being a hypocrite.  At no point did she state she was for/against anything.  

 
timschochet said:
(I don't think that as First Lady she was involved in trade deals).
Click to expand...
:lmao: Ha, uh, no, no, Tim, First Ladies don't "do" trade deals.

timschochet said:
Hillary Clinton should be judged on trade based on her positions as a Senator from New York, and in particular as Secretary of State.
Click to expand...
Hillary has lied about her position on trade deals as SOS.

Probably the most relevant thing you can look at with Hillary on trade is look to who the Podesta Group is representing, that's where her trade favors will go.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
:lmao: Ha, uh, no, no, Tim, First Ladies don't "do" trade deals.

Hillary has lied about her position on trade deals as SOS.

Probably the most relevant thing you can look at with Hillary on trade is look to who the Podesta Group is representing, that's where her trade favors will go.
Click to expand...
Hillary's record as Secretary of State is there for everyone to see. She created jobs. As President she has specific plans to do the same. And your cynicism is unwarranted. 

 
sporthenry said:
Going to have to help me with the hypocrisy.  Not only did you create a straw man, but you insinuate that she was taking the other side of the argument.  Way I read it, she was merely bringing Trump down to her level, acknowledging what is an economic reality in today's world.  She is calling Trump out for being a hypocrite.  At no point did she state she was for/against anything.  
Click to expand...
They are both hypocrites.

 
Rich Conway said:
This really pisses me off, honestly.  She's just piling more outright lies on top of her existing lies, and she clearly doesn't give a #### about any of it.  She really does believe the rules don't apply to her.  That makes me angry.
Click to expand...
I read this post earlier today and I wanted to respond to it. While I don't believe that Hillary is especially a liar, I do sense the rest of what you wrote is true. Though she will never admit it openly, I agree that Hillary does believe that the rules, specifically the rules regarding email classifications, did not apply to her. 

I agree with her. I don't think they apply either. I have stated that from the beginning. I believe that VIPs like Hillary Clinton (and there aren't too many of these) should be immune from these sorts of situations. If she was careless with classified materials, I don't care. That should be somebody else's responsibility, always. 

Furthermore, I believe our society benefits when we treat people like Hillary Clinton as different, and more special, than most of the rest of us. She is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with elitism. 

 
timschochet said:
Hillary's record as Secretary of State is there for everyone to see. She created jobs. As President she has specific plans to do the same. And your cynicism is unwarranted. 
Click to expand...
You're saying she was pro free trade and those trade deals created jobs. Ok. Well she lied about that and her involvement in TPP during the primary, even to the extent she ripped a whole section on TPP - probably the section you've quoted from - right out of the new edition of her book.

 
timschochet said:
Who cares? Why is this relevant? 
Click to expand...
Sheltered money overseas isn't creating jobs at home. Plus she criticized Trump for not actually making things in America, when her financial strategies mirror his. She is a hypocrite.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno said:
Sheltered money overseas isn't creating jobs at home. Plus she criticized Trump for not actually making things in America, when her financial strategies mirror his. She is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Bueno, as I pointed out, she negotiated the sale of airplanes to foreign countries, which was a great boon for our aerospace industry, as well as all kinds of other trade deals. Compared to that, what she does with her personal money really isn't very relevant. If you want to argue that her promotion of trade is bad for our manufacturing base (as Bernie did and Trump does) that's at least a valid criticism, though I disagree with it. But how she handles personal investments has no bearing- it didn't for Romney, and it doesn't for Trump either. 

 
timschochet said:
Bueno, as I pointed out, she negotiated the sale of airplanes to foreign countries, which was a great boon for our aerospace industry, as well as all kinds of other trade deals. Compared to that, what she does with her personal money really isn't very relevant. If you want to argue that her promotion of trade is bad for our manufacturing base (as Bernie did and Trump does) that's at least a valid criticism, though I disagree with it. But how she handles personal investments has no bearing- it didn't for Romney, and it doesn't for Trump either. 
Click to expand...
It is only because of her tweet.

 
bueno said:
It is only because of her tweet.
Click to expand...
It would have been hypocritical of Hillary to criticize Trump's personal investments. But her point was not that, but the fact that Trump deliberately hires people abroad or from other countries to do work in order to cut costs (which is his right) but makes it look odd that he criticizes her for losing American jobs. 

 
bueno said:
It is only because of her tweet.
Click to expand...
Which was obviously referring to products sold under the Trump brand name in this country that are manufactured outside of this country and cost Americans jobs. What Hillary related products does she sell that employs people? Pantsuits?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Which was obviously referring to products sold under the Trump brand name in this country that are manufactured outside of this country and cost Americans jobs. What Hillary related products does she sell that employs people? Pantsuits?
Click to expand...
Hillary produces nothing. Except scandals, and I have to admit, they are home-grown.

 
timschochet said:
It would have been hypocritical of Hillary to criticize Trump's personal investments. But her point was not that, but the fact that Trump deliberately hires people abroad or from other countries to do work in order to cut costs (which is his right) but makes it look odd that he criticizes her for losing American jobs. 
Click to expand...
Trump hires? Or does he lend his name to products made outside the US? He is an investor, not a manufacturer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Turkey justified in seeking extradition of U.S.-based Islamist leader


...

Where there’s a perfect storm of corruption, indoctrination and proselytization, the next logical step is outreach to top U.S. politicians for building support.

Thus it’s not surprising that Gülen Movement followers have reportedly donated up to $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.   

Plus they’ve operated non-profit shell groups which have arranged and paid for as many as 200 trips to Turkey for members of Congress and staffers since 2008 including Reps. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.) and Mo Brooks (R-Ala.).  According to a USA Today investigation this year, those trips apparently violated Congressional rules repeatedly and may have broken federal laws.

....
Click to expand...
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/264031-turkey-justified-in-seeking-extradition-of-us-based

- Because of course.

 
squistion said:
Yes, encouraging people who were shouting "Lock her up!" and leading chants of "Guilty!" will win over those undecided voters.
Click to expand...
I saw absolutely nothing at this convention that would have encouraged someone who was undecided to vote for Trump.  

Is the point of the GOP Convention to rally the troops and make them angry enough to remember to vote in November? 

 
Flying Spaghetti Monster said:
I saw absolutely nothing at this convention that would have encouraged someone who was undecided to vote for Trump.  

Is the point of the GOP Convention to rally the troops and make them angry enough to remember to vote in November? 
Click to expand...
Well, the Convention is supposed to play to the base, but a lot of folks are just starting to pay attention to the general election for the first time.  What they have seen so far in the first two days is a hate fest against Hillary which at times has had the flavor of the Salem witch trials. I don't understand the logic behind this, but then again, I never expected Trump to be the nominee until it was too late to stop him. I can't imagine this is a winning strategy, but my track record in judging Trump's popular appeal has been rather abysmal to date. :shrug:

 
bueno said:
Trump invests in manufacturing off-shore. Clinton does the same. Neither actually makes things. The difference is with Trump, he is the majority investor. You're parsin words.

So, promising to go after Cayman Island Tax havens while having three Cayman Island accounts doesn't seem hypocritical to you?
Click to expand...
Trump may not manufacture, but he certainly brands products.  

 
squistion said:
Well, the Convention is supposed to play to the base, but a lot of folks are just starting to pay attention to the general election for the first time.  What they have seen so far in the first two days is a hate fest against Hillary which at times has had the flavor of the Salem witch trials. I don't understand the logic behind this, but then again, I never expected Trump to be the nominee until it was too late to stop him. I can't imagine this is a winning strategy, but my track record in judging Trump's popular appeal has been rather abysmal to date. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Ron Fournier was on with Chris Matthews last night, and it was a really good/interesting interview.  Matthews was incredulous that the Trump people would use the entire convention to sling mud at Hillary, as opposed talking about how great Trump was; he couldn't understand how this would pull in the undecideds.  Fournier disagreed and said in effect that, in an election like this the undecideds would ultimately side with the candidate they "loathe the least" and that the D convention also should be heavy on the Trump negatives and prosecute why he is unfit for the office.  Flowery talk of vision, achievements, resumes, etc are going to be less effective in this election cycle with these two candidates.   

I don't necessarily agree or disagree.  I just thought Fournier made an intuitively reasonable case for why this election--and approach/tone of the conventions--likely will be different than in years past.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I read this post earlier today and I wanted to respond to it. While I don't believe that Hillary is especially a liar, I do sense the rest of what you wrote is true. Though she will never admit it openly, I agree that Hillary does believe that the rules, specifically the rules regarding email classifications, did not apply to her. 

I agree with her. I don't think they apply either. I have stated that from the beginning. I believe that VIPs like Hillary Clinton (and there aren't too many of these) should be immune from these sorts of situations. If she was careless with classified materials, I don't care. That should be somebody else's responsibility, always. 

Furthermore, I believe our society benefits when we treat people like Hillary Clinton as different, and more special, than most of the rest of us. She is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with elitism. 
Click to expand...
I understand that you really believe this.  I can't wrap my head around why anyone would think this is OK.  It's bat#### insane.  The standard for public officials should be a higher bar, not a lower one.

Taken to its logical conclusion, you would be perfectly OK with a POTUS announcing the "nuclear launch codes" on live TV.

 
Rich Conway said:
I understand that you really believe this.  I can't wrap my head around why anyone would think this is OK.  It's bat#### insane.  The standard for public officials should be a higher bar, not a lower one.

Taken to its logical conclusion, you would be perfectly OK with a POTUS announcing the "nuclear launch codes" on live TV.
Click to expand...
Just a great artist knows when to put down the brush, a great poster like yourself should know when to back away from the keyboard.  In this case it was "before the last sentence." ;)

 
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: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top