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 (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
No matter how you feel about Hillary Clinton, she will honor our obligations to NATO. She will also honor President Reagan's notion of the United States as the "Shining City on the Hill". 

IMO, this is more important than all other issues. 
Click to expand...
I don't think Reagan's Shining City on the Hill and Hillary's Shining City on the Hill are the same city....

 
Slapdash said:
if he gets elected and actually means it, which are both unlikely
Click to expand...
No.    Every time he opens his fat mouth and says something stupid, he damages our reputation.    If he ends up as President, every stupid thing he said about our international relations will be on the table.   Diplomacy is not like a campaign or a real estate deal.   

 
dparker713 said:
If honesty is a big issue for you, then out of Donald and Hillary you should support Hillary.  
Click to expand...
Not sure why.  Hillary's already proven she's a habitual liar.  She fails miserably in this category.  Donald, well, it's an unknown if he means what he says politically.  On the issue of honesty, so far, we have a complete unknown and a miserable fail.  I'm fine with calling it a wash for now.

 
timschochet said:
I would love that. Booker is a terrific speaker, moderate, centrist, a pro-business Democrat, and with a decent chance to be our next President after Hillary in 8 years. Please do this Hillary! 
Click to expand...
Me too. Would also add some much-needed energy and personality and possibly appeal to millenials, won't get that from Kaine.

What are the negatives for Booker?

 
The Commish said:
Not sure why.  Hillary's already proven she's a habitual liar.  She fails miserably in this category.  Donald, well, it's an unknown if he means what he says politically.  On the issue of honesty, so far, we have a complete unknown and a miserable fail.  I'm fine with calling it a wash for now.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
The Commish said:
Not sure why.  Hillary's already proven she's a habitual liar.  She fails miserably in this category.  Donald, well, it's an unknown if he means what he says politically.  On the issue of honesty, so far, we have a complete unknown and a miserable fail.  I'm fine with calling it a wash for now.
Click to expand...
:lmao:  

 
TobiasFunke said:
Me too. Would also add some much-needed energy and personality and possibly appeal to millenials, won't get that from Kaine.

What are the negatives for Booker?
Click to expand...
I don't think the Bernie/Warren wing of the party will be thrilled with Booker but I think it's unlikely Hillary picks anyone that makes them particularly happy.

 
The Commish said:
insightful as always tim
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what to add. In terms of foreign policy, Hillary has been largely consistent her entire political career. Like almost every other Democrat and Republican, she believes in NATO and is prepared to honor America's agreements. Meanwhile Trump's comments on this issue have ALREADY weakened us (see the Jeffrey Goldberg article and Estonia's actions). For you to suggest that the two candidates are a "wash" is really the height of irresponsibility on your part, which is why I laughed. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Booker, Kaine and Vilsack are the final 3 it appears.  Would any of them thrill the progressive wing?
Click to expand...
July, November, January.

I admit I got this from Maddow but it was good - there are 3 kinds of VP choices, those that will help you in July (unify at the convention), November (states, demos in the election), January (who you want running the show and on the inside with you). She called it because really that appears to be one of each here. Though, arguably, Booker could certainly be a help in November too.

 
Another POV: IMO, Kaine would be a nod to attracting Republicans. Southern white guy. I have no idea if that's fair or not, that's just my first impression.

And personally I've always liked Booker, love what he did in Newark.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
July, November, January.

I admit I got this from Maddow but it was good - there are 3 kinds of VP choices, those that will help you in July (unify at the convention), November (states, demos in the election), January (who you want running the show and on the inside with you). She called it because really that appears to be one of each here. Though, arguably, Booker could certainly be a help in November too.
Click to expand...
I just don't see Virginia as being in play for Trump with the state''s changing demographics and with Trump cabinet member-in-waiting Chris Christie saying things like this.  So I don't agree with the logic (not just yours, seems to be everyone's) that Kaine is a good strategic pick.  If Clinton is losing Virginia she's got bigger trouble elsewhere.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I just don't see Virginia as being in play for Trump with the state''s changing demographics and with Trump cabinet member-in-waiting Chris Christie saying things like this.  So I don't agree with the logic (not just yours, seems to be everyone's) that Kaine is a good strategic pick.  If Clinton is losing Virginia she's got bigger trouble elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I think VA is a given. I think Hillary's looking at FL, NC, GA, AR, LA, MS, TN too.

eta - These are the Clintons, man, the people that brought you AR+TN in '92, they are not surrendering the South.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Yeah, not really.  But they're all pretty competent.  I think Sherrod Brown and Tom Perez were the realistic progressive picks.  But Brown would lose a Senate seat and Perez is virtually unknown outside the administration. 
Click to expand...
But Hillary would take Ohio in return, which might make the difference between winning and losing the election - and that is a trade off I would make if I were her.

 
squistion said:
But Hillary would take Ohio in return, which might make the difference between winning and losing the election - and that is a trade off I would make if I were her.
Click to expand...
Trump affects this. He has so alienated Ohio with his behavior towards Kasich that she is likely already looking at that as a win.

 
squistion said:
But Hillary would take Ohio in return, which might make the difference between winning and losing the election - and that is a trade off I would make if I were her.
Click to expand...
And Vilsack could deliver Iowa and Kaine deliver Virginia.  Not to jinx anything, but I don't think Hillary's losing this election.  If she does, it will be because of some catastrophe far worse than not having a guy from a battleground state.  There is an outside chance to pick up some real gains down ticket, and I wouldn't sacrifice a Senate seat, particularly when she could be making 3+ SCOTUS appointments in a first term.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
And Vilsack could deliver Iowa and Kaine deliver Virginia.  Not to jinx anything, but I don't think Hillary's losing this election.  If she does, it will be because of some catastrophe far worse than not having a guy from a battleground state.  There is an outside chance to pick up some real gains down ticket, and I wouldn't sacrifice a Senate seat, particularly when she could be making 3+ SCOTUS appointments in a first term.
Click to expand...
Better to lose a senate seat than not be able to make any SCOTUS appointments at all.  Look at the polls, Ohio is still a toss up with Hillary being up in some, down in others. Personally, I think it is more likely Brown delivers Ohio than Vilsack with Iowa and Kaine with Virginia.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Judge rebuffs State Department move to escape GOP requests for Clinton aides' emails


A federal judge has rebuffed the State Department's drive to shut down a Republican National Committee Freedom of Information lawsuit over the emails of top aides to Hillary Clinton.

The Justice Department turned heads with a court pleading last month that asked a judge to excuse State from complying with the GOP requests because they could take "generations" to process. One estimate State offered for an early formulation of the requests was 75 years.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said at a 45-minute hearing Thursday morning that she does not plan to grant State's wish, in part because the number of emails at issue in the case appears to have narrowed from about 750,000 pages to roughly 76,000 messages.

"We're not talking about you not getting anything," Jackson told RNC lawyer Edward Kang. "You need to assume ... that's not going to be granted."

In an order issued Thursday afternoon, the judge ordered State to begin producing records to the RNC in the case at a rate of "no less than 500 pages per month." The RNC will also be able to prioritize certain subjects it is interested in, the judge said.

... The judge’s new order dictates that the RNC will receive at least 500 pages in the case at least three times before the November election. State usually commits only to review a certain number of pages, often producing far fewer to the requester, but the order seems to require 500 pages of material be turned over to the GOP monthly.

...
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-emails-rnc-foia-225956

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Weird thing is that Hillary really doesn't need to reensure the prog base anymore, she has Trump to drive them to the polls.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's entirely true. I think she would be making a huge mistake if she were to just assume that they are going to all show up on election day for her.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
I don't think that's entirely true. I think she would be making a huge mistake if she were to just assume that they are going to all show up on election day for her.
Click to expand...


Flying Spaghetti Monster said:
i think Hillary wants this so badly that she will be relentless from now until election day, no way she sleeps this one in.
Click to expand...


Ok I guess I'm echoing Tobias' question here then, would Kaine reflect that Hillary is appealing to progressives with her VP pick? I would think not?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I'm not sure what to add. In terms of foreign policy, Hillary has been largely consistent her entire political career. Like almost every other Democrat and Republican, she believes in NATO and is prepared to honor America's agreements. Meanwhile Trump's comments on this issue have ALREADY weakened us (see the Jeffrey Goldberg article and Estonia's actions). For you to suggest that the two candidates are a "wash" is really the height of irresponsibility on your part, which is why I laughed. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
insightful as always tim
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what to add. In terms of foreign policy, Hillary has been largely consistent her entire political career. Like almost every other Democrat and Republican, she believes in NATO and is prepared to honor America's agreements. Meanwhile Trump's comments on this issue have ALREADY weakened us (see the Jeffrey Goldberg article and Estonia's actions). For you to suggest that the two candidates are a "wash" is really the height of irresponsibility on your part, which is why I laughed. 
Click to expand...
You must not read the posts you reply to.  I'd recommend going back and reading the post you replied to.  It had to do with honesty.  It had nothing to do with NATO, so I don't know why you brought that up other than to shift the discussion.  Good news is, I agree that she's been largely consistent in her political career (if you're referring to her actions of course).  Her words, not so much.

Back to my comment, you should reread it before you go :hophead:  about my "wash" comment.  I was very specific and deliberate with my words and you STILL brought out your broad brush in what I assume was another attempt to put words in another person's mouth and attack them as if that's what they said.  Won't work with me.  Good news is, I have realized this is your MO.  At one point I thought that I was just bad at getting my point across, but I see that you do this with everyone frequently.  You seem to be caught in your own echo chamber unable to hear what people are actually saying.  Hope that clears up at some point.

 
The Commish said:
Not sure why.  Hillary's already proven she's a habitual liar.  She fails miserably in this category.  Donald, well, it's an unknown if he means what he says politically.  On the issue of honesty, so far, we have a complete unknown and a miserable fail.  I'm fine with calling it a wash for now.
Click to expand...
Donald actually has a longer track record of lying.  He's been a public figure for 40 years and he's been lying in public that entire time.  Plus, Donald has no ability to speak for any period of time without lying.  

 
dparker713 said:
Donald actually has a longer track record of lying.  He's been a public figure for 40 years and he's been lying in public that entire time.  Plus, Donald has no ability to speak for any period of time without lying.  
Click to expand...
Listen, when you've reached 5+ years of lying it doesn't really matter who has been doing it longer anymore.  You're both ####### liars.

So....a wash.  Thanks, for clarifying.

 
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