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.
CurlyNight said:
Oh come on. No way in hell can anyone sane think Trump would be better than Hills. Hills isn't my first choice, my Bern is gone, but v Trump. No question..
Click to expand...
You are correct. Trump would not be better than HRC.  I think they would both be equally terrible in there own special way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I was happy with Hillary's plan, offered last year, to relieve student loans. I think this is a worthwhile government expenditure, if for no other reason than it well encourage millennials to buy homes, which they simply are not able to afford currently at the same levels as previous generations. 

But I am NOT happy with Hillary having glommed onto Bernie's plan of paying college tuitions for the middle class. This seems like an unnecessary expenditure to me. There are lots of problems with it: 

1. Not everyone needs to go to college. This will encourage many to go to college who dont belong there, which will eventually weaken academic standards. 

2. Public colleges are already partially siubsidized. If we fully subsidize them it will force private colleges to raise their tuitions further. 

3. Right now the military offers free college if you commit to service afterwards. This will eviscerate that program, which has produced the finest military in the world. Why bother enlisting if you can go to college free anyhow? 

4. This will cost many billions of dollars. I don't see how we can afford it without seriously increasing the deficit. 

These were my objections to Bernie's plan when he first announced it. They remain my objections to Hillary's plan now that she had adopted it. 
Click to expand...
Hillary cannot get any of that.  The congress will block her.  I get it, there actually hasn't been a president to enter office that faced opposition in congress since 1988, so this is all rather new.  But if Hillary wins, she will have NO domestic agenda.  She will immediately pivot to foreign affairs.  That's what Bush did in 1989, and that's what Hillary would do in 2017.

 
Bob Magaw said:
There is a hierarchy of "badness".

I find ridiculing women, POWs, the handicapped more loathsome.

Anger management issues/poor impulse control + nuclear football = bad juju

* Didn't Trump mouth off to the Pope. Who does that? :lmao: :lmao:  
Click to expand...


You gotta be careful with that.  The voters want change.  I think voters would respond by pointing out that Obama has been low key about cops getting shot, terror all over the place and immigration problems and jobs, and it doesn't seem to be working so why not try something else?

 
Bozo the Clown would be a change, too (and have as much political experience), but that doesn't mean I want him to run the country.

If you think you have your finger on the pulse of the country and it wants a GWOT (Great Wall Of Trump) and to demonize a RELIGION, than we seem to live in very different countries, unrecognizably so.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone should imitate the handicapped reporter, like Trump did, among mixed company.  Just do it.  See how bizarre it is.  

My immediate family and I did it and could not stop laughing how insane it is that Trump could be the President.  

"Small" Bloomberg.  Basically calling anyone who is short a #####.  

Trump would call FDR an invalid and mock his wheelchair.  That is not a stretch.

 
Sinn Fein said:
New Reuters poll from today posted?

Clinton 37

Trump 37

Johnson 5

Stein 1
Click to expand...
Going to be interesting to see the first set of polls that come out.  We had more cops shot in San Diego today and that wasn't factored into that poll.  Every time cops get shot, or there's more terror, and Obama and Hillary fail to take it seriously by coming up with a new plan, Trump will be right there reminding everyone that he pledges to make changes on those issues and get things done.  I don't know how long they can allow Trump to hammer them like that.

 
Bob Magaw said:
Bozo the Clown would be a change, too (and have as much political experience), but that doesn't mean I want him to run the country.

If you think you have your finger on the pulse of the country and it wants a GWOT (Great Wall Of Trump) and to demonize a RELIGION, than we seem to live in very different countries, unrecognizably so.  
Click to expand...
Trump is immune to Bozo the Clown attacks.   A big part of Trump's campaign is re-defining the democrat party as a party that fails to address serious issues and just attacks their opponents as crazy and stupid all the time.  Trump is actively trying to illicit your response to achieve this.

 
Riversco said:
Going to be interesting to see the first set of polls that come out.  We had more cops shot in San Diego today and that wasn't factored into that poll.  Every time cops get shot, or there's more terror, and Obama and Hillary fail to take it seriously by coming up with a new plan, Trump will be right there reminding everyone that he pledges to make changes on those issues and get things done.  I don't know how long they can allow Trump to hammer them like that.
Click to expand...
When you describe current events, it isn't just like you are describing a different game (like I was watching an NFC West game with your AFC West voice over commentary), but a different SPORT entirely - like Ostrich Racing. What does building a wall and banning Muslims have to do with violence against the police?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Riversco said:
Trump is immune to Bozo the Clown attacks.   A big part of Trump's campaign is re-defining the democrat party as a party that fails to address serious issues and just attacks their opponents as crazy and stupid all the time.  Trump is actively trying to illicit your response to achieve this.
Click to expand...
Just a figure of speech, no offense. Substitute Bonzo the Chimp? :)  

Trump is definitely separating himself. Thank goodness he never attacks his opponents as crazy and stupid all the time.

I will say, in an interview today, he looked perturbed and agitated, like he was close to blowing a gasket. IMO the DNC burst his balloon and rained on his parade a little bit, he looked as shook up as I've seen him since Celebrity Apprentice lost in the ratings to that Brady Bunch reunion show (so you know it was serious).

 
For everyone worried about Trump, his temper, and the nukes:

Does the president carry around the nuclear football in a purse or backpack? Are we worried that his temper will flare up and without a moment's notice he is going to launch a nuclear attack on someone that offended him?

Common sense tells me that if Trump wanted to launch a nuclear attack then it would be a multi step process involving several layers of approval and the input of various people. 

There is a big difference between not giving a #### what people think when you make a comment and inflicting physical harm on someone.

Maybe there are records of Trump assaulting people and destroying property. This would be a better indicator than talking smack on Twitter.

 
Gucci Fur said:
For everyone worried about Trump, his temper, and the nukes:

Does the president carry around the nuclear football in a purse or backpack? Are we worried that his temper will flare up and without a moment's notice he is going to launch a nuclear attack on someone that offended him?

Common sense tells me that if Trump wanted to launch a nuclear attack then it would be a multi step process involving several layers of approval and the input of various people. 

There is a big difference between not giving a #### what people think when you make a comment and inflicting physical harm on someone.

Maybe there are records of Trump assaulting people and destroying property. This would be a better indicator than talking smack on Twitter.
Click to expand...
It would be multi-step. Doing this, grabbing the football and launching the nukes (three steps if we're counting). MAYBE chopping off a hand or removing an eye as a more elaborate fourth step? He would need an accomplice to help him spell, though, which could admittedly complicate things.    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y7PxWdFPgY

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gucci Fur said:
For everyone worried about Trump, his temper, and the nukes:

Does the president carry around the nuclear football in a purse or backpack? Are we worried that his temper will flare up and without a moment's notice he is going to launch a nuclear attack on someone that offended him?

Common sense tells me that if Trump wanted to launch a nuclear attack then it would be a multi step process involving several layers of approval and the input of various people. 

There is a big difference between not giving a #### what people think when you make a comment and inflicting physical harm on someone.

Maybe there are records of Trump assaulting people and destroying property. This would be a better indicator than talking smack on Twitter.
Click to expand...
Your argument is don't worry their are people to protect us from Trump blowing up the world?

 
Riversco is either the worst thing to happen to this board lately or the best, depending on how you feel about clawing your own eyes out.

 
Bernie told us all we need to know about habitual liar's judgement.  Hillary will get far more Americans killed than Trump.  Of course if's that's really your concern then Gary Johnson would be the answer.

 
Bob Magaw said:
If you think you have your finger on the pulse of the country and it wants a GWOT (Great Wall Of Trump) and to demonize a RELIGION, than we seem to live in very different countries, unrecognizably so.  
Click to expand...
What evidence would it take to change your mind about this?  For example, suppose one of the two major parties nominated a guy who ran on building a wall and hating Muslims.  Would that be enough to convince you that there actually is a pretty big chunk of the country that wants those things?

 
chauncey said:
I'm pretty sure she was appealing to her base. Minorities and single parent families on welfare. It is in the Democrats best interest that these people believe it takes a village to raise their children. If these people were inspired to stand on their own two feet and achieve success there is a 50/50 chance they leave the party. If they stay dependent on the government for every aspect of their well being then there is a 100% chance they stay Democrat. 

Great book in my opinion. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is a good strategy that aligns with her politics and targets her voting demographic.  I never said she wasn't smart or didn't know exactly what she's doing.  

 
Riversco said:
Hillary cannot get any of that.  The congress will block her.  I get it, there actually hasn't been a president to enter office that faced opposition in congress since 1988, so this is all rather new.  But if Hillary wins, she will have NO domestic agenda.  She will immediately pivot to foreign affairs.  That's what Bush did in 1989, and that's what Hillary would do in 2017.
Click to expand...
More to the point, she will give all kinds of lip service for the next three months to Bernie supporters, in an attempt to make sure they come out and vote for her, but once she's in office, most of the ideas he had that she claims to have adopted now, she will chuck. And that is fine by me, since many of his grand ideas are ridiculously unrealistic anyway (free college?? Good luck with that). 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
What evidence would it take to change your mind about this?  For example, suppose one of the two major parties nominated a guy who ran on building a wall and hating Muslims.  Would that be enough to convince you that there actually is a pretty big chunk of the country that wants those things?
Click to expand...
Trump is immune from any attacks because of the attacks on Gingrich, Bush, and Palin.  If you attempt to say Trump wants to build a wall and wants to ban muslims, voters will think your comments are not just lies but the same tired old crap they've been hearing from years and then they will vote Trump just to shut you up. That's why the only way to beat him is to offer new policy of your own.

 
Mario Kart said:
I'm sorry but even if taken to the extremes of extremes, I think we'd all agree that it does not take every Tom, ****, and Harry to raise a family. However, on the flip side it does not take just two loving parents either. It does take extended family, neighbors, teachers, strangers, business owners, and the like... yes, even government policies and the like. And, before anyone scoffs at such a notion, ask yourselves who you knew growing up and how much of an influence others had on where you are today. Sure, a great foundation would be two loving parents at home but, sadly, this has never been the case for 100% of people. It is worse now because of the amount of people and lack of, not just fathers, but caring neighbors, caring communities, caring strangers and the like. To think otherwise is either being naive or just simply ignorant.
Click to expand...
A couple can raise a child.  I hope we can agree on that.  Parents care for that child, protect her, love her, cloth and feed her, support her, encourage her, inspire her, provide her guidance, etc.  Sure, a teacher can encourage, inspire, and provide guidance as well.  But the family unit raises the child.  Those outside agencies influence her as she shapes her future for when the time comes to leave the nest.  

Sure, a great foundation would be two loving parents at home but, sadly, this has never been the case for 100% of people. It is worse now because of the amount of people and lack of, not just fathers, but caring neighbors, caring communities, caring strangers and the like.
Click to expand...
Of course, that's right.  There are, sadly, too many broken families out there with small children.  By broken, I only mean without one of the parents involved.  Too many times it is the father that is absent, for whatever reason.  The mother is left having to provide for the child by working one or two jobs while the child is in day care.  Some may need food stamps, or some other government program.  Yes, I get that and I'm glad that type of program is available to those who need it.  Too many families are dependent on those types of programs.  I'm not saying it is their fault, please don't think that I am.  I just wish there were more fathers that stayed at home to help raise their children.  

I wish the name of the book was "Sometimes it Takes a Village", because there are certainly cases where help is needed to provide a child the things they need.  A village can help raise a child, absolutely.  But, imo, it doesn't "take" a village to raise every child.  

 
Riversco said:
Trump is immune from any attacks because of the attacks on Gingrich, Bush, and Palin.  If you attempt to say Trump wants to build a wall and wants to ban muslims, voters will think your comments are not just lies but the same tired old crap they've been hearing from years and then they will vote Trump just to shut you up. That's why the only way to beat him is to offer new policy of your own.
Click to expand...
Well there are Hillary supporters who meet this same rubric. It's up to you just like them to take the shades off and look at facts after that. Hillary is definitely a status quo candidate (and IMO the Clintons may just be taking the party back from Obama, so it's an older status quo) it's Trump who shows how nice the status quo can really be by going way out of bounds with some of his bizarre policy proposals. If people aren't rational enough to comprehend this then by definition they're irrational. Same is true of Hillary fans who can't acknowledge her character flaws.

 
randall146 said:
SO SHE ADMITS SHE WON'T BE THE MOST FIT PERSON EVER TO BE PRESIDENT!!
Click to expand...
See where you're going with this, but a more accurate portrayal IMHO would be if she were concealing brain cancer and congential heart failure and had no qualms about representing fitness.  

"As far as I know, I am not unfit to lead. There has never been any unfitness.  It depends on the definition of what 'fitness' is."  

i.e. I don't trust her.  She lies.  And she has no trouble getting those around her to lie along with her.  

 
Last edited:
timschochet said:
I'm betting you're wrong. 

What Johnson and Stein and lots of people here (like the Commish and Sinn Fein and others) have in common is that they do not believe that a Trump presidency would be an existential disaster for the country. Apparently they think that he is just another politician, no better or worse than Clinton, and that he would be stopped by Congress from doing too much damage, etc. They think people like me and you are fear mongering when we suggest how truly scary that Trump could be. They think we're nuts. They just don't get it. 
Click to expand...
Would you stop including me in your utter partisan bull#### Tim....please.  TIA.  

 
Riversco said:
Trump is immune to Bozo the Clown attacks.   A big part of Trump's campaign is re-defining the democrat party as a party that fails to address serious issues and just attacks their opponents as crazy and stupid all the time.  Trump is actively trying to illicit your response to achieve this.
Click to expand...
Elicit, but good sentiment. 

 
The Commish said:
Would you stop including me in your utter partisan bull#### Tim....please.  TIA.  
Click to expand...
I will not. This isn't partisan. And I am only referring to what you have written for months. You have consistently mocked me for warning about the threat of a Trump presidency. You, and others, have equated Hillary Clinton as being just as bad. You have declared that it is perfectly justifiable to vote for a third party candidate, and in so doing you will not be in any way responsible for a Trump victory, even in a battleground state. 

I think all of these positions, taken by you, are wrong and in terms of this election, dangerous. If you want to take back what you have written, great( I will congratulate you for doing so. But otherwise I will continue to call you out and criticize you and anyone else who expresses a similar point of view and I won't apologize for any of it. 

 
Riversco said:
Trump is immune to Bozo the Clown attacks.   A big part of Trump's campaign is re-defining the democrat party as a party that fails to address serious issues and just attacks their opponents as crazy and stupid all the time.  Trump is actively trying to illicit your response to achieve this.
Click to expand...
I know that you're just trolling, but this is weak sauce in the extreme. I don't particularly care for Hillary, but her campaign actually has laid out detailed policy plans and positions. I don't really believe that she believes in or will enact many of them, but she's definitely staked them out.

Trump is the one offering zero specifics. Name calling, scapegoating, and America, Hispanics, and Muslims suck is virtually all he's campaigned on from the beginning.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
You have declared that it is perfectly justifiable to vote for a third party candidate, and in so doing you will not be in any way responsible for a Trump victory, even in a battleground state. 
Click to expand...
How come Johnson voters are to blame if Trump wins?  Why not blame Hillary voters for not coming to their senses and voting for Johnson when they had the chance to stop the Trump apocalypse?

 
timschochet said:
I will not. This isn't partisan. And I am only referring to what you have written for months. You have consistently mocked me for warning about the threat of a Trump presidency. You, and others, have equated Hillary Clinton as being just as bad. You have declared that it is perfectly justifiable to vote for a third party candidate, and in so doing you will not be in any way responsible for a Trump victory, even in a battleground state. 

I think all of these positions, taken by you, are wrong and in terms of this election, dangerous. If you want to take back what you have written, great( I will congratulate you for doing so. But otherwise I will continue to call you out and criticize you and anyone else who expresses a similar point of view and I won't apologize for any of it. 
Click to expand...
And yet you chose the single riskiest Democratic candidate imaginable.

 
Mr. Ham said:
See where you're going with this, but a more accurate portrayal IMHO would be if she were concealing brain cancer and congential heart failure and had no qualms about representing fitness.  

"As far as I know, I am not unfit to lead. There has never been any unfitness.  It depends on the definition of what 'fitness' is."  

i.e. I don't trust her.  She lies.  And she has no trouble getting those around her to lie along with her.  
Click to expand...
Good to see you back, Senor Jamon.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
You're overplaying your hand here. Hillary certainly isn't a strong candidate, but she falls well within the range of normal / typical for both major parties. And she's going to win in a landslide this November.
Click to expand...
I think she will win by a good bit, but then that also takes the urgency out of Tim's accusations.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
How come Johnson voters are to blame if Trump wins?  Why not blame Hillary voters for not coming to their senses and voting for Johnson when they had the chance to stop the Trump apocalypse?
Click to expand...
Hillary Clinton is the only one who can defeat Donald Trump. Anyone who does not vote for Hillary Clinton is not contributing to the defeat of Donald Trump, and therefore is part of the problem. That's how I see it. 

in a normal election I would not see it this way. In fact I would be very supportive of Sinn Fein's position, and yours. This is not a normal election. Everything I write is based on the premise that a Trump presidency is an extremely grave threat to this country. If you believe that, you MUST vote for Hillary Clinton. 

 
timschochet said:
Hillary Clinton is the only one who can defeat Donald Trump. Anyone who does not vote for Hillary Clinton is not contributing to the defeat of Donald Trump, and therefore is part of the problem. That's how I see it. 

in a normal election I would not see it this way. In fact I would be very supportive of Sinn Fein's position, and yours. This is not a normal election. Everything I write is based on the premise that a Trump presidency is an extremely grave threat to this country. If you believe that, you MUST vote for Hillary Clinton. 
Click to expand...
Brian Hiatt ‏@hiattb 1h1 hour ago

Opposing Trump now isn't a matter of partisanship or even politics. It's human decency, patriotic duty, a response to a national emergency.
 
timschochet said:
I believe the situation, as indicated by the polls, is far too volatile to assume Hillary will win. I don't think we can assume anything at this point. 
Click to expand...
Ok I disagree for reasons previously stated. You're putting too much on Commish's lone vote. Personally I think Hillary's getting at least 300 EVs and if so you can let off the gas.

 
timschochet said:
Hillary Clinton is the only one who can defeat Donald Trump. Anyone who does not vote for Hillary Clinton is not contributing to the defeat of Donald Trump, and therefore is part of the problem. That's how I see it. 

in a normal election I would not see it this way. In fact I would be very supportive of Sinn Fein's position, and yours. This is not a normal election. Everything I write is based on the premise that a Trump presidency is an extremely grave threat to this country. If you believe that, you MUST vote for Hillary Clinton. 
Click to expand...
Gary Johnson would be crushing Trump if you recalcitrant Hillary voters would just come around.  You guys are literally endangering the future of our republic by insisting on voting for your most preferred candidate.  

 
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