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.
Riversco said:
I'm not sure that's really a valid dismissal.  I mean, there will always be a differences between elections.  I think I would need to hear why you think 3 candidates vs 2 candidates is reason to dismiss the Ventura Gambit.
Click to expand...
Hint: you don't get a straight line of votes.

 
Cobalt27, whatever he thinks of me, is obviously quite knowledgeable on this subject and his opinion deserves to be respected. 

That being said, while it's fun to speculate, I'm a little skeptical that any doctor, psychologist, or psychological expert can give an accurate analysis of a celebrity figure based on what we see on television. 

 
Hillary looks so young in this video dancing at the 1996 DNC.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEVKI1Zi2n8

When I looked at photos of her, it looks like she first put on a lot of weight when she ran for the Senate in 2000 and never lost it.  She's getting a bit portly as of late in that white outfit at the 2016 DNC.  She might be as big as we've ever seen her.

Here's her giving her speech in 96 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ3DcqXGas4

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
I'm not a "real" doctor, but the Ph.D. somehow affords me that "Dr." title.  Clinical Psychologist, trained as a neuropsychologist.  Goes without saying, I can't diagnose Bill, having never evaluated him.  However, certain behaviors are concerning, including recent disinhibition, motor signs, and somnolence.  They can all be explained away by personality factors and/or to some extent normal aging patterns.  But, it does appear to be  significant change from prior functioning, so I am speculating that something else is going on.
Click to expand...
He gave a great speech at the DNC. The teleprompter must've helped, but I don't think he read the entire speech. So his short-term memory might not be a major component of his decline. It's clear that there has been a change in Bill, but the campaign hasn't been hiding Bill. Some of us thought something was going on when he was drooling in Iowa during a Hillary speech back in January.  

 
badmojo1006 said:
OK that works
Click to expand...
X 2, thanks to cobalt.

Do we want a certifiable megalomaniac with NPD steering the ship and navigating a treacherous geopolitical landscape.

It isn't right that he doesn't have a nickname, too. From this point on, I'm referring to him as NPD Donald.

* What if NPD Donald decided that NPD Donald was best served doing what is best for NPD Donald, because, I don't know, NPD Donald is a megalomaniacal narcissist? Our collective policy-scape warped through the gravitational pull of a monstrous black hole and infernal nexus of an ego, refracted and distorted through the carnival fun house mirror lens of a sociopathic self-obsession.

** I first saw NPD suggested by the poster with the Star Wars Dark Side of the Force, I think (ton/e?oc?).   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SoBeDad said:
He gave a great speech at the DNC. The teleprompter must've helped, but I don't think he read the entire speech. So his short-term memory might not be a major component of his decline. It's clear that there has been a change in Bill, but the campaign hasn't been hiding Bill. Some of us thought something was going on when he was drooling in Iowa during a Hillary speech back in January.  
Click to expand...
On a technical point, I'm agnostic to the idea of a frank cortical neurodegenerative disorder, such as Alzheimer's.  The motor symptoms, at minimum, suggest some degree of sub cortical involvement.  That combined with disinhibition are, as I said before, concerning of an underlying process.  The fact that he can read and recall remote facts does not rule out a cortical dementia, like Alzheimer's. That's actually not uncommon.  What I'd like to see more of is spontaneous recall of recent events (I.e, without prompting) to gauge a little more about the integrity of his short-term me or functioning.  But, the other stuff he's exhibiting raise concerns of possible vascular dementia or at minimum it's precursor vascular mild cognitive impairment (v-MCI) or a mixed process to include early stage Alzheimer's.  

Differential should include normal aging with eccentricities. But I'm seeing more accentuation, hence the concern for him.

 
Narcissus (mythology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_(mythology)

Metamorphosis of Narcissus by Salvador Dali - Trump's favorite painting (that is, besides his Great Men portraits series, where he had his face painted over Alexander The Great, Caesar, Napoleon, etc.) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis_of_Narcissus

Narcissus and Goldmund  by Hermann Hesse - Trump's favorite title (besides ghost written The Art of the Deal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_and_Goldmund

 
bananafish said:
LOL at Trump reading anything besides newspaper articles about himself, much less Hesse.

At least we know Hillary's read Leaves of Grass.
Click to expand...
That is why I wrote TITLE. He likes the title. ONLY the title. The longest thing he has read might be those little comics you used to get in Bazooka bubble gum at the barber shop.  

He has some special video equipment allowing him to engage in his favorite activity. Not just look at himself. But looking at himself, looking at himself. 

Ripley's Believe It Or Trump

Someone replaced Donald Trump's eyes with his mouth and he looks the same

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1085500-donald-trump

Trump trying to take the baby's soul by sucking it through his skull (a dead giveaway of his true Hidden Illuminati Lizard Overlord nature)  

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/trump-to-clinton-no-more-mr-nice-guy/ 

Look at the top secret voter replicant lab

http://www.joemygod.com/2015/08/24/photoshop-of-the-day/ 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bananafish said:
This along with hiring DWS minutes after she left the DNC display a hubris and tone-deafness that have to leave Democrats smacking their foreheads. Just stupid.
Click to expand...
It's time to stop playing with two nuts and go for the Johnson.

- if we can get to 15% we get on the stage

- a couple more Wikilwaks bombshells drop

- people will start to realize that Johnson is the anti-Trump

its a long shot, but if we go down the other two paths, we're basically ####ed, so let's go for it

 
Good lord, the way she lied through the Wallace interview....serious metal illness here....no sane person would continue to hang on to these delusions

 
Rove! said:
Good lord, the way she lied through the Wallace interview....serious metal illness here....no sane person would continue to hang on to these delusions
Click to expand...
Are they delusions when even reasonable people on left and right don't want them to be true, so uncomfortable is the idea of Trump?

 
Rove! said:
Good lord, the way she lied through the Wallace interview....serious metal illness here....no sane person would continue to hang on to these delusions
Click to expand...
When no one questions or holds her accountable for her lies, why would she stop? Now, voting for her definitely shows serious mental illness.

 
Sort of surprised no one reacted to the WSJ article I posted about Hillary at State pushing for Russian "reset" and ultimately funding billions in Russian military and nuclear innovation after 10s of millions in Foudnstion donations + Bill speaking fees.  Are we no numb to the scandals that we don't absorb new ones?  

 
Mr. Ham said:
Sort of surprised no one reacted to the WSJ article I posted about Hillary at State pushing for Russian "reset" and ultimately funding billions in Russian military and nuclear innovation after 10s of millions in Foudnstion donations + Bill speaking fees.  Are we no numb to the scandals that we don't absorb new ones?  
Click to expand...
Story requires a subscription for starters.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Sort of surprised no one reacted to the WSJ article I posted about Hillary at State pushing for Russian "reset" and ultimately funding billions in Russian military and nuclear innovation after 10s of millions in Foudnstion donations + Bill speaking fees.  Are we no numb to the scandals that we don't absorb new ones?  
Click to expand...
This should explain it to you.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Just as I'm coming around to having to vote for Clinton.

Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by Peter Schweitzer (author Clinton Cash).  One output of Wilileaks is links to tens of millions in Clinton Foundarion donations and technology investments made by Hillary's State Department in Russian innovation.

"Even if it could be proven that these tens of millions of dollars in Clinton Foundation donations by Skolkovo’s key partners played no role in the Clinton State Department’s missing or ignoring obvious red flags about the Russian enterprise, the perception would still be problematic. (Neither the Clinton campaign nor the Clinton Foundation responded to requests for comment.) What is known is that the State Department recruited and facilitated the commitment of billions of American dollars in the creation of a Russian “Silicon Valley” whose technological innovations include Russian hypersonic cruise-missile engines, radar surveillance equipment, and vehicles capable of delivering airborne Russian troops."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195
Click to expand...


Well this is what we know with the Clintons and Russia so far, IIRC

- Bill Clinton Renaissance Capital speech in Moscow. This is an investment bank with "ties to the Kremlin." So, yes Putin here.

- Yes the Clinton Foundation / CGI uranium story. Before you speak about that just remember - or look up - that this went through Kazakhstan. This is convoluted. It is not a direct to Putin situation but Putin may have benefited.

- Podesta Group has been paid $180,000 by Uranium One in the last 3 years.

- Podesta Group has Sberbank as one of its clients. Sberbank is very much a Putin situation.

This may be a free text version of the WSJ article, or at least it is for me.

(eta - This is a Peter Schweizer peice, so I am assuming it will be dismissed out of hand by some, I am just assuming he has backup for what he says here).

- So now add to the above, this:

Consider Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley—and a core piece of Mrs. Clinton’s quarterbacking of the Russian reset.

Following his 2009 visit to Moscow, President Obama announced the creation of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state directed the American side, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represented the Russians. The stated goal at the time: “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”

The Kremlin committed $5 billion over three years to fund Skolkovo. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department worked aggressively to attract U.S. investment partners and helped the Russian State Investment Fund, Rusnano, identify American tech companies worthy of Russian investment. Rusnano, which a scientific adviser to President Vladimir Putin called “Putin’s child,” was created in 2007 and relies entirely on Russian state funding.

...By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan—who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation—recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.” Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
- I think one way to understand the Clinton and why the Foundation is a problem is it reflects something they say all the time about the Foundation - public and private merge and combine, they see no line drawn. IMO the best way of understanding this is that the idea of the Clintons is that they use their public influence to wield private influence in foreign (and domestic) areas that are beneficial to society.

I think this is also why any of Hillary's Foundation related emails are public and official and IMO she purposefully destroyed all of those communications.

- I guess this is the key snip.

In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital—and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.
Click to expand...


- Like the Uranium One deal what gets me is that people are ready to talk about the CF/CGI connection before the question is asked; even if there is no money and access question, why are we doing this as a matter of policy? I guess this was part of the "Reset". It's so dumb and misguided just on the face of things, like so many others of the Clinton controversies if you strip away the criminal accusations you still have this incredibly dumb move.

- eta2 - I guess what also gets me about this is that in most election seasons this would be a big deal, like the Uranium One story was last year. But this is the job of the GOP nominee to raise this issue. however the current one shows no inclination to raise any concerns about Russian policy or influence with the Clintons, possibly because he himself is far more compromised on that front.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Statewide polls with likely voters with data collection starting 8/1 should be apples to apples now. Convention and VP picks are in, debates are forthcoming.

Poll time! Get your data wonks out, should be an interesting 90+ days.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Statewide polls with likely voters with data collection starting 8/1 should be apples to apples now. Convention and VP picks are in, debates are forthcoming.

Poll time! Get your data wonks out, should be an interesting 90+ days.
Click to expand...
Thing with them both is three is not much room to grow or change for either of them. They are both totally known quantities.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Thing with them both is three is not much room to grow or change for either of them. They are both totally known quantities.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we now have the "bounces" factored in, etc. With 8/1 dates going forward, people will have everything that came out of both conventions digested, and everything prior.

A lot of talk about "when can we point to polls"? With the above, we've pretty much reached that stage.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Yes, but we now have the "bounces" factored in, etc. With 8/1 dates going forward, people will have everything that came out of both conventions digested, and everything prior.

A lot of talk about "when can we point to polls"? With the above, we've pretty much reached that stage.
Click to expand...
After a post-convention bounce, isn't there usually a pullback at some point?

 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/29/1554022/-Election-Justice-USA-Study-Finds-that-Without-Election-Fraud-Sanders-Would-Have-Won-by-Landslide

"She won the primary by dictatorship"
Click to expand...
Is "Election Justice USA" some kind of bipartisan think tank, or is it just a bunch of disgruntled Bernie supporters who decided to give themselves an official-sounding name?

 
jamny said:
After a post-convention bounce, isn't there usually a pullback at some point?
Click to expand...
That's what's so interesting about this cycle, in some ways (especially with Trump) it's hard to know because it's a bit of uncharted waters.

From a data collection perspective, I'll look at the polls with dates in field of 7/31 or later and begin discounting previous polls due to non-recency. That's really the point, is that polls with dates of 7/31 and going forward will have both conventions and the VP picks as events that respondents can factor into their responses. Polls prior to the conventions become less meaningful, and can be replaced from consideration entirely as the new polls are released.

 
The reason that the Clinton Foundation "scandals" don't get any more play is because there has never been any proof of a quid pro quo. 

Furthermore, it's an absurd notion to begin with, made by people with little or no understanding of how the State Department works. The Secretary of State doesn't issue arbitrary orders; she doesn't sign trade deals by herself or veto deals by herself; she doesn't do ANYTHING by herself. She has thousands of employees, working in very specialized areas, and every action that is taken is the result of months or years of advice from long term employees, non-partisan, with tons of paperwork backing it up. The system is immune against someone at the top attempting to corrupt it in return for favors. It's a simplistic idea, like most conspiracy theories. 

 
And the notion that Hillary won the nomination through some sort of conspiracy is even stupider. 

Once again, if you were paying attention at all, Hillary dominated among African-Americans. In the Democratic nomination race, this is THE decisive factor. She began by struggling in New Hampshire and Iowa, two all white states. Then the black vote helped her crush Sanders in South Carolina and she never looked back. 

Because white people have basically abandoned the Democratic party in the south, African-Americans dominate southern primaries far beyond their numbers. They are the main reason Obama defeated Hillary in 2008, and they are the main reason Hillary crushed Bernie in 2016- "crushed" is the proper word, this was NOT, by historical standards, a close race at all. 

Until such time as southern whites return to the Democratic party in significant numbers, blacks will continue to decide who the nominee is going to be. 

 
timschochet said:
 They are the main reason Obama defeated Hillary in 2008, and they are the main reason Hillary crushed Bernie in 2016- "crushed" is the proper word, this was NOT, by historical standards, a close race at all.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Silver wrote about this last week

My view is that the race wasn’t really all that close and that Sanders never really had that much of a chance at winning. From a purely horse-race standpoint, in fact, the media probably exaggerated the competitiveness of the race. But that’s not to diminish Sanders’s accomplishments in terms of what they mean for the Democratic Party after 2016. It’s significant that Sanders in particular — and not Warren or Joe Biden or Martin O’Malley — finished in second place.
Click to expand...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-the-democratic-primary-a-close-call-or-a-landslide/

 
Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 4h4 hours ago

In all polls so far, Clinton's improved relative to the pre-convention version of the polls. IOW, she's gotten a larger bump than Trump...

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 4h4 hours ago


...and possibly also made up some of the ground she lost in July. Question is, can she sustain this for a few weeks? Or is it temporary?

 
Sinn Fein said:
ZOMG!!!

footballguys.com has (c) 2016 on it...had no idea it was formed this year!!!one!11!juan!11!!1!!

PS - any website with original content is likely to have a current copyright date on it.....
Click to expand...
I guess the difference is that I can find evidence of footballguys.com existing before 2016 in about 30 seconds.  When you search footballguys wiki the first result is Dodds' wikipedia page, which says the site was formed in 1999. Election Justice USA doesn't even have a wikipedia page.  That's right, they just got big-timed by David Dodds.

I had to dig for a while to figure out when they were formed, found it on their facebook page:

The events on March 22, 2016 in Maricopa County, AZ were the lightning rod that catalyzed the formation of Election Justice USA
Click to expand...
So, yeah. this is a pro-Sanders advocacy group founded just this year to whine about election results that don't favor their guy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no doubt they were formed this year, and that they look like conspiracy nuts.

But, the copyright date on a website is not dispositive, by any stretch.  My company has code that automatically updates the copyright date every year, as I suspect most companies have to keep their copyright current.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I have no doubt they were formed this year, and that they look like conspiracy nuts.

But, the copyright date on a website is not dispositive, by any stretch.  My company has code that automatically updates the copyright date every year, as I suspect most companies have to keep their copyright current.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right.  In the absence of other evidence it was all I had and I'm not at all familiar with copyright law.  Should have found their facebook page earlier.

 
timschochet said:
And the notion that Hillary won the nomination through some sort of conspiracy is even stupider. 
Click to expand...
Not really. The DNC apologized to Sanders because the emails clearly showed an internal bias. To say that internal bias is not a "conspiracy" is splitting hairs. I think you are so "anti-conspiracy" that you don't realize how easy it is for people to conspire, and that it happens a lot, pretty much every day, at all levels in varying degrees. Humans can be manipulative and corruptible. That doesn't mean chem trails and black helicopters are true conspiracies. But chem trails and black helicopters not being true doesn't mean the DNC didn't conspire. Of course they did. It's clearly in the emails. So much so the DNC apologized for it. 

 
timschochet said:
The reason that the Clinton Foundation "scandals" don't get any more play is because there has never been any proof of a quid pro quo. 

Furthermore, it's an absurd notion to begin with, made by people with little or no understanding of how the State Department works. The Secretary of State doesn't issue arbitrary orders; she doesn't sign trade deals by herself or veto deals by herself; she doesn't do ANYTHING by herself. She has thousands of employees, working in very specialized areas, and every action that is taken is the result of months or years of advice from long term employees, non-partisan, with tons of paperwork backing it up. The system is immune against someone at the top attempting to corrupt it in return for favors. It's a simplistic idea, like most conspiracy theories. 
Click to expand...
Since the SOS doesn't really do all that much, why do keep bringing it up as one of Clinton's major qualifications?  Seems like a caretaker position as you've described it.

 
Politician Spock said:
Not really. The DNC apologized to Sanders because the emails clearly showed an internal bias. To say that internal bias is not a "conspiracy" is splitting hairs. I think you are so "anti-conspiracy" that you don't realize how easy it is for people to conspire, and that it happens a lot, pretty much every day, at all levels in varying degrees. Humans can be manipulative and corruptible. That doesn't mean chem trails and black helicopters are true conspiracies. But chem trails and black helicopters not being true doesn't mean the DNC didn't conspire. Of course they did. It's clearly in the emails. So much so the DNC apologized for it. 
Click to expand...
The DNC's actions did not impact the election. Hillary would have won easily regardless. 

 
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
264K
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