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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So far, however, the post-convention polls have been strong enough for Clinton that there isn’t a lot of need to worry about semantics. They suggest that she possibly holds a lead over Trump in the mid- to high single digits, instead of being tied with him. Here are the fully post-convention polls we’ve seen so far:

  • A CBS News poll has Clinton ahead by 5 percentage points, in the version of the poll that includes third-party candidates (which is the version FiveThirtyEight uses). Trump led Clinton by 1 point in a CBS News poll conducted just after the RNC, so that would count as a 6-point bounce for Clinton.
  • A Morning Consult poll also showed Clinton up by 5 percentage points, representing a 9-point swing toward her from a poll they conducted last week after the RNC.
  • A RABA Research national poll, conducted on Friday after the convention, has Clinton with a 15-point lead. RABA Research’s national poll has been something of a pro-Clinton outlier. Still, the trend in the poll is favorable for Clinton. She’d led Trump by 5 percentage points in RABA Research’s poll just after the RNC, meaning that she got a 10-point bounce.
  • Finally, a Public Policy Polling survey has Clinton up by 5 percentage points. Because PPP did not conduct a post-RNC poll, we can’t directly measure Clinton’s bounce. But their previous national poll, in late June, showed Clinton up by 4 percentage points. Therefore, their data tends to confirm our notion that the conventions may have reset the race to approximately where it was in June, which was a strong month of polling for Clinton.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's extremely important. Along with the President she directs general policy. She negotiates with the leaders of our allies and enemies. When there are stumbling blocks she finds ways around them. 

But she can't get away with changing specific  policy on her own in return for cash or personal favors. And she doesn't micromanage security in individual embassies. 

 
Seeing these early post-convention polls... my impression is that the DNC wiped out the RNC, but also helped her put the e-mail thing in the rear-view mirror.  Prior to the conventions it was all anyone was talking about, but the conventions disappeared it -- not least of which because Trump is a terrible candidate who can't stay on message for more than 12 hours at a time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
Hillary would have won the primary election whether or not the DNC used their influence. 

Clinton’s winning because more Democrats want her to be the nominee.

 
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/29/paris-strikes-astonishing-partnership-secret-isis-sponsor-ties-hillary-clinton/

ooooof

snippets posted below

Documents obtained by several journalistic investigations reveal that Lafarge has paid taxes to the terror group to operate its cement plant in Syria, and even bought Isis oil for years.

Lafarge also has close ties to Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Apart from being a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation, Clinton herself was a director of Lafarge in the early 1990s, and did legal work for the firm in the 1980s. During her connection to Lafarge, the firm was implicated in facilitating a CIA-backed covert arms export network to Saddam Hussein.

From 1990 to 1992, Clinton served on Lafarge’s Board of Directors. Under her tenure, Lafarge’s Ohio subsidiary was caught burning hazardous waste to fuel cement plants. Clinton defended the decision at the time.

Then just before her husband, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992, Lafarge was fined $1.8 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for these pollution violations. Hillary Clinton had left the board of Lafarge in spring, just after her husband won the Democrat nomination. A year later, under Bill’s presidency, the Clinton administration reduced Lafarge’s EPA fine to less than $600,000.

Lafarge remains close to the Clintons to this day.

In 2013, Lafarge’s Executive Vice President for Operations, Eric Olson, was a ‘featured attendee’ at the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting.

The company is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm’s up to $100,000 donation was listed in its annual donor list for 2015. Lafarge is also listed again as a donor to the Clinton Foundation for the first quarter of 2016.

Lafarge is a major beneficiary of disaster capitalism in Iraq, dominating a market where Iraq’s infrastructure remains in dire need of hundreds of billions of dollars in investment. The company describes itself as “one of the largest non-oil investors in Iraq.”

The firm is not just an economic juggernaut. Its murky history of intelligence ties, and significant political clout in France and the US – the countries leading the airstrikes against Isis in Syria – raise the question of whether Lafarge believes it can profit from terror without accountability.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
This country has gone mad!

Abstract Hillary's role.  Do you think it was a good idea to fuel Russian military innovation? 

We never get to the bottom of the Foundation's role on many deals, because of opacity.  To me, it doesn't matter.  It should be illegal to blend private and public interest - certainly to the degree it is even possible with the Foundation. 

And in terms of whether there may have been electronic voting machine fraud to explain discrepancies in exit polls (to a degree hat the US would view as evidence of fraud in a third world country); you can't show me proof the machines aren't hacked, because the code is protected by IP laws and not subject to any inspection or post mortem that it wasn't.  And developers have testified in relation to other elections that they were hired to hack these machines!  Many have wireless access and can be hacked from a parking lot!

You may claim that proving a negative:  The the Clinton Foundation didn't influence policy; that voting machines weren't hacked is an unrealistic standard.  I say it's crazy given human nature and the possibility of massive corruption, that the conditions for either to exist are absurd and an indictment on how lax we've become with the checks and balances on power.

There are many debatable points surrounding this election, but one thing is clear:  Hillary Clinton is not an honest woman.  The degree of trust she receives by many is borderline insane.

 
Last edited:
wdcrob said:
Because Democratic voters preferred her by a wide margin?

You guys crack me up with this stuff.  "The DNC" didn't elect Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
 I didn't say the DNC elected Hillary.   They did clearly conspire to help Hillary, and if she would have won easily without their help then they're idiots.   

 
Clinton now up 2.8-3.7 points in the average of the polling aggregators (depending on whether you include the TPM outlier).  Given that the bounce should still have legs it may be shaping up to be fairly sizeable.  

 
Flying Spaghetti Monster said:
No we didn't.  We voted for Sanders.
Click to expand...
If there had been caucuses in every state Sanders might have had a chance.  But as it actually happened, her vote share was tied directly to how many Democratic voters actually voted.  The higher the turnout -- the greater the size of her wins, and vice versa.

Even where Sanders won the caucus Clinton still beat him in states that held a non-binding primaries afterwards.

 
Politician Spock said:
LOL! That was published two months before the scandal the DNC apologized for even broke.
Click to expand...
And did it not prove my point? Sanders supporters have been complaining about this for months. 538 proved that it was wrong.

Actually it is better it came out before the "So-called" scandal. Unbiased by the DNC

 
badmojo1006 said:
And did it not prove my point? Sanders supporters have been complaining about this for months. 538 proved that it was wrong.

Actually it is better it came out before the "So-called" scandal. Unbiased by the DNC
Click to expand...
That's like proving the world was flat prior to science proving it's not. And LOL at "So-called". The DNC didn't apologize to Sanders and fire their chief over something "So-called".

 
One of the most hilarious moments in the campaign was when George S. interviewed Trump on Face The Nation and Trump interrupted him to say Putin won't go into the Ukraine, and George had to remind him he was already there.

Than after some quick Porky Pig stutters, he went into full blown deflection mode overdrive talking about Trump wasn't there (??? non-sequitur alert), and it was all Obama's fault blah blah.

Could Trump remember the first three words of the Constitution if you spotted him the first two?

GREAT open letter by McCain. Trump has burned more bridges than the filming of Bridge Over The River Kwai, The Good The Bad And The Ugly and The Wild Bunch COMBINED, and the chickens are coming home to roost (Trump was a complete scum bag in questioning McCain - he thought he was so cute in stating he liked soldiers that didn't get caught - when he weaseled out of service himself, he had no business going there, he has shown his true face throughout, a vile, loathsome, proto-hominid, despicable coward).      

 
Bob Magaw said:
One of the most hilarious moments in the campaign was when George S. interviewed Trump on Face The Nation and Trump interrupted him to say Putin won't go into the Ukraine, and George had to remind him he was already there.

Than after some quick Porky Pig stutters, he went into full blown deflection mode overdrive talking about Trump wasn't there (??? non-sequitur alert), and it was all Obama's fault blah blah.

Could Trump remember the first three words of the Constitution if you spotted him the first two?

GREAT open letter by McCain. Trump has burned more bridges than the filming of Bridge Over The River Kwai, The Good The Bad And The Ugly and The Wild Bunch COMBINED, and the chickens are coming home to roost (Trump was a complete scum bag in questioning McCain - he thought he was so cute in stating he liked soldiers that didn't get caught - when he weaseled out of service himself, he had no business going there, he has shown his true face throughout, a vile, loathsome, proto-hominid, despicable coward).      
Click to expand...
I love this piece from McCain but  :ptts:  he is the one who gave us Palin. Without Palin not tea party movement and subsequent hyjack by the GOP which turns into disenfranchisement and then turns into Trumpism. 

 
I just listened to the "Benghazi Mom" on CNN once again accuse Hillary Clinton of murder. 

I feel very sorry for this lady, I can't imagine what it's like to lose a child, and she certainly has a right to speak her mind, but she comes off, sadly, as hate-filled and completely irrational at this point. I thought Cindy Sheehan was pretty bad, this is worse. 

She also complained that the Khan family is being treated with respect by the media, while she is not. But part of the reason for that may be that the Khans are not charging Donald Trump with murder. 

 
timschochet said:
I just listened to the "Benghazi Mom" on CNN once again accuse Hillary Clinton of murder. 

I feel very sorry for this lady, I can't imagine what it's like to lose a child, and she certainly has a right to speak her mind, but she comes off, sadly, as hate-filled and completely irrational at this point. I thought Cindy Sheehan was pretty bad, this is worse. 

She also complained that the Khan family is being treated with respect by the media, while she is not. But part of the reason for that may be that the Khans are not charging Donald Trump with murder. 
Click to expand...
Also there's nobody in a similar position as the Khans that is challenging their accusations.  Some of the families of those killed at Benghazi- specifically the Stevens family- have flatly said that they don't hold Clinton responsible and don't want Ambassador Stevens' politicized in this way.

 
Slapdash said:
I need to get in on this
Click to expand...
Spock RUMBLE (set phasers on stun)!

A sign of the times that Star Trek Into Trumpness has brought us to the brink of a Spock Civil War.

* Can one Spock use the sleeper hold on another?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw said:
Spock RUMBLE (set phasers on stun)!

A sign of the times that Star Trek Into Trumpness has brought us to the brink of a Spock Civil War.

* Can one Spock use the sleeper hold on another?
Click to expand...
If we use political leanings as battle terms, i will be outnumbered. That's OK, i will just call my good friend Zachary Quinto to kick some a**

 
timschochet said:
I just listened to the "Benghazi Mom" on CNN once again accuse Hillary Clinton of murder. 

I feel very sorry for this lady, I can't imagine what it's like to lose a child, and she certainly has a right to speak her mind, but she comes off, sadly, as hate-filled and completely irrational at this point. I thought Cindy Sheehan was pretty bad, this is worse. 

She also complained that the Khan family is being treated with respect by the media, while she is not. But part of the reason for that may be that the Khans are not charging Donald Trump with murder. 
Click to expand...
I've said a couple nice things about Hillary's response to this so far, but I guess what is confusing is whether Hillary maintains she told Mrs. Woods that the movie was to blame. Is Hillary saying she told her that or not? Seems like she is sailing she did not.

eta - Btw the distinction you are making between Mrs. Woods and the Khans is the same one the Trumpites are making.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I just listened to the "Benghazi Mom" on CNN once again accuse Hillary Clinton of murder. 

I feel very sorry for this lady, I can't imagine what it's like to lose a child, and she certainly has a right to speak her mind, but she comes off, sadly, as hate-filled and completely irrational at this point. I thought Cindy Sheehan was pretty bad, this is worse. 

She also complained that the Khan family is being treated with respect by the media, while she is not. But part of the reason for that may be that the Khans are not charging Donald Trump with murder. 
Click to expand...
It is obvious the media is treating the Khan family better than her.  Trump made a stupid comment that is being blown out of proportion. I get it if you don't like Trump, he was not one of my top 4 choices, but there are plentybof reasons to dislike Trump than the Khan story.

She is upset at Hillary's role in Benghazi and the way it was swept under the rug.

 
Don't Noonan said:
It is obvious the media is treating the Khan family better than her.  Trump made a stupid comment that is being blown out of proportion. I get it if you don't like Trump, he was not one of my top 4 choices, but there are plentybof reasons to dislike Trump than the Khan story.

She is upset at Hillary's role in Benghazi and the way it was swept under the rug.
Click to expand...
Swept under what rug? The rug of 8 separate investigations? 

 
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