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 (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Commish said:
I suspect you're right on this....Tobias, this is one of those situations I was referring to before with respect to Hillary changing her mind, being ok with it etc.  Attempting to hide your real position to get elected isn't really leading and example of the "bad flip flop" I was referring to.
Click to expand...
Kind of like the time she voted in favor of invading Iraq because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I think Hillary will pull away as we move into the fall.  When the idea of "President Trump" becomes a real, immediate thing and not just some funny hypothetical, independents and a decent number of Republicans are going to gravitate toward Clinton.  Hillary is terrible, but she's not going to stumble into WW3.  I don't see how anybody can have that degree of confidence in Trump.  Four years of partisan gridlock and public corruption looks like nirvana compared to a Trump presidency.
Click to expand...
The best part of the whole thing will be how her supporters show the "landslide" victory as how incredibly qualified she is and how much America really wanted her as President.

 
The Commish said:
The best part of the whole thing will be how her supporters show the "landslide" victory as how incredibly qualified she is and how much America really wanted her as President.
Click to expand...
I think we can all go ahead and start preparing our :lmao:  s for that line.  Assuming Hillary wins, she will have a mandate not to blow up the world and not to give Vladimir Putin a cabinet position.  That's it.  

 
The Commish said:
I suspect you're right on this....Tobias, this is one of those situations I was referring to before with respect to Hillary changing her mind, being ok with it etc.  Attempting to hide your real position to get elected isn't really leading and example of the "bad flip flop" I was referring to.
Click to expand...
It's smart politics is what it is. The opposition to TPP has gotten irrational. People who don't even know what it is oppose it with passion. Make the case after the election when heads are cooler. I could see sticking to your guns if this were a central ideological issue for democrats, but it's a trade agreement with a lot of nuance and moving parts. Smarter to let it rest for now.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I think we can all go ahead and start preparing our :lmao:  s for that line.  Assuming Hillary wins, she will have a mandate not to blow up the world and not to give Vladimir Putin a cabinet position.  That's it.  
Click to expand...
I'm personally hoping that the biggest message sent and received in all of this is to the GOP. It would be really nice to see them ditch the extremism and social baggage and tack back to the center with a focus on the economy and fiscal policy.

 
cstu said:
She voted to allow Bush to decide whether to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...
And her entire speech on that vote was full of caveats for Bush on how prudent he should be when deliberating the use of force. Of course in retrospect, they all should have known he was bent on invasion. But it's not like she was cheerleading.

 
MaxThreshold said:
As opposed to only believing positive things about Hillary and nothing else.  You and NutCase are the epitome of sycophants.  Jim Jones wished he would have had more zombie followers like you.
Click to expand...
I have been critical of Hillary at times, but you pay no attention to that.  So it untrue that I only believe positive things about her because I don't always say positive things about her (obviously). Meanwhile I have never heard you say one positive thing about Hillary. Not once. All you got is negativity (which seems to characterize your personality, but I digress).

 
The Commish said:
The best part of the whole thing will be how her supporters show the "landslide" victory as how incredibly qualified she is and how much America really wanted her as President.
Click to expand...
This won't be my position. 

First off, while i do think she's very qualified, the amount of votes she receives will not be evidence of that fact one way or the other. 

Second, Hillary screwed up with the email thing. I don't believe it was either a crime nor disqualifying, but it was a stupid unforced error, and it would have possibly caused her to lose to a "normal" GOP opponent (if there is such a thing.) I'm not sure of this. But this election is about Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. If she wins it will be because more people voted AGAINST Trump than for her. 

 
squistion said:
Such a disaster that no one is talking about it except on Fox.
Click to expand...
see there is a big disconnect here

it was disaster in the sense of her  continued delusional lying may be a sign of mental illness.  I wonder if she eally believes she was under sniper fire in Bosnia.  It was a disaster in the sense that if she does get elected, is she fit to hold the office if she cant even do an unscripted interview or a press conference?

you view purely in terms of media coverage and votes without seeing the big picture

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Everybody knew at the time that the result of that vote would be an invasion,  Your defense of her is that she was a gullible fool, tricked by Bush The Mastermind.
Click to expand...
That isn't true. If everyone knew at the time there would be an invasion the vote would have been for a declaration of war, not an authorization to use force if necessary. And she was given false, misleading intelligence by the Bush Administration that she was unable to personally vet. And recall Condi Rice kept saying the smoking gun would be a nuclear cloud and if Hillary was wrong and voted against this, she would have to deal the consequences if Manhattan was nuked.  

 
pantagrapher said:
It's smart politics is what it is. The opposition to TPP has gotten irrational. People who don't even know what it is oppose it with passion. Make the case after the election when heads are cooler. I could see sticking to your guns if this were a central ideological issue for democrats, but it's a trade agreement with a lot of nuance and moving parts. Smarter to let it rest for now.
Click to expand...
"Smart Politics" is one of our better oxymorons these days.  There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose TPP...the broad brush statement you make is Tim-esque and not really all that helpful.  In the end you've used a lot of words to say "not really worth dying on this hill politically" which is part of the reason we have Trump vs Hillary.

 
squistion said:
That isn't true. If everyone knew at the time there would be an invasion the vote would have been for a declaration of war, not an authorization to use force if necessary. 
Click to expand...
Yes, it absolutely is true.  We debated this topic endlessly for nearly two years at the time.

 
squistion said:
That isn't true. If everyone knew at the time there would be an invasion the vote would have been for a declaration of war, not an authorization to use force if necessary. And she was given false, misleading intelligence by the Bush Administration that she was unable to personally vet. And recall Condi Rice kept saying the smoking gun would be a nuclear cloud and if Hillary was wrong and voted against this, she would have to deal the consequences if Manhattan was nuked.  
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm not buying this.  Hillary knew she was voting for war, the public knew it, and Hillary's speech at the time made the case for war. I've never heard that about Condi Rice but I don't think it affected Hillary's thinking. 

But I also disagree with Ivan- I don't think Hillary voted for war because it was politically expedient. I think she did it because she truly believed at the time that it made sense for us to remove Saddam Hussein, that we could solve the Middle East by doing so. Most Republicans and Democrats alike believed this, as did the vast majority of Americans. While I was not one of them, I don't pat myself on the back for it because honestly I wasn't sure I was right in my stance against it back then. 

 
The Commish said:
"Smart Politics" is one of our better oxymorons these days.  There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose TPP...the broad brush statement you make is Tim-esque and not really all that helpful.  In the end you've used a lot of words to say "not really worth dying on this hill politically" which is part of the reason we have Trump vs Hillary.
Click to expand...
"Tim-esque"? I certainly don't believe that all opposition to TPP is irrational. 

 
The first, but maybe not the last. Hanna is retiring, but still a bit surprising.

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/08/gop_rep_richard_hanna_says_hell_vote_for_hillary_clinton.html

GOP Rep. Richard Hanna: I'll vote for Clinton; first House member to cross party line

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna, a three-term Republican, said Tuesday he will vote for Hillary Clinton for president because Donald Trump is "unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country."

Hanna becomes the first Republican member of Congress to publicly declare he will vote for Clinton in November.

Other GOP members of Congress have refused to endorse Trump, but until now none had promised to vote for his Democratic opponent.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yes, it absolutely is true.  We debated this topic endlessly for nearly two years at the time.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. There was the hope that force would only be used as a last resort and only if necessary (which was how it was presented to the public) And at the time we didn't know that the Bush administration had ginned up the intelligence.
 

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/the-bush-administration-threw-us-a-curveball-on-iraq

The Bush Administration Threw Us a Curveball on Iraq
Click to expand...

 
squistion said:
You are wrong. There was the hope that force would only be used as a last resort and only if necessary (which was how it was presented to the public) 
Click to expand...
You and I are remembering this episode very, very differently.  I don't think there's any scope to resolve that difference here though.  

 
timschochet said:
This won't be my position. 

First off, while i do think she's very qualified, the amount of votes she receives will not be evidence of that fact one way or the other. 

Second, Hillary screwed up with the email thing. I don't believe it was either a crime nor disqualifying, but it was a stupid unforced error, and it would have possibly caused her to lose to a "normal" GOP opponent (if there is such a thing.) I'm not sure of this. But this election is about Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. If she wins it will be because more people voted AGAINST Trump than for her. 
Click to expand...
I'm close to this position. I would further criticize Hillary on her inability to connect with real Americans, she's been pretty insulated and tends to show that she feels she is above people. Her decision making on some items has been questionable, specifically when it comes to foreign policy (ironically). Barack Obama had her beat on both measures in '08 (better connected to real people issues, better judgement on the war votes), plus was a better speaker, and was (relatively) scandal free. I agree that a moderate Republican had a real chance this cycle. More lack of responsibility from that side, IMO. I'm beginning to think they want a scapegoat, Obama's been a pretty convenient punching bag.

 
squistion said:
The first, but maybe not the last. Hanna is retiring, but still a bit surprising.

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/08/gop_rep_richard_hanna_says_hell_vote_for_hillary_clinton.html

GOP Rep. Richard Hanna: I'll vote for Clinton; first House member to cross party line

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna, a three-term Republican, said Tuesday he will vote for Hillary Clinton for president because Donald Trump is "unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country."

Hanna becomes the first Republican member of Congress to publicly declare he will vote for Clinton in November.

Other GOP members of Congress have refused to endorse Trump, but until now none had promised to vote for his Democratic opponent.
Click to expand...
I hope more will follow.  People need to vote their conscience.

 
The Commish said:
"Smart Politics" is one of our better oxymorons these days.  There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose TPP...the broad brush statement you make is Tim-esque and not really all that helpful.  In the end you've used a lot of words to say "not really worth dying on this hill politically" which is part of the reason we have Trump vs Hillary.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to say that all opposition to TPP is irrational. But it became a with-us-or-against-us rallying cry, so she was smart to step away from that since it's not a core priority.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I think we can all go ahead and start preparing our :lmao:  s for that line.  Assuming Hillary wins, she will have a mandate not to blow up the world and not to give Vladimir Putin a cabinet position.  That's it.  
Click to expand...
she already gave Putin control of 20% of our Uranium...he might as well have had cabinet position...

 
squistion said:
You are wrong. There was the hope that force would only be used as a last resort and only if necessary (which was how it was presented to the public) And at the time we didn't know that the Bush administration had ginned up the intelligence.
 
Click to expand...
that story is Sydney Blumenthal's work in trying to provide cover for his meal ticket

 
Rove! said:
she already gave Putin control of 20% of our Uranium...he might as well have had cabinet position...
Click to expand...
Are we just completely making up stuff now?  I like it.

Donald Trump rapes kittens.

Jill Stein was part of the Manson family.

Gary Johnson wants to change the American flag to this: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 
Anyone else picturing Rove! on November 8th, lying on the floor in the fetal position, mumbling "Benghazi... Benghazi... Benghazi" as the tears roll slowly down his face?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I think Hillary will pull away as we move into the fall.  When the idea of "President Trump" becomes a real, immediate thing and not just some funny hypothetical, independents and a decent number of Republicans are going to gravitate toward Clinton.  Hillary is terrible, but she's not going to stumble into WW3.  I don't see how anybody can have that degree of confidence in Trump.  Four years of partisan gridlock and public corruption looks like nirvana compared to a Trump presidency.
Click to expand...
Putty in Putin's hand (with a little cash to Clinton's phony charity)

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

 
Rove! said:
really?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=3
Click to expand...
Yes, really.  You said "she gave Putin 20% control of our uranium."

What actually happened was the agency she headed, along with several other agencies, satisfied a consultation requirement as part of a review process headed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which ultimately awarded the mining rights to approx 20% of uranium in the United States to a Russian interest.  That NRC approval merely authorized toe transaction- it does not immediately permit the mining of the uranium or its export, each of which would require further review and permitting. 

So in summary:

-She didn't give anyone anything.

-Putin wasn't the recipient of anything.

-Nobody was given "control of our uranium," they were merely awarded the right to extract it if they satisfy regulatory requirements for mining operations.

-Even if they were, they still could not export it without further approval from the NRC, which seems unlikely.

-I award you zero points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yes, really.  You said "she gave Putin 20% control of our uranium."

What actually happened was the agency she headed, along with several other agencies, satisfied a consultation requirement as part of a review process headed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which ultimately awarded the mining rights to approx 20% of uranium in the United States to a Russian interest.  That NRC approval merely authorized toe transaction- it does not immediately permit the mining of the uranium or its export, each of which would require further review and permitting. 

So in summary:

-She didn't give anyone anything.

-Putin wasn't the recipient of anything.

-Nobody was given "control of our uranium," they were merely awarded the right to extract it if they satisfy regulatory requirements for mining operations.

-Even if they were, they still could not export it without further approval from the NRC, which seems unlikely.

-I award you zero points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Click to expand...
riht tpo extract...control...basically Putin has control of a significant share of a critical market for which he paid off the Clintons to get State approval..

 
Let's take a step back, BTW, and appreciate the fact that Rove! is trying to pitch us crappy Fear the Russians! spook stories via Peter Schweizer and tangled, ultimately fairly weak conspiracy theories while her opponent in the election literally asks the Russian government to commit a cyberattack against us, praises Putin at every turn and has hired a man with undisputed longstanding ties to the Russian government as his campaign manager.

This is like a Patriots fan complaining about how much another team cheats.

 
Rove! said:
riht tpo extract...control...basically Putin has control of a significant share of a critical market for which he paid off the Clintons to get State approval..
Click to expand...
"riht tpo extract...control..." indeed, my friend.  Are you auditioning for Trump's cabinet or something?

 
squistion said:
The first, but maybe not the last. Hanna is retiring, but still a bit surprising.

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/08/gop_rep_richard_hanna_says_hell_vote_for_hillary_clinton.html

GOP Rep. Richard Hanna: I'll vote for Clinton; first House member to cross party line

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna, a three-term Republican, said Tuesday he will vote for Hillary Clinton for president because Donald Trump is "unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country."

Hanna becomes the first Republican member of Congress to publicly declare he will vote for Clinton in November.

Other GOP members of Congress have refused to endorse Trump, but until now none had promised to vote for his Democratic opponent.
Click to expand...
"Yeay, the Republicans are supporting us!"

(pause)

"The Republicans are supporting us? :unsure: "

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
"Smart Politics" is one of our better oxymorons these days.  There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose TPP...the broad brush statement you make is Tim-esque and not really all that helpful.  In the end you've used a lot of words to say "not really worth dying on this hill politically" which is part of the reason we have Trump vs Hillary.
Click to expand...
"Tim-esque"? I certainly don't believe that all opposition to TPP is irrational. 
Click to expand...
Whether you know it or not, you are well known for your wealth of broad brushes and fearless desire to use them.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Are we just completely making up stuff now?  I like it.

Donald Trump rapes kittens.

Jill Stein was part of the Manson family.

Gary Johnson wants to change the American flag to this: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
I'm voting for Johnson, because that's an awesome flag!  (Shame about those kittens.)

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
So, the State Department has now stated in federal court that Hillary never received any training on handling classified information or any sort of security briefings when at State (p. 5).
Click to expand...
Mark Toner, the State Department’s deputy spokesman, told TheDCNF in a statement that the lack of briefing records doesn’t necessarily mean they were not trained.


He said Clinton received “in person orientation” on handling classified information. “The absence of documentation from training resources they did not use does not indicate that they were not trained.”


http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/exclusive-hillary-completed-no-security-briefings-or-courses-at-state-dept/#ixzz4GClA7Hjf

 
I'm learning about the candidates, what did Hillary mean when she said we need to "secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary.... and if they commit any transgressions of any kind they should obviously be deported."

Is that still part of her plan as President? 

 
Billy Bats said:
I'm learning about the candidates, what did Hillary mean when she said we need to "secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary.... and if they commit any transgressions of any kind they should obviously be deported."

Is that still part of her plan as President? 
Click to expand...
I think that's the same as 08 and technically IMO that includes some fencing. But it likely also includes drones, satellite, and tech stuff creating trip warnings and signals. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think that's the same as 08 and technically IMO that includes some fencing. But it likely also includes drones, satellite, and tech stuff creating trip warnings and signals. 
Click to expand...
Yep that's probably around when she said it, was wondering if she is saying that on this campaign or if she had changed her mind. 

 
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: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top