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 (7 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cjw_55106 said:
That's cool. Has she made it down to Louisiana yet? Good news for the Dems...Obama is finally going today. Yeah, they really care about the people. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:  She will go...Her and Obama listened to the Governor of Louisiana who told everybody involved to NOT come down and do a 49 second photo op while the floodwaters were still rising. 

 
Cjw_55106 said:
The same governor that in hind site, said he was glad Trump went there? 
Click to expand...
Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, had released a statement before the GOP nominee's visit decrying a "photo-op," but Edwards told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" Sunday that Trump had always been welcome if he were coming to be "helpful."








http://www.cnn.com/election/interactive-electoral-college-map/










"Because it helped to shine a spotlight on Louisiana and on the dire situation that we have here ... it was helpful," Edwards said.




Trump, Pence tour flood damage




He also praised Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who joined the visit. 






"I also appreciated the good phone call, the conversation that I had with Gov. Pence, who was sincere and genuine when he called, and we spoke for a long time on Friday morning, about their desire to be helpful," Edwards said.  
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
She's sleazy and skirts the edges of the law, but how could anybody think that she's corrupt?  I mean, it's not as if she and her husband collect eight-figure (?) incomes from people who would like favors from the government or anything crazy like that.
Click to expand...
Yes, her foundation does collect money from people who would like to be connected to those in power. This happened before she was Secretary of State, and it happened while she was, and since she's been. That's politics. Is it sleazy? Sure. Inappropriate at times? Probably. Is it money lining her pockets as  people like Ditka Butkis claim? No because she doesn't make money off the Foundation. And it does do good thing. 

But is the whole thing corrupt or "Pay to Play" as the book Clinton Cash implies and Trump outright claims? Not unless you can prove that Hillary deliberately changed American policy as a result of contributions. And nobody has come close to demonstrating that. Which is why I reject the charge of corruption. I don't care who she meets with. I don't even care if she hires somebody's son in law to work in an embassy. That's politics. Show me a quid pro quo, a change in policy, something that overruled the State department recommendations or those of other agencies. Without that there is nothing there. 

 
timschochet said:
Yes, her foundation does collect money from people who would like to be connected to those in power. This happened before she was Secretary of State, and it happened while she was, and since she's been. That's politics. Is it sleazy? Sure. Inappropriate at times? Probably. Is it money lining her pockets as  people like Ditka Butkis claim? No because she doesn't make money off the Foundation. And it does do good thing. 

But is the whole thing corrupt or "Pay to Play" as the book Clinton Cash implies and Trump outright claims? Not unless you can prove that Hillary deliberately changed American policy as a result of contributions. And nobody has come close to demonstrating that. Which is why I reject the charge of corruption. I don't care who she meets with. I don't even care if she hires somebody's son in law to work in an embassy. That's politics. Show me a quid pro quo, a change in policy, something that overruled the State department recommendations or those of other agencies. Without that there is nothing there. 
Click to expand...
Knowing what we know about her, you are going to believe there is no possible way to funnel cash to herself....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I don't know what you know about her. I doubt very much. 

If you're going to make the accusation that she is skimming money off the top, prove it. 
Click to expand...
We all know that she is a proven chronic liar....but we are to believe her when she claims not to receive money from her foundation... Got it...

 
timschochet said:
Yes, her foundation does collect money from people who would like to be connected to those in power. This happened before she was Secretary of State, and it happened while she was, and since she's been. That's politics. Is it sleazy? Sure. Inappropriate at times? Probably. Is it money lining her pockets as  people like Ditka Butkis claim? No because she doesn't make money off the Foundation. And it does do good thing. 
Click to expand...
Again, you are factually wrong about this.  Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have had their personal pockets lined by their private speaking engagements.

Sometimes I think the only reason why the Clinton Foundation exists at all is to confuse the issue for people like you who want to be confused.

 
timschochet said:
But is the whole thing corrupt or "Pay to Play" as the book Clinton Cash implies and Trump outright claims? Not unless you can prove that Hillary deliberately changed American policy as a result of contributions. And nobody has come close to demonstrating that. Which is why I reject the charge of corruption. I don't care who she meets with. I don't even care if she hires somebody's son in law to work in an embassy. That's politics. Show me a quid pro quo, a change in policy, something that overruled the State department recommendations or those of other agencies. Without that there is nothing there. 
Click to expand...
If she hired somebody's son to work in an embassy expressly because that person paid her a bunch of money in speaking fees, that would be a quid pro quo. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Again, you are factually wrong about this.  Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have had their personal pockets lined by their private speaking engagements.

Sometimes I think the only reason why the Clinton Foundation exists at all is to confuse the issue for people like you who want to be confused.
Click to expand...
Giving paid speeches is a disqualifier for being President?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Again, you are factually wrong about this.  Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have had their personal pockets lined by their private speaking engagements.

Sometimes I think the only reason why the Clinton Foundation exists at all is to confuse the issue for people like you who want to be confused.
Click to expand...
What does paid speeches have to do with the Foundation? 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
If she hired somebody's son to work in an embassy expressly because that person paid her a bunch of money in speaking fees, that would be a quid pro quo. 
Click to expand...
No it isn't. There's not a modern President you can name that didn't make a large donor an ambassador to somewhere. Stop acting like that's corruption; its beneath you. 

Quid pro quos are about policy. Show me a policy change. 

 
timschochet said:
No it isn't. There's not a modern President you can name that didn't make a large donor an ambassador to somewhere. Stop acting like that's corruption; its beneath you. 

Quid pro quos are about policy. Show me a policy change. 
Click to expand...
Stop using the term "donor" as if we're talking about campaign contributions.  Speaking fees are direct personal income, not campaign funds.

 
BeaverCleaver said:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
Click to expand...
Under the premise that each candidate has their own stats and sometimes they misspeak, no one on that site that anyone is 100% always accurate. No one is, that I saw.

According to that website, they rate statements on "True", "Mostly True", "Half True", and the rest fall into "False" categories.

Clinton: 72% true statements

Trump: 30% true statements

Not really a great barometer for Trump there.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Under the premise that each candidate has their own stats and sometimes they misspeak, no one on that site that anyone is 100% always accurate. No one is, that I saw.

According to that website, they rate statements on "True", "Mostly True", "Half True", and the rest fall into "False" categories.

Clinton: 72% true statements

Trump: 30% true statements

Not really a great barometer for Trump there.
Click to expand...
Cmon. 

Comparing her with Trump proves what about her exactly? Pretty sad that lying 28% of the time is fine with a lot of people. 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Under the premise that each candidate has their own stats and sometimes they misspeak, no one on that site that anyone is 100% always accurate. No one is, that I saw.

According to that website, they rate statements on "True", "Mostly True", "Half True", and the rest fall into "False" categories.

Clinton: 72% true statements

Trump: 30% true statements

Not really a great barometer for Trump there.
Click to expand...
She can't even tell the truth about her own name.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
It doesn't.  Those are two different things with different levels of ethical impropriety.
Click to expand...
OK, I think that both on this and the issue of donors we're talking over each other. So let me be clear: 

1. I have no problem with Hillary earning money from speeches. Ditka Butkis accused her, without evidence, of skimming money from the Clinton Foundation. I would have a problem with that, if it was true; it isn't. 

2. If Hillary as Secretary of State changed American policy as a result of personal greed or private influence, contributions to the Clinton Foundation, CGI, her husband, paid speeches, etc., etc., I would consider that corrupt behavior and have a huge problem with it. But meeting with contributors, giving them jobs or family members jobs, I don't really care about any of that. 

Hope that's clear. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
@squistion

- Wait a bloomin' second: JUNE 2009??? Who :censored: cares? Hillary set up her server during her confirmation hearing in January 2009. WTH difference does this make?
Click to expand...
Again, you claimed Hillary called Colin Powell a liar. His personal assistant contradicted his recent statement that he had no recollection of the conversation with Hillary.

 
timschochet said:
I don't think you (or Ditka) understand what it means to be a chronic liar. 

As a typical politician, Hillary lies on occasion, exaggerates, mistates, and gets stuff wrong. She is not the best, not the worst. Compared to Trump she is a pillar of integrity. But even if we remove him from the equation, she is certainly not a chronic liar. 
Click to expand...
It's too bad the Marines turned her down....oh wait.....she lied about that too.

 
BeaverCleaver said:
It's too bad the Marines turned her down....oh wait.....she lied about that too.
Click to expand...
And next you will bring up Edmund Hillary, and being fired at by snipers...

Why don't you just admit that you dislike her, first and foremost, because she is a liberal, and all the rest of this stuff is just window dressing? Your hatred of Hillary Clinton is 99% partisan.

 
timschochet said:
For that matter, what difference does it make that she discussed this with Colin Powell at all? 
Click to expand...
It only matters because thats what she told the FBI, and how she and her surrogates have tried to paint this from the beginning - she only did what other SOS's did - except none of the other Secretary's did what she did, but thats just semantics.

 
timschochet said:
I don't think you (or Ditka) understand what it means to be a chronic liar. 

As a typical politician, Hillary lies on occasion, exaggerates, mistates, and gets stuff wrong. She is not the best, not the worst. Compared to Trump she is a pillar of integrity. But even if we remove him from the equation, she is certainly not a chronic liar. 
Click to expand...
Oh ..sorry...I get it now....She isn't a chronic liar...she just doesn't tell the truth all of the time...thanks for clearing that up

 
squistion said:
Again, you claimed Hillary called Colin Powell a liar. His personal assistant contradicted his recent statement that he had no recollection of the conversation with Hillary.
Click to expand...
It's inherently a lie if she's claiming that she did this because of Powell's advice 6 months after it happened.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
It only matters because thats what she told the FBI, and how she and her surrogates have tried to paint this from the beginning - she only did what other SOS's did - except none of the other Secretary's did what she did, but thats just semantics.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Colin Powell stuff is a small snippet of what she told the FBI-  it was just the part leaked by Republicans in Comgress because they knew that, taken out of context, it would do her the most damage. Which is why the Clinton campaign wanted the entire FBI report released in full to the public and not secretly to Congress, because they knew this crap was going to happen. 

 
timschochet said:
I don't think you (or Ditka) understand what it means to be a chronic liar. 

As a typical politician, Hillary lies on occasion, exaggerates, mistates, and gets stuff wrong. She is not the best, not the worst. Compared to Trump she is a pillar of integrity. But even if we remove him from the equation, she is certainly not a chronic liar. 
Click to expand...
Correct. She's a conniving ##### who will screw over, or step on, anyone that gets in her path. She could give a rat's ### about Tim's vote for her once she is in office.

 
timschochet said:
Actually, the Colin Powell stuff is a small snippet of what she told the FBI-  it was just the part leaked by Republicans in Comgress because they knew that, taken out of context, it would do her the most damage. Which is why the Clinton campaign wanted the entire FBI report released in full to the public and not secretly to Congress, because they knew this crap was going to happen. 
Click to expand...
So, why does it matter what Colin Powell did as SOS?

What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?  Do you think a conversation she had with Powell in June, influenced her decision to use Bubba's homegrown server in January?  Why does she now, or ever, bring up what Collin Powell did - and why does she never put his use of his AOL account in context?

 
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
257K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Back
Top