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.
The Commish said:
At the risk of shining that "exactly equal" bat signal for TGunz, Tim etc.....that's not what I'm saying, but again, the argument here boils down to wrapping because where I am coming from I see little difference between giving a non answer wrapped in transparent political niceties and flat out not answering/ignoring.  In practical terms, the result is the same.  Yeah, he has the additional hyperbole of "roping off the media" and all that good stuff and I've said a billion times he's a doosh for doing stupid #### like that, but I don't think there is a politician alive who doesn't reject the role of the press to some extent.  The problem Trump has is there is no news outlet (outside Hannity maybe?) that would be on his side.  I am absolutely confident he'd LOVE an outlet that LOVED him, like the rest.  The only reason he rejects it all is because they all reject him.
Click to expand...
Politics is a game and it's the job of politicians to play it.  Trump is not playing it and is therefore completely unqualified for the job.

 
The Commish said:
I don't see the point in distinguishing between "unique danger" and "danger".  Is he something we've never seen before?  Sure.  Why that makes a difference is beyond me.  Is he a danger in a completely different way than Hillary is?  Sure.  In the end, he's a danger.  I happen to believe that she is as well for different reasons.  In the end, both are dangers.  Trying to parse and justify beyond serves no purpose outside of political :hophead:  
Click to expand...
He is a danger to our freedoms. He threatens dictatorship. Hillary does not. 

 
cstu said:
Politics is a game and it's the job of politicians to play it.  Trump is not playing it and is therefore completely unqualified for the job.
Click to expand...
There are so many legitimate reasons to douse this guy in gasoline and light him up and you choose to use "because he doesn't play the stupid, transparent game of politics" to focus on?  Here's my opinion on "politics is a game"....I think that's complete bull####.  We aren't playing a game.  That people allow it to be relegated to a "game" is quite pathetic IMO.

 
The Commish said:
I don't see the point in distinguishing between "unique danger" and "danger".  Is he something we've never seen before?  Sure.  Why that makes a difference is beyond me.  Is he a danger in a completely different way than Hillary is?  Sure.  In the end, he's a danger.  I happen to believe that she is as well for different reasons.  In the end, both are dangers.  Trying to parse and justify beyond serves no purpose outside of political :hophead:  
Click to expand...
This is pure nonsense.  Every president presents a risk of some kind because there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. Obama's inexperience in an executive role was a risk.  Bush II's lack of knowledge regarding foreign affairs and the workings of the federal legislature was a risk. Every candidate comes with risk or danger. The issue here is what is the degree of risk or danger. 

You've made it very clear that you want to keep your blinders on regarding the fact that Trump is a danger to a vastly more significant extent than we've seen in our lifetimes. You're doing so despite the fact that a parade of experts and analysts on both sides of the aisle have expressed their concern about this, and that to my knowledge not one person has made a coherent and legitimate argument in the other direction. If you want to keep those blinders on that's your business, but don't sell this "a danger is a danger" nonsense.  Even my four year old can grasp this concept, she knows that walking down the stairs with socks on and playing tag in the middle of our busy city street are both dangerous activities but that doesn't make them equally dangerous.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
No, more like, you liked the idea of Hillary too much that you helped create a sense of inevitability and an illusion that didn't conform to the facts.  All this, despite the fact that all the information was staring you right in the face, the writing was on the wall.  And, if she loses in November, you have to look yourself in the mirror and admit that you took an active part in the whole charade.
Click to expand...
If there had been massive blind support for Hillary, I could see that point of view. But nearly everyone in this thread, including the guy that's being accused of "it being his fault if Trump is elected", has said over and over that Hillary has flaws. And one step further, many in here have stated they wouldn't consider her at all, except for the alternative. Forgive me if I find the argument hollow that it's the rose colored Hillary supporters fault if Trump is elected. If we wake up on Nov 9th with Trump as president, those that voted for Trump will be on the hook for that. The idea that if "any other D" had run against Trump, that then it would be ok, and the Trump supporters would leave him for that candidate is unprovable, and frankly somewhat laughable.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
If there had been massive blind support for Hillary, I could see that point of view. But nearly everyone in this thread, including the guy that's being accused of "it being his fault if Trump is elected", has said over and over that Hillary has flaws. And one step further, many in here have stated they wouldn't consider her at all, except for the alternative. Forgive me if I find the argument hollow that it's the rose colored Hillary supporters fault if Trump is elected. If we wake up on Nov 9th with Trump as president, those that voted for Trump will be on the hook for that. The idea that if "any other D" had run against Trump, that then it would be ok, and the Trump supporters would leave him for that candidate is unprovable, and frankly somewhat laughable.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

If Trump wins it will be everyone's fault, as I've said before.  You can put them in your own subjective order if you want. But the idea that people who supported Clinton and voted for her are somehow more responsible than Trump voters, or the people who stayed home or voted third party because they didn't get what they wanted in the primaries, makes zero sense. If you choose to do that you're making the call that you care more about whatever you hope to accomplish by staying home or voting third party than you do about the possibility that your vote could pave the way for a Trump victory. 

Which is totally reasonable by the way, and in non-swing states your cost/benefit decision might make sense even to a passionate anti-Trumper like me. But blaming someone else for putting you in that position is silly. None of us gets exactly what we want from candidates, stop acting like a spoiled baby and own your decision.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I should also say this in defense of third party voters, though:  if you have a chance to vote for an intelligent, organized presidential candidate like Jill Stein you can't be blamed for seizing it:

 
Randy Ludlow ‏@RandyLudlow 58m58 minutes ago Bexley, OH
Green Party's Jill Stein will be 2 hours.late speaking at Capital University. It seems she accidentally flew to Cincinnati. #beginswithaC
Click to expand...
(Capital University is in Columbus)
 
TobiasFunke said:
This is pure nonsense.  Every president presents a risk of some kind because there's no such thing as a perfect candidate. Obama's inexperience in an executive role was a risk.  Bush II's lack of knowledge regarding foreign affairs and the workings of the federal legislature was a risk. Every candidate comes with risk or danger. The issue here is what is the degree of risk or danger. 

You've made it very clear that you want to keep your blinders on regarding the fact that Trump is a danger to a vastly more significant extent than we've seen in our lifetimes. You're doing so despite the fact that a parade of experts and analysts on both sides of the aisle have expressed their concern about this, and that to my knowledge not one person has made a coherent and legitimate argument in the other direction. If you want to keep those blinders on that's your business, but don't sell this "a danger is a danger" nonsense.  Even my four year old can grasp this concept, she knows that walking down the stairs with socks on and playing tag in the middle of our busy city street are both dangerous activities but that doesn't make them equally dangerous.
Click to expand...
It's interesting you bring this up because I've heard this a lot lately.  I have also heard the comments.  There's a TON of "if" in almost every expert and every analyst.  "If he can do....", "This will happen if......" right down the line.  Yes, in a vacuum, if he was allowed to run free with the government he'd be a dictator.  If he didn't have checks and balances in place the world might explode while he was in office.  Problem is, of course, he won't be allowed to run free.  The checks and balances are still going to be in place AND he's going to have two parties against him in Washington DC.  It is FAR more likely that he will be a lame duck idiot sitting in the Oval office twiddling his thumbs than it is he will become dictator of the United States of America.  

I have little fear around him getting his policies (if he has any....that remains to be seen) pushed through.  And stop with the "equally dangerous" shtick please....leave that to tim, Tgunz, squis etc.  I don't disagree that in a vacuum, his presentation is far worse than Hillary's.  Of course, when we look at the likelihood of him getting any of that presentation implemented, we can probably step back from the ledge a step or two.   It's not going to happen.  He'd be a lame duck four year President if he wasn't impeached first.  Everyone's lost their #### over this guy.  Hitler #2 isn't catching the US by surprise.  I will not let the "fear of Trump" take my eye off the prize in voting for what I think is best for the country.  I wish others would do the same, but there's a reason fear mongering is a part of every election.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Emails Raise New Questions About Clinton Foundation Ties to State Dept.


WASHINGTON — A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday, raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access at the department.

The request by the adviser, Douglas J. Band, who started one arm of the Clintons’ charitable foundation, was unusual, and the State Department never issued the passport. Only department employees and others with diplomatic status are eligible for the special passports, which help envoys facilitate travel, officials said.

...

The exchange about the passport, between Mr. Band and Huma Abedin, who was then a top State Department aide to Mrs. Clinton, was included in a set of more than 500 pages of emails made public by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that sued for their release.

“Need get me/justy and jd dip passports,” Mr. Band wrote to Ms. Abedin on July 27, 2009, referring to passports for himself and two other aides to Mr. Clinton, Justin Cooper and John Davidson.

“We had them years ago but they lapsed and we didn’t bother getting them,” Mr. Band wrote.

Ms. Abedin emailed back six minutes later to say, “OK will figure it out.”

Mr. Band did not explain in the email exchange why he and the others needed the diplomatic passports, and Ms. Abedin did not ask.

But a person with knowledge of the issue, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the three men were arranging to travel with Mr. Clinton to Pyongyang less than a week later for the former president’s secret negotiations. Mr. Clinton already had a diplomatic passport as a former president.

...

Traveling with a former president does not convey any special diplomatic status, the State Department indicated in a statement regarding the emails.

“Diplomatic passports are issued to Foreign Service officers or a person having diplomatic or comparable status,” the statement said.

“Any individuals who do not have this status are not issued diplomatic passports,” it said, adding that “the staff of former presidents are not included among those eligible to be issued a diplomatic passport.”

The emails released by Judicial Watch also include discussions about meetings between Mrs. Clinton and a number of people involved in major donations to the Clinton Foundation.

In one exchange in July 2009, Ms. Abedin told Mrs. Clinton’s scheduler that Mr. Clinton “wants to be sure” that Mrs. Clinton would be able to see Andrew Liveris, the chief executive of Dow Chemical, at an event the next night. Dow Chemical has been one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation, giving $1 million to $5 million, records show.

Ms. Abedin arranged what she called “a pull-aside” for Mr. Liveris to speak with Mrs. Clinton in a private room after she arrived to give a speech, according to the emails, which did not explain the reason for the meeting.

The person with knowledge of the issue said that this email chain also related to Mr. Clinton’s North Korea trip because Mr. Liveris had offered to let Mr. Clinton use his private plane.

A separate batch of State Department documents released by Judicial Watch last month also revealed contacts between the State Department and Clinton Foundation donors. In one such exchange, Mr. Band sought to put a billionaire donor in touch with the department’s former ambassador to Lebanon.

...
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/emails-raise-new-questions-about-clinton-foundation-ties-to-state-dept.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

- It's not mentioned here but Teneo was founded in 2009 and Dow was a Teneo client.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
It's interesting you bring this up because I've heard this a lot lately.  I have also heard the comments.  There's a TON of "if" in almost every expert and every analyst.  "If he can do....", "This will happen if......" right down the line.  Yes, in a vacuum, if he was allowed to run free with the government he'd be a dictator.  If he didn't have checks and balances in place the world might explode while he was in office.  Problem is, of course, he won't be allowed to run free.  The checks and balances are still going to be in place AND he's going to have two parties against him in Washington DC.  It is FAR more likely that he will be a lame duck idiot sitting in the Oval office twiddling his thumbs than it is he will become dictator of the United States of America.  

I have little fear around him getting his policies (if he has any....that remains to be seen) pushed through.  And stop with the "equally dangerous" shtick please....leave that to tim, Tgunz, squis etc.  I don't disagree that in a vacuum, his presentation is far worse than Hillary's.  Of course, when we look at the likelihood of him getting any of that presentation implemented, we can probably step back from the ledge a step or two.   It's not going to happen.  He'd be a lame duck four year President if he wasn't impeached first.  Everyone's lost their #### over this guy.  Hitler #2 isn't catching the US by surprise.  I will not let the "fear of Trump" take my eye off the prize in voting for what I think is best for the country.  I wish others would do the same, but there's a reason fear mongering is a part of every election.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
The Commish said:
It's interesting you bring this up because I've heard this a lot lately.  I have also heard the comments.  There's a TON of "if" in almost every expert and every analyst.  "If he can do....", "This will happen if......" right down the line.  Yes, in a vacuum, if he was allowed to run free with the government he'd be a dictator.  If he didn't have checks and balances in place the world might explode while he was in office.  Problem is, of course, he won't be allowed to run free.  The checks and balances are still going to be in place AND he's going to have two parties against him in Washington DC.  It is FAR more likely that he will be a lame duck idiot sitting in the Oval office twiddling his thumbs than it is he will become dictator of the United States of America.  

I have little fear around him getting his policies (if he has any....that remains to be seen) pushed through.  And stop with the "equally dangerous" shtick please....leave that to tim, Tgunz, squis etc.  I don't disagree that in a vacuum, his presentation is far worse than Hillary's.  Of course, when we look at the likelihood of him getting any of that presentation implemented, we can probably step back from the ledge a step or two.   It's not going to happen.  He'd be a lame duck four year President if he wasn't impeached first.  Everyone's lost their #### over this guy.  Hitler #2 isn't catching the US by surprise.  I will not let the "fear of Trump" take my eye off the prize in voting for what I think is best for the country.  I wish others would do the same, but there's a reason fear mongering is a part of every election.
Click to expand...
That's literally what you said:

In the end, he's a danger.  I happen to believe that she is as well for different reasons.  In the end, both are dangers.  Trying to parse and justify beyond serves no purpose outside of political
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how else to interpret that other than "a danger is a danger, degree does not matter, further analysis is useless."  But feel free to clarify.

As for the "how much damage could he actually do?" thing: Myself and many others have explained it over and over with dozens of examples of real, significant and lasting damage he could do even in the framework of our system of checks and balances. I even wrote one up about the end of accountability this morning. I did two other ones yesterday about how moronic off the cuff statements about defaulting on debt would impact markets even if he didn't follow through and how scary it is picturing him being asked to process the amount of intelligence and detail that goes into decisions like for example whether to conduct the attack on Bin Laden's compound.  I also pointed out that the decision not to stay the ruling striking down North Carolina's cartoonishly racist voting laws was 4-4 and Trump would almost certainly nominate a judge who would have sided with the Republicans and thus allowed racist laws specifically designed to reduce black turnout to stay on the books.   I also pointed out that part of the job is hiring good people to run important agencies and make important decisions on your behalf (State, EPA, DOJ, CIA Director, etc.) and we're dealing with a man who has hired Corey Lewandowski, Paul Manafort and Steve Bannon in succession to run his campaign, to say nothing of bringing in Roger Ailes or the absurd things his surrogates say and do, including a couple of anti-semites and white supremacists.

And I could go on like this for hours and hours, with literally dozens if not hundreds of examples of potential harm that could be done by a president operating within our existing framework. But honestly at this point I'm exhausted by it. If you don't get it by now, you've got blinders on and you're never gonna get it.  Hopefully enough other decent, intelligent people do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So let's vote for a blathering idiot because we have a system of checks and balances? What are we trying to accomplish by doing that, just to prove we can? To whom are we sending a message? Trump already took over the RNC, so we're sending a message to democrats? What are we doing here? 

Frankly, I'm all for anti-establishment. And I am no Hillary fan. What I can't overlook though, the way Trump characterizes groups of people is too troubling. With him it's always the blacks, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the this, the that. I just can't get in line with that way of thinking. He's obviously dumb when it comes to issues, and that would be OK in and of itself, we had W for 8 years after all. But with Trump, it's all about the hate, and the divisiveness. So I can't overlook that just to "send a message". 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
So let's vote for a blathering idiot because we have a system of checks and balances? What are we trying to accomplish by doing that, just to prove we can? To whom are we sending a message? Trump already took over the RNC, so we're sending a message to democrats? What are we doing here? 

Frankly, I'm all for anti-establishment. And I am no Hillary fan. What I can't overlook though, the way Trump characterizes groups of people is too troubling. With him it's always the blacks, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the this, the that. I just can't get in line with that way of thinking. He's obviously dumb when it comes to issues, and that would be OK in and of itself, we had W for 8 years after all. But with Trump, it's all about the hate, and the divisiveness. So I can't overlook that just to "send a message". 
Click to expand...
This highlights another thing he would do before even taking office- setting race relations in this country back decades.  I can tell you as a Jew I'd feel it was a slap in the face if we elected someone who has been so tolerant of antisemitism in his campaign. I can't even imagine how much angrier, more resentful and more distrustful African-Americans, Mexican-Americans and Muslims would feel, and rightfully so.

But hey, Hillary used a private email server and met with some people who gave money to her charity.  Six of one, half-dozen of the other, right?

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
So let's vote for a blathering idiot because we have a system of checks and balances? What are we trying to accomplish by doing that, just to prove we can? To whom are we sending a message? Trump already took over the RNC, so we're sending a message to democrats? What are we doing here? 

Frankly, I'm all for anti-establishment. And I am no Hillary fan. What I can't overlook though, the way Trump characterizes groups of people is too troubling. With him it's always the blacks, the Mexicans, the Muslims, the this, the that. I just can't get in line with that way of thinking. He's obviously dumb when it comes to issues, and that would be OK in and of itself, we had W for 8 years after all. But with Trump, it's all about the hate, and the divisiveness. So I can't overlook that just to "send a message". 
Click to expand...
To be fair to the Commish, he never suggested anyone should vote for Donald Trump. What he wrote is that he does not fear Trump's election as much as many do (including me) because of our checks and balances. That is not the same as an endorsement. I disagree the Commish on this, but he is not for Donald Trump.

 
Assange making specific allegations that Wikileaks will release documents before the first debate that Hillary cut deals with ISIS.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
Assange making specific allegations that Wikileaks will release documents before the first debate that Hillary cut deals with ISIS.  
Click to expand...
I am going to guess that Assange over-promises, and under-delivers. 

I bet these were deals to arm groups in Syria before ISIS was ISIS.  

 
squistion said:
A Chicken In Every Pot if Hillary wins?

Nope, Taco Trucks On Every Corner!

https://twitter.com/hashtag/TacoTrucksOnEveryCorner?src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A771692558724505600

Yum.

And this has got to improve her favorability numbers significantly. :hophead:

And 9.6 million new jobs would be created:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/02/the-national-economic-implications-of-a-taco-truck-on-every-corner/?postshare=6781472833530563&tid=ss_tw
Click to expand...
This makes me hungry. Love me some traditional Mexican tacos.

 
timschochet said:
He is a danger to our freedoms. He threatens dictatorship. Hillary does not. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:    :lmao:   

Ok.  We currently have a president that has weilded his pen to a degree never seen before to go around Congress on domestic issues, creating treaties without Congress approval, and a whole host of other central government takeover of the country, and you're worried about Trump?  Tim, even for you this is a doozy.

If anything Trump will dismantle some of this and restore a shred of the 10th amendment.  There is lots not to like about Trump, but this one is just loony.

 
timschochet said:
To be fair to the Commish, he never suggested anyone should vote for Donald Trump. What he wrote is that he does not fear Trump's election as much as many do (including me) because of our checks and balances. That is not the same as an endorsement. I disagree the Commish on this, but he is not for Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
That's fair, but note my post didn't quote anyone either. My "hot take" was against the checks and balances argument in general. Arguing issues and concepts is more my approach, not to "take on" posters so to speak.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/emails-raise-new-questions-about-clinton-foundation-ties-to-state-dept.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

- It's not mentioned here but Teneo was founded in 2009 and Dow was a Teneo client.
Click to expand...
I love how the title of the article says it raises new questions, plenty of people have been asking the question about the relationships between State, The Foundation and Teneo for some time now.

 
Latest economic data out today is another turd.  Jobs and GDP were both pretty horrible.  This doesn't help HRC, who is tied pretty strongly with incumbency.

 
Sand said:
:lmao:    :lmao:   

Ok.  We currently have a president that has weilded his pen to a degree never seen before to go around Congress on domestic issues, creating treaties without Congress approval, and a whole host of other central government takeover of the country, and you're worried about Trump?  Tim, even for you this is a doozy.

If anything Trump will dismantle some of this and restore a shred of the 10th amendment.  There is lots not to like about Trump, but this one is just loony.
Click to expand...
This is more nonsense. If the president truly was controlling domestic issues beyond the scope afforded to him by Article II or pursuant to authorization by Congress he could be easily stopped from doing so in federal courts. The "treaty" thing is an interesting point but it's not unique to Obama by a longshot- it's a practice called "executive agreements" that dates back many decades. Here is some information about them if you're interested.  They are, IMO, a necessity in the 21st century world and a legitimate exercise of the President's foreign affairs authority under Article II, but YMMV. Regardless, they're hardly unique to Obama.  From the link: "But from 1939 until 1989, almost all international agreements — a whopping 94.3 percent — were executive agreements.  That trend has continued into the 21st century."

By comparison, Trump wants to amend libel laws, direct criminal sentencing, fundamentally alter the way we police our inner cities, and do a whole host of other things that have always been the province of the states. He's on a whole nother level on this stuff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
This is more nonsense. If the president truly was controlling domestic issues beyond the scope afforded to him by Article II or pursuant to authorization by Congress he could be easily stopped from doing so in federal courts.
Click to expand...
Just as a point many of his executive orders have been slapped down.  Immigration, bathroom policy stuff, etc.

 
Sand said:
Just as a point many of his executive orders have been slapped down.  Immigration, bathroom policy stuff, etc.
Click to expand...
What percentage as compared with his predecessors?  Every president is found to have exceeded his constitutional or statutory authority from time to time.  Without that context this information is meaningless.

 
squistion said:
Dan Merica ‏@danmericaCNN 7m7 minutes ago

From FBI: "Clinton never deleted, nor did she instruct anyone to delete, her email to avoid complying with" FOIA.

https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/771765499302641664
Click to expand...
Comey's testimony:
 

WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON ATTEMPTING TO AVOID COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT?

>> THERE WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF OUR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. THE SUBJECT OF OUR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT SITTING HERE.

>> IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW, IS IT NOT?

>> YES, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE ARE CIVIL STATUTES THAT APPLY TO THAT.

>> ...YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN INTENTION OR THE REALITY OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

>> CORRECT.
Click to expand...
https://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&live

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand said:
Well, that's why the server was setup in the first place.  After it was outed the gig was up.
Click to expand...
If she was as corrupt as you guys claim she would have tried to cover it up.

The truth is that she knows the law and only breaks laws she thinks she can get away with.

 
TobiasFunke said:
But feel free to clarify.
Click to expand...
It's not a statement of equality.  It's not even a statement of comparison.  I think they are both dangerous enough to keep them out of office.  So I'm not supporting either one of them.

TobiasFunke said:
I even wrote one up about the end of accountability this morning.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the media/press comments?  Yeah, it's on us to make sure he continues to be held accountable.  Accountability has two players and can't be completely terminated unless both sides decide its time for it to go away.  But, it seems we have very different definitions of being accountable.

Hiring practices will be an issue to anyone in the "damn, this country needs to get out of the crapper quickly" mindset.  Status quo isn't an option any longer IMO.  Kicking the can down the road, growing our debt and continuing to hamstring us on the global stage is dangerous and certainly damaging.  Is it "in your face"?  No...it's subtle and it's against a group of people our government chooses for it to be against.  I can make an argument around Clinton's actions with respect to national security and technology that she COULD be incredibly dangerous on those fronts and have plenty of ammo via her actions to back that up.  We are left guessing what Trump would try to do.

It's been interesting watching the narrative around Trump.  His critics say we can't trust a single thing he says, but somehow they know EXACTLY what his actions are going to be once in office.  How?  If he's a liar and can't be trusted and he has no political record other than meandering between the parties depending on what he can get from them, how can one be convinced what they are seeing is real?

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
timschochet said:
To be fair to the Commish, he never suggested anyone should vote for Donald Trump. What he wrote is that he does not fear Trump's election as much as many do (including me) because of our checks and balances. That is not the same as an endorsement. I disagree the Commish on this, but he is not for Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
That's fair, but note my post didn't quote anyone either. My "hot take" was against the checks and balances argument in general. Arguing issues and concepts is more my approach, not to "take on" posters so to speak.
Click to expand...
There wasn't a "checks and balances" argument that was made.  I did point out checks and balances exist leaving it a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certainty he won't become dictator of the United States.  If you want to ignore the reality that these sorts of things are in place and want to come up with some Revelation type scenarios, have at it :shrug:   

 
What I can't figure out is why Hillary would even agree to debate Trump.  She's got the election locked up, by no slim margin.  All she can do is lose by debating.  So why do it ?  

 
So the notes from the FBI interview were released.  Salient points:

She did not recall all of the briefings she received on handling sensitive information as she made the transition from her post as secretary of state, due to a concussion she suffered in 2012.
Click to expand...
The old "I can't remember" defense, compounded with her health issues in 2012.  Interesting way to try and avoid responsibility here, particularly considering her advanced age and the inevitable questions about health and fitness.

The notes also revealed how Clinton said that she simply did not know what markings which told her material was classified were.
Click to expand...
Just stunning here.  How does a Senator and SoS not know what a classified marking is?  How is this possible?

 
So the FBI Hillary interview notes are unfolding and it is some serious ****, lies upon lies. Update at 11, or as soon as I finish my Guinness & chips.

 
Sand said:
So the notes from the FBI interview were released.  Salient points:

The old "I can't remember" defense, compounded with her health issues in 2012.  Interesting way to try and avoid responsibility here, particularly considering her advanced age and the inevitable questions about health and fitness.

Just stunning here.  How does a Senator and SoS not know what a classified marking is?  How is this possible?
Click to expand...
And Hillary destroyed her whole electronic archive AFTER the NYT article and AFTER the subpoena.

 
The Commish said:
It's not a statement of equality.  It's not even a statement of comparison.  I think they are both dangerous enough to keep them out of office.  So I'm not supporting either one of them.

Are you talking about the media/press comments?  Yeah, it's on us to make sure he continues to be held accountable.  Accountability has two players and can't be completely terminated unless both sides decide its time for it to go away.  But, it seems we have very different definitions of being accountable.

Hiring practices will be an issue to anyone in the "damn, this country needs to get out of the crapper quickly" mindset.  Status quo isn't an option any longer IMO.  Kicking the can down the road, growing our debt and continuing to hamstring us on the global stage is dangerous and certainly damaging.  Is it "in your face"?  No...it's subtle and it's against a group of people our government chooses for it to be against.  I can make an argument around Clinton's actions with respect to national security and technology that she COULD be incredibly dangerous on those fronts and have plenty of ammo via her actions to back that up.  We are left guessing what Trump would try to do.

It's been interesting watching the narrative around Trump.  His critics say we can't trust a single thing he says, but somehow they know EXACTLY what his actions are going to be once in office.  How?  If he's a liar and can't be trusted and he has no political record other than meandering between the parties depending on what he can get from them, how can one be convinced what they are seeing is real?
Click to expand...
All but the last paragraph of this post an impressive parade of empty cliches with no concrete fact-based policy discussion responsive to the stuff I described,... some of which doesn't even depend on what he'd actually do in office.  See for example the effect a Trump election win would have on various minorities who see how much of America is willing to vote for- or in your case tolerate- the disgraceful bigotry of both Trump himself and the prominent members of his campaign whose bigotry and hateful rhetoric he has condoned.  The resulting anger and distrust starting November 9 from various communities would IMO be significant and entirely justified.

And your counterargument is preposterous, largely because it effectively nullifies your initial argument.  You were the one who made the argument that he wouldn't do much damage because checks and balances. I responded with potential ways he could do enormous damage within those confines based on what he's said and done so far.  Your response is "who knows"?  Well apparently you did, because you started this discussion by predicting what would and more importantly would not happen during his presidency.

It's one thing not to get the unprecedented awfulness of this man and his campaign. I've long understood that you don't get it, and you're obviously not alone in that.  But it's another to be so glaringly logically inconsistent.  Seems out of character for you.  Since I respect you quite a bit I'm gonna chalk it up to pre-long weekend brain farts, GB.  Enjoy the holiday :suds:

 
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
253K
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