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 (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Just a reminder folks, the FBI didn't bring Nixon down by indicting him. They did it by leaking information.
The buck hasn't stopped but it might yet.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think the chances of a press conference of any kind before January are really, really slim.
Says Fox.
No doubt her fingers are in the pie....but so are virtually every other politician's for the last 200+ years of our history. We've been hearing the same %#^& from the same news outlet for 10+ years, and 99% of the time, the info the statements/critiques are immediately based on are weak at best, and often absurd stretches of truth and/or outright fabrications. And I don't even like the woman. At no point do I remember the right showing her or Obama any respect.
The Commish
Footballguy
The last paragraph sums up my opinion on Trump. I am confident I have no idea what he'd do if he was in office and I have absolutely no idea how much of what he's presented to us to date is "real" or not. If I were fearful of anything this election cycle, it would be of the unknown. However, should he try to take things off the rails, I am confident the other branches of our government would do the needful and protect this country. This is the opinion of a man who is incredibly pessimistic about our government in general. Trump is such the clown that I cannot see a scenario ever where Trump begins to go down his path of stupid and the SC and Congress just sit back and let him do it. I'm shocked that a lot of you end up being even more pessimistic of our government than me. I didn't think that was possible.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
The reality is, there is no "fact based" anything on Trump. It's all a guess based on what might or might not be the "true" Trump. The rub here for me is I am going from a person I feel like I could predict < 10% of the time to one I am confident I could predict > 80% of the time and it's not pretty. There's no question all those scenarios you came up with have a chance of being true. We can come up with doomsday scenarios under either of these two, or any other candidate for that matter. That's not enough though. We also have to determine likelihood of those things happening, otherwise, who gives a #### about doomsday scenarios that won't ever happen? Quite frankly, I am really surprised that you guys think he would be so successful. This feels very similar to those conspiracy theorists who convinced themselves that GWB was smart enough to pull of 9/11. The guy would be lucky to be able to tie his own shoes according to them, but somehow he could pull something like that off? Really? This is where I'm at with the "threat" of Trump.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Interview notes say - FBI's term - a member of President Clinton's staff (name redacted but I am guessing this was Teneo employee Justin Cooper) had an "oh sh|+ moment" and deleted Hillary's archive using Bleachbit software (i.e. 'With a cloth) on ****March 22-23, 2015.
AFTER the NYT article, AFTER Hilary's press conference, AFTER Hillary said she wanted everyone to see her emails, and AFTER the Congressional subpoena.
AFTER the NYT article, AFTER Hilary's press conference, AFTER Hillary said she wanted everyone to see her emails, and AFTER the Congressional subpoena.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Can you think of a Congressman or WH politician who has been accused of using a private consulting firm and a privately run billion dollar non-profit to drive access to government information, public officials and events? I can't.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
And as I've pointed out, the other two choices beyond Trump are (1) a Libertarian, i.e. someone whose platform is already the Wall Street friendly, flat-taxing, regulation-less and oversight-free corporate wet dream that Clinton's worst detractors fear she might become due to corporate influence ... except without the helpful Supreme Court appointments and (2) a holistic healing anti-vax-friendly weirdo who claims to be for the Green Party but says that Trump and Clinton are the same (even though one would drop the clean power plan on day 1 and the other would defend it) and who can't even fly into the right city for her rallies.
Wanting to vote third party is understandable ... but how many people leaning that way have looked at the actual candidates with the same critical eye they rightly apply to the major party candidates? I suspect not too many.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I provided specific, logical examples of things he could do or would engender with very negative consequences. You continue to speak in broad generalities, saying nobody could possibly predict things and then predicting them in the next sentence, and ignoring those specific things I'd already pointed out (including the likelihood of a massive and justified escalation of racial tensions, which I'd already mentioned twice). I think we're done here. Have a good holiday weekend, GB.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
"Clinton stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or production of records from [the] State [Department] during the transition out of her role as secretary of state in 2013," the report says. "However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot. Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received."
The language doesn't make clear whether Clinton was blaming her concussion for being unable to recall specific briefings and, if so, during which specific time period. The concussion and blood clot were well-publicized at the time.
link
This sentiment is also expressed in the very first reply to the tweet you linked, from another reporter:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Oh and the reporter admitted as much, too:
That was from an hour ago, so all those tweets were already there when you posted. Do better, SID.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That's from a WaPo article called "The Many Things Hillary Couldn't Recall."
That also seems relevant.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
You got the facts wrong and you posted misleading information. I proved it, and the reporter whose tweet you cited admitted it well before you posted her tweet. Don't duck the issue by citing headlines. Show the same sort of accountability you'd like to see in the candidates, and own it.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I was at a pub and posted a link from the NYT, I'll be glad to deal with the reality of it in a bit.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well, we should all feel better now, right? NYT, seemed safe.
I'll take a look at the claim now.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I keep hoping that this story will end, but it keeps on going...yet, it's nothing new.
Hillary was ignorant of how best to protect classified materials, and her decision to use a private server was careless. That's probably the most positive spin one can make of this (and still try to be objective IMO.) The most negative spin, of course, is that this was all a deliberate scheme to hide corrupt activities. I dpn't buy into that (and neither, apparently, did the FBI).
Does any of this disqualify Hillary from the Presidency? Not to me. Is any of this worth prosecuting? Not to me. But people will have to decide for themselves, I guess...
Hillary was ignorant of how best to protect classified materials, and her decision to use a private server was careless. That's probably the most positive spin one can make of this (and still try to be objective IMO.) The most negative spin, of course, is that this was all a deliberate scheme to hide corrupt activities. I dpn't buy into that (and neither, apparently, did the FBI).
Does any of this disqualify Hillary from the Presidency? Not to me. Is any of this worth prosecuting? Not to me. But people will have to decide for themselves, I guess...
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Mm hmm. "Reality" like the Next wolf you totally see after I just pointed out the last one wasn't there.
Enjoy the pub and the weekend GB. I'm gonna take a little break from chasing shadows people mistake for wolves
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yup, in your defense part of the problem here is people feeling they need to break down complicated FBI documents compiled over many months in real time as they read. Let's agree to blame Twitter and move on.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think this is the actual portion - from Reuters, which was actually leaked:
Ok I can accept that - 1. she had a concussion, and 2. she could not recall every briefing she received. Sure those two things are logically not related.
So you and Dale may be right. But why did Hillary bring it up at all? Seems like a total non-sequiter at that point, I agree.
Hillary would - or should - have had briefings on handling classified information dating back to 2009, right? What does the concussion have to do with that anyway?
Also keep in context the fact that State has stated in court it has no actual documentation that Hillary EVER received any training on handling classified material while at State. And here Hillary says she does not recall getting ANY briefs at all. Read that way, what else is there to learn - Hillary was NEVER trained on how to handle classified information at State.
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee
Footballguy
Why would meth heads vote for sheriff Joe ? Heck why would you think meth heads even vote
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ha hey man I left the pub to discuss! Ok, it's a holiday weekend, have a good one.Mm hmm. "Reality" like the Next wolf you totally see after I just pointed out the last one wasn't there.
Enjoy the pub and the weekend GB. I'm gonna take a little break from chasing shadows people mistake for wolves
bagger
Footballguy
Sorry you are right..
ld racist white people. Lots here. Fortunately that piece of #### is being federally indicted.
Seriously? Like they don't ALL sell access one way or another?
The Clintons may have set up a unique method of access, but it's not really all that unique. In many ways, I find it preferable, since it did actually accomplish some good humanitarian work in the process. I'm not saying I approve, I'm not even saying you're lying in this case. I'm saying that it's extraordinarily hypocritical and the constant attacks of this (and other things) are driven primarily by an irrational hatred of Clinton and Obama by the most biased major news organization in the country. That this is well within the normal constraints of corruption that we've seen in Washington for the last half century. I want it to stop, but the problem is systemic, not limited to or defined by CLinton. And it certainly isn't being addressed or fixed by electing a misogynist and bigot like the Donald.
But I was also a Bernie supporter...I would MUCH rather place SEVERE limits on campaign contributions AND on lobbyists.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I don't know why you keep asking this. There are thousands of people that aren't disqualified from being the POTUS. And she should be at the bottom of anyone's list of those not disqualified. It's the fact that you put her at the top of that list that's insane.
timschochet
Footballguy
I do put her at the top of the list. I agree with President Obama about that: with the possible exception of George H W Bush; there's never been anyone more qualified.
timschochet
Footballguy
Nixon too possibly.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Ignorant and careless is the most positive spin you can put on her.... but yet she's at the top of your list.
Do you even care what people think of you?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Campaign contributions and lobbyists have nothing to do with the Clintons current situation. The "one way or the other" part is really important. Like, really.
Within the campaign finance system? Ok, yes, that goes on all the time. That is a public system.
Outside the campaign finance system, through private entities? No, that's not ok. That doesn't happen all the time and when it does it's supposed to be trouble for the politicians doing it.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
1. Ignorant and careless with regard to an issue that is almost meaningless to me in terms of the Presidency.
2. I care what people important to me think of me. As for the rest...sometimes. I try not to though.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-02/fbi-says-a-laptop-that-held-clinton-s-e-mails-has-gone-missing?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics
- Folks I am 100% this Teneo employee Justin Cooper, who was the admin for Hillary's server which she shared with the Foundation and possibly also Teneo.
Last edited by a moderator:
Quint
Footballguy
so HRC had "personally-owned" (i.e.not State Dept issued) desktop computers in SCIFs in her residences? is this an explanation for how TS/SCI got from a secure, closed system to HRC's server?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/294325-fbi-report-whereabouts-of-clintons-old-phones-would
- One device for convenience.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That's one way it could happen yep.
For the people who don't know: that's not authorized, and it's never remotely ok.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
13 mobile devices
+ 5 iPads
=
1 device for convenience
2/18 Devices Recovered = 0 Problems.
{Hillary math}
+ 5 iPads
=
1 device for convenience
2/18 Devices Recovered = 0 Problems.
{Hillary math}
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
Also a lot of down ticket Democrats she wants to help get elected by making a fool out of Trump.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
True, it's good for the party.
This is also a reason why Trump is way more likely to back out on his side.
TheAristocrat
Footballguy
Hope some of you guys are saving the $250k you'll need to gain access for the common man in a Clinton presidency.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
3/2/15: The NY Times ran its story exposing Hillary's email system.
3/3/15 Gowdy's Congressional committee issued its subpoena and order to retain and produce docs.
3/21-23/15: The mass deletion occurred.
Wall Street firms do not support Gary Johnson for President at all, so far as I know. Wall Street firms enjoy being politically well connected. Their political connections took a lot of time and money to develop, and provide established firms great political power that they are loathe to give up. Wall Street firms and other powerful industry groups (Big Agra, Big Pharma, Big Energy, Big Daddy Kane) like being able to influence lawmakers to win subsidies, bailouts, protection from liability, protection from upstart competition ... a swath of advantages often referred to as "crony capitalism" (which libertarians seem much less likely than Republicans or Democrats to confuse with actual capitalism). A government full of libertarians would strip Wall Street firms of all those advantages.
Gary Johnson, in fact, agreed with much of the Occupy Wall Street message:
“I just have to express my solidarity with everyone there that expresses the notion that we have a country that doles it out unfairly, and I believe that,” Johnson said. "We do dole it out unfairly…corporatism is alive and well in this country. We’ve bailed out individuals on Wall Street that made horrific decisions that should have been rewarded for those horrific decisions by having lost all their money. Of course that didn’t happen, and you and I bailed them out a cost of a trillion bucks, and they continue to award themselves bonuses at our expense. I’m outraged by that.”
Johnson said that during his time among the protesters Tuesday evening, he had “civil conversations” with people of all political persuasions, including communists and socialists and “free market anarchists.” He told them that it is important for people to understand the distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism.
“Is the free market to blame (for the current economic troubles), or is it that fact that it’s not a free market and that it is crony capitalism?”
He said that no one could blame Wall Street for wanting to be bailed out for the awful decisions made there, but the way that the government gave in to their wishes was really unfair. “The root of the problem,” Johnson said, “is politicians getting paid off." He said the outrage of the Wall Street protesters is not misguided and should be “directed at a system that allows for undue influence of political leaders for the benefit of those who can afford them.”
Last edited by a moderator:
mquinnjr
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Gabriel Debenedetti @gdebenedetti 1h1 hour ago
Hasn't gotten a ton of notice, but—just like CO and VA—NH hasn't had *one* poll with Trump leading in all of 2016.
Political Polls@PpollingNumbers 2h2 hours ago
New Hampshire@WMUR9 Poll:
Clinton 43% (+11)
Trump 32%
Johnson 12%
Stein 3
Head-2-Head:
Clinton 45% (+9)
Trump 36
http://m.wmur.com/politics/wmur-poll-clinton-holds-11-percentage-point-lead-over-trump-in-battleground-nh/41490996 …
Hasn't gotten a ton of notice, but—just like CO and VA—NH hasn't had *one* poll with Trump leading in all of 2016.
Political Polls
New Hampshire
Clinton 43% (+11)
Trump 32%
Johnson 12%
Stein 3
Head-2-Head:
Clinton 45% (+9)
Trump 36
http://m.wmur.com/politics/wmur-poll-clinton-holds-11-percentage-point-lead-over-trump-in-battleground-nh/41490996 …
The Commish
Footballguy
Every single scenario you brought up COULD happen. There's no disagreement from me on that. Not sure why you keep saying they are being ignored. For the third time, they have been acknowledged as possible. How likely are they to happen and what do you base that likelihood on? This question is where we seem to differ. You seem to believe they are very likely. I want to know what you base this on being one that doesn't believe he can be trusted and he's a liar from the word go. At the moment, I have no reason to believe anything I have seen from the man is genuine much less consider any of his "positions" strong convictions of his.TobiasFunke said:
The idiot is making in roads versus the crook.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1182PT
Still planning on third party, but I could make an argument that Congress could control an idiot but not a crook.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1182PT
Still planning on third party, but I could make an argument that Congress could control an idiot but not a crook.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
