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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt Lauer has been getting criticism tonight for not challenging Trump and he deserves it. Hillary is always given serious questions, and if she says anything in dispute she is challenged; meanwhile Trump is treated with kid gloves. 

Chris Wallace is moderating one of the 3 debates and he said this week that he doesn't see his role as a fact-checker. #### that. If someone blatantly lies (the way Trump did tonight when he claimed he was against the Iraq War and against our actions in Libya) he ought to be called out on it immediately. If Wallace is refusing to do that he ought to withdraw as a moderator. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Matt Lauer has been getting criticism tonight for not challenging Trump and he deserves it. Hillary is always given serious questions, and if she says anything in dispute she is challenged; meanwhile Trump is treated with kid gloves. 

Chris Wallace is moderating one of the 3 debates and he said this week that he doesn't see his role as a fact-checker. #### that. If someone blatantly lies (the way Trump did tonight when he claimed he was against the Iraq War and against our actions in Libya) he ought to be called out on it immediately. If Wallace is refusing to do that he ought to withdraw as a moderator. 
Click to expand...
Amazing how you see blatant lies - when you want to.  

 
timschochet said:
Nope but I've heard from some who do and they respect Hillary Clinton. I'm betting the ones that don't are a minority. 
Click to expand...
Nobody in the federal government or intelligence community respects her.

Anyone that claims to is being paid, fears for their life, or is trying to look cool for his i-nerd friends in the FFA.

 
elbowrm said:
Pretty damning Colin Powell email:

https://medium.com/oversightdems/cummings-releases-full-powell-email-advising-clinton-on-personal-email-use-65904c1ccfa#.sn8k6c3ht
Click to expand...
SiD may correct me if I'm wrong, but I glanced at this....there's nothing here, new, that we didn't know about right?  Is there something in these that he said he did but publicly said he didn't (or vice versa)?

This whole thing is shocking to me quite frankly.  Our government officials seem to have ZERO clue about technology and it's importance to our national security.

 
timschochet said:
Nope but I've heard from some who do and they respect Hillary Clinton. I'm betting the ones that don't are a minority. 
Click to expand...
:lol:   Always rock-solid anecdotal tidbits from Tim.  Was this from the barber shop?  Playing chess in the park?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
chauncey said:
Nobody in the federal government or intelligence community respects her.

Anyone that claims to is being paid, fears for their life, or is trying to look cool for his i-nerd friends in the FFA.
Click to expand...
Hillary is the poster child for what not to do.  Everything she does is counter to the training they recieve.  Anyone working with classified data knows they would be fired on the spot if they did anything close to what Hillary did. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I am not claiming that every conservative who dislikes Hillary thinks what I described above. But those were the ones who started it, and who brought up one false scandal after another. They created the false impression that Hillary is a liar and corrupt, which you and so many others have bought into hook line and sinker. 

The reality is she is sometimes shady but never corrupt, she is generally honest, and she has worked her entire life trying to better the nation. 
Click to expand...
Considering the enormous wealth the Clinton'have amassed, it seems like most of their efforts have been to enrich themselves through their power.  They are the TV evangelicals of politics.  

 
timschochet said:
Matt Lauer has been getting criticism tonight for not challenging Trump and he deserves it. Hillary is always given serious questions, and if she says anything in dispute she is challenged; meanwhile Trump is treated with kid gloves. 

Chris Wallace is moderating one of the 3 debates and he said this week that he doesn't see his role as a fact-checker. #### that. If someone blatantly lies (the way Trump did tonight when he claimed he was against the Iraq War and against our actions in Libya) he ought to be called out on it immediately. If Wallace is refusing to do that he ought to withdraw as a moderator. 
Click to expand...
This is shtick right?  You simply cannot be serious here.

 
timschochet said:
Chris Wallace is moderating one of the 3 debates and he said this week that he doesn't see his role as a fact-checker. #### that. If someone blatantly lies (the way Trump did tonight when he claimed he was against the Iraq War and against our actions in Libya) he ought to be called out on it immediately. If Wallace is refusing to do that he ought to withdraw as a moderator. 
Click to expand...
I agree with Wallace here. It seems like an impossible task to both fairly moderate and fairly fact check.  And attempt to do so would cause distractions. Leave it up to the candidates to point out errors of each other in rebuttals. (And to the media afterwards.)

 
Juxtatarot said:
I agree with Wallace here. It seems like an impossible task to both fairly moderate and fairly fact check.  And attempt to do so would cause distractions. Leave it up to the candidates to point out errors of each other in rebuttals. (And to the media afterwards.)
Click to expand...
Then Trump will continue to lie every time he opens his mouth knowing that the vast majority of viewers will never know. 

 
Max Power said:
The header is supposed to determine the overall classification of the document as a whole.  Portion markings such as (TS), (S), (C), (U) and so on are annotated at the start of each new paragraph. This is done so that the reader has an understanding of what information is classified at which level. 

If you classify your header as UNCLASSIFIED and there is a (C) portion marking, that is a security violation.  If you just skip a header all together (which happens in emails) and there is any classified information in there, that is a security violation.  Once she saw the (C) on an unclassified server she was 100% in the wrong.  Of note when someone sends an email on an unclassified government server, the email is automatically labelled as UNCLASSIFIED.  This is because no classified information should EVER be on there. 

For Hillary to say "there were no headers and there were no markings" is just an extremely poor showing on State Department. These items are required for official correspondence.  The fact that she allowed this to go for years reflects poorly on her judgement skills.  This also brings some of her previous issues back to light.  Like the incident below were she asked an advisor to remove the markers. 

She's not a stupid women, she knows exactly what she was doing.  She knew she was violating security protocols.  Now shes going to lie to everyone's face about it again. 
Click to expand...
Good posting.  For Hillary to say "there were no headers and no markings... and all the other leaders who sent them didn't do it..."  shows her lack of understanding of the whole process.  But her excuses do reflect how she typically shields herself from responsibility.  

 
timschochet said:
Then Trump will continue to lie every time he opens his mouth knowing that the vast majority of viewers will never know. 
Click to expand...
You lost the right to complain about lying, dishonest candidates when you went into the tank for Hillary.  

And yes, I understand that Trump is worse.  But let's not pretend that you actually care about truthfulness and integrity.

 
dutch said:
hmm, did Clinton have authority of classification?
Click to expand...
As the Secretary of State, Clinton was a classification authority for the State Department, as approved and assigned by the President.  She received training on how to determine and how to classify information (or should have!), per executive order.  She also signed an appointment order acknowledging her responsibilities in that area of her official duties.  For her to say "there was no header, I didn't know", it only shows that she didn't understand her role in the process.  Whether she was incompetent or willfully laying blame on others (by saying they didn't use a header in the email), it paints an incredibly bad picture of her qualifications to function in that type of environment.  

 
Donald Trump is full of ####.

Hillary Clinton is full of ####.  

Hard to believe these are the best two people this country can come up with for the office of POTUS.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
You lost the right to complain about lying, dishonest candidates when you went into the tank for Hillary.  

And yes, I understand that Trump is worse.  But let's not pretend that you actually care about truthfulness and integrity.
Click to expand...
Is Trump worse?  His lies seem pretty blatant where Hillary is much better at disguising them.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
You lost the right to complain about lying, dishonest candidates when you went into the tank for Hillary.  

And yes, I understand that Trump is worse.  But let's not pretend that you actually care about truthfulness and integrity.
Click to expand...
Hillary lies on occasion. Obviously I don't share your overall assessment of her. 

But Donald Trump is in a different category alrogether. He lies about virtually everything. We've never had such a candidate before. 

I'd be perfectly happy if the moderators treated them equally and fact-checked both of them. 

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
So we have now arrived at the Colin told me to do it defense?  I believe the proper response to Hillary would be if Colon had told you to jump off a bridge would you have done it?
Click to expand...
She's rejected that as a defense and owned up to it as her mistake and hers alone:

Well, look, I have the utmost respect for Secretary Powell," Clinton said, adding that she appreciates all the advice he gave her as she prepared to become secretary of state, but "I'm not going to relitigate in public my private conversations with him." She continued:


I've been asked many, many questions in the past year about emails, and what I've learned is that when I try to explain what happened, it can sound like I'm trying to excuse what I did, and there are no excuses. I want people to know that the decision to have a single email account was mine, I take responsibility for it, I've apologized for it, I would certainly do differently if I could, but obviously I'm grateful the Justice Department concluded there's no basis to pursue this matter further, and I believe the public will be and is considering my full record and experience as they consider their choice for president.
Click to expand...

link

I understand that many people dislike and distrust Clinton, and that some of that is justified, but it would be nice if, before creating false narratives, people actually listened to what she has said on the record on the matter. If we have time to search through tens of thousands of emails surely a six minute interview with CNN is worth a little attention too.


 
TobiasFunke said:
She's rejected that as a defense and owned up to it as her mistake and hers alone:


link

I understand that many people dislike and distrust Clinton, and that some of that is justified, but it would be nice if, before creating false narratives, people actually listened to what she has said on the record on the matter. If we have time to search through tens of thousands of emails surely a six minute interview with CNN is worth a little attention too.
Click to expand...
Do you think Elijah Cummings released the Powell email without discussing with the Clinton campaign first?

 
Jayrok said:
Donald Trump is full of ####.

Hillary Clinton is full of ####.  

Hard to believe these are the best two people this country can come up with for the office of POTUS.  
Click to expand...
It could be worse.  It could be....

wait, I guess it could not be worse 

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
Is Trump worse?  His lies seem pretty blatant where Hillary is much better at disguising them.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right?

Every objective measure shows he lies with far more frequency- here's one.  But perhaps more importantly, the Clinton camp responds to follow-ups and inquiries and shows some accountability when Clinton says something that's even subjectively iffy- see for example the Nancy Reagan AIDs comment.  Trump's campaign, on the other hand, simply doesn't respond to reporters who ask for citations or challege the veracity of something the candidate said.  This is a brave new world of lying and lack of accountability for lying.  We've never seen anything like it.

 
TobiasFunke said:
You're kidding, right?

Every objective measure shows he lies with far more frequency- here's one.  But perhaps more importantly, the Clinton camp responds to follow-ups and inquiries and shows some accountability when Clinton says something that's even subjectively iffy- see for example the Nancy Reagan AIDs comment.  Trump's campaign, on the other hand, simply doesn't respond to reporters who ask for citations or challege the veracity of something the candidate said.  This is a brave new world of lying and lack of accountability for lying.  We've never seen anything like it.
Click to expand...
How heavy is that water you're carrying for Hillary?  A Liar is a ####### liar and neither one of them are fit to be President by every objective measure.  At all.  Ever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Baloney Sandwich said:
Do you think Elijah Cummings released the Powell email without discussing with the Clinton campaign first?
Click to expand...
Dunno. Maybe, although I don't think they'd care, it's not all that helpful. Maybe he just saw it and decided to help Clinton without consulting her, thinking it would be helpful.  Maybe he has a longstanding feud with Powell we don't know about and wanted to make him look bad- after all Cummings was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War and CBC opposition to it, probably didn't like that there was a black guy pushing for it. Who knows. I try to go by what people actually say and do (or don't say and do) rather than assuming I have any special insight regarding their motivations.  Doing that takes you down the rabbit hole real fast, next thing you know you're voting for a conspiracy theorist for president of the United States.

 
One problem I had with Hillary last night: she said, "We are not putting ground troops in Iraq ever again."

Beyond the fact that we already have 5,000 ground troops in Iraq, I don't think she should make such promises, because the future in that region is entirely unpredictable. Earlier in the campaign (in a debate against Sanders, I believe) she refused to commit herself to making such a pledge. And I agreed with her reasoning back then. Now she has made the pledge, and if elected she may come to regret it in the future.

Of course, this criticism on my part pales next to the fact that at least Hillary knows about these issues and is prepared to be President; the same cannot be said of her opponent.

 
The Commish said:
SiD may correct me if I'm wrong, but I glanced at this....there's nothing here, new, that we didn't know about right?  Is there something in these that he said he did but publicly said he didn't (or vice versa)?

This whole thing is shocking to me quite frankly.  Our government officials seem to have ZERO clue about technology and it's importance to our national security.
Click to expand...
What strikes me about the Powell email is that he seems to share Hillary's desire to get around the FOIA.

Unless those who believe that Hillary Clinton is corrupt also believe that Colin Powell is corrupt, this suggests that the real problem here is the FOIA. It was designed after Watergate to be used as a way to "let sunshine in" to government so the public could be aware of what's happening, but it's turned instead into a political tool of harassment. Incidents and statements are taken out of context to paint politicians in both parties in the worst possible light. It's actually preventing government from doing things efficiently.

I am not suggesting that we get rid of the FOIA altogether, but perhaps we need to rethink it.

 
timschochet said:
Matt Lauer has been getting criticism tonight for not challenging Trump and he deserves it. Hillary is always given serious questions, and if she says anything in dispute she is challenged; meanwhile Trump is treated with kid gloves. 

Chris Wallace is moderating one of the 3 debates and he said this week that he doesn't see his role as a fact-checker. #### that. If someone blatantly lies (the way Trump did tonight when he claimed he was against the Iraq War and against our actions in Libya) he ought to be called out on it immediately. If Wallace is refusing to do that he ought to withdraw as a moderator. 
Click to expand...
Couple things:

1.  If it was on the moderator to call politicians on their :bs:  during the debate, debates would never get off the ground.

2.  If by some miracle the debate got off the ground, the answers would be so vague, they'd be more useless than the platitudes they give today.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Hmm maybe you are right.  Never mind, everyone.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Good to see you're finally coming around to the truth.  I think I can speak for everyone when I say we were greatly concerned about your state of mind based upon the lengths you were going to defend Hillary and condone her actions.  Glad we can all breath a sigh of relief now.  Welcome back!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Couple things:

1.  If it was on the moderator to call politicians on their :bs:  during the debate, debates would never get off the ground.

2.  If by some miracle the debate got off the ground, the answers would be so vague, they'd be more useless than the platitudes they give today.
Click to expand...
Well, no surprise, but I strongly disagree. There was a Republican debate earlier this year in which Chris Wallace used previous videotape to challenge each politician's most egregious falsehoods. It was one of the most effective debates I've ever seen.

It would be fairly easy for a moderator to respond to Trump's statement that he was always against the Iraq war with, "But Mr. Trump, let's listen to this tape from the Howard Stern show back in 2003." Let him answer that. If Hillary misstates what James Comey said, it would be easy to respond: "But let's listen to what Mr. Comey actually said." etc. That would be much more informative for the viewer.

And it is absolutely vital IMO in this particular election, because in Donald Trump we are facing a liar of the like that we have never seen before.

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
SiD may correct me if I'm wrong, but I glanced at this....there's nothing here, new, that we didn't know about right?  Is there something in these that he said he did but publicly said he didn't (or vice versa)?

This whole thing is shocking to me quite frankly.  Our government officials seem to have ZERO clue about technology and it's importance to our national security.
Click to expand...
What strikes me about the Powell email is that he seems to share Hillary's desire to get around the FOIA.

Unless those who believe that Hillary Clinton is corrupt also believe that Colin Powell is corrupt, this suggests that the real problem here is the FOIA. It was designed after Watergate to be used as a way to "let sunshine in" to government so the public could be aware of what's happening, but it's turned instead into a political tool of harassment. Incidents and statements are taken out of context to paint politicians in both parties in the worst possible light. It's actually preventing government from doing things efficiently.

I am not suggesting that we get rid of the FOIA altogether, but perhaps we need to rethink it.
Click to expand...
I don't get that impression at all.  Powell's frustration was with the technology provided and the rules the government had in place for using that technology.  He felt it made his job more cumbersome.  What part of his remarks lead you to believe he wanted to keep information about things he was doing out of the hands of others?

I have no problem with FOIA personally.  Let's not pretend that if FOIA wasn't around our government would be doing things so much better and more efficiently.  I find it a little amusing that you have this position regarding FOIA, while also holding your position with regard to the NSA monitoring.  Personally, I am ok with some inefficiency if it means I am provided the information I need to determine if my government is doing things on the up and up or not.

 
timschochet said:
Well, no surprise, but I strongly disagree. There was a Republican debate earlier this year in which Chris Wallace used previous videotape to challenge each politician's most egregious falsehoods. It was one of the most effective debates I've ever seen.

It would be fairly easy for a moderator to respond to Trump's statement that he was always against the Iraq war with, "But Mr. Trump, let's listen to this tape from the Howard Stern show back in 2003." Let him answer that. If Hillary misstates what James Comey said, it would be easy to respond: "But let's listen to what Mr. Comey actually said." etc. That would be much more informative for the viewer.

And it is absolutely vital IMO in this particular election, because in Donald Trump we are facing a liar of the like that we have never seen before.
Click to expand...
That show was labeled a "debate" but is was anything but.  I am fine with shows like that by the way.  The more information out the better as far as I am concerned.

ummmm.......the bold, do you really want to go there?

 
The Commish said:
That show was labeled a "debate" but is was anything but.  I am fine with shows like that by the way.  The more information out the better as far as I am concerned.

ummmm.......the bold, do you really want to go there?
Click to expand...
We've already been there, like 50 times.  At least. It's been shown both objectively (fact check service statistics) and analytically (first campaign not to bother responding to press inquiries asking for clarifications of apparent misstatements, continued defense of misstatements by the candidate even when presented with contrary facts, etc.).

This isn't a Clinton vs Trump thing.  It's an "every presidential candidate at their absolute fullest of ####, from Clinton to Nixon and everyone between and before, vs Trump."  And Trump is the worst by a landslide. He's post-facts and post-accountability. It's one of the true dangers of his presidency.  You don't grasp that at all, and that's fine, but it's weird to keep asking about it after it's been answered so many times.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clinton speaking this morning sounding good. Sounded reasonable, level headed, answered questions normally with zero weird answers.  

As soon as this is done they will go back to regular news coverage which consists of an odd trump quote followed by 3 or 4 people taking about it for 10 minutes in between commercials.

Same thing everyday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Chris Wallace is moderating one of the 3 debates and he said this week that he doesn't see his role as a fact-checker. #### that. If someone blatantly lies (the way Trump did tonight when he claimed he was against the Iraq War and against our actions in Libya) he ought to be called out on it immediately. If Wallace is refusing to do that he ought to withdraw as a moderator. 
Click to expand...
Crowley basically killed her career doing this.  Correcting Mitt live, on stage, then afterward admitting he was right all along.  Pretty terrible.  As a moderator the job is absolutely not to correct the record, but allow the opposing candidate to correct the record.

dutch said:
hmm, did Clinton have authority of classification?
Click to expand...
Yes, she did.

 
The General said:
Clinton speaking this morning sounding good. Sounded reasonable, level headed, answered questions normally with zero weird answers.  

As soon as this is done they will go back to regular news coverage which consists of an odd trump quote followed by 3 or 4 people taking about it for 10 minutes in between commercials.

Same thing everyday.
Click to expand...
Unbelievably(I know, I am a fool for being hopeful) talk radio is so far down the rabbit hole they are pumping up Trump's appearance last night as profound, in depth and spot on as far as policy goes.  I don't know how these folks look at themselves in the mirror in the morning.  And to top it off the likes of Paul Ryan and Reince Preibus are spewing the same disingenuous gobbledy####.

 
dutch said:
Unbelievably(I know, I am a fool for being hopeful) talk radio is so far down the rabbit hole they are pumping up Trump's appearance last night as profound, in depth and spot on as far as policy goes.  I don't know how these folks look at themselves in the mirror in the morning.  And to top it off the likes of Paul Ryan and Reince Preibus are spewing the same disingenuous gobbledy####.
Click to expand...
You can expect Reince to be biased - he is.  I've heard a bit of commentary both on TV and radio this morning and the concencus is that both were pretty bad.

 
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
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top