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.
Bob Magaw said:
Didn't he say/imply he saw it on TV? If so, and the footage is out there, pretty sure it would have been produced. I'm going to go with it doesn't exist. So he couldn't have seen it like he said. Is he conflating something he HEARD? And he said thousands, not hundreds. Could anybody confuse eight people with thousands (not likely on something he SAW, which he claims, possibly he heard somebody say "lots" of people were celebrating, meaning eight or so, but in his mind he conjured up a cast of thousands like an extras scene in the Ten Commandments or Ben Hur)? VISUAL MEMORY-WISE, that isn't really credible apart from drugs/hallucinations/psychosis. So what does that leave?

Trump is a fabulist. A story teller, a weaver of tall tales that he frequently embellishes (in a deposition, he claimed to not remember stating he had the world's greatest memory), and even brags about as part of his self-promotional tool kit - he has just expanded it to the campaign platform. An important distinction, should we necessarily assume he is an innocent, harmless fabulist? Or one that is purposefully doing so for opportunistic and exploitive reasons. Because it would in some ways be convenient for his campaign if it were true, that could be useful in riling up emotions (how dare those ingrates, lets ban and deport them!). As was said a while ago by the Art of the Deal ghost writer, Trump has an atypical relationship with the truth. If he wants it to be, it is, or should be. Maybe he can sell it to himself by thinking, it probably happened, so that is practically the same thing, I'm telling the truth. He at times bends "truth" and reality to his aims and purposes.     

"I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering" as the World Trade Center collapsed.    
— Donald Trump on Saturday, November 21st, 2015 in comments during a speech
Click to expand...
Is this much different than "we landed under sniper fire"

 
shader said:
It reads like an article designed to promote fear and it's one-sided.

Im trying to be serious here.  Name 3-5 of the biggest worries you have over what would actually happen in a Trump presidency.
Click to expand...
It's all in the article. Repudiation of NATO. Repudiation of our trade deals. Clamping down on immigration. Ending the Iran deal. Isolationism. Mistreatment of Muslim Americans and the undocumented. A trade war with China. Spread of nuclear weapons. No action on climate change. Major deficit spending. 

Not sure how any of this is fear mongering. 

 
timschochet said:
It's all in the article. Repudiation of NATO. Repudiation of our trade deals. Clamping down on immigration. Ending the Iran deal. Isolationism. Mistreatment of Muslim Americans and the undocumented. A trade war with China. Spread of nuclear weapons. No action on climate change. Major deficit spending. 

Not sure how any of this is fear mongering. 
Click to expand...
That would be the precise definition of fear-mongering.  

 
MaxThreshold said:
:bs:

You know that's complete :bs:

:bs:  is what that is
Click to expand...
No it isn't. 

The DNC held the debates at questionable times. Leaked emails showed they preferred Clinton, which is why DWS had to resign. But neither of these had any real effect on the election, and there's no evidence that they ever did anything concrete. 

Hillary won because she won the black vote in the South by a huge margin, and because she easily carried her home state of New York. That's it. There was no cheating, no irregularities. But if you think I'm wrong you're welcome to contradict me with evidence. 

 
timschochet said:
It's all in the article. Repudiation of NATO. Repudiation of our trade deals. Clamping down on immigration. Ending the Iran deal. Isolationism. Mistreatment of Muslim Americans and the undocumented. A trade war with China. Spread of nuclear weapons. No action on climate change. Major deficit spending. 

Not sure how any of this is fear mongering. 
Click to expand...
Repudiation of NATO. Bad but it does need to be looked at.

Repudiation of our trade deals. Great reason to vote for him

Clamping down on (illegal) immigration. Great reason to vote for him.  

Ending the Iran deal. Not convinced one way or another.

Isolationism. Not a fan but we do need to shift this direction.  I'm sure he'd be tempered by Congress so we might end up in a better place.

Mistreatment of Muslim Americans and the undocumented. If this is true then a reason to vote Clinton.

A trade war with China. Great reason to vote for him.

Spread of nuclear weapons. Bad.  Is he planning on selling them for a profit or just giving them away?

No action on climate change. Push.  Prefer to focus on fracking and stuff that pollutes our native soil.

Major deficit spending. So basically the same as Hillary.

 
timschochet said:
No it isn't. 

The DNC held the debates at questionable times. Leaked emails showed they preferred Clinton, which is why DWS had to resign. But neither of these had any real effect on the election, and there's no evidence that they ever did anything concrete. 

Hillary won because she won the black vote in the South by a huge margin, and because she easily carried her home state of New York. That's it. There was no cheating, no irregularities. But if you think I'm wrong you're welcome to contradict me with evidence. 
Click to expand...
:doh:

Oh Tim.  You may have finally entered the @tommyGunZ zone.  That's a zone where there's no thought.  No questions.  No critical thinking.  Just blind obedience, blind acceptance, pathetic excuses and devoid of any reality.

I feel like an intervention is needed.  You shouldn't be in that zone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew said:
Repudiation of our trade deals. Great reason to vote for him

Clamping down on (illegal) immigration. Great reason to vote for him.  

A trade war with China. Great reason to vote for him.
Click to expand...
On these points in particular we begin at such opposite poles that there is probably no point in further discussion. I don't really WANT to discuss politics with anyone who thinks a trade war with China would be "great". 

 
timschochet said:
No it isn't. 

The DNC held the debates at questionable times. Leaked emails showed they preferred Clinton, which is why DWS had to resign. But neither of these had any real effect on the election, and there's no evidence that they ever did anything concrete. 

Hillary won because she won the black vote in the South by a huge margin, and because she easily carried her home state of New York. That's it. There was no cheating, no irregularities. But if you think I'm wrong you're welcome to contradict me with evidence. 
Click to expand...
She won because it's what the DNC wanted.

 
timschochet said:
On these points in particular we begin at such opposite poles that there is probably no point in further discussion. I don't really WANT to discuss politics with anyone who thinks a trade war with China would be "great". 
Click to expand...
That's fine, continue to support deals that take advantage of the Chinese population to meet short term corporate goals at the expense of America jobs and intellectual property while destroying the environment 10 fold whatever we are doing to it.

 
timschochet said:
On these points in particular we begin at such opposite poles that there is probably no point in further discussion. I don't really WANT to discuss politics with anyone who thinks a trade war with China would be "great". 
Click to expand...
It says "great reason to vote for him"

not "a trade war with China would be great"

HTH

 
timschochet said:
If Donald Trump wins there will no doubt be a lot of people here who will take grim satisfaction, and there will be even be some people here who are not Trump fans yet who will be glad of the fact because they will see the rejection of Hillary Clinton as a rejection of the Establishment and corruption. And there will be a lot of "I told you so!" And all of the Hillary fans like myself will be mocked, and the media will be mocked, and all of the experts, and that too will be highly satisfying for some of you. 

And then a month will go by and buyers remorse will set in, but it will be too late. 
Click to expand...
I cannot influence the votes of tens of millions. If Hillary loses, the fault lies solely with the leadership of the Democratic party.

End.of.Story

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
It's all in the article. Repudiation of NATO. Repudiation of our trade deals. Clamping down on immigration. Ending the Iran deal. Isolationism. Mistreatment of Muslim Americans and the undocumented. A trade war with China. Spread of nuclear weapons. No action on climate change. Major deficit spending. 

Not sure how any of this is fear mongering. 
Click to expand...
Thanks Tim, that's exactly what I was looking for.  

 
timschochet said:
No it isn't. 

The DNC held the debates at questionable times. Leaked emails showed they preferred Clinton, which is why DWS had to resign. But neither of these had any real effect on the election, and there's no evidence that they ever did anything concrete. 

Hillary won because she won the black vote in the South by a huge margin, and because she easily carried her home state of New York. That's it. There was no cheating, no irregularities. But if you think I'm wrong you're welcome to contradict me with evidence. 
Click to expand...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

Among other things.

 
MaxThreshold said:
:doh:

Oh Tim.  You may have finally entered the @tommyGunZ zone.  That's a zone where there's no thought.  No questions.  No critical thinking.  Just blind obedience, blind acceptance, pathetic excuses and devoid of any reality.

I feel like an intervention is needed.  You shouldn't be in that zone.
Click to expand...
He's just trolling some more; it's what he does. 

 
shader said:
Thanks Tim, that's exactly what I was looking for.  
Click to expand...
I should note that I obviously don't hope for any of this. If Trump does win I'll treat him like I would any other President: with a clean slate and with the respect that he will have deserved having accumulated the most electoral votes. I will wish him well and hope he succeeds in being a good President, and only oppose him when he actually does something I disagree with. 

 
timschochet said:
I should note that I obviously don't hope for any of this. If Trump does win I'll treat him like I would any other President: with a clean slate and with the respect that he will have deserved having accumulated the most electoral votes. I will wish him well and hope he succeeds in being a good President, and only oppose him when he actually does something I disagree with. 
Click to expand...
About the 2nd month in

 
How can anyone that reads just a few articles about the details of the DNC leaks say the DNC has nothing to do with Hillary winning the nomination. That was the entire point.

 
Smack Tripper said:
Is this much different than "we landed under sniper fire"
Click to expand...
Or saying she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary...lies like this are so blatant...there is absolutely no reason for them...I just chuckle every time the Hildo-supporters try to head down the fibbing path...their star is a world-class liar who takes a backseat to no one in this area...

 
timschochet said:
MaxThreshold said:
That would be the precise definition of fear-mongering.  
Click to expand...
Only if it isn't true. 
Click to expand...
It's the other way around Tim....until it becomes true, it's fear mongering...especially during the "wait and see" part....assuming the worst and that all that is going to happen....that "if" in your statement is your problem.

Of the list of things you posted, the immigration reform is probably the most realistic concern a person like yourself should have.  It could be a concern for me as well, depending on what is actually proposed, but until that's on paper, I'm in a holding pattern with my concern.  

 
Boston said:
Or saying she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary...lies like this are so blatant...there is absolutely no reason for them...I just chuckle every time the Hildo-supporters try to head down the fibbing path...their star is a world-class liar who takes a backseat to no one in this area...
Click to expand...
That's why she sucks so bad as a candidate. She has no moral high ground on any subject. Trump is a birther! Hillary's cronies started birtherism. Trump is a racist! Hillary called blacks super predators. Trump has no foreign policy experience! Hillary has been on the wrong side of just about every major international issue. And on and on it goes...

 
The Commish said:
It's the other way around Tim....until it becomes true, it's fear mongering...especially during the "wait and see" part....assuming the worst and that all that is going to happen....that "if" in your statement is your problem.

Of the list of things you posted, the immigration reform is probably the most realistic concern a person like yourself should have.  It could be a concern for me as well, depending on what is actually proposed, but until that's on paper, I'm in a holding pattern with my concern.  
Click to expand...
OK. As I've written before, I think you vastly underestimate the danger of Trump's presidency. 

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
It's the other way around Tim....until it becomes true, it's fear mongering...especially during the "wait and see" part....assuming the worst and that all that is going to happen....that "if" in your statement is your problem.

Of the list of things you posted, the immigration reform is probably the most realistic concern a person like yourself should have.  It could be a concern for me as well, depending on what is actually proposed, but until that's on paper, I'm in a holding pattern with my concern.  
Click to expand...
OK. As I've written before, I think you vastly underestimate the danger of Trump's presidency. 
Click to expand...
Not sure what this has to do with your fear mongering, but ok...thanks.

 
Hang 10 said:
That's why she sucks so bad as a candidate. She has no moral high ground on any subject. Trump is a birther! Hillary's cronies started birtherism. Trump is a racist! Hillary called blacks super predators. Trump has no foreign policy experience! Hillary has been on the wrong side of just about every major international issue. And on and on it goes...
Click to expand...
Except that she does have the moral high ground in every one of the areas you listed. And she has been right on foreign policy the vast majority of the time. 

But with regard to the last, assuming you're right: if your football team has a lousy head coach, would you replace that coach with some loudmouth from the stands who has never coached or even played football a day in his life? 

 
The Commish said:
Not sure what this has to do with your fear mongering, but ok...thanks.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with it because I'm not fear mongering. 

If I lived in Eastern Europe just before  World War II and tried to warn fellow Jews that we had to get out before the Nazis invaded because they were planning to kill every Jew on sight, would that be fear mongering? Of course not because that's what happened. 

The New Yorker article l linked is based not merely on Trump's own words but on interviews with his top advisors. It goes into detail about each issue I briefly listed. It is not fear mongering, it is not exaggeration. It's the reality of what a Trump administration will most likely be about. I urge you to read it. 

 
timschochet said:
Except that she does have the moral high ground in every one of the areas you listed. And she has been right on foreign policy the vast majority of the time. 

But with regard to the last, assuming you're right: if your football team has a lousy head coach, would you replace that coach with some loudmouth from the stands who has never coached or even played football a day in his life? 
Click to expand...
I think you and I disagree on the definitions of "vast" and "majority".

She was wrong on Iraq, she was wrong on Libya, she was wrong on Syria.  Her policies related to the Arab Spring have resulted in massive unrest and destabilization of an entire strategically important region.  Her policies have played an important role is the rise of ISIS - and she undoubtedly is responsible for unknowingly arming the group in their early stages.  The one area where she seems to take the most "credit" is with Russia - of course the irony is that her position of not antagonizing Putin over Ukraine/Crimea is pretty much the same position Trump is criticized for now.

 
timschochet said:
Except that she does have the moral high ground in every one of the areas you listed. And she has been right on foreign policy the vast majority of the time. 

But with regard to the last, assuming you're right: if your football team has a lousy head coach, would you replace that coach with some loudmouth from the stands who has never coached or even played football a day in his life? 
Click to expand...
If his plan was to limit the turnovers and appoint the right assistant coaches, I'd take him over the '08 Rod Marinelli that is the other option. 

 
Hang 10 said:
That's why she sucks so bad as a candidate. She has no moral high ground on any subject. Trump is a birther! Hillary's cronies started birtherism. Trump is a racist! Hillary called blacks super predators. Trump has no foreign policy experience! Hillary has been on the wrong side of just about every major international issue. And on and on it goes...
Click to expand...
She is totally compromised which is one of the reasons her campaign is currently sputtering and she is neck and neck with another flawed candidate...her supporters want you to believe she is something she is not when in reality the only thing they really like about her is she has a D next to her name...

 
timschochet said:
Hillary won her nomination fairly. Nothing was rigged. 
Click to expand...
If anything, the rules favored Bernie Sanders, and he exploited them to the best of his ability. This has been explained ad nauseam.

Members of the DNC are allowed to favor one outcome over the other. There's no scandal. Some people just have irrational hatred toward Hillary Clinton and can't admit that a vast majority of Democrats preferred her to Sanders.

 
Hillary is a smart person, she knows her stuff, she can get things done, she supports a largely liberal agenda, and she'll put acceptable justices on the Supreme Court, should the need arise.

Donald Trump is a clown.

Sorry, guys, this one's going to be a big win for democrats. It's going to be a landslide victory for Clinton, as it should be.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher said:
If anything, the rules favored Bernie Sanders, and he exploited them to the best of his ability. This has been explained ad nauseam.

Members of the DNC are allowed to favor one outcome over the other. There's no scandal. Some people just have irrational hatred toward Hillary Clinton and can't admit that a vast majority of Democrats preferred her to Sanders.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Couldn't agree more. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think you and I disagree on the definitions of "vast" and "majority".

She was wrong on Iraq, she was wrong on Libya, she was wrong on Syria.  Her policies related to the Arab Spring have resulted in massive unrest and destabilization of an entire strategically important region.  Her policies have played an important role is the rise of ISIS - and she undoubtedly is responsible for unknowingly arming the group in their early stages.  The one area where she seems to take the most "credit" is with Russia - of course the irony is that her position of not antagonizing Putin over Ukraine/Crimea is pretty much the same position Trump is criticized for now.
Click to expand...
Couldn't disagree more, as I've explained in detail in the past. It's interesting to me though that for someone who claims to be s liberal, when it comes to Hillary you're awfully eager to repeat the most stale Republican talking points. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Couldn't disagree more, as I've explained in detail in the past. It's interesting to me though that for someone who claims to be s liberal, when it comes to Hillary you're awfully eager to repeat the most stale Republican talking points. 
Click to expand...
So, she was right on Iraq?

Right on Libya?  Right on Syria?  She did not agree to arm some of the resistance to Al-Assad - who then later became ISIS?  Her policies have not led to the destabilization of the middle east?  What exactly has she done to help that region in her time as SOS - presumably the most important area in the world during her time as SOS?

What has she done to curb the Chinese military buildup in the South China Sea?

Was I wrong in thinking you were praising Clinton for her approach to Russia annexing Crimea?

Other than the amorphous notion of "rebuilding America's stature in the world" which, quite frankly is pretty dubious right now, what did she do, other than rack up a bunch of frequent flyer miles?  She toned down the conflict between Israel and Palestine - after allowing it to ratchet up with no intervention.  Anything else?

 
timschochet said:
It has everything to do with it because I'm not fear mongering. 

If I lived in Eastern Europe just before  World War II and tried to warn fellow Jews that we had to get out before the Nazis invaded because they were planning to kill every Jew on sight, would that be fear mongering? Of course not because that's what happened. 

The New Yorker article l linked is based not merely on Trump's own words but on interviews with his top advisors. It goes into detail about each issue I briefly listed. It is not fear mongering, it is not exaggeration. It's the reality of what a Trump administration will most likely be about. I urge you to read it. 
Click to expand...
How does "reality" of something that might happen in the future work exactly?  Better question is, what exactly do you think the term "fear monger" means?  Because for most of us, it's a person who plays the fear card as a means to motivate someone on a particular issue.  What do YOU think it means?

 
I think of a fear monger more as someone who gins up irrational fear, not someone who says "hey, maybe let's not walk into this active volcano."

 
Sinn Fein said:
So, she was right on Iraq?

Right on Libya?  Right on Syria?  She did not agree to arm some of the resistance to Al-Assad - who then later became ISIS?  Her policies have not led to the destabilization of the middle east?  What exactly has she done to help that region in her time as SOS - presumably the most important area in the world during her time as SOS?

What has she done to curb the Chinese military buildup in the South China Sea?

Was I wrong in thinking you were praising Clinton for her approach to Russia annexing Crimea?

Other than the amorphous notion of "rebuilding America's stature in the world" which, quite frankly is pretty dubious right now, what did she do, other than rack up a bunch of frequent flyer miles?  She toned down the conflict between Israel and Palestine - after allowing it to ratchet up with no intervention.  Anything else?
Click to expand...
1. She was wrong on Iraq. But she played no part in the execution of that war or its aftermath, which was the main flaw. Hillary's actions with regard to Iraq once she took over at State were largely correct, though she was faced with an impossible situation. 

2. She was right about Libya. And if Obama had taken her advice with regard to what happened after the overthrow it would be far more stable now. 

3. She was right about Arab Spring. 

4. She was supremely right about Iran, which was the most important issue of all in that region. 

5. Time will tell on Syria. I'm not sure if she was right or wrong. 

6. There is very little we can do about China (or North Korea for that matter) without taking considerable risks. I have no criticism against Hillary on this. 

7. I praised Obama for his measured approach in response to Putin's actions, but I think Hillary was gone by then. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher said:
I think of a fear monger more as someone who gins up irrational fear, not someone who says "hey, maybe let's not walk into this active volcano."
Click to expand...
Exactly. Is a sign at a roller coaster that says pregnant women shouldn't ride fear mongering? How about the warning on every carton of cigarettes that they cause cancer? Is that fear mongering? 

 
pantagrapher said:
I think of a fear monger more as someone who gins up irrational fear, not someone who says "hey, maybe let's not walk into this active volcano."
Click to expand...
Then what is being said Trump will do is irrational, because he will operate in a system of checks and balances that won't let him do what the fear mongers have irrationally concluded he will do. 

 
Politician Spock said:
Then what is being said Trump will do is irrational, because he will operate in a system of checks and balances that won't let him do what the fear mongers have irrationally concluded he will do. 
Click to expand...
That's your argument? That checks and balances will stop a madman from wreaking havoc as president? OK.

 
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
262K
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