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 (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
shader said:
You don't show commitment to disabled people by reaching out to them to vote for you.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article?  Did you see the part where she gave a speech on autism policy in January, and another policy speech aimed at issues facing the disables yesterday?  Or where she's included representatives of the community in her campaign to help her develop specific policy proposals?

She's in the midst of a campaign.  Everything a candidate does during a campaign can be perceived as reaching out to people to get them to vote for you, so that's a silly disqualifier. I suspect you fall into the category of people who have made up their mind on Clinton and are unwilling to accept any evidence that contradicts your assumptions.

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
The voters that can still be turned IMO are those who are leaning third-party because of dissatisfaction with the machine, and those who supported Sanders in the primaries but plan to stay home in November.  Clinton demonstrating how her form of governance will be different from what Trump has told us should be appealing to both groups. 
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the answer is here but I think Obama did a pretty good job on his part of stating that hey even if you're against 'the machine' - and look Hope/Change started out as directed against the Clintons - government can be a force for good and responsive. Hillary is a walking, talking billboard of the 'machine' or establishment, so I do not think she can ever win on that issue, but people can accept that (haven't we always) and still acknowledge that 'good government' is a thing she can deliver. I think this is where the transparency and personal history comes in, it really is a problem for her with reformers and independents, but if she sticks to the policy message while it may not go away she can compensate for it or overcome it.

 
TobiasFunke said:
The Commish said:
The title's not flattering.  However, I am certainly willing to give her the credit the timing and future actions warrant.  Perhaps this is something we'll be able to add to her work with women and children....time will tell.
Click to expand...
As far as timing goes, note that her outreach efforts go back to the beginning of the campaign, before Trump did that weird thing where he mocked the NY Times reporter.
Click to expand...
noted...as I said, time will tell.  I can't quite get to the point where I just trust what she says she's going to do....I have to see her do it.  I'm not sure you guys understand (or care really) how happy I'll be if she ends up proving me wrong.

 
The Commish said:
noted...as I said, time will tell.  I can't quite get to the point where I just trust what she says she's going to do....I have to see her do it.  I'm not sure you guys understand (or care really) how happy I'll be if she ends up proving me wrong.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
One more point (apologies for the negative half of this):

I think it's way better to elect someone you hope will do at least some of what they promise on the campaign trail than someone you hope won't do any of what they promise on the campaign trail. Because history shows that despite what many people think, presidents generally do try to fulfill most of their campaign promises and they succeed on a good number of them.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm not sure what the answer is here but I think Obama did a pretty good job on his part of stating that hey even if you're against 'the machine' - and look Hope/Change started out as directed against the Clintons - government can be a force for good and responsive. Hillary is a walking, talking billboard of the 'machine' or establishment, so I do not think she can ever win on that issue, but people can accept that (haven't we always) and still acknowledge that 'good government' is a thing she can deliver. I think this is where the transparency and personal history comes in, it really is a problem for her with reformers and independents, but if she sticks to the policy message while it may not go away she can compensate for it or overcome it.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of Sanders supporters will be surprised, if not disappointed, by how similar the Senate voting records are for Sanders and Clinton when they were in the Senate together.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Did you read the article?  Did you see the part where she gave a speech on autism policy in January, and another policy speech aimed at issues facing the disables yesterday?  Or where she's included representatives of the community in her campaign to help her develop specific policy proposals?

She's in the midst of a campaign.  Everything a candidate does during a campaign can be perceived as reaching out to people to get them to vote for you, so that's a silly disqualifier. I suspect you fall into the category of people who have made up their mind on Clinton and are unwilling to accept any evidence that contradicts your assumptions.
Click to expand...
Well yes, I've made my mind up on Clinton and Trump.  They have both proven that they are dishonest and corrupt people.  So for me, I see this as her trying to get more votes.  I give her campaign team credit for reaching out to a new group in an attempt to get more votes and show themselves as the "inclusive" party.  But I'm not going to give her credit as if her reaching out to disabled people is some kind of great thing.   

When Trump goes down to help flooding victims, his opponents considered that to be "all for show" and wouldn't give him credit for it (I'm sure it was just a photo-op for votes).  I feel the same way about Hilary.  She's proven to be corrupt, so I'll just assume this is just crap and all for show.  

 
The Commish said:
noted...as I said, time will tell.  I can't quite get to the point where I just trust what she says she's going to do....I have to see her do it.  I'm not sure you guys understand (or care really) how happy I'll be if she ends up proving me wrong.
Click to expand...
I guess the question would be why wouldn't she follow through on policies she's supported her entire life? I understand the email server issue, and the underlying trust factor, but you don't think she's going to follow through on policy? Why wouldn't she, because of Goldman Sachs speeches? Do people think she'll get elected and basically say "ha ha, fooled you", and not pursue her own policies she's laid out? This is basically the argument I've been hearing. I'm sure this invites a macho response regarding being a sycophant who's naive, but I don't like Hillary that much, and still have no doubt she'll try to execute on her policies. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
As far as timing goes, note that her outreach efforts go back to the beginning of the campaign, before Trump did that weird thing where he mocked the NY Times reporter.
Click to expand...
This still doesn't get enough attention, but it's the number one thing people remember about Trump.  Anytime she can bring it up is a good thing for her especially since she'd been an advocate in the past.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
More pro-Clinton stuff as requested by the FFA:

Clinton makes an unusual push: to win over disabled people and their families

I'm sure cynics will dismiss it as political opportunism in the wake of Trump's nonsense, but she could have simply had her PAC run devastating ads like this and chalked up a win in that demographic.  But she's doing much more than that, she's reaching out to the community and involving them in her campaign and in crafting her policy proposals.

If you're not willing to give her credit for this, I think maybe you're just not willing to give her credit.
Click to expand...
Decreasing SSDI has been a big hobby horse on the right lately, do we know her policy there?

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
The Commish said:
noted...as I said, time will tell.  I can't quite get to the point where I just trust what she says she's going to do....I have to see her do it.  I'm not sure you guys understand (or care really) how happy I'll be if she ends up proving me wrong.
Click to expand...
I guess the question would be why wouldn't she follow through on policies she's supported her entire life? I understand the email server issue, and the underlying trust factor, but you don't think she's going to follow through on policy? Why wouldn't she, because of Goldman Sachs speeches? Do people think she'll get elected and basically say "ha ha, fooled you", and not pursue her own policies she's laid out? This is basically the argument I've been hearing. I'm sure this invites a macho response regarding being a sycophant who's naive, but I don't like Hillary that much, and still have no doubt she'll try to execute on her policies. 
Click to expand...
:oldunsure:   These aren't the policies in question....when it comes to women's health and children, I have zero question that she'll try to follow through.  It's the policies she's not supported her whole career or the ones that seem to crop up when popular opinion warrants them that are in question.  Just like with everyone else, when I see someone saying one thing and doing another, I tend to believe the doing part is the "real" position of said person.

 
shader said:
Well yes, I've made my mind up on Clinton and Trump.  They have both proven that they are dishonest and corrupt people.  So for me, I see this as her trying to get more votes.  I give her campaign team credit for reaching out to a new group in an attempt to get more votes and show themselves as the "inclusive" party.  But I'm not going to give her credit as if her reaching out to disabled people is some kind of great thing.   

When Trump goes down to help flooding victims, his opponents considered that to be "all for show" and wouldn't give him credit for it (I'm sure it was just a photo-op for votes).  I feel the same way about Hilary.  She's proven to be corrupt, so I'll just assume this is just crap and all for show.  
Click to expand...
It is unfortunate that (1) you are unwilling to give someone credit for doing what no other candidate has really done in reaching out to disabled people, and (2) you equate a one day photo op trip with a concerted effort over the entirety of an 18 month campaign.

I hope others are more open-minded. I hate Trump as much as anyone here hates any politician in American history, but I still try to remain open-minded to anyone willing to convey positive information about him (eg I think he deserves some credit for nudging the GOP in the direction of decency and tolerance on LGBTQ issues).
 

 
TobiasFunke said:
It is unfortunate that (1) you are unwilling to give someone credit for doing what no other candidate has really done in reaching out to disabled people, and (2) you equate a one day photo op trip with a concerted effort over the entirety of an 18 month campaign.

I hope others are more open-minded. I hate Trump as much as anyone here hates any politician in American history, but I still try to remain open-minded to anyone willing to convey positive information about him (eg I think he deserves some credit for nudging the GOP in the direction of decency and tolerance on LGBTQ issues).
 
Click to expand...
I'm a really poor person to discuss this with.  I don't believe in any candidate, I think all their communications are staged, fake, and the whole thing is a massive sham.  I also never vote.  So hey, ignore me, I'm not really important in this issue.  I find immense humor in this election and am basically here because of that.  But maybe I'm a bit trollish, so I'll leave you guys to it.

 
not sure where else to drop this amazing interview

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/trump-ohio-campaign-chair-no-racism-before-obama?CMP=twt_gu

Miller added: “I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected. We never had problems like this ... Now, with the people with the guns, and shooting up neighborhoods, and not being responsible citizens, that’s a big change, and I think that’s the philosophy that Obama has perpetuated on America.”

When it was pointed out that some people might find her remarks offensive, Miller replied: “I don’t care, it’s the truth.”

 
mr. furley said:
not sure where else to drop this amazing interview

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/trump-ohio-campaign-chair-no-racism-before-obama?CMP=twt_gu

Miller added: “I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected. We never had problems like this ... Now, with the people with the guns, and shooting up neighborhoods, and not being responsible citizens, that’s a big change, and I think that’s the philosophy that Obama has perpetuated on America.”

When it was pointed out that some people might find her remarks offensive, Miller replied: “I don’t care, it’s the truth.”
Click to expand...
I do love the "logic", that somehow racism is OK to fight Obama's "philosphy".  It's just breathtakingly stupid, but par for the course these days.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
Nothing I could find in a 2 minute google search.  She gives generic statements about protecting SS, especially for those most in need, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
Call me biased, but I trust Hillary to protect all aspects of SSIC, including SSID. I trust she'll try to reform healthcare by lowering the Medicare age to 50 on a buy-in, and I believe she'll go after lowering drug costs by pushing to reform the non-negotiating clause of Part D. I believe she knows about these issues and is ready to address them. I don't believe Donald knows jack-diddly about the issues here, nor do I trust he would protect what he would deem "entitlements".

How anyone would trust Trump over Clinton on these issues I would never know. Donald would not pay you something you were owed in a second, that's been shown time and again. I absolutely do not trust him with the programs we've all paid into our whole lives, and that he doesn't give 2 cares about protecting. 

 
mr. furley said:
not sure where else to drop this amazing interview

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/22/trump-ohio-campaign-chair-no-racism-before-obama?CMP=twt_gu

Miller added: “I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected. We never had problems like this ... Now, with the people with the guns, and shooting up neighborhoods, and not being responsible citizens, that’s a big change, and I think that’s the philosophy that Obama has perpetuated on America.”

When it was pointed out that some people might find her remarks offensive, Miller replied: “I don’t care, it’s the truth.”
Click to expand...
Just, wow...

 
shader said:
Well yes, I've made my mind up on Clinton and Trump.  They have both proven that they are dishonest and corrupt people.  So for me, I see this as her trying to get more votes.  I give her campaign team credit for reaching out to a new group in an attempt to get more votes and show themselves as the "inclusive" party.  But I'm not going to give her credit as if her reaching out to disabled people is some kind of great thing.   

When Trump goes down to help flooding victims, his opponents considered that to be "all for show" and wouldn't give him credit for it (I'm sure it was just a photo-op for votes).  I feel the same way about Hilary.  She's proven to be corrupt, so I'll just assume this is just crap and all for show.  
Click to expand...
Here's the difference between Hillary and Trump:  Hillary has spent a lifetime trying to improve the lives of people and Trump has spent trying to destroy them.  So, yes, I do give more credit to Hillary when she does these things, even if they politically motivated.

 
MaxThreshold said:
:yawn:

Okay, so we got another standard "you're racist" when it doesn't agree with the liberal hive.  You got anything else?  Like something resembling a logical thought or argument?  Or is calling other's racist the only thing in your tool box?
Click to expand...
That's not what I said at all. Once you demonstrate reading comprehension maybe we can have a more thoughtful discussion.

 
cstu said:
I don't think you understand the nature of this show. 
Click to expand...
Zach makes the guests look like idiots and the funny/interesting one still manage to come off as likable. The unlikable ones look like unlikable idiots. Hillary falls into the later category. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think you can make arguments for all the presidents and you have to consider the times. I think she has the worst charisma, oratory and stage or tv persona since Coolidge. It's a big part of being president and I think it will affect her presidency. It was a drag on Bush Jr. for sure.
Click to expand...
It's certainly a detriment, but she's got more charisma than Carter and Ford put together.

 
cstu said:
It's certainly a detriment, but she's got more charisma than Carter and Ford put together.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. You had to add them together. One or the other is ballpark. Carter was a really opular, folksy guy when he ran. Technically Ford in my mind is out of the running since he never got elected.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
261K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top