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 (13 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Opie said:
[scooter] said:
Month-to-month numbers aren't as important as yearly numbers. The last time we had a yearly GDP that low was during the recession. Obama's recent numbers aren't great but they are better than what we had in the last year of Bush. That's why Obama's approval rating is above 50%.
Click to expand...
So, this is definitely something that Hillary will bring up Monday night, right?  She'll be shouting those numbers from the mountain top!!  Trump is done!!
Click to expand...
It certainly won't hurt Hillary to point out the fact that this country emerged from a recession while a Democrat was president.

 
Opie said:
Tenth Year < 3% :cry:
Click to expand...
Kind of a red herring here. The last 8 years have also seen consistant growth in the 2.5% range, with no negatives following what was a very sharp drop from a nasty recession. Is a long period of steady 2.5% worse than bouncing all over the place, even if some years are 5 or 6%? How about AVERAGE over a ten years span...how would THAT look? I suspect no-where near as bad, but probably more informative and more fair. Of course, fair criticisms don't exist where it concerns Obama or Clinton

 
Abraham said:
I don't think you know what a recession is. Or you don't understand math.  Or both. 
Click to expand...
I know exactly what constitutes a recession.  

I also know what defines an anemic economy.

One is better than the other...but not by much and when Hillary sticks to Obama's plan, it is the best that we can hope for.

How about we try for something called a "robust" economy?

 
timschochet said:
:D Yeah well, you may noticed, but I don't care.

I also don't care if they disagree with me. If there are people out there who are leaning Trump, but are willing to change their minds because they might learn something Monday night about him or her in 90 minutes that they weren't already aware of, then they're stupid. There are some smart people who support Trump, which personally I think is shameful, but I doubt any of them are going to change their minds. There are also people who haven't been paying attention thus far (which in itself is also shameful) and I suppose their opinions could be affected, but if they haven't been paying attention thus far they're probably not going to watch tomorrow night.

Which leads me to this conclusion: if you have been paying attention up to this point, and you are a Trump supporter (or a Hillary supporter for that matter), and tomorrow night changes your mind, then you don't have much of a mind to begin with.
Click to expand...
Agree with you a lot re. Trump and CLinton, but not with this. It's kind of snobbish. There's a lot of hard working Americans who despise politics in general and have avoided the conversation entirely. Those folks will look closer as we get closer. While it's likely true that most of them will be of lower IQ than the FBG community, those of that group that will vote won't be that far off the average.

 
[scooter] said:
It's sad that this election is all about which moves will most agitate an opponent. If George Bush had invited swift boat veterans to a debate, no one would have batted an eye because Kerry would not have gone nuclear over it. (If Kerry were Donald Trump he would have invited the family of the man Laura Bush killed in 1963.)
Click to expand...
Yep, agree. Trump corrodes everything he touches.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
One is better than the other...but not by much and when Hillary sticks to Obama's plan, it is the best that we can hope for.

How about we try for something called a "robust" economy?
Click to expand...
"Well sure, Obama's plan pulled us out of the Biggest Recession Since 1929......but, uhhhhh.....the economy isn't robust! It needs to be robust or it doesn't count!"

 
squistion said:
Sarah Palin did by refusing to answer the questions asked of her by Gwen Ifill and talked about what she wanted to talk about. Trump will try do the same thing and if Lester Holt tries to repeatedly press him for a specific answer, it may be seen as picking on Trump or favoritism to Hillary by a liberal moderator. And, of course, no matter how he does his supporters will call him the debate winner.
Click to expand...
Here I think I'm a little more optimistic about your candidate than you are.  This is her wheelhouse.  If she can remain composed (and upright) for 90 minutes Trump is a dark horse Wild Card team that blew out their Week 1 opponent, got their city's hopes up and falls behind 35-3 by halftime.  He cannot win this debate with facial contortions and insults.  There will be policy discussions and if Hillary can lay her positions out, call Donald out for ignorance or absence of the same and not get dragged into a slug fest in center ring, this is over.  I expect Tuesday morning to be the precursor to a 10 point swing to Hillary.  We haven't directly seen these two contrasted yet.  Yes -- Trump's base, which is by percentage of the population small, will lap it up.  I think the integrity issues which will bite Hillary after the election made her an insane choice for nominee, but notice I used that past tense.  Those will seem paltry in comparison with a more direct reference point by way of that debate.  Hillary will have to really fall flat on her face to lose and I think she's as prepared for this as anything in her life.  I'll give her that credit.  

 
[scooter] said:
"Well sure, Obama's plan pulled us out of the Biggest Recession Since 1929......but, uhhhhh.....the economy isn't robust! It needs to be robust or it doesn't count!"
Click to expand...
Let's not go overboard.  The economy recovered because the banking crisis and real estate meltdown ended, which really the big O had zero to do with.  

 
Republican narrative:

- Republicans had nothing to do with causing the recession.

- Democrats had nothing to do with recovering from the recession.

- Obama is completely to blame for all economic problems in the country since 2008.

These talking points didn't work so well for Mitt Romney in 2012. Maybe 2020 will be a new formula?

 
[scooter] said:
Republican narrative:

- Republicans had nothing to do with causing the recession.

- Democrats had nothing to do with recovering from the recession.

- Obama is completely to blame for all economic problems in the country since 2008.

These talking points didn't work so well for Mitt Romney in 2012. Maybe 2020 will be a new formula?
Click to expand...
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. :shrug:  

 
MaxThreshold said:
The crazy thing is that what he said is actually true! 

But hey, if you want to believe your own revisionist history you're very well welcome to.
Click to expand...


Ended the 2008 Recession


In February 2009, Congress approved Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package.It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded public works projects. The recession ended six months later when GDP growth turned positive. In just seven months, ARRA pumped $241.9 billion into the economy, stirring growth to a robust 3.9% by early 2010. By March 30, 2011, nearly all ($633.5 billion) of the funds were spent. 

Obama bailed out the U.S. auto industry on March 30, 2009. The Federal government took over GM and Chrysler, saving three million jobs. It forced the companies to become more fuel efficient and therefore more globally competitive.
Click to expand...

 
[scooter] said:
Republican narrative:

- Republicans had nothing to do with causing the recession.

- Democrats had nothing to do with recovering from the recession.

- Obama is completely to blame for all economic problems in the country since 2008.

These talking points didn't work so well for Mitt Romney in 2012. Maybe 2020 will be a new formula?
Click to expand...
The third one is wrong, but the first two statements are true.

 
[scooter] said:
Republican narrative:

- Republicans had nothing to do with causing the recession.

- Democrats had nothing to do with recovering from the recession.

- Obama is completely to blame for all economic problems in the country since 2008.

These talking points didn't work so well for Mitt Romney in 2012. Maybe 2020 will be a new formula?
Click to expand...
In a normal election we could have had a great policy discussion about Bill Clinton and the Republicans deregulating Wall Street, and that leading to the recession.

It's pointless with Trump. Oh well.

 
cstu said:
Here's the truth:

- Republicans and Democrats helped cause the recession.

- Republicans and Democrats helped recover from the recession.

Any denial otherwise and you're a partisan hack.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, the classic "I disagree with your opinion, therefore you're a troll (or partisan hack here)."

 
cstu said:
Here's the truth:

- Republicans and Democrats helped cause the recession.

- Republicans and Democrats helped recover from the recession.

Any denial otherwise and you're a partisan hack.
Click to expand...
I don't really agree with those either.  Recessions happen in market economies, and they recover on their own.  Presidents don't have a whole lot to do with either.  A little, but not as much as people (partisans especially) seem to think.

 
I agree though that it's hack-ish to blame Obama for bad economic stuff while refusing to credit him for good stuff.  Either do both or do neither.  (Neither is right, just to reiterate).

 
If Hillary loses then another woman won't be nominated for at least a century.  An epic failure to someone like Trump will be viewed as women being unelectable as President. 

 
cstu said:
If Hillary loses then another woman won't be nominated for at least a century.  An epic failure to someone like Trump will be viewed as women being unelectable as President. 
Click to expand...
The solution to that is NOT to nominate the worst possible POS woman you can find.  The Democrats only have themselves to blame.

 
cstu said:
If Hillary loses then another woman won't be nominated for at least a century.  An epic failure to someone like Trump will be viewed as women being unelectable as President. 
Click to expand...
That's silly.  Hillary is a horrible candidate, as many of us have been saying for years now.  She's awful for reasons that have nothing to do with her lack of a Y chromosome.  

 
cstu said:
The crazy thing is you actually believe this.
Click to expand...
You seem clueless as to what brought the economy the economy down and why it rebounded.  The economy collapsed because of a panic about the stability of the financial markets because of all the crappy loans they had given out.  Once the panic was over when the impact to the financial was known (banks started reporting better than expected results in Feb/March 2009) the hemoraging in the economy stopped and we were on the road to recovering.  The stimulus while temporarily making it a bit less painful to the poor, actually was poorly designed with respect to actually creating permament  jobs.  What Bush did or Obama did barely played a role, although TARP may have added to the initial panic but eventually helped the financial sheets of the banks and helped put an end to the fall.  

 
I truly hope the Supreme Court gets talked about a lot in all of the debates and finally gets talked about but the dumb ### media. I don't believe how both parties have just sat by and not pounded the Republicans for completely obstructing the functioning of one branch. I'd be all for a law or possibly an Amendment saying, with reasonable expectations, that all presidential nominees to the Supreme Court get a hearing within 60 days of being nominated. Quit this bull#### "party of the Constitution" and follow the rulebook for, arguably, the most important branch of our government. Anyone voting Republican should hold their head in shame for allowing this to happen.

 
Mario Kart said:
I truly hope the Supreme Court gets talked about a lot in all of the debates and finally gets talked about but the dumb ### media. I don't believe how both parties have just sat by and not pounded the Republicans for completely obstructing the functioning of one branch. I'd be all for a law or possibly an Amendment saying, with reasonable expectations, that all presidential nominees to the Supreme Court get a hearing within 60 days of being nominated. Quit this bull#### "party of the Constitution" and follow the rulebook for, arguably, the most important branch of our government. Anyone voting Republican should hold their head in shame for allowing this to happen.
Click to expand...
Just curious - because I don't know the answer - but how many decisions have been 4-4, since Scalia died?

Then, just to take it another step further - how many cases would a liberal justice have over-turned?  (A 4-4 decisions upholds the lower court's ruling - I think it is possible, if there were 4-4 splits, that a liberal justice would have also upheld the lower court ruling - thus the lack of a 9th justice had no impact (again, assumes the liberal justice was reliably liberal)).

A couple of questions - but I think we overstate the impact of only 8 justices, sometimes.  It is certainly not "completely obstruct[ed]".

 
Mario Kart said:
I truly hope the Supreme Court gets talked about a lot in all of the debates and finally gets talked about but the dumb ### media. I don't believe how both parties have just sat by and not pounded the Republicans for completely obstructing the functioning of one branch. I'd be all for a law or possibly an Amendment saying, with reasonable expectations, that all presidential nominees to the Supreme Court get a hearing within 60 days of being nominated. Quit this bull#### "party of the Constitution" and follow the rulebook for, arguably, the most important branch of our government. Anyone voting Republican should hold their head in shame for allowing this to happen.
Click to expand...
This is completely silly.  This is one of those arguments where if the roles were reversed you wouldn't be asking for this at all.  In fact, you would probably be praising them for standing up to a "lawless President".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
You seem clueless as to what brought the economy the economy down and why it rebounded.  The economy collapsed because of a panic about the stability of the financial markets because of all the crappy loans they had given out.  Once the panic was over when the impact to the financial was known (banks started reporting better than expected results in Feb/March 2009) the hemoraging in the economy stopped and we were on the road to recovering.  The stimulus while temporarily making it a bit less painful to the poor, actually was poorly designed with respect to actually creating permament  jobs.  What Bush did or Obama did barely played a role, although TARP may have added to the initial panic but eventually helped the financial sheets of the banks and helped put an end to the fall.  
Click to expand...
Should I take your word over most economists?

 
MaxThreshold said:
This is completely silly.  This is one of those arguments where if the roles were reversed you wouldn't be asking for this at all.
Click to expand...
The hell I wouldn't. I'd be damning the Dems just the same if not worse depending on their stance. McConnell said the week of Scalia's death that there would be no hearings. That is obstructionist and deplorable to the rules of our union. To say so otherwise is elementary school logic.

It's a shame you and others on the board respond with what you said above instead of calling for your party leaders to do what the rules tell them what to do. You're kind of part of the problem. You can't see that, huh?

 
Sinn Fein said:
Just curious - because I don't know the answer - but how many decisions have been 4-4, since Scalia died?

Then, just to take it another step further - how many cases would a liberal justice have over-turned?  (A 4-4 decisions upholds the lower court's ruling - I think it is possible, if there were 4-4 splits, that a liberal justice would have also upheld the lower court ruling - thus the lack of a 9th justice had no impact (again, assumes the liberal justice was reliably liberal)).

A couple of questions - but I think we overstate the impact of only 8 justices, sometimes.  It is certainly not "completely obstruct[ed]".
Click to expand...
All cases heard would have stayed 4-4 since the new justice didn't hear the case. So, those cases would have not been affected. However, if something had happened in the interim, at which point, a "weakened" court could not come to a majority ruling, that would have surely weakened our government as a whole. However, the bigger issue is the point that the Republicans simply refused to do what they are supposed to do. And, for reasons that are dumb as hell. For those reasons to be accepted and then tried to have explained as, "okay," is just plain ####### stupid.

Imagine the President dying and both parties telling the people, "well, we have a Vice President but we're not gonna swear him in because there is an election in November and we're gonna let the people decide the new President. Yes, that is what we're gonna do." Who would stand for that?

 
Mario Kart said:
All cases heard would have stayed 4-4 since the new justice didn't hear the case. So, those cases would have not been affected. However, if something had happened in the interim, at which point, a "weakened" court could not come to a majority ruling, that would have surely weakened our government as a whole. However, the bigger issue is the point that the Republicans simply refused to do what they are supposed to do. And, for reasons that are dumb as hell. For those reasons to be accepted and then tried to have explained as, "okay," is just plain ####### stupid.

Imagine the President dying and both parties telling the people, "well, we have a Vice President but we're not gonna swear him in because there is an election in November and we're gonna let the people decide the new President. Yes, that is what we're gonna do." Who would stand for that?
Click to expand...
Aren't there some laws the president isn't enforcing?

 
Mario Kart said:
All cases heard would have stayed 4-4 since the new justice didn't hear the case. So, those cases would have not been affected. However, if something had happened in the interim, at which point, a "weakened" court could not come to a majority ruling, that would have surely weakened our government as a whole. However, the bigger issue is the point that the Republicans simply refused to do what they are supposed to do. And, for reasons that are dumb as hell. For those reasons to be accepted and then tried to have explained as, "okay," is just plain ####### stupid.

Imagine the President dying and both parties telling the people, "well, we have a Vice President but we're not gonna swear him in because there is an election in November and we're gonna let the people decide the new President. Yes, that is what we're gonna do." Who would stand for that?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.  Very few cases were 4-4.

Here is an article that looks at the impact of 8 justices.  It looks like 1 case was impacted - on immigration.  4-4 cased resulted in a lower court over-ruling Obama - whereas a liberal judge might have sided with the administration.

The court continues to operate - unlike the death of the president, which leaves the office empty.

Of course, the senators should have taken up the nomination, and given it an up or down vote.  It sets a very bad precedent to withhold advice and consent for almost a year - very slippery slope.  But, the impact of that decision is generally over-stated.

 
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
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Back
Top