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 (17 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even Tim called this a huge mistake.  

"The Washington Post-ABC News survey asked people whether "it's fair or unfair to describe a large portion of Trump's supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities." More than twice as many registered voters said this approach was out of bounds (65 percent) as said it was fair game (30 percent"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/voters-strongly-reject-hillary-clintons-basket-of-deplorables-approach/?postshare=7561474912169204&tid=ss_tw

 
TobiasFunke said:
Many people don't consider expenditures by non-media corporations to be "free speech." It's certainly a stretch as far as a "plain language" interpretation of the text.

I actually kind of agree with you, or at least I don't think it's that big a deal.  I'd like to see it overturned because I think it's bad for the process but it's fairly far down my list of priorities.  But I know it's important to many Sanders supporters, some of whom haven't been convinced to vote for Clinton, and I know she strongly supports overturning it, so it's part of the case to be made to them.
Click to expand...
DNC Services Corporation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew said:
I suspect he has tons of data and could easily cherry pick the data needed to shift the narrative.
Click to expand...
The polls have swung around so much he gets back in the spotlight each time there's a tide shift.  Good for him - the stars are aligning for him.  Crazy races like this are great for media outlets and he's the golden kid right now, anway.

 
Rich Conway said:
I don't see how one can suggest with a straight face that Coca-Cola isn't allowed to endorse candidates, promote policy, publish political ads, etc, but that Fox News can.
Click to expand...
Why? If you accept that (A) corporate political expenditure is not protected free speech; and (B) Fox News is covered under Freedom of the Press then it's a perfectly reasonable argument. You can disagree with either or both of the premises it's based on; but I don't understand the implication that the argument is ridiculous or disingenuous.

 
Rich Conway said:
I don't see how one can suggest with a straight face that Coca-Cola isn't allowed to endorse candidates, promote policy, publish political ads, etc, but that Fox News can.
Click to expand...
It's worse than that.  If you really think that groups of people have fewer free speech rights than individuals do, why not tell the Sierra Club (a corporation) that it's not allowed to spend money to say what it thinks about environmental issues?

 
Murph said:
Why? If you accept that (A) corporate political expenditure is not protected free speech; and (B) Fox News is covered under Freedom of the Press then it's a perfectly reasonable argument. You can disagree with either or both of the premises it's based on; but I don't understand the implication that the argument is ridiculous or disingenuous.
Click to expand...
The first amendment treats freedom of the press and freedom of speech exactly symmetrically.  There is no basis at all -- literally none -- to create a "corporation" exception for one but not the other.

Edit: For handy reference:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
By the way what isn't a media corporation?

- Books

 - Movies

- Internet

- TV

- Pamphlets

Everything done in political speech is done via media corporations.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a fair and complicated question. I think the issue is more about propriety of spending and timing limitations than about whether some companies are entitled to free speech protections but not others.

I have zero expertise or insight in this area, and it's never been a big concern of mine, so I'd defer to Justice Stevens' dissent for the anti-Citizens United perspective. It's long as hell but I'm sure there's some summaries out there somewhere.

 
Gr00vus said:
Thanks for the lousy candidate Dems.
Click to expand...
Don't blame me - by the time the people I knew voted for Bernie in California the primary was over.

I blame Democrats in the following states who voted for Hillary:

SC, AL, AR, GA, TN, TX, VA, LA, MS, and FL.

Huh, look at that - all southern states.  Well, I'll be.

 
cstu said:
Don't blame me - by the time the people I knew voted for Bernie in California the primary was over.

I blame Democrats in the following states who voted for Hillary:

SC, AL, AR, GA, TN, TX, VA, LA, MS, and FL.

Huh, look at that - all southern states.  Well, I'll be.
Click to expand...
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Florida ... the vast majority of the swing states, actually.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yeah, it's a fair and complicated question. I think the issue is more about propriety of spending and timing limitations than about whether some companies are entitled to free speech protections but not others.

I have zero expertise or insight in this area, and it's never been a big concern of mine, so I'd defer to Justice Stevens' dissent for the anti-Citizens United perspective. It's long as hell but I'm sure there's some summaries out there somewhere.
Click to expand...
That's ok, I've been long interested in it myself and I did a 180 on it a while ago. I don't agree with Stevens on this aspect, but I am for almost every other money or contribution tracking mechanism that could be conceived of otherwise.

I also think that the people who really are involved in political influence do it outside the campaign finance system. So even people who traffic in political influence can be for overturning CU and also know that what they do in that way is not only not affected by it but actually strengthened by it because those who play by the rules are limited much further than they ever would be.

IMO the best means for limiting corruption is investigation and conviction for pay for play outside the system as opposed to quid pro quo within it, which rarely occurs.

eta - I should add that transparency rules are also a solution, that is one big problem with the CU decision, ie babies and bathwater and all that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Florida ... the vast majority of the swing states, actually.
Click to expand...
Look at the difference in delegate counts between the southern states and the swing states.  By early March Hillary was already named the nominee by the media after winning southern states that she'd never win in the general.

 
Jackstraw said:
The Commish said:
TF...let's discuss the environmental issues.  I think the voter ID thing is probably a fool's folly at this point as I don't believe Democrats OR Republicans really give two ####s about the average voter's rights.  They care about getting the votes for their side (or preventing votes from the other side).  I don't get the sense that any of them are genuinely concerned about disenfranchisement or protecting the process.  
Click to expand...
Except that....you know....one side defends voters rights routinely and the other side works constantly to disenfranchise them. Other than that EXACTLY the same. I swear to god both sidesism is completely off the rails. 
Click to expand...
read it however many times it takes.....

 
In what PAGLIANO remembered as the fall of 2013, MILLS called PAGLIANO and inquired about the effectiveness of two types of software for wiping computer data, but PAGLIANO could not recall the names of the software. PAGLIANO discussed the difference between "bit" wiping and deleting with MILLS. PAGLIANO inferred from his conversation with MILLS that PRN was going to excise data. PAGLIANO recalled using Boot and Nuke software when deleting and repurposing computers while working on HILLARY CLINTON s 2008 presidential campaign, but didn't recall if he discussed that with MILLS

In July 2014, PAGLIANO had a conference call with MILLS and REDACTED to discuss an archive of HILLARY CLINTON emails from her time as Secretary of State. PAGLIANO recalled that MILLS and REDACTED were trying to determine why a gap existed in HILLARY
CLINTON' s emails between January 2009 and March 2009. In separate conversations with COOPER, PAGLIANO understood that CLINTON used a BlackBerry email address before hosting her account on Exchange Server 1 and that explained the gap from January 2009 to March 2009. PAGLIANO could not recall a conversation with MILLS or REDACTED after July 2014
Click to expand...
- Page 160, FBI Notes.

REDACTED does not recall who or when the conversation occurred, but someone from CESC told him at some point s/he did not want the .pst files hanging around and wanted them off of the Server after the export.
Click to expand...
- Page 19, FBI Notes.

CESC is the Clinton Executive Services CORPORATION.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
“He looks at me and goes, ‘Um, how old are you?' And I said, ‘Well I am 26, I will be 27,'" Clinton said. "And he goes, ‘Well, that is kind of old for us.'"

 
cstu said:
Look at the difference in delegate counts between the southern states and the swing states.  By early March Hillary was already named the nominee by the media after winning southern states that she'd never win in the general.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point is here. My thoughts on the whole Sanders "I told you so" crowd that comes around every few days to remind everyone that they told us so:

1. Clinton won those swing states. If you wanted to go based on who the primary voters preferred in the states that were most important, it was Clinton. 

2.  She won the primary race easily. The contest lasted a while but it wasn't particularly close.  Even if we took a million votes that went to Clinton and give them to Sanders due to DNC shenanigans (an impossibly high number) Clinton still wins. She was the choice of the primary voters.

3. When you talk about discounting southern Dem primary voters, what you're really talking about is discounting black voters.  Black voters in the south have been through more than enough of that to last us the next couple hundreds years already. They have remained loyal to the party in part because they feel the party listens to their needs and (unlike Republicans) doesn't try to further disenfranchise them. Piling on and telling them they didn't do what was in our best interests just because the candidate preferred by independent-minded white guys didn't get the party nomination is not a great look.

4. It's impossible to know for sure whether Sanders would have fared better than Clinton in the general. I happen to agree with many of the posters here that he would have fared better. But I also think at least some of the difference between their potential fortunes was due to her gender. Women like her, but women like the Dem candidate generally, and men definitely do NOT like her, and some of their rhetoric explaining sounds awfully misogynistic- she's too ambitious (good for men but bad for women), she's shrill, she's not warm enough, she doesn't smile enough, she's a b####, etc. Telling those female voters who've been passionate about her candidacy for like a decade now to wait another 4-8 years and probably find someone else to carry the torch because the male candidate would have an easier path to victory is also not a great look (even if I agree in this instance because I find Trump that horrible).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Murph said:
Rich Conway said:
I don't see how one can suggest with a straight face that Coca-Cola isn't allowed to endorse candidates, promote policy, publish political ads, etc, but that Fox News can.
Click to expand...
Why? If you accept that (A) corporate political expenditure is not protected free speech; and (B) Fox News is covered under Freedom of the Press then it's a perfectly reasonable argument. You can disagree with either or both of the premises it's based on; but I don't understand the implication that the argument is ridiculous or disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't accept A above, but for sake of argument, let's say I do.  What I'm saying is I don't see how "Freedom of the Press" gets applied just because a person or organization calls itself "press".  If we're allowing Fox News to offer editorials, then aren't we, by definition, saying that the offering of an opinion makes one "press".

 
"There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base," 

 
Murph said:
If you accept that (A) corporate political expenditure is not protected free speech;
Click to expand...
Do you see a problem with a charity - which is a nonprofit yet also a corporate entity - giving money to political causes, like Emily's List or Planned Parenthood? Can they then spend money on political speech? Can either type of entity be banned from spending money on spending money for political speech? Why or why not?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
Well, I don't accept A above, but for sake of argument, let's say I do.  What I'm saying is I don't see how "Freedom of the Press" gets applied just because a person or organization calls itself "press".  If we're allowing Fox News to offer editorials, then aren't we, by definition, saying that the offering of an opinion makes one "press".
Click to expand...
I don't think it's crazy that a company whose purpose is to make soft drinks and a company whose purpose is to report news (however poorly) could be regulated differently under First Amendment. But apparently a lot of posters here who I otherwise respect disagree.

For the record; I think trying to limit corporate donations is a waste of time and energy that could be better used attempting to better enforce disclosure. But I don't necessarily agree with the argument that limiting corporate donations is unconstitutional.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought Corporate Donations are limited, it is just their ability to spend money on advertising/speech is unrestricted. 

 
Upon completing the review, SAMUELSON printed all of the emails she deemed to be relevant. The paper copies were then subsequently reviewed by MILLS and KENDALL and anything they deemed not to be work related was shredded.
Click to expand...
- Oh.

 
GARY BERNTSEN is a retired CIA officer who BLUMENTHAL met through LARRY JOHNSON, another former CIA officer. JOHNSON wanted BLUMENTHAL to hear BERNTSEN' s story as described in BERNTSEN' s book JAWBREAKER. Neither BERNTSEN nor JOHNSON ever stated they were providing classified information or that they obtained any information from the CIA. BLUMENTHAL did not ask if the information was classified.
Click to expand...
- Again, here is Blumenthal in touch with Larry Johnson of NoQuarterUSA infamy.

 
Ok guys I'm going to the Saints MNF tilt vs the evil dirty birds. Good luck to the Hillary fans in the debate tonight, remember: honesty is the best policy.

Hopefully Hillary sticks to that.

I am also expecting Hillary will be thoroughly prepared and totally disciplined.  She is highly flawed but she also has a number of positive assets in advantage over Trump: knowledge, experience, a deep capability for being informed on any issue being thrown at her.

Good Luck.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok guys I'm going to the Saints MNF tilt vs the evil dirty birds. Good luck to the Hillary fans in the debate tonight, remember: honesty is the best policy.

Hopefully Hillary sticks to that.

I am also expecting Hillary will be thoroughly prepared and totally disciplined.  She is highly flawed but she also has a number of positive assets in advantage over Trump: knowledge, experience, a deep capability for being informed on any issue being thrown at her.

Good Luck.
Click to expand...
Good luck Saints!  (ps I need Ingram and Lutz to have big nights  :oldunsure: )

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok guys I'm going to the Saints MNF tilt vs the evil dirty birds. Good luck to the Hillary fans in the debate tonight, remember: honesty is the best policy.

Hopefully Hillary sticks to that.

I am also expecting Hillary will be thoroughly prepared and totally disciplined.  She is highly flawed but she also has a number of positive assets in advantage over Trump: knowledge, experience, a deep capability for being informed on any issue being thrown at her.

Good Luck.
Click to expand...
I don't care how disciplined she is. You can't out discipline Parkinsons and the cough.

 
I don't care how disciplined she is. You can't out discipline Parkinsons and the cough.
Click to expand...
On the one hand, I'd point out that we already went through the whole Parkinsons thing 10 pages ago. But on the other hand, I'm pretty sure you already know that because one of your aliases was involved.

 
Rich Conway said:
I don't see how one can suggest with a straight face that Coca-Cola isn't allowed to endorse candidates, promote policy, publish political ads, etc, but that Fox News can.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the real argument though. The argument against Citizen's United is against the UNLIMITED donations it allows from special interest groups. Fox News can give an opinion or endorsement, but can't donate 20 million to the campaign coffers. Coca-Cola should be able to make an endorsement, but not make unlimited donations that dwarf what the law allows a private individual to make.

Count me in the group that believes Citizen's United is a real threat to true Democracy.

 
renesauz said:
I don't think that's the real argument though. The argument against Citizen's United is against the UNLIMITED donations it allows from special interest groups. Fox News can give an opinion or endorsement, but can't donate 20 million to the campaign coffers. Coca-Cola should be able to make an endorsement, but not make unlimited donations that dwarf what the law allows a private individual to make.

Count me in the group that believes Citizen's United is a real threat to true Democracy.
Click to expand...
The real threat to true Democracy is YOUR FACE!

There. I said what had to be said.  Don't hate me for it.

 
The real threat to democracy is having the press act as an arm of the Democrats and nominating people named Clinton and Bush simply because of their perceived status

 
jon_mx said:
Would that be the Goldman Sachs or the JP Morgan Constitution?  

BTW, how much does crooked Hillary plan to sell pardon's for this time around? 
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that crimes committed by people of financial means are no longer pursued by the criminal justice system. In other words, that well is dry.

 
Joe Summer said:
On the one hand, I'd point out that we already went through the whole Parkinsons thing 10 pages ago. But on the other hand, I'm pretty sure you already know that because one of your aliases was involved.
Click to expand...
Negative ghostrider. I only have one handle and I haven't been on the board for months. I have never used an alias.

 
Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters 18m18 minutes ago

Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation: Clinton leads in Florida http://reut.rs/2dbSPBQ 

Democrat Hillary Clinton has pulled ahead of Republican rival Donald Trump in the traditional battleground state of Florida, strengthening her position in the race for the White House, the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project showed ahead of the pair's first presidential debate on Monday night.

If the election were held on Monday, Clinton would lead Trump in the Electoral College by 259 to 191, with an 88 percent chance of reaching the 270 needed to win, according to the project's results.

The project, based on a weekly online tracking poll of more than 15,000 Americans, estimates state-by-state results that will drive the voting in the Electoral College, the body that ultimately selects the president.

The results marked the first upward swing in the project for Clinton in several weeks. The last release of the poll, on Sept. 16, gave her a 61 percent chance of winning by a margin of about 14 Electoral College votes. The big difference now is that Florida, with its 29 Electoral College votes, favors Clinton 49 percentage points to Trump's 45 points, the results showed.

 
She's not going to win FL. She needs to work VA, PA, CO and OH. If she takes those 4, she wins. She has solid leads in the first 3. If she can't take OH, she doesn't deserve to win.

 
tommyboy said:
The real threat to democracy is having the press act as an arm of the Democrats and nominating people named Clinton and Bush simply because of their perceived status
Click to expand...
You mean perceived access, which they curry favor for,

 
Does Hillary need a you "go girl moment" during the debate?

I'm just asking as some one on the CNN political panel said she needs that.

And with her prepping so much, i bet she has about 12-27 "go girl moments" ready to use.  

 
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
259K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 13 (members: 0, guests: 13)
Back
Top