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.
NREC34 said:
Other candidates make one misstep and it sinks them. 

Gary Hart got caught with a woman. 

Dukakis took a ride in a tank. 

Kerry made the statement "I was for it before I was against it"

Trump keeps doing thing after thing that would sink anyone else but he's Teflon. It would take too long to list them all. It's fascinating to me. 
Click to expand...
Same could be said of the Clintons. Roger Ailes followed by the Clintons and **** Morris (then Rove etc.) created the modern political culture where we are divided and conquered. We are demos that's all, and we are told to pick a side then told what to think. Our loyalty is to our brand first, that's how it is today.  Personally I do not think these people are so precious. If for some bizarre reason Hillary had to drop out due to health and Trump due to some fraud investigation I think most of us would be happier with Kaine and GOP No. 2. The question is why do we put up with this crap.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
The basement comment was unfortunate. But did any of you read the rest of the article? She I wasn't critical of millennials- in fact she expresses empathy for them. And her analysis of the election cycle, with both parties moving towards extremism, was dead on. 
Click to expand...
The GOP is on tilt...the Dems aren't there yet so I sorta agree with her.  How come you aren't ripping her for "exactly equal" nonsense you and Tgunz like to bring up with everyone else?  That she thinks more money for education or healthcare is "extreme" should put the nail in the coffin of her being a "liberal" but I'm sure it won't be.  

 
The Commish said:
The GOP is on tilt...the Dems aren't there yet so I sorta agree with her.  How come you aren't ripping her for "exactly equal" nonsense you and Tgunz like to bring up with everyone else?  That she thinks more money for education or healthcare is "extreme" should put the nail in the coffin of her being a "liberal" but I'm sure it won't be.  
Click to expand...
If you're speaking of the false equivalency argument, I didn't rip into her because she didn't use it. She used the "there are extremists on both sides" argument which I happen to agree with. The Republicsns let the extremists win; the Democrats have not, which is the main reason it's not equivalent. 

And she never said more money for education and healthcare is extreme; she's for that. She said a government pays for all system like Scandinavia is extreme. 

 
The Commish said:
The GOP is on tilt...the Dems aren't there yet so I sorta agree with her.  How come you aren't ripping her for "exactly equal" nonsense you and Tgunz like to bring up with everyone else?  That she thinks more money for education or healthcare is "extreme" should put the nail in the coffin of her being a "liberal" but I'm sure it won't be.  
Click to expand...
She didn't call it extreme.  The moderate republican Tim said that.

 
timschochet said:
If you're speaking of the false equivalency argument, I didn't rip into her because she didn't use it. She used the "there are extremists on both sides" argument which I happen to agree with. The Republicsns let the extremists win; the Democrats have not, which is the main reason it's not equivalent. 

And she never said more money for education and healthcare is extreme; she's for that. She said a government pays for all system like Scandinavia is extreme. 
Click to expand...
The Trump extremists and the Sanders supporters are not the same. Look who's making false equivalency arguments here.

 
timschochet said:
I never said they were. I wrote that there were extremists on both sides. That doesn't make them equal in any way. They're not. 
Click to expand...
We're talking about Hillary's comments specifically, don't try to recouch what she said. If that's just your opinion yeah I agree obviously but it's irrelevant to Hillary's comments. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple Jack said:
There would probably not have been a witch hunt 15 years ago. And no, it would not have sunk her just like it is not sinking her now, despite the absurd full court press from the Republican powers that be in recent years to paint her as evil with bogus accusations and innuendo. Granted, many of them are voting for her now that Frankentrump is on the loose but that's neither here nor there.
Click to expand...
Nothing has changed in 15 years in this regard. The reason she's not sunk now is because she's up against Trump. If this scenario occurred 15 years ago, she would still win because she's up against Trump. If she was up against anyone but Trump, now or 15 years ago, she's be sunk. She's an awful candidate, but she lucked out by the other party nominating someone worse. 

 
Politician Spock said:
Nothing has changed in 15 years in this regard. The reason she's not sunk now is because she's up against Trump. If this scenario occurred 15 years ago, she would still win because she's up against Trump. If she was up against anyone but Trump, now or 15 years ago, she's be sunk. She's an awful candidate, but she lucked out by the other party nominating someone worse. 
Click to expand...
Bull####. 

You can repeat this crap as much as you like but you're still wrong. 

Back in February I wrote that the candidate with the best shot of beating Hillary was Rubio, but that even then it would be a tight race. She'd beat anybody else. I stand by that. Hillary is not a weak candidate. 

 
Politician Spock said:
Nothing has changed in 15 years in this regard. The reason she's not sunk now is because she's up against Trump. If this scenario occurred 15 years ago, she would still win because she's up against Trump. If she was up against anyone but Trump, now or 15 years ago, she's be sunk. She's an awful candidate, but she lucked out by the other party nominating someone worse. 
Click to expand...
Amazing how well the past two non-incumbent Presidential elections have worked out for Democrats - McCain choosing Palin as VP and Trump being the nominee. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
We're talking about Hillary's comments specifically, don't try to recouch what she said. If that's just your opinion yeah I agree obviously but it's irrelevant to Hillary's comments. 
Click to expand...
Hillary's world is pretty simple...if you do not not bow down to her she has nothing but disdain for you....

 
Politician Spock said:
Nothing has changed in 15 years in this regard. The reason she's not sunk now is because she's up against Trump. If this scenario occurred 15 years ago, she would still win because she's up against Trump. If she was up against anyone but Trump, now or 15 years ago, she's be sunk. She's an awful candidate, but she lucked out by the other party nominating someone worse. 
Click to expand...
Great analysis here.  The most accomplished female politician in US history is an "awful" candidate.  

And folks wonder how Trump gets votes. 

 
timschochet said:
Bull####. 

You can repeat this crap as much as you like but you're still wrong. 

Back in February I wrote that the candidate with the best shot of beating Hillary was Rubio, but that even then it would be a tight race. She'd beat anybody else. I stand by that. Hillary is not a weak candidate. 
Click to expand...
You've stood on quite a few things that you ended up being wrong about, so excuse my while I don't give a #### what you think here. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
Great analysis here.  The most accomplished female politician in US history is an "awful" candidate.  

And folks wonder how Trump gets votes. 
Click to expand...
Pete Carroll accomplished a lot at USC too. Jim Tressel accomplished a lot at OSU.... that doesn't change that the way they did it was awful. 

 
Hills comment on the sanders supporters is far worse than the 47 percent one from Romney. 

Of course I'm sure news nets are still covering trump body shaming

 
BeaverCleaver said:
You've admitted to being wrong about most things regarding this election cycle.
Click to expand...
Almost all of my wrong predictions in this election were about your side: I never thought you'd actually pick somebody like Trump. I had more faith in conservatives. You disappointed me. But take glee in that if you want, I guess. 

 
Apple Jack said:
Not even close.
Click to expand...
The 47 percent were not supporting Romney.  It was ultimately irrelevant to his candidacy. 

She has just attacked a significant amount of the support she courted with frankly, a most tired and out of touch lament.   Its disgusting given her aping of Sanders platform.

As an aside, its absolutely conceptually connected, a power broker speaking to other power brokers about the peons they plan to lord over. 

She's, dare I say, deplorable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Smack Tripper said:
The 47 percent were not supporting Romney.  It was ultimately irrelevant to his candidacy. 

She has just attacked a significant amount of the support she courted with frankly, a most tired and out of touch lament.   Its disgusting given her aping of Sanders platform.

As an aside, its absolutely conceptually connected, a power broker speaking to other power brokers about the peons they plan to lord over. 

She's, dare I say, deplorable.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the article? Your conclusion is completely wrong and ridiculous. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
He's likeable, that's a big head start. He's clunky but he would win Ohio, so that's 2 advantages.
Click to expand...
All the traditional Republican states, plus Ohio, plus religious undecided, plus centrist Hillary haters who are voting Gary Johnson...looks like enough to pull it off.

 
cstu said:
All the traditional Republican states, plus Ohio, plus religious undecided, plus centrist Hillary haters who are voting Gary Johnson...looks like enough to pull it off.
Click to expand...
Nope. He would have lost Florida, and that's the ballgame. 

Rubio had the best chance to take Florida, Bush and Trump the second best chance. 

 
timschochet said:
Did you even read the article? Your conclusion is completely wrong and ridiculous. 
Click to expand...
Has she not appropriated large elements of what she mocked sanders supporters for being motivated by?   So as is often the question with her, which line of bull#### do I believe?  Progressive hill or the one that derides young people for wanting to be part of a movement?  You yourself called these comments unfortunate which is as wholesale a condemnation as you'll ever deliver to her. 

The irony is here, she had the same playbook against Obama and it hurt her dramatically. Will it here?  Who knows, she's did beat bernie but that was before these comments became public. 

She's falling into the trap of motivating a vote through fear of an opponent as opposed to inspiration in what she can offer. 

 
timschochet said:
Nope. He would have lost Florida, and that's the ballgame. 

Rubio had the best chance to take Florida, Bush and Trump the second best chance. 
Click to expand...
Why couldn't Kasich have picked Rubio as VP? It's also impossible to evaluate Hillary's appeal to Hispanics in the same way without Trump in the picture. Hillary's appeal to Hispanics is sort of untethered in its own right.

 
ChopMeat said:
A spotlight on Kasich would not be kind to him. He's not a good candidate. He's awful actually.
Click to expand...
That reads like a reasonable, rational conclusion from a reasonable, rational person who has observed Kasich closely for years.  

However, the spotlight this election season has shown that Republicans will vote for the love child of Mussolini and Biff from Back To The Future II if he also promised to cut taxes for the rich and fight terrorism.  

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
That reads like a reasonable, rational conclusion from a reasonable, rational person who has observed Kasich closely for years.  

However, the spotlight this election season has shown that Republicans will vote for the love child of Mussolini and Biff from Back To The Future II if he also promised to cut taxes for the rich and fight terrorism.  
Click to expand...
Actually, what this has highlighted is your inability to discern fact from fiction.  You, as an HRC supporter, really have zero ground to stand on and point fingers.

 
Smack Tripper said:
Has she not appropriated large elements of what she mocked sanders supporters for being motivated by?   So as is often the question with her, which line of bull#### do I believe?  Progressive hill or the one that derides young people for wanting to be part of a movement?  You yourself called these comments unfortunate which is as wholesale a condemnation as you'll ever deliver to her. 

The irony is here, she had the same playbook against Obama and it hurt her dramatically. Will it here?  Who knows, she's did beat bernie but that was before these comments became public. 

She's falling into the trap of motivating a vote through fear of an opponent as opposed to inspiration in what she can offer. 
Click to expand...
I wrote that her COMMENT about the basement was unfortunate- not comments. The rest of what she had to say was perfectly fine IMO. 

The problem with your analysis is that you begin by thinking that Hillary is a bad person. I begin by thinking she is a good person. That causes both of us to interpret the same statements with very different meanings. 

 
msommer said:
Happy to be extreme to Americans in this respect.

Enjoy your system as I enjoy mine
Click to expand...
That's fine. We can agree to disagree on this. I don't think socialism is a bad belief (in the way I think Trump's white nationalism is a bad belief). I just don't happen to agree with it. 

 
timschochet said:
I wrote that her COMMENT about the basement was unfortunate- not comments. The rest of what she had to say was perfectly fine IMO. 

The problem with your analysis is that you begin by thinking that Hillary is a bad person. I begin by thinking she is a good person. That causes both of us to interpret the same statements with very different meanings. 
Click to expand...
That requires ignorance. 

Of course, that's typical behavior from you when you've been wrong.

 
MaxThreshold said:
 You, as an HRC supporter, really have zero ground to stand on and point fingers.
Click to expand...
Of course he does. 

Putting aside your opinion of Hillary, every decent person has the right (and IMO the duty) to condemn those in the Republican Party who are responsible for making Donald Trump its nominee. It's a disgrace and you know it. 

 
timschochet said:
Of course he does. 

Putting aside your opinion of Hillary, every decent person has the right (and IMO the duty) to condemn those in the Republican Party who are responsible for making Donald Trump its nominee. It's a disgrace and you know it. 
Click to expand...
The same also applies to the Democrats for nominating Hillary.  In fact, it's even worse because the DNC process pretty much was rigged in her favor (and it also uncovered a bunch of racists) whereas the RNC process played out fair and square.

So my statement still applies.  Those in glass houses...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Almost all of my wrong predictions in this election were about your side: I never thought you'd actually pick somebody like Trump. I had more faith in conservatives. You disappointed me. But take glee in that if you want, I guess. 
Click to expand...
You've been wrong a lot as well on your side. Deal with it.

 
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: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top