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 (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm getting more excited about Hillary's Presidency simply to prove you right wing fools wrong yet again, just like with Obama. 

Do you honestly think your judgement should be taken seriously after the nonsense you guys spewed about Obama over the past 8 years, especially after you nominated ####ing Trump of all people?

Leave Presidential elections to us.  Thank you.

 
I'm getting more excited about Hillary's Presidency simply to prove you right wing fools wrong yet again, just like with Obama. 

Do you honestly think your judgement should be taken seriously after the nonsense you guys spewed about Obama over the past 8 years, especially after you nominated ####ing Trump of all people?

Leave Presidential elections to us.  Thank you.
worst president ever!!! :lmao:

 
The thing about her dream being a hemispheric open market with open borders makes me like her a little more, like from 5 out of 100 to maybe a 7 out of 100.

 
You're undoubtedly far more informed as to the merits of th deal and all the negative effects it's had for the US than I am.  I've only read the political angles over the past couple of years. 

Where would you suggest I look to find out more?  
@tommyGunZ

Tommy hopefully this is helpful.

I would start with this snip from the NYT story itself:

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”
- NYT

I am pretty sure McFaul is supporting Hillary in 2016.

This is an article from the Financial Times before all the controversy started, but from when Hillary and other people in charge should have been aware, in 2010:

Russians to gain US uranium foothold

Go-ahead for ARMZ partial takeover of Canada’s Uranium One
December 5, 2010

A Russian state-owned company is set to control up to half of US uranium output by the middle of the decade, after American authorities gave the go-ahead to the partial takeover of Uranium One of Canada by ARMZ.

The deal is the latest sign of how, after a three-decade hiatus in new reactor projects, the US has lost control of key parts of the nuclear supply chain.

...


This is another piece from 2013:

Uranium Investing News asked Katusa if the negative perception of Russian influence over US energy resources will benefit US-based uranium miners. “Yes. It is of great importance to national energy security for the US to increase domestic production of uranium. The US is completely dependant on Russian uranium, more so than on foreign oil,” he explained. “The US imports 90 percent of its total annual uranium consumption. Currently, 20 percent of base load electricity in the US is generated via nuclear energy and nearly half of that is generated from Russian uranium, meaning almost one in every 10 homes in the US uses Russian uranium to provide their electricity. This must change for the US not to be exposed to such a national energy security risk.”

As Katusa pointed out, the US was once a world leader in uranium production, with approximately 1,000 uranium mines producing over 30 million pounds of U3O8. Today, the nation only has 11 operational mines, which together produce less than 3.5 million pounds annually; yet the country consumes about 55 million pounds of U3O8 each year.


The basic argument after that (Marie Ann Slaughter) is that the US should not have been concerned about Russia as a geopolitical foe. I think that argument was really wrong in retrospect, but it is a separate argument.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Commish, you already know my answer to your question. I'm an open borders, free trade guy. I've never hidden that. So I'm delighted by her comments. 

 
Best Schtick here is tommy's holier than thou BS talking down to people like they are 10 as if anyone here will all of a sudden respect a single thing he says. 

 
Where specifically does she refer to the pay for play? 
She is clearly saying (in the full text) that the People don't like to see the sausage made, so private measures must be taken to hide it from them.  She explains why the Clinton Foundation exists and it is to hide what she thinks are the pragmatic measures to keep Washington going--but most Americans think is the very corruption we seek to end.

This isn't only admission of illegal dealings, its her position for it given only to private interests in paid speeches and in opposition to her cultivated public image.

 
Last edited:
OJ was found liable in the civil suit and was later convicted of a crime.  What you and others are implying is that Hillary is the greatest criminal mastermind in history for never being charged with anything. 
Couple things wrong with your rebuttal:

  1. We're not talking Civil suits
  2. The Crime he was convicted of was NOT the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson.
What we are implying is the bar you've set for Hillary as opposed to EVERYONE else.  You're more than willing to accept presumed guilt for someone like OJ - WHO WAS NEVER CONVICTED OF MURDER - yet for Hillary you demand that she be convicted before any guilt can be presumed.  Ever.  

Many people get away with all kinds of #### despite never being convicted in a court of law that we know are dirty to the core.  Yet for your shining Queen Hillary you accept none of that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Couple things wrong with your rebuttal:

  1. We're not talking Civil suits
  2. The Crime he was convicted of was NOT the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson.
What we are implying is the bar you've set for Hillary as opposed to EVERYONE else.  You're more than willing to accept presumed guilt for someone like OJ - WHO WAS NEVER CONVICTED OF MURDER - yet for Hillary you demand that she be convicted before any guilt can be presumed.  Ever.  Regardless.  

Many people get away with all kinds of #### despite never being convicted in a court of law that we know are dirty to the core.  Yet for your shining Queen Hillary you accept none of that.
Max, please use a different analogy rather than somebody who was charged with a crime. Can you come up with somebody else who has never been indicted or formally charged with anything, and who has been investigated but cleared? 

 
I'm getting more excited about Hillary's Presidency simply to prove you right wing fools wrong yet again, just like with Obama. 

Do you honestly think your judgement should be taken seriously after the nonsense you guys spewed about Obama over the past 8 years, especially after you nominated ####ing Trump of all people?

Leave Presidential elections to us.  Thank you.
So you can corrupt it even further?  No thanks.  Someone has to stop the lies, deciet and corruption of the American Left.  We'll keep up the good fight.

 
Max, please use a different analogy rather than somebody who was charged with a crime. Can you come up with somebody else who has never been indicted or formally charged with anything, and who has been investigated but cleared? 
But "conviction only" is the bar you've set with Hillary.  You refuse to believe anything unless she's actually been convicted and sitting in prison for X years before you'll even assume any guilt at all.

OJ, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't get the same break with your crowd, though.  I'm not even going to bring up GWB or **** Cheney who the American Left knew FOR SURE that they were dirty, corrupt and covering #### up despite no convictions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But "conviction only" is the bar you've set with Hillary.  You refuse to believe anything unless she's actually been convicted and sitting in prison for X years before you'll even assume any guilt at all.

OJ, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't get the same break with your crowd, though.  I'm not even going to bring up GWB or **** Cheney who the American Left knew FOR SURE that they were dirty, corrupt and covering #### up despite no convictions.
How about indictment only? 

 
As far as the "revelations", making a sausage is not corruption. And it's nothing new either- Hillary has made the same argument for years. She prefers pragmatism over idealism. 

 
Yeah, sorry, but the "false equivalence" nonsense is nothing more than a "I need to feel good about my support for Hillary so I need to make something up" excuse.
The investigations are done. 

Emails, Bengazi over and over, many others. What more is there to do? 

Sorry you can't accept all that but some right wing rag website called miniplanet is the gospel to your crowd. 

Just the way it is I guess. 

PS when did Bush and Chaney ever get investigated?

 
The use of the word "sad" by the Trump supporters is intriguing. If I'm parsing it correctly, the people using the word have concluded that they have the morally correct position, but there's no use trying to explain themselves to those who don't "get it"

Furthermore the people using the word view themselves as compassionate, and in a lot of cases it's true. They are compassionate to a specific view of the American dream. They genuinely believe America was better at a perceived time when simply being white and a high school graduate was enough. Steady, simple work, belong to the union, things are good. Work a little while and buy a house, maybe a summer house and a boat, stay at home wife with a couple of kids. Responsibilities sure, but not hard ones.

Well, it's not like that in reality. In 2016, work is longer and harder, more challenging intellectually and technologically speaking. There's more demand for good paying jobs from people who have come from all over the world with degrees from good schools, advanced degrees in many cases. Those unwilling to work hard to compete in this environment, the lazy uneducated whites and their wives, look upon this reality with "sadness". They want their American dream, on their terms. And so a wall, and anti-immigration, and anti-trade sound like pretty appealing policies. Marry that up with "MAGA", and it the appeal makes sense on some pathetic level.

So when I see the word "sad" when used by the Trump supporter, it indicates to me they are deluded and don't deserve the time convincing otherwise, because their starting premise is that their position is morally superior, so there is no intellectual argument that would persuade their position. 

 
Nope.  We've been down that path too.  The bar that has been set by you guys in here is "conviction only" and possibly "conviction only plus X years in jail".
Not sure what you mean by "you guys", but I'd be interested for you to link to anytime I've argued that somebody was innocent because he or she was charged with a crime but not convicted. I don't recall ever making that argument. Has somebody else?

 
But he was never convicted of murder.  Different standards for him than you have for Hillary and the FBI?
He was charged with murder and evidence was presented. Hillary has never been charged with anything. If the FBI had decided to indict Hillary, I would be far less confident that she was innocent.

 
He was charged with murder and evidence was presented. Hillary has never been charged with anything. If the FBI had decided to indict Hillary, I would be far less confident that she was innocent.
The evidence was presented in court and he was found NOT GUILTY.  Or do you believe because some cop charged him that's enough to convict him in your eyes?

 
I'm really not sure why the difference between indictment and conviction is that difficult for some people to understand.
It's not, Tim.  But no one here supporting Hillary is arguing that all they need is an indictment.  They want a conviction to even consider any of the shady, corrupt #### she has done.

 
It's not, Tim.  But no one here supporting Hillary is arguing that all they need is an indictment.  They want a conviction to even consider any of the shady, corrupt #### she has done.
You have a limited memory it seems. I am ABSOLUTELY arguing this. I wrote several times, prior to the FBI report, that if they indicted her I would end my support for her. I trust the FBI. So you're wrong.

 
All these political arguments go round and round. Same stuff and hardly anyone ever changes their mind. 

Once someone has made their decision about the side they support that's pretty much it. 

 
The evidence was presented in court and he was found NOT GUILTY.  Or do you believe because some cop charged him that's enough to convict him in your eyes?
No. I saw the evidence and like most people, concluded he was guilty.

In the case of Hillary I was not privy to most of the evidence, only to rumors that were reported breathlessly by Saints and others here, and in the media, most of which ultimately turned out to be false. Then I heard the director of the FBI say that while she was careless, Hillary committed NO CRIME. So I reached a very different conclusion when it came to her.

 
So is Hilary going to debate him now?  Shark move is to cancel the debate and basically announce that she won't even take the stage with him. 

 
It's not, Tim.  But no one here supporting Hillary is arguing that all they need is an indictment.  They want a conviction to even consider any of the shady, corrupt #### she has done.
If it makes you feel any better, i don't need an indictment or a conviction to be convinced that she has done shady and corrupt things.  I also think that the vast majority of professional politicians have done shady and corrupt things.  I'm still voting for her because I think she will be a good president.  And even if I didn't think that, I would still vote for her because I believe she would be a better president than Donald trump. 

 
Hey Commish, you already know my answer to your question. I'm an open borders, free trade guy. I've never hidden that. So I'm delighted by her comments. 
So....you're just picking the words you WANT to believe?  She's said both, thus the confusion.  This is one, of many, topics we'll just have to wait and see what she decides, so I have no idea why one would use this as something to get excited about with her.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top