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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
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.
Click to expand...
He said that he would recommend not pressing charges because based on past situations charges weren't brought.  In other words....ignorance was an acceptable defense in his mind.  SHe did a lot of wrong and careless things, but he didn't see intent (which was present in all the other cases).

 
GoBirds said:
Hillary's sheep. It's comical and sad that there isn't a decent option. 
Click to expand...
How can I be a sheep when I investigated every allegation and the only one with merit was the emails, which the FBI decided wasn't worthy of prosecution?

 
cstu said:
How can I be a sheep when I investigated every allegation and the only one with merit was the emails, which the FBI decided wasn't worthy of prosecution?
Click to expand...
The FBI is not the only group who can decide if she is guilty or not.  Everyone has the right to judge for themselves.

 
cstu said:
How can I be a sheep when I investigated every allegation and the only one with merit was the emails, which the FBI decided wasn't worthy of prosecution?
Click to expand...
Oh you investigated? Must be all clear....keep moving along and don't lose your place. 

 
The Commish said:
He said that he would recommend not pressing charges because based on past situations charges weren't brought.  In other words....ignorance was an acceptable defense in his mind.  SHe did a lot of wrong and careless things, but he didn't see intent (which was present in all the other cases).
Click to expand...
Right, and that doesn't disqualify her to be President, especially when the other choice is one of the most despicable people in the country.  

IMO she's a classic politician whose intense desire to be President leads her to make decisions which give the appearance of corruption.  The good news for Republicans is that they will get the chance to be proven right or wrong about their belief that she's completely corrupt.  IMO they will be as wrong about her as they were Obama.

 
tonydead said:
Still undecided, but, if I end up voting for Hillary it isn't going to be without a little bit of throw up in my mouth. My god are you delusional. 
Click to expand...
You're not undecided.  You've known for over a year that you will vote for Trump.

Hillary Clinton is a Methodist and a woman.  I can't think of a two-way combo more immediately disqualifying for you than that.

You're too bigoted against religious people to vote for one, and don't respect women enough to put one in office.  

Enjoy voting for Trump.  You know he's the candidate that fits your worldview the closest.

 
timschochet said:
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.
Click to expand...
Comey said no such thing. His position was they don't recommend prosecuting despite the evidence they found. Basically it's like a cop catching someone red handed, but letting them go with a warning. Comey said specifically that if she were still employed, she would be facing administrative punishment for what she did. You are really harping on her not being criminally prosecuted as if that has some positive merit for her. It doesn't. It just means she got away with it.

 
Politician Spock said:
Comey said no such thing. His position was they don't recommend prosecuting despite the evidence they found. Basically it's like a cop catching someone red handed, but letting them go with a warning. Comey said specifically that if she were still employed, she would be facing administrative punishment for what she did. You are really harping on her not being criminally prosecuted as if that has some positive merit for her. It doesn't. It just means she got away with it.
Click to expand...
Got away with what?

 
timschochet said:
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.
Click to expand...
You really don't absorb information well.

 
timschochet said:
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. 
Click to expand...
The point is Sanders was right and Hillary lied for a whole year long primary to her own party about her positions and beliefs. She also lied for a whole year on the email  situation, continuously. Hillary will lie to us as president regularly too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Abraham said:
I am reading through it - is Wikileaks adding the capitalized headlines?   
Click to expand...
I take it that is the full and complete original email. However if you want to argue the possibility of Russian disinformation go right ahead, but I don't think the Clinton campaign has denied the derivation or content.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hillary said that financial reform has to come from the industry itself.

Now, what would you say she said during the primary? That? Or something else?
Click to expand...
I saw that part.  And I recall she has said in the campaign that she would reform Wall Street, which is a different statement but not mutually exclusive to Wall Street reforming itself. Which part of that is a lie?

 
Abraham said:
I saw that part.  And I recall she has said in the campaign that she would reform Wall Street, which is a different statement but not mutually exclusive to Wall Street reforming itself. Which part of that is a lie?
Click to expand...
A "different statement" from the truth is a lie. If you're suggesting she was lying to her banking benefactors instead, ok, but those things are mutually exclusive especially considering she herself excluded reform by the WH from her comments herself.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
A "different statement" from the truth is a lie. If you're suggesting she was lying to her banking office instead, ok, but those things are mutually exclusive especially considering she herself excluded reform by the WH from her comments herself.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't think I read that.  She said internally Wall Street would need to reform itself. She said publicly that she will try to clean up Wall Street.  Both of those things can be true at the same time.

 
Abraham said:
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't think I read that.  She said internally Wall Street would need to reform itself. She said publicly that she will try to clean up Wall Street.  Both of those things can be true at the same time.
Click to expand...
Opposite things said in separate places in separate times to separate audiences = a lie. You want to couch it, fine. By the way things people say in private is far more likely to be the truth.

 
None of this is lying. Not the statement to Podesta, or her comments about free trade. In both instances Saints is trying to make them into something they're not. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Opposite things said in separate places in separate times to separate audiences = a lie. You want to couch it, fine. By the way things people say in private is far more likely to be the truth.
Click to expand...
We will just have to disagree I suppose.  I don't think those two things are opposite.  And I don't think telling one audience one thing and another audience another is a lie.

 
Abraham said:
We will just have to disagree I suppose.  I don't think those two things are opposite.  And I don't think telling one audience one thing and another audience another is a lie.
Click to expand...
Hey I'm always willing to accept different conclusions, just so long as people look at the facts.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hey I'm always willing to accept different conclusions, just so long as people look at the facts.
Click to expand...
Same. I understand how you arrived at your conclusion and appreciate your point of view even though I came to a different conclusion.  

Politics is messy. I quit politics because watching the sausage get made was simultaneously infuriating and disgusting. I'm not super excited about either candidate, but I'm certainly less enthused by trump. 

 
cstu said:
The Commish said:
He said that he would recommend not pressing charges because based on past situations charges weren't brought.  In other words....ignorance was an acceptable defense in his mind.  SHe did a lot of wrong and careless things, but he didn't see intent (which was present in all the other cases).
Click to expand...
Right, and that doesn't disqualify her to be President, especially when the other choice is one of the most despicable people in the country.  

IMO she's a classic politician whose intense desire to be President leads her to make decisions which give the appearance of corruption.  The good news for Republicans is that they will get the chance to be proven right or wrong about their belief that she's completely corrupt.  IMO they will be as wrong about her as they were Obama.
Click to expand...
There's the important part of the bold.  That's all it's ever going to be, an opinion, knowing that none of you will agree on what it means to be corrupt.  You're going out on a limb the size of a large redwood.....congrats.

 
The Commish said:
There's the important part of the bold.  That's all it's ever going to be, an opinion, knowing that none of you will agree on what it means to be corrupt.  You're going out on a limb the size of a large redwood.....congrats.
Click to expand...
Then what is the concern about her being 'corrupt' if we can never agree on what it means to be a corrupt President?

Has Obama been corrupt as President?

 
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
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top