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.
timschochet said:
I think you keep missing the distinction between right to know and desire to know. I want the public to have the right to know details but I would prefer it if most of them didn't exercise that right, because the less input the general public has on actual decision making, the better. Hope that helps. 
Click to expand...
If you just backed up that insane assertion earlier, yeah it helps.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm going to try to not go overboard with criticizing you but this is really ****'d up.
Click to expand...
That is classic Tim.  People are stupid and don't need to know what the elitist in power are up to. The number of times in the history of the world that that philosophy has worked for the good of the people would be zero.  

 
RE: Email we are sending out today


From:ntanden@americanprogress.org

To: jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-04-28 16:28

Subject: RE: Email we are sending out today

And when you say Red Army, you mean the base of the Democratic party, right? ☺ Just want to be clear here.
 
 
From: Jake Sullivan [mailto:jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:36 PM
To: Neera Tanden; John Podesta Cc: Robby Mook; Jennifer Palmieri Subject:
RE: Email we are sending out today
 
John Podesta (and the Red Army) want to support $15!
 
 
From: Neera Tanden [mailto:ntanden@americanprogress.org<mailto:ntanden@americanprogress.org>]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:11 PM To: John Podesta Cc: Robby Mook; Jake Sullivan; Jennifer Palmieri
Subject: RE: Email we are sending out today
 
Substantively, we have not supported $15 – you will get a fair number of liberal economists who will say it will lose jobs. Most of rest seems fine (obviously trade sticks out). Politically, we are not getting any pressure to join this from our end. I leave it to you guys to judge what that means for you. But I’m not sweating it.
 
From: John Podesta [mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:44 AM
To: Neera Tanden Cc: Robby Mook; Jake Sullivan; Jennifer Palmieri Subject:
RE: Email we are sending out today
 
Should we care about this?
...
Click to expand...
 
Jake Sullivan comparing those who want to raise the minimum wage to the Red Army, which I guess means socialists. And the Hillary campaign doesn't seem too, too committed to the issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jake Sullivan comparing those who want to raise the minimum wage to the Red Army, which I guess means socialists. And the Hillary campaign doesn't seem too, too committed to the issue.
Click to expand...
$15 an hour is more than double the current Federal minimum wage of $7.25.  In low cost of living areas it would result in a lot of layoffs.  $7.25 is clearly too low and should be raised but the cost of living needs to be taken into account.  In big cities $15 is quite justified but it hard to justify it in places where people can rent a 1 bedroom apartment for $600 a month.

 
 






cstu said:
$15 an hour is more than double the current Federal minimum wage of $7.25.  In low cost of living areas it would result in a lot of layoffs.  $7.25 is clearly too low and should be raised but the cost of living needs to be taken into account.  In big cities $15 is quite justified but it hard to justify it in places where people can rent a 1 bedroom apartment for $600 a month.
Click to expand...
Regardless, Hillary said she supported it. I think she has zero interest in seeing that pushed to fruition.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
$15 an hour is more than double the current Federal minimum wage of $7.25.  In low cost of living areas it would result in a lot of layoffs.  $7.25 is clearly too low and should be raised but the cost of living needs to be taken into account.  In big cities $15 is quite justified but it hard to justify it in places where people can rent a 1 bedroom apartment for $600 a month.
Click to expand...
That would still be well over 30% of your take home. 

 
timschochet said:
I think you keep missing the distinction between right to know and desire to know. I want the public to have the right to know details but I would prefer it if most of them didn't exercise that right, because the less input the general public has on actual decision making, the better. Hope that helps. 
Click to expand...
I don't care whether you're right or not.  Just give me a constitutionally bound steward of the Republic and not an oligarch and let the chips fall where they will.  I have more faith in that approach and it's what our laws demand (still). 

 
Last edited:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Accusing a 12 year old child who was raped of seeking out older older men, fantasizing about them romantically, and exaggerating about their physically attacking her? Nahhhh...
Click to expand...
Especially when she later said the perpetrator passing a lie detector ruined her faith in polygraphs, meaning she did this knowing he was guilty.  That said, this is the job of a criminal defense attorney and while unseemly is not disqualifying in itself like many other things she's done are.  

 
CHEF said:
I believe this is 100% correct. I think she wants to get dirty money out of politics and hopefully reform our long election process. Maybe she could work on term limits also. This is a bipartisan issue that everyone can agree on except those that make their living in politics. 

She repeated the sentiment in a January 6, 2014 speech to General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting.

“So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. … Obviously… I would like it not to last as long because I think it’s very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to be so expensive. … In my campaign — I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it’s so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that’s basically what we’re in for. So we’re kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it’s even harder now.”
Click to expand...
There are actually real people that sincerely believe that HILARY CLINTON wants to get dirty money out of politics??? :lmao:

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Accusing a 12 year old child who was raped of seeking out older older men, fantasizing about them romantically, and exaggerating about their physically attacking her? Nahhhh...
Click to expand...
Our legal system depends on defense attorneys doing their job, no matter how despicable the case.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Accusing a 12 year old child who was raped of seeking out older older men, fantasizing about them romantically, and exaggerating about their physically attacking her? Nahhhh...
Click to expand...
I understand that's not pleasant. But if she had a good faith basis for believing that - what is she to do? Not zealously represent her client?

 
New NBC/WSJ poll just out: In two-way matchup, Clinton leads by 14 points, 52%-38%. Poll taken after Friday's revelations.

OVER!  :micdrop:  ##### Grabber

 
cobalt_27 said:
One can provide a good defense and still be ethical.  Throwing the kitchen sink at a 12-year-old like that is despicable.  
Click to expand...
It was a motion for a psych evaluation.  that requires a showing of cause.  since she signed the pleading, she's representing that she has a good faith reason to believe that the statements are factual.  this is what lawyers do.  you don't let your client go to jail because you are afraid to question the accuracy of a 12 year old's accusations.

the desperation for "gotcha" is pathetic.

 
Gr00vus said:
My concern isn't her ability to "get everything she wants." My concern is that she's lied to the public about what she truly wants. These excerpts at least confirm the notion that she's fully comfortable saying very, very different things about a given issue depending on what audience she's speaking to. How are we supposed to trust that such a person will represent our interests if we vote for them? You may be able to, as you say, but I can't, and frankly think it's difficult to understand why someone would.
Click to expand...
"Lying" in that sense is what every negotiator does in every negotiation ever. You publicly say "I won't accept less than $100" even though you'd acknowledge privately to your confidants that you'd actually accept $70. That's just how it works.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
"Lying" in that sense is what every negotiator does in every negotiation ever. You publicly say "I won't accept less than $100" even though you'd acknowledge privately to your confidants that you'd actually accept $70. That's just how it works.
Click to expand...
Not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about telling one set of constituents she's going to get tough on the securities/lending industries with meaningful regulations, and then going to the high dollar fundraiser with the noise machines outside and telling the hedge fund owners she's not really going to get tough on securities/lending industries with meaningful regulations. I'm not saying she's actually done this, but what she is saying about public vs. private messages doesn't give me great confidence that she's not doing something like that given how much funding she's received privately and for her campaigns from certain interests.

 
Gr00vus said:
Not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about telling one set of constituents she's going to get tough on the securities/lending industries with meaningful regulations, and then going to the high dollar fundraiser with the noise machines outside and telling the hedge fund owners she's not really going to get tough on securities/lending industries with meaningful regulations.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would be different. That would be a very common practice in political campaigns, but of the sort that I find distasteful. To the extent that she's done stuff like that, it's part of what I mean when I say that Hillary Clinton is a quintessential politician in the worst sense of that appellation. (She's also a quintessential politician in the best sense, but that's despite any two-facedness on her part rather than because of it.)

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yeah, that would be different. That would be a very common practice in political campaigns, but of the sort that I find distasteful. To the extent that she's done stuff like that, it's part of what I mean when I say that Hillary Clinton is a quintessential politician in the worst sense of that appellation. (She's also a quintessential politician in the best sense, but that's despite any two-facedness on her part rather than because of it.)
Click to expand...
Yep, in this election, against this opponent, what I like about her is that she's a professional. She's been through it, she knows the game, and she's very proficient at operating in that environment. That's also what I hate about her. But I'll take her pro politician experience a million times over before Trump. We're not in total rebuild mode here, sure we should be advancing further in the playoffs, but don't kick out Marty just to bring in Norv. And for goodness sake don't let Rivera walk so you can keep Norv. Wait, what am I talking about again...

 
Couple of questions:

Whose GDP growth should the U.S. envy?

Why should the U.S. have a trade surplus with countries that don't have the infrastructure nor the population we have?

 
Daywalker said:
Whose GDP growth should the U.S. envy?
Click to expand...
Nobody's as phrased because that would be a sin. We should aim for the highest growth rate we can realistically achieve without unreasonably sacrificing other goals to do so. But that's a cop-out answer. I'm not sure what a realistic percentage increase would be in today's United States. It's hard because of changing demographics. The ratio of working-age people to retired people keeps shrinking, which puts a lot of downward pressure on GDP growth (as well as average after-tax income). We're also still feeling the effects of a major financial crisis, and a lot of the stimulus spending carried out in its wake hasn't been particularly effective as a long-run economic stimulant. That said, there are probably a bunch of things we can do to increase growth by, for example, encouraging entrepreneurship in various ways (and I don't mean targeted subsidies -- I mean cutting red tape, etc.).

Daywalker said:
Why should the U.S. have a trade surplus with countries that don't have the infrastructure nor the population we have?
Click to expand...
There's no particular reason that the U.S. should have a trade surplus or trade deficit with any other country with any other particular characteristics including infrastructure, population, or anything else.

A common reason that we run trade deficits is that when foreigners buy U.S. capital products (such as Treasury bonds), it doesn't count as trade. If we counted all such transactions as trade, there would be no appreciable surpluses or deficits.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Accusing a 12 year old child who was raped of seeking out older older men, fantasizing about them romantically, and exaggerating about their physically attacking her? Nahhhh...
Click to expand...
She's requesting an independent medical examination.  This is one of the more tame versions of that request I've ever seen.

 
The biggest trick the Devil ever played was getting people to believe he didn't exist.  Until he got some people to actually feel good about voting for Hillary Clinton.

 
Mr. Ham said:
The biggest trick the Devil ever played was getting people to believe he didn't exist.  Until he got some people to actually feel good about voting for Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
I don't think that there is anybody who doesn't believe Trump exists

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Righetti said:
I don't think that there is anybody who doesn't believe Trump exists
Click to expand...
One problem we have is that this election has not had any serious policy discussions because of Trump. Our elections serve a real purpose where we get together and sort of come together to make decisions. This whole thing has been a push in terms of what seriously needs to be discussed.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
One problem we have is that this election has not had any serious policy discussions because of Trump. Our elections serve a real purpose where we get together and sort of come together to make decisions. This whole thing has been a push in terms of what seriously needs to be discussed.
Click to expand...
Nobody, including the media, has stepped up and tried to shift focus to issues....

lets spend another week talking about whether Trump called somebody fat 20 years ago....

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
One problem we have is that this election has not had any serious policy discussions because of Trump. Our elections serve a real purpose where we get together and sort of come together to make decisions. This whole thing has been a push in terms of what seriously needs to be discussed.
Click to expand...
Because Trump cannot speak with any depth on anything. 

 
Daywalker said:
Can anyone compare Obama care to HillaryCare?  The differences.
Click to expand...
In the simplest of terms:

HillaryCare had a much tougher employer mandate to require all employees to be covered.  (Why small businesses balked.)

Instead of setting up a Shop Exchange at the state level so smaller employers can (in theory)  buy more reasonably, HillaryCare did essentially the same regionally,

ObamaCare setup a separate individual exchange while HillaryCare would have pushed individuals into the same regional plans.

ObamaCare added federal requirements (including fees) to larger employer coverage but kept them separate.  HillaryCare would have rolled these into the regional plans.

ObamaCare (both ACA and  HiTech) promotes in various ways connected electronic health record systems.  HillaryCare was going "to card" every American with a card that was both proof of coverage but also contained health information. 

In the '90s managed care was called managed care, HMOs - HMOs, etc.  Variations of these themes are called different things in 2016.

HillaryCare was negotiated by policy wonks.  ObamaCare included in part the health care industry's involvement (for better or worst).

Oh, and my memory was refreshed some with this.

 
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
263K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top