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:
It's not really a nuanced position. It's a very important distinction. 

I take a similar position, by the way,  when it comes to voting. I do not want any laws that restrict voting. I think all these voter suppression laws are terrible. But I also think the less people that vote the better. 
Click to expand...
that's why I used the quotation marks.....and the bold is only true because not enough people are educated appropriately, and you're fine with keeping them uneducated.  It's a ###### up position and incredibly divisive IMO.

 
The Commish said:
that's why I used the quotation marks.....and the bold is only true because not enough people are educated appropriately, and you're fine with keeping them uneducated.  It's a ###### up position and incredibly divisive IMO.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's divisive. I'm not running for office and if I was I certainly wouldn't say that. But in truth I believe it. I consider you to be well-informed Commish. Actually, I consider most people reading this thread to be well-informed, and interested in politics or they wouldn't be reading this thread. 

You and I and the other people reading this thread, we are the ones who should have political input in this country. We should be the ones making the decisions. Do you really want some moron who knows nothing about issues deciding stuff for you? I don't. 

 
timschochet said:
I don't know if it's divisive. I'm not running for office and if I was I certainly wouldn't say that. But in truth I believe it. I consider you to be well-informed Commish. Actually, I consider most people reading this thread to be well-informed, and interested in politics or they wouldn't be reading this thread. 

You and I and the other people reading this thread, we are the ones who should have political input in this country. We should be the ones making the decisions. Do you really want some moron who knows nothing about issues deciding stuff for you? I don't. 
Click to expand...
It's only NOT divisive if people don't know better Tim...which seems to be your goal.  You don't want me anywhere near the decision making in this country.

 
Slapdash said:
They aren't accountable, which is one major reason so many have turned to an outsider like Trump
Click to expand...
Really? If I went to a Trump rally and asked them, how are your leaders not accountable? This would be their answers:

They didn't shut down the government over Obamacare! 

They didn't refuse to raise the debt ceiling! 

They didn't impeach Obama over Benghazi; instead they were willing to work with him! 

I'm not making any of this up; these are the very real complaints of those who prefer Donald Trump. Should our politicians be more accountable to these folks? Is that truly what you want? 

 
Heck, the Trump supporters wanted the Republican party to have a full scale investigation of whether or not Barack Obama is a Muslim and a citizen. Yet our leaders should be accountable to these folks? I say no. #### them. 

 
timschochet said:
Slapdash said:
They aren't accountable, which is one major reason so many have turned to an outsider like Trump
Click to expand...
Really? If I went to a Trump rally and asked them, how are your leaders not accountable? This would be their answers:

They didn't shut down the government over Obamacare! 

They didn't refuse to raise the debt ceiling! 

They didn't impeach Obama over Benghazi; instead they were willing to work with him! 

I'm not making any of this up; these are the very real complaints of those who prefer Donald Trump. Should our politicians be more accountable to these folks? Is that truly what you want? 
Click to expand...
Keep whistling past the graveyard

 
Slapdash said:
Keep whistling past the graveyard
Click to expand...
I'm not. I think your side will eventually win out- the current "establishment" will be out of power, replaced by populists on the right and left. I'm not happy about that. But I hope for the best. If we're going to have to deal with these sorts, I'd much rather have a thoughtful guy like Bernie than an idiot like Trump.  

 
Whoa, some really interesting new data out today on absentee ballots in N.C.:

In NC, absentee ballots are mostly republican (Dems who vote early do it in person apparently).  They are down 21% as compared with 2012. Down 21%, coming mostly from Republicans. 

That's not it.  Ballets returned by Dems are UP 6% and those returned by independents are up 7%. 

Ballots returned by Republicans are down 45%.  That's nearly in half.  

If this is anything close to a trend, considering the swing state nature of NC, it could be very telling.  As noted in the article (Newsday here in NY), almost every national poll is predicated not only on current responses but past trends to help determine chances of winning an election.  If this cycle has a vastly different looking electorate (one party sitting it out, another possibly re-energized and independents aligning differently), then who knows what could happen. 

While a lot can happen in a month, as we've already discussed, with each passing day more votes are cast in stone*

* Or until Putin runs his program to alter the results. 

 
timschochet said:
Heck, the Trump supporters wanted the Republican party to have a full scale investigation of whether or not Barack Obama is a Muslim and a citizen. Yet our leaders should be accountable to these folks? I say no. #### them. 
Click to expand...


Or maybe she SHOULD pick a fight with Trump on this to help cement his front runner status.
Click to expand...
- Jon Podesta.

- Tim what do you think of the Hillary campaign and the DNC seemingly wanting to elevate and push Trump into front runner status for the GOP?

 
timschochet said:
Of course I'm in the public. But like you, I pay attention to politics. So I'm in that small section of the public which is politically aware. 
Click to expand...
To be clear...this is the context:
 

As opposed to whom? Some amorphous, easily manipulated mass called "the public"? I would argue yes as a general rule. 
Click to expand...
So you're saying you are one of those easily manipulated?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- Jon Podesta.

- Tim what do you think of the Hillary campaign and the DNC seemingly wanting to elevate and push Trump into front runner status for the GOP?
Click to expand...
They wanted to win, right? They thought Trump was weak, so they were hoping to face him.

But that being said, I'm kind of skeptical that the DNC has any real power to influence the Republican nomination.

 
The Commish said:
To be clear...this is the context:
 

So you're saying you are one of those easily manipulated?
Click to expand...
I can be manipulated, sure. Anybody can.

But in terms of politics, as I pointed out before, you and I pay more attention than the average member of the public does. A LOT more attention. So I would trust us over them.

Or put it this way. Let's take a poster like Jon Mx. I disagree with Jon Mx on countless issues, probably on a majority of issues. Yet if I had to decide between jon as my leader and some dude who was completely uninformed, unaware of what was going on, yet agreed with me a lot more than jon does, I would choose jon. Because he's at least paying attention.

 
timschochet said:
I can be manipulated, sure. Anybody can.

But in terms of politics, as I pointed out before, you and I pay more attention than the average member of the public does. A LOT more attention. So I would trust us over them.

Or put it this way. Let's take a poster like Jon Mx. I disagree with Jon Mx on countless issues, probably on a majority of issues. Yet if I had to decide between jon as my leader and some dude who was completely uninformed, unaware of what was going on, yet agreed with me a lot more than jon does, I would choose jon. Because he's at least paying attention.
Click to expand...
...because you have no principles.

 
timschochet said:
I'm not. I think your side will eventually win out- the current "establishment" will be out of power, replaced by populists on the right and left. I'm not happy about that. But I hope for the best. If we're going to have to deal with these sorts, I'd much rather have a thoughtful guy like Bernie than an idiot like Trump.  
Click to expand...
Sure you are. Your efforts to defend the corruption and self-interest of the elite class will only hasten this shift.  

 
timschochet said:
They wanted to win, right? They thought Trump was weak, so they were hoping to face him.

But that being said, I'm kind of skeptical that the DNC has any real power to influence the Republican nomination.
Click to expand...
Their ability to influence the election was far greater than the people you have been castigating for actually voting for him.

 
timschochet said:
I can be manipulated, sure. Anybody can.

But in terms of politics, as I pointed out before, you and I pay more attention than the average member of the public does. A LOT more attention. So I would trust us over them.

Or put it this way. Let's take a poster like Jon Mx. I disagree with Jon Mx on countless issues, probably on a majority of issues. Yet if I had to decide between jon as my leader and some dude who was completely uninformed, unaware of what was going on, yet agreed with me a lot more than jon does, I would choose jon. Because he's at least paying attention.
Click to expand...
Sorry....I want you as far away from the current political system in this country as I want myself.  It might be for different reasons, but the distance is more than appropriate.

 
timschochet said:
They wanted to win, right? They thought Trump was weak, so they were hoping to face him.
Click to expand...
They were more than happy if the man you and many others around here fear to be the GOP nominee.  That's WORSE than the people actively voting for someone other than him.  They were happy that he'd be the opponent, which means they were more than comfortable taking the risk.  You can excuse/dismiss this?  

 
cstu said:
This is rich coming from a Republican whose Party stands in the way of and demonizes any progressive legislation Democrats try to pass.  Are Democrats gutless and mainly concerned about re-election, absolutely, but at least they attempt to do something for the average American and level the playing field.
Click to expand...
Think you got the wrong guy.  I'm not a Republican by any stretch.

 
The Commish said:
They were more than happy if the man you and many others around here fear to be the GOP nominee.  That's WORSE than the people actively voting for someone other than him.  They were happy that he'd be the opponent, which means they were more than comfortable taking the risk.  You can excuse/dismiss this?  
Click to expand...
I neither excuse it nor condemn it. I think they underestimated the danger, but so have a lot of people. 

 
cstu said:
If you can be sure the site will payout that's actually not a bad bet. 
Click to expand...
Pres futures were maxed out. Dropped $850 on Kaine being the next VP. Apparently $850 was the max amount you could bet on it.

Had already deposited $1,000 so teased the last $150 on Paul Ryan not withdrawing his endorsement at $0.65.

 
Last edited:
I'll still take up to another $1,000 in action on Hillary vs Trump at 10:1 if anyone wants to get jiggy with it.

Best bet in the country for whoever really thinks Trump is gonna win. Hundred will get you a thousand.

 
Last edited:
####### Kaine was in town.  Stuck in traffic for 30 minutes waiting for the bassturd to leave.  Another reason not to vote for Hillary.  I sure my ####### tax dollars went to fund overtime for the police to stand around for half the day rather than a park for kids or the low income housing initiative.

Hosed up the interstate too...I hope the ####### missed his next appointment.

 
BassNBrew said:
####### Kaine was in town.  Stuck in traffic for 30 minutes waiting for the bassturd to leave.  Another reason not to vote for Hillary.  I sure my ####### tax dollars went to fund overtime for the police to stand around for half the day rather than a park for kids or the low income housing initiative.

Hosed up the interstate too...I hope the ####### missed his next appointment.
Click to expand...
On this issue...I agree with you. I work in Los Angeles County. If there's ever a reason for me to hate every President (and every major Presidential candidate), this is the one.

Kobe Bryant helicoptered to Staples to play, but can Presidents do that? Hell no, they have to drive everywhere for their fundraisers, and everytime they do the 405 and 10 freeways get completely jammed. It's infuriating.

 
BassNBrew said:
####### Kaine was in town.  Stuck in traffic for 30 minutes waiting for the bassturd to leave.  Another reason not to vote for Hillary.  I sure my ####### tax dollars went to fund overtime for the police to stand around for half the day rather than a park for kids or the low income housing initiative.

Hosed up the interstate too...I hope the ####### missed his next appointment.
Click to expand...
Pence in town here today. No idea what the traffic was like, but I know we had our slowest day ever. Not sure if it's his fault, but I certainly blame him. 

 
cstu said:
"The finger"?  Really?

In case you haven't noticed, he patched this country back together and made it possible for Democrats to achieve the rare feat of electing someone of the same Party after a two-term President.  Democrats may even control Congress again by the time he leaves office.  This means that all of his achievements won't be nullified January 2017. 

I suppose that's not good enough for people who prefer the theatre of a scorched earth policy that leaves nothing to show for it in 10 years.
Click to expand...
His Chief of Staff literally gave liberals the finger and told them to shut up. Oh and here is your liberal president in action:

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.  While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.  The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.  The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations.  It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.
Click to expand...
So is indefinite detention a liberal cause? Is military prison for anyone the president chooses a liberal cause? It is anathema to liberty which means it isn't liberal.

How about the extra judicial murder of a US citizen and his son? Is that liberal? No ti's a crime and he should have been impeached for it. You know why he wasn't? Because the GOP wants that power as well. And all the Democrats will howl like a cat with it's tail caught in a door when they use it. Hypocrites.

Is the insurance giveaway known as the ACA really liberal? In comparison with a public option or even single payer? He came up with a republican plan that was put forth by Heritage. That's liberal?

How about declaring any male child over a certain age a terrorist so you can claim you don't kill innocent children, is that a liberal position? The drone program is a flying war crime. No one who thinks they are a liberal should be able to stomach it. It was wrong under Bush, it's wrong under Obama.

How about a grand bargain giving away Social Security, Welfare and a host of other programs so you can be seen as I don't know what really but certainly not a liberal. Thankfully the GOP was too stupid to take yes for answer. They'll probably be smarter when Hillary does it.

I'm not scorched earth. Too many liberals confuse having a D behind your name with being liberal. Obama is at best a neoliberal as apparently a lot of his supporters are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I don't think the public have any idea what their interests are. A well-informed politician like Hillary Clinton has a much better idea of what is in the public interest than the public does. 
Click to expand...
What a load of ####. Hillary knows what's in her donors interest. And her interest. She doesn't give a rats ### what's in my interest unless it happens to cross over into one of those two areas.

These people are no smarter than you and i. In fact most of them aren't as smart. And they are very, very self interested.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
You said the position that they don't really derive personal financial benefit was "no longer really defensible."  What's your support for that statement?  I provided support for mine.  Tin foil hat is in your court.
Click to expand...
For example...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-clintons-speaking-fee-overlaps-with-foundation-business-1474408587?mg=id-wsj

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/11/16/tracking-hillarys-speech-fees-clinton-foundation-or-pocket/#411866a849cd

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37168505

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/04/28/report-at-least-181-clinton-foundation-donors-also-lobbied-hillarys-state-department-n1991551

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bill-clintons-speaking-fee-overlaps-with-foundation-work-2016-09-21

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3380609/Bill-Clinton-s-speaking-fees-draw-new-attention-line-actions-wife-s-State-Department-took-2009-2013.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4

http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/after-pardoning-criminal-marc-rich-clintons-made-millions-off-friends/

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/06/17/revisiting-clinton-speaking-fees-when-bill-and-hillary-charge-nonprofits/

 
I have a serious question. So imagine that this thing got really, really nasty.  Like to the point where a bunch of stuff came out in the days leading up to the election that 100% disqualified both candidates?  What would happen?  

 
shader said:
I have a serious question. So imagine that this thing got really, really nasty.  Like to the point where a bunch of stuff came out in the days leading up to the election that 100% disqualified both candidates?  What would happen?  
Click to expand...
Just keep Obama in there.

 
NCCommish said:
What a load of ####. Hillary knows what's in her donors interest. And her interest. She doesn't give a rats ### what's in my interest unless it happens to cross over into one of those two areas.

These people are no smarter than you and i. In fact most of them aren't as smart. And they are very, very self interested.
Click to expand...
What's Hillary motivation for going through all of this, her entire life dragged through the mud, her husbands mistresses being shoved in her face?  Just to collect more money that she's not going to spend before she dies?

 
cstu said:
What's Hillary motivation for going through all of this, her entire life dragged through the mud, her husbands mistresses being shoved in her face?  Just to collect more money that she's not going to spend before she dies?
Click to expand...
Power

 
shader said:
Power
Click to expand...
Exactly.  It's all about power and the prestige of being the first woman president.

And the sad thing is, that moment won't be nearly as impactful as Obama being the first black president.  Obama's moment was powerful because he was well liked at the time, the base was excited about him, and the moment itself, of him becoming the first black president, was euphoric. 

On the flip side, Clinton becoming the first woman president will be viewed by many as a major let down.  Instead of being excited about her, the vast majority, by and large, views her as unlikable and merely the lesser of two evils in this election.  Her moment won't be anything nearly anyone remembers. 

 
shader said:
I have a serious question. So imagine that this thing got really, really nasty.  Like to the point where a bunch of stuff came out in the days leading up to the election that 100% disqualified both candidates?  What would happen?  
Click to expand...
I've actually worried about worse.  Organized homicide, outright advocated by Trump, seems almost inevitable at this point.  

 
cstu said:
What's Hillary motivation for going through all of this, her entire life dragged through the mud, her husbands mistresses being shoved in her face?  Just to collect more money that she's not going to spend before she dies?
Click to expand...
Multi-billionaires don't stop trying to hoard up more money. Why would the Clintons? They have "only" picked up around a hundred million personally. And 3.2 billion for the fund. Money and power. Power and money.

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