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.
The Commish said:
I'd agree.  The Dems haven't been hijacked yet...they are on that path though.  The GOP was hijacked because a group was energized to do so when they were constantly ignored by their politicians.  We saw the small cracks happening beginning back in the days of GWB.  Actual liberals are beginning to make the same sort of noise because they feel they are being ignored.  A strong swing to the left will be demanded at some point if politicians continue to ignore them.  If the dems are paying attention, this is easily avoidable.  Time will tell.
Click to expand...
I'm one of those "actual liberals" who isn't thrilled with Hillary or the current place the Democratic Party is occupying -- and I don't see anything similar to what we've seen on the right coming anytime soon. Yes, we will indeed vote in primaries for the more liberal of our choices, and work to get the issues that we believe in on the table for discussion at all levels, but the difference that I see is the disdain / distrust for all government coming out of the right, and that just isn't present on the left. Quite a bit of the lunacy in the Republican Party stems from the hugely unhealthy overall "burn it all down" anti-government sentiment, to which there is nothing remotely equivalent on the left.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
I'm one of those "actual liberals" who isn't thrilled with Hillary or the current place the Democratic Party is occupying -- and I don't see anything similar to what we've seen on the right coming anytime soon. Yes, we will indeed vote in primaries for the more liberal of our choices, and work to get the issues that we believe in on the table for discussion at all levels, but the difference that I see is the disdain / distrust for all government coming out of the right, and that just isn't present on the left. Quite a bit of the lunacy in the Republican Party stems from the hugely unhealthy overall "burn it all down" anti-government sentiment, to which there is nothing remotely equivalent on the left.
Click to expand...
As I said....time will tell.  "Winning" covers up a lot of warts and makes them easier to accept.  I can't help but wonder what the status of the party would be if it had lost the last two Presidential elections, had Hillary as their option this time around and were facing a completely embarrassing result.

I also don't think "burn it all down" is just the GOP....plenty independents and a few dems are in this camp as well.

 
The Commish said:
As I said....time will tell.  "Winning" covers up a lot of warts and makes them easier to accept.  I can't help but wonder what the status of the party would be if it had lost the last two Presidential elections, had Hillary as their option this time around and were facing a completely embarrassing result.

I also don't think "burn it all down" is just the GOP....plenty independents and a few dems are in this camp as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but on the national level, the winning is pretty hugely likely to continue for the foreseeable future. In 2020 the electorate will be both significantly more diverse and significantly younger than it is today and those trends are hugely likely to continue and are very bad for the Republican Party, particularly as it is currently constituted. We may see a Hispanic majority among voters in Texas by 2020, and certainly will by 2024, for example.

 
jerry jones said:
This stuff might be too late
Click to expand...
Oh I don't think it makes a bit if difference,  but it sure looks like what people think about Team Hillary anyway. Begala is a snake. I just want to be sure I'm not missing anything important because it seems to be what it seems to be.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the subject of war crimes I believe both of our last two admins are guilty. And I believe Obama is guilty of murdering a US citizen simply on his say so. He should have been impeached. He wasn't because the GOP might want to so some murder.

That's this liberals take on it.

 
NCCommish said:
On the subject of war crimes I believe both of our last two admins are guilty. And I believe Obama is guilty of murdering a US citizen simply on his say so. He should have been impeached. He wasn't because the GOP might want to so some murder.

That's this liberals take on it.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately we have lost something important as a nation in this election because we should have been having a conversation nationally about what we have been doing since the fall of the Wall. The Gulf War and post-Cold War Russian & ME policy seem to have been a disaster of both parties IMO. We are not having that convo se we are putting it off. Ignoring problems is never good IRL.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Oh I don't think it makes a bit if difference,  but it sure looks like what people think about Team Hillary anyway. Begala is a snake. I just want to be sure I'm not missing anything important because it seems to be what it seems to be.
Click to expand...
Yes, please keep posting, I was just lamenting that it's probably too late to derail Clinton.

this stuff needs to come out

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Everything is hugely amplified now because of social media and the innernets, no doubt -- but the real difference that I see is that the establishment of the Republican Party has been co-opted by the lunatic fringe, and I personally don't think that that has happened on the left. Congressional Republicans have lived in terror of getting primaried by TEA Party loons since they saw what happened to Boehner for daring to compromise with the enemy -- and as a result we see nonsense like the debt ceiling shutdowns, the Benghazi witch hunt, the continual useless votes to repeal the ACA, the refusal to hold hearings on Merrick Garland, etc.
Click to expand...
ACA needs to be repealed 

 
NCCommish writes:

Yes Hillary Clinton who supported Barry Goldwater who called for nuking Vietnam and cutting all social programs, just to name a couple real liberal positions
Click to expand...
Well, this is a bit of a cheap shot in my opinion. First off, just because Hillary was briefly a "Goldwater Girl", that doesn't mean that she supported every one of his positions (including his position on nuclear warfare, which by the way is not exactly what you wrote).

Secondly, SHE WAS 16 YEARS OLD FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!! Are we really going to hold politicians accountable for who they supported when they were in high school? Really? Are we not in agreement that science has determined that the brain isn't fully formed at age 16? And why should Hillary be held to a higher standard than any other politician in our history?

 
Coeur de Lion said:
I'm one of those "actual liberals" who isn't thrilled with Hillary or the current place the Democratic Party is occupying -- and I don't see anything similar to what we've seen on the right coming anytime soon. Yes, we will indeed vote in primaries for the more liberal of our choices, and work to get the issues that we believe in on the table for discussion at all levels, but the difference that I see is the disdain / distrust for all government coming out of the right, and that just isn't present on the left. Quite a bit of the lunacy in the Republican Party stems from the hugely unhealthy overall "burn it all down" anti-government sentiment, to which there is nothing remotely equivalent on the left.
Click to expand...
The reason for that is obviously the party that thinks more gov't intervention is the best route to fix problems isn't going to have disdain for gov't.  The party that thinks more gov't intervention is not the correct route will have disdain for gov't.

 
BassNBrew said:
The reason for that is obviously the party that thinks more gov't intervention is the best route to fix problems isn't going to have disdain for gov't.  The party that thinks more gov't intervention is not the correct route will have disdain for gov't.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. It makes it pretty hugely unlikely that the left ever nominates an unqualified moron just because he's an outsider and they want to burn it all down, doesn't it?

 
Joe Summer said:
NCCommish writes:
 

Well, this is a bit of a cheap shot in my opinion. First off, just because Hillary was briefly a "Goldwater Girl", that doesn't mean that she supported every one of his positions (including his position on nuclear warfare, which by the way is not exactly what you wrote).

Secondly, SHE WAS 16 YEARS OLD FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!! Are we really going to hold politicians accountable for who they supported when they were in high school? Really? Are we not in agreement that science has determined that the brain isn't fully formed at age 16? And why should Hillary be held to a higher standard than any other politician in our history?
Click to expand...
It's relevant because her stances continue in that vein. She is a hawk who seems determined to be a world wide interventionist dropping bombs wherever and on whomever she chooses. Further her history is littered with support for cutting social programs. So that 16 year old girls philosophy seems to still be her guiding philosophy.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Yeah, but on the national level, the winning is pretty hugely likely to continue for the foreseeable future. In 2020 the electorate will be both significantly more diverse and significantly younger than it is today and those trends are hugely likely to continue and are very bad for the Republican Party, particularly as it is currently constituted. We may see a Hispanic majority among voters in Texas by 2020, and certainly will by 2024, for example.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I don't think the Dem party is close to the GOP on their path, but it seems like they are on the same path nonetheless.  It'll take several years if the GOP is any indication of how long these things take, but eventually, if change of direction isn't had, they'll end up with the same issues.  That's all I'm saying.  The Dem party has a built in buffer that they generally think more programs, more gov't etc is a good thing so they are willing to give it more time than the GOP would.  If the party continues to march right (and that's exactly what a Hillary victory means) things could escalate quickly.  Fortunately for them, the march right doesn't appear significant given the GOP's dash to the right.  At some point, the GOP will have to reevaluate and stop charging further right and begin to come back towards center.  When that happens the light is shown on where the Dem party really stands.  As it is right now, there isn't a huge difference between their attitudes towards war, fiscal responsibility or our place in the world market.  Are they exactly the same?  Of course not....they aren't significantly different either.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
NCCommish said:
On the subject of war crimes I believe both of our last two admins are guilty. And I believe Obama is guilty of murdering a US citizen simply on his say so. He should have been impeached. He wasn't because the GOP might want to so some murder.

That's this liberals take on it.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately we have lost something important as a nation in this election because we should have been having a conversation nationally about what we have been doing since the fall of the Wall. The Gulf War and post-Cold War Russian & ME policy seem to have been a disaster of both parties IMO. We are not having that convo se we are putting it off. Ignoring problems is never good IRL.
Click to expand...
Both :goodposting:   

 
NCCommish said:
I was a liberal at 16. I'm more liberal now than I was then. 
Click to expand...
At 16 my political views, as far as I had them, were in large part shaped by those of my parents -- ie conservative. In college I learned to think for myself about stuff like politics, religion, etc. I don't think my experience is super unique, and I don't think it's real fair to bag on Hillary for what she did at that age. Fire away on what she's done since, but at 16? Come on...

 
Until they start releasing hacked emails of top Republicans and Donold Trump this to me is just a group trying to undermine with their own agenda. Because you know they have skeletons to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-ellen-trump-stalking-debate?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Clinton Tells 'Ellen': Trump 'Literally Stalked' Me During The Debate (VIDEO)

Hillary Clinton recounted Donald Trump bizarrely following her around the stage during the second presidential debate, telling Ellen Degeneres in a show that aired Friday that he "literally stalked" her.
In an appearance on "Ellen," Clinton said she thought his constant looming behind her while she spoke during the debate had to do with the leak of a video of Trump making predatory comments in 2005.

“Because of the revelation of the public video, and everything that came out on 'Access Hollywood,' you know, he was really all wrought up, and you could just sense how much anger he had,” Clinton said. “And so, he was really trying to dominate and then literally stalk me around the stage.”

Clinton said that she could feel Trump standing behind her as she went to speak to one of the undecided voters who posed a question at the town hall-style debate.

“It was so odd, because I’d go to talk to somebody and I would just feel this presence behind me, and you know, I thought, 'Whoa this is really weird,'" she said.
 
squistion said:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-ellen-trump-stalking-debate?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Clinton Tells 'Ellen': Trump 'Literally Stalked' Me During The Debate (VIDEO)

Hillary Clinton recounted Donald Trump bizarrely following her around the stage during the second presidential debate, telling Ellen Degeneres in a show that aired Friday that he "literally stalked" her.
In an appearance on "Ellen," Clinton said she thought his constant looming behind her while she spoke during the debate had to do with the leak of a video of Trump making predatory comments in 2005.

“Because of the revelation of the public video, and everything that came out on 'Access Hollywood,' you know, he was really all wrought up, and you could just sense how much anger he had,” Clinton said. “And so, he was really trying to dominate and then literally stalk me around the stage.”

Clinton said that she could feel Trump standing behind her as she went to speak to one of the undecided voters who posed a question at the town hall-style debate.

“It was so odd, because I’d go to talk to somebody and I would just feel this presence behind me, and you know, I thought, 'Whoa this is really weird,'" she said.
Click to expand...
Liberals don't engage in fear-mongering at all.  Nope.  Not one bit.

 
squistion said:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-ellen-trump-stalking-debate?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Clinton Tells 'Ellen': Trump 'Literally Stalked' Me During The Debate (VIDEO)

Hillary Clinton recounted Donald Trump bizarrely following her around the stage during the second presidential debate, telling Ellen Degeneres in a show that aired Friday that he "literally stalked" her.
In an appearance on "Ellen," Clinton said she thought his constant looming behind her while she spoke during the debate had to do with the leak of a video of Trump making predatory comments in 2005.

“Because of the revelation of the public video, and everything that came out on 'Access Hollywood,' you know, he was really all wrought up, and you could just sense how much anger he had,” Clinton said. “And so, he was really trying to dominate and then literally stalk me around the stage.”

Clinton said that she could feel Trump standing behind her as she went to speak to one of the undecided voters who posed a question at the town hall-style debate.

“It was so odd, because I’d go to talk to somebody and I would just feel this presence behind me, and you know, I thought, 'Whoa this is really weird,'" she said.
Click to expand...
Trump was trying to intimidate her.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Would you be surprised how many people are naive about Hillary specifically?
Click to expand...
The people that would be surprised about this type of stuff being talked about in the campaign won't bother to read Wikileaks.  Tough for this inside politics stuff to compete with ##### grabbing, octopus hands and The Donald walking in on half dressed teenage beauty contestants.  The two of us personally find it compelling but I think we are in a tiny minority.  In a normal election cycle this probably derails her campaign but seemingly is being met with a collective yawn so far at least when it comes to the general public.  You got to hand it to the Clinton campaign, while they were horrible for over a year with handling the email issue they are now flawless in handling the leaks.  Obviously it helps that they can unleash a mountain of salacious stuff on Trump.  If Wikileaks was really interested in affecting the presidential election, they should have unloaded this stuff during the primary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Certainly not in the video clip. How was that fear mongering by Hillary? Hillary noted what has been expressed widely in the media, that Trump acted like a stalker during the debate:

https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-stalks-clinton-creepily-but-hell-never-catch-her/

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/10/donald-trump-stalks-hillary-clinton/
Click to expand...
so "widely expressed" is two links?  Please, it's fear- mongering to get votes, plain and simple.  I WAS STALKED!  THE HORROR!

This is pathetic attempt at getting votes considering she married and lives with a serial rapist/sexual assaulter anyways.  No one believes this #### except, of course, the sycophants.

I'm sure she'll claim she was sexually assaulted by him back stage on her next talk show appearance.

 
MaxThreshold said:
so "widely expressed" is two links?  Please, it's fear- mongering to get votes, plain and simple.  I WAS STALKED!  THE HORROR!

This is pathetic attempt at getting votes considering she married and lives with a serial rapist/sexual assaulter anyways.  No one believes this #### except, of course, the sycophants.

I'm sure she'll claim she was sexually assaulted by him back stage on her next talk show appearance.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:   I can't win.

If I don't post any links I am criticized for that :link:  

If I post multiple links (which exist here) I am accused of spamming and cluttering up the thread because it causes excessive scrolling.

If I post just a couple links as an example (as I did here) then the response is "widely expressed" is two links?. :lol:

 
squistion said:
Certainly not in the video clip. How was that fear mongering by Hillary? Hillary noted what has been expressed widely in the media, that Trump acted like a stalker during the debate:

https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-stalks-clinton-creepily-but-hell-never-catch-her/

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/10/donald-trump-stalks-hillary-clinton/
Click to expand...


Eh, she wanted a Lazio moment, so she manufactured this on the back end. I mean the guy was humping his chair, take your pick, but he had symptoms of someone with ADHD more than The Hillside Strangler.

 
MaxThreshold said:
so "widely expressed" is two links?  Please, it's fear- mongering to get votes, plain and simple.  I WAS STALKED!  THE HORROR!

This is pathetic attempt at getting votes considering she married and lives with a serial rapist/sexual assaulter anyways.  No one believes this #### except, of course, the sycophants.

I'm sure she'll claim she was sexually assaulted by him back stage on her next talk show appearance.
Click to expand...
Forget who is saying it - did you think it was creepy how he followed her around the stage when she spoke?

 
MaxThreshold said:
so "widely expressed" is two links?  Please, it's fear- mongering to get votes, plain and simple.  I WAS STALKED!  THE HORROR!

This is pathetic attempt at getting votes considering she married and lives with a serial rapist/sexual assaulter anyways.  No one believes this #### except, of course, the sycophants.

I'm sure she'll claim she was sexually assaulted by him back stage on her next talk show appearance.
Click to expand...
Fear mongering to get votes?  How on earth does that make any sense? 

Look, it's pretty clear at this point that Trump has done way, way, way worse things than stalk Hillary Clinton during the presidential debate.  So calling her complaints about his debate behavior fear mongering is like saying that someone is fear mongering if they point out that Godzilla might cause some mild coastal flooding when he emerges from the sea. 

If anything Trump should be thanking Clinton from drawing a tiny bit of attention away from all the times he grabbed a stranger's #####, or fantasized about nailing 10 year olds when they get a little older, or intentionally walked in on naked 15 year old girls so he could check them out. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Eh, she wanted a Lazio moment, so she manufactured this on the back end. I mean the guy was humping his chair, take your pick, but he had symptoms of someone with ADHD more than The Hillside Strangler.
Click to expand...
That is nuts. By walking over and talking to the audience member who asked the question she manufactured Trump looming behind her? She caused him to do that? Please.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
At 16 my political views, as far as I had them, were in large part shaped by those of my parents -- ie conservative. In college I learned to think for myself about stuff like politics, religion, etc. I don't think my experience is super unique, and I don't think it's real fair to bag on Hillary for what she did at that age. Fire away on what she's done since, but at 16? Come on...
Click to expand...
But again she is still following those principles. It isn't bagging on her it's showing a pattern that has persisted her whole public life.

 
cstu said:
Forget who is saying it - did you think it was creepy how he followed her around the stage when she spoke?
Click to expand...
Not at all.  Didn't even occur to me until I read about it in here.  Your side has manufactured this new "stalking" thing.  Fear-mongering at it's best.

I'm sure we'll get the "he raped me" at her next interview.

 
NCCommish said:
But again she is still following those principles. It isn't bagging on her it's showing a pattern that has persisted her whole public life.
Click to expand...
She's definitely quite a bit right of what I believe on some issues, but come on man, she's not Barry freaking Goldwater. We're just not going to see eye to eye on her, and that's OK.

 
MaxThreshold said:
Not at all.  Didn't even occur to me until I read about it in here.  Your side has manufactured this new "stalking" thing.  Fear-mongering at it's best.

I'm sure we'll get the "he raped me" at her next interview.
Click to expand...
:lmao:  at the need for "our side" to "manufacture" anything at this point.

 
MaxThreshold said:
Not at all.  Didn't even occur to me until I read about it in here.  Your side has manufactured this new "stalking" thing.  Fear-mongering at it's best.

I'm sure we'll get the "he raped me" at her next interview.
Click to expand...
It was pretty obvious. And given the things coming out it seemed pretty creepy. Even to me.

 
squistion said:
That is nuts. By walking over and talking to the audience member who asked the question she manufactured Trump looming behind her? She caused him to do that? Please.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. 'On the back end' means after the debate. I'm saying this was a planned story line all along and Trump is a walking talking ad for Ritalin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Not at all.  Didn't even occur to me until I read about it in here.  Your side has manufactured this new "stalking" thing.  Fear-mongering at it's best.

I'm sure we'll get the "he raped me" at her next interview.
Click to expand...
It's really amazing to me that different people can perceive completely different things.  You say it's manufactured but people here, myself included, we saying it during the debates and Hillary said it immediately after the debate when she was interviewed on her plane.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
If it was planned all along by Hillary, then it couldn't be manufactured on the back end.
Click to expand...
Why not? Trump wandering around the stage like Harambe loose at the zoo doesn't mean he invaded her personal space like Lazio. She just wants to claim he did because still 16 years later that was her greatest debate 'win' ever, it's based on pathos.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Why not? Trump wandering around the stage like Harambe loose at the zoo doesn't mean he invaded her personal space like Lazio. She just wants to claim he did because still 16 years later that was her greatest debate 'win' ever.
Click to expand...
I hate when people make me defend people I don't like. He was very much looming behind her. It was really creepy. And given what had come out the leap to stalking was easy to make. I did. Let's not pretend about Trump because we don't like Hillary.

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