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 (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maurile Tremblay said:
That was Citizens United. The key distinction is between campaign contributions and independent expenditures.

Let's say you really dislike Hillary Clinton, and you want to help fund negative ads about her. One option is that you could donate money to her opponent's campaign, and her opponent will use the funds to create negative ads (or just blow it all on hats). You can do this to a limited extent if you are an individual, but you can't do it at all if you are a corporation or a union. Corporations are barred from contributing to federal election campaigns. This is perfectly constitutional because the Constitution doesn't provide a right to donate to campaigns.

Another option is to hire some actors and a director and make the ads yourself, and then buy a few spots during "America's Got Talent" to air the ads just before the election. You can do this if you are an individual, but if you are a corporation or a union, this was made illegal by McCain-Feingold. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that that part of McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional because the First Amendment bars the government from discriminating against certain speech based on its content -- especially based on its political content. If people want to make ads or movies about politicians, they can do so free of censorship. Moreover, if people want to donate money to corporations or PACs for the purpose of making ads or movies about politicians, they can do that as well. The Constitution doesn't provide a right to donate to campaigns, but it does provide a right to free speech, even if the speech is about politicians. Corporations, unions, and other organizations (including PACs) can speak freely as long as they don't coordinate their activity with the campaigns themselves. (My understanding is that this isn't enforced very well, and plenty of PACs do coordinate to some extent with campaigns.)

In Citizens United, a non-profit corporation made a movie about Hillary Clinton and wanted to buy air time to show it on some cable channel. The FEC said, "No, you can't do that. It's about Hillary, who is running for federal office. We don't allow corporations to publish speech about candidates right before an election." The Supreme Court said, "Yes, actually, the First Amendment says that laws can't discriminate against political speech. If they're allowed to air a movie about the Kardashians, they should be allowed to air a movie about Hillary Clinton as well." (Not a direct quote.)

The corrosive effect of special-interest money in politics is a huge problem, but you can see how it's challenging to limit people's ability to spend their own money spreading messages about politicians (as opposed to donating their money to campaigns) without running afoul of the Constitution. Any law that says, "You can make a movie about the Kardashians, but not about the Clintons" should be constitutionally DOA, IMO, which is what Citizens United said.
Click to expand...
The key word being 'people'.  I believe CU should be overturned on the basis that corporations are not people.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
 She's not going to enjoy the kind of honeymoon that Obama got. 
Click to expand...
What kind of honeymoon was that? The only reason Obama got anything done in his first 2 years was because he was lucky enough to have a Dem majority in both House and Senate.  The Republicans opposed him immediately. 

I actually think Hillary has a better shot at working with Republicans in Congress because she comes off as less abrasive than Obama did. The main question is how will the GOP deal with the post Trump fallout; that will in large part determine how they deal with Hillary. 

 
timschochet said:
Commish and Jon mx, both of you misunderstand my ideas and underestimate the danger of Donald Trump. At least in my opinion. But we've discussed this at length before, and right now I must prepare my fantasy teams. 
Click to expand...
My estimation of Trump's danger has nothing to do with the comments you made with respect to the intelligence of the average American voter and your desire for the average American not to be interested/educated in politics.  Now please proceed with your "what I meant to say...." or "I didn't mean x when I said x......" response :popcorn:  

 
timschochet said:
What kind of honeymoon was that? The only reason Obama got anything done in his first 2 years was because he was lucky enough to have a Dem majority in both House and Senate.  The Republicans opposed him immediately. 

I actually think Hillary has a better shot at working with Republicans in Congress because she comes off as less abrasive than Obama did. The main question is how will the GOP deal with the post Trump fallout; that will in large part determine how they deal with Hillary. 
Click to expand...
Less abrasive? She called Republicans her enemies.

 
Obama also will play a huge role in determining what Hillary's first few months in office will be like. Once Hillary is elected, Obama has 2 big decisions to make: 

1. Will he attempt to push TPP through a lame duck Congress in December? Or simply pass the buck to Hillary and let her decide what to do? 

2. Will he attempt to appoint Garland with a (possibly) more receptive Senate? Or will he defer to Hillary to make her own choice once in office? 

 
timschochet said:
Obama also will play a huge role in determining what Hillary's first few months in office will be like. Once Hillary is elected, Obama has 2 big decisions to make: 

1. Will he attempt to push TPP through a lame duck Congress in December? Or simply pass the buck to Hillary and let her decide what to do? 

2. Will he attempt to appoint Garland with a (possibly) more receptive Senate? Or will he defer to Hillary to make her own choice once in office? 
Click to expand...
He will do whatever she tells him to do.

 
The Commish said:
My estimation of Trump's danger has nothing to do with the comments you made with respect to the intelligence of the average American voter and your desire for the average American not to be interested/educated in politics.  Now please proceed with your "what I meant to say...." or "I didn't mean x when I said x......" response :popcorn:  
Click to expand...
I don't recall making any comments about the intelligence of voters. I wrote that many were not knowledegable which is not the same thing as intelligence. I'm not very knowledgeable about Michigan football. 

 
Obama said the very real economic impacts of the shutdown and flirtation with default ought to be enough for his opponents to abandon the tactic of using the debt ceiling and government funding to push their agenda.

“You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position, go out there and win an election,” he said. “Push to change it, but don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.”
Click to expand...
Or go ahead and nominate Trump to make Hillary the President, your call.

 
timschochet said:
Obama also will play a huge role in determining what Hillary's first few months in office will be like. Once Hillary is elected, Obama has 2 big decisions to make: 

1. Will he attempt to push TPP through a lame duck Congress in December? Or simply pass the buck to Hillary and let her decide what to do? 

2. Will he attempt to appoint Garland with a (possibly) more receptive Senate? Or will he defer to Hillary to make her own choice once in office? 
Click to expand...
I think Garland remains on the table until Obama withdraws his name. I think he will just take a wait and see attitude. I am not certain what happens if the nomination is still not voted on by the senate once Hillary takes office, I am guessing then Hillary would be free to make her own nominee.

 
timschochet said:
Obama also will play a huge role in determining what Hillary's first few months in office will be like. Once Hillary is elected, Obama has 2 big decisions to make: 

1. Will he attempt to push TPP through a lame duck Congress in December? Or simply pass the buck to Hillary and let her decide what to do? 

2. Will he attempt to appoint Garland with a (possibly) more receptive Senate? Or will he defer to Hillary to make her own choice once in office? 
Click to expand...
Hillary pretty much threw Obama under the bus on TPP.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11433

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11134

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11435
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=TPP&mfrom=&mto=&title=¬itle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=¬o=&count=200&sort=6#searchresult

On the judge nomination, it depends on who has to make what paybacks. I say it will be up to Hillary.  Obama has pardons left so that would be interesting to see.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
The key word being 'people'.  I believe CU should be overturned on the basis that corporations are not people.
Click to expand...
CU didn't hold that corporations are people.

Anyway, I don't think it's good constitutional analysis to say that the First Amendment doesn't protect the New York Times editorial page from government censorship (since the NYT is a corporation).

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
My estimation of Trump's danger has nothing to do with the comments you made with respect to the intelligence of the average American voter and your desire for the average American not to be interested/educated in politics.  Now please proceed with your "what I meant to say...." or "I didn't mean x when I said x......" response :popcorn:  
Click to expand...
I don't recall making any comments about the intelligence of voters. I wrote that many were not knowledegable which is not the same thing as intelligence. I'm not very knowledgeable about Michigan football. 
Click to expand...
Give me a break :rolleyes:   You know exactly what you said...if you're going to play this game change it to "comments you made with respect to the political intelligence of the average American voter" then.....this notion is on par with all the crap that Trump is spewing.  You don't think that the average American voter is smart with regard to politics and you have no desire for them to ever be educated to become smarter on the topic.  You want them to be uninformed and disinterested so that the establishment can do what's best without being bothered by the electorate.

 
BeaverCleaver said:
squistion said:
Sopan Deb ‏@SopanDeb 3h3 hours ago


It's been 81 days since Trump last held a presser. He took Qs from limited group 42 days ago.

Clinton has taken Qs 10 times in last month.
Click to expand...
She had to make up for that long drought she had for not having a presser.
Click to expand...
Trump's last press full press conference was July 27th. He actually opened it with the line, "So, it's been 235 days since crooked Hillary Clinton has had a press conference. And you, as reporters who give her all of these glowing reports, should ask yourselves why."

 
[scooter] said:
Trump's last press full press conference was July 27th. He actually opened it with the line, "So, it's been 235 days since crooked Hillary Clinton has had a press conference. And you, as reporters who give her all of these glowing reports, should ask yourselves why."
Click to expand...
Actually....during her drought she went 269 days without a presser

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/31/donald-trump/has-hillary-clinton-not-had-press-conference-269-d/

 
BeaverCleaver said:
[scooter] said:
Trump's last press full press conference was July 27th. He actually opened it with the line, "So, it's been 235 days since crooked Hillary Clinton has had a press conference. And you, as reporters who give her all of these glowing reports, should ask yourselves why."
Click to expand...
Actually....during her drought she went 269 days without a presser

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/31/donald-trump/has-hillary-clinton-not-had-press-conference-269-d/
Click to expand...
She was rope-a-doping Trump.

 
timschochet said:
What kind of honeymoon was that? The only reason Obama got anything done in his first 2 years was because he was lucky enough to have a Dem majority in both House and Senate.  The Republicans opposed him immediately. 
Click to expand...
Sure, but Obama was personally well-liked and popular (and still is) and came in with a decent amount of political capital.  Hillary has none of those things.  "Clinton fatigue" is going to set in before the inauguration.

 
timschochet said:
What kind of honeymoon was that? The only reason Obama got anything done in his first 2 years was because he was lucky enough to have a Dem majority in both House and Senate.  The Republicans opposed him immediately. 
Click to expand...
Sure, but Obama was personally well-liked and popular (and still is) and came in with a decent amount of political capital.  Hillary has none of those things.  "Clinton fatigue" is going to set in before the inauguration.

 
Genuine smoking gun in Podesta Wikileaks release 9.

"Take the money!!" is the conclusion by top staff when they debate whether, just #### it, they should break the law and take foreign donations.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11915

Assuming they did, the question becomes how they laundered it and Hillary's relationship to the crimes, whose intent is clearly documented in the link.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Genuine smoking gun in Podesta Wikileaks release 9.

"Take the money!!" is the conclusion by top staff when they debate whether, just #### it, they should break the law and take foreign donations.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11915

Assuming they did, the question becomes how they laundered it and Hillary's relationship to the crimes, whose intent is clearly documented in the link.
Click to expand...
Just counting on no one with any intellectual curiosity clicking the link?   

 
[scooter] said:
Trump's last press full press conference was July 27th. He actually opened it with the line, "So, it's been 235 days since crooked Hillary Clinton has had a press conference. And you, as reporters who give her all of these glowing reports, should ask yourselves why."
Click to expand...
I don't know why anyone wants to hear either one of these idiots in a press conference.  They say nothing of consequence and their voice serve as a reminder of where we're at as a country.  I wouldn't care if neither of them talked again.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
"> I know this email thing isn't on the level. I'm fully aware of that. "

Exactly!  The political analysis that follows is also pretty much spot on.  
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Interesting that the Clinton people saw the importance of the email issue back in the summer of 2015.  Lots of people in this thread spent the past year trying to convince themselves that it was all fake.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
CU didn't hold that corporations are people.

Anyway, I don't think it's good constitutional analysis to say that the First Amendment doesn't protect the New York Times editorial page from government censorship (since the NYT is a corporation).
Click to expand...
Although that would have been an interesting consequence.  

 
In my opinion, there is enough interesting stuff in the Podesta emails that any journalist worth their salt should be checking them out.

 
I don't think Hillary has the judgment to be president.  But I strongly agreed with the advice the email-writer was giving and didn't want to quibble with that part.

Hell, she failed to take perfectly good advice and compounded the damage.  Ironically, this particular email highlights her poor judgment and tendency to make things worse, not better.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The Commish said:
Agreed...I seem to remember hearing that here from someone :whistle:  
Click to expand...
Yeah, you and Ivan have been going on and on about how " No one thinks she doesn't have the judgment to be president ".

Personally I would have said "No one of intelligence honestly..." but close enough.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary...I don't think she has the judgment to be President, but we both know the judgment wasn't what we are talking about in the advice provided, which was spot on.  If anything her ignoring it goes directly to the assertion that she lacks the judgment.  Whiffed big time on a softball given to her :shrug:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't think Hillary has the judgment to be president.  But I strongly agreed with the advice the email-writer was giving and didn't want to quibble with that part.

Hell, she failed to take perfectly good advice and compounded the damage.  Ironically, this particular email highlights her poor judgment and tendency to make things worse, not better.
Click to expand...
ThIs is interesting.  By and large the President is a marketing position that also makes big important decisions informed by hundreds of experts. It is interesting that she doesnt seem to take a lot of expert advice based on the leaks.  There is some good advice - that she ignored - in the emails. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
she failed to take perfectly good advice
Click to expand...


The Commish said:
 If anything her ignoring it goes directly to the assertion that she lacks the judgment
Click to expand...
You guys are judging Hillary on e-mails where she wasn't part of the conversation to Hillary.  Kind of like many of the emails that the FBI recovered...

You guys do realize that this email does not offer evidence that this advice was ever offered.  If it was it does not offer any reason why it was "ignored".  And ultimately Hillary got to October (2015) just fine.  I realize that Hillary haters like to believe that  Bernie screwed this up - he did not.  She has also arrived at October 2016 in pretty good shape.  I realize that Hillary haters like to believe that any half decent Republican candidate would have walked to the presidency, but ignoring the oxymoron this ignores that Trump's unique appeal in the rust belt is the one of the main reasons there was even a path to 270. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Agreed.

Interesting that the Clinton people saw the importance of the email issue back in the summer of 2015.  Lots of people in this thread spent the past year trying to convince themselves that it was all fake.
Click to expand...
Not fake but unimportant. I still think so. I don't think it speaks to her judgment in anyway; never have. I've believed all along it's an incredibly minor irrelevant story. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
You guys are judging Hillary on e-mails where she wasn't part of the conversation to Hillary.  Kind of like many of the emails that the FBI recovered...

You guys do realize that this email does not offer evidence that this advice was ever offered.  If it was it does not offer any reason why it was "ignored".  And ultimately Hillary got to October (2015) just fine.  I realize that Hillary haters like to believe that  Bernie screwed this up - he did not.  She has also arrived at October 2016 in pretty good shape.  I realize that Hillary haters like to believe that any half decent Republican candidate would have walked to the presidency, but ignoring the oxymoron this ignores that Trump's unique appeal in the rust belt is the one of the main reasons there was even a path to 270. 
Click to expand...
It also ignores the evidence of this thread. If anybody wants to, they can go back and look at how many people predicted Hillary would lose, that this or that would be the end of her campaign, and some of it long before Trump ever got the nomination. (Later on some of the best conversation was whether or not, after Trump defeated Hillary, I should be blamed. At least two posters argued vehemently that it was my fault.) 

Now many of these same people are telling us that Hillary is the luckiest campaigner in history, how anyone would have defeated Trump, how she would be crushed by any one else, etc. The truth is the opposite: Hillary is unlucky, or she would have been elected President in 2008. She lost then because a man of extraordinary talent and charisma challenged her. There was no one like that this time around, so she is going to win. 

 
timschochet said:
It also ignores the evidence of this thread. If anybody wants to, they can go back and look at how many people predicted Hillary would lose, that this or that would be the end of her campaign, and some of it long before Trump ever got the nomination. (Later on some of the best conversation was whether or not, after Trump defeated Hillary, I should be blamed. At least two posters argued vehemently that it was my fault.) 

Now many of these same people are telling us that Hillary is the luckiest campaigner in history, how anyone would have defeated Trump, how she would be crushed by any one else, etc. The truth is the opposite: Hillary is unlucky, or she would have been elected President in 2008. She lost then because a man of extraordinary talent and charisma challenged her. There was no one like that this time around, so she is going to win. 
Click to expand...
Remember Hillary's numbers can only go down...

 
Rohn Jambo said:
Wow, CNN telling people they have to get info from WikiLeaks through the media.   :crazy:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3JuWPS8qGPw
Click to expand...
That's really not what was said at all.

There is no point in explaining it to you, but for anyone who has the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity, here is what that clip shows:

First, the reporter is stating that it is illegal to possess the actual leaked documents, which may be true for certain items but is mostly an irrelevant point.

Then the reporter says "it's different for the media", which is a reference to how the media is often given leeway to possess or publish sensitive information. Again, this is mostly irrelevant.

Then the reporter says "everything you're learning about this, you're learning from us", which is untrue.

But at no point does the guy say that people "have to get" info through the media.
 
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
237K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
1K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top