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 (13 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
IvanKaramazov said:
I was always told that the thing about Hillary being abusive to her security detail was just the product of lying liars telling lies to sell books full of lies.  Shockingly, it turns out that those rumors were correct all along.  Who could have possibly imagined this turn of events?
Click to expand...
They're true and it's still happening. It's also reckless and dangerous.

It also shows the FBI and DOJ, if they had wanted, could have laid the groundwork for showing that Hillary had been reckless with security protocol in other areas besides her data.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
Yeah I mean fracking results in earthquakes and tap water you can set on fire not to mention degrading our national groundwater supply and that's before we get into the methane problem. So yeah I can see how it would be hard to decide if fracking is good or bad for the environment.

BTW with the decrease in cost of solar generated electricity there is no longer a need to bridge anything. Solar is competitive today and it will only get cheaper. Batteries have come a long way as well with storage getting cheaper. Once we get mass production the costs will plummet. We don't need natural gas. The only people that need us to use gas for as long as possible are fossil fuel companies and utilities. So they can make a dime. And they sure do pay their politicians well.
Click to expand...
The bit about only fossil fuel companies needing fossil fuels is not true. Take a look at your daily life and eliminate any plastic, nylon, polyethelene or polystyrene you see or interact with. Find out how much the cheapest alternative available today costs on comparison and reevaluate

 
Media MattersVerified account ‏@mmfa 6m6 minutes ago

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin: McCain's threat that a GOP Senate would oppose any Clinton SCOTUS nominee is unprecedented

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/10/17/cnn-s-jeffrey-toobin-mccain-threat-gop-senate-opposing-all-clinton-supreme-court-nominees/213885

JEFFREY TOOBIN: What’s in many respects more interesting about what McCain said, was “we will oppose any nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward.” Think about that. That's never happened in American history, that every member of one party has voted against a president's nominee to the Supreme Court, and that really raises the possibility that if the Republicans control the Senate, we are at eight justices for the foreseeable future.

BROOKE BALDWIN (HOST): Which is why these downballot races -- I know we're all hung up on the top of the ticket, that's why all of it is so key this election season.

TOOBIN: Absolutely. It sounds like inside baseball, but who controls the United States Senate, 50 -- the difference between 49 and 51 votes is enormous, because if the Democrats control the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, they will get a hearing on Merrick Garland, or whoever -- if she doesn't -- if Hillary Clinton doesn't renominate him, whoever her appointee is. If it's Chuck Grassley, if he wins and the Republicans take control, they can not hold hearings just like they've not held hearings on Merrick Garland, and there will be eight justices for the foreseeable future.
 
After November 9, assuming she wins, I will remove my avatar, clear my head of all preconceived notions, and read all criticisms of Hillary Clinton with an open mind. If she did awful things I will join in the criticism. If she committed real crimes I will support her impeachment, removal from office and prosecution. So long as the evidence is explicit. 

Until she wins and the greater threat has been removed, however, I believe all of this stuff, no matter how damning it might appear, should be ignored. It shouldn't even be examined IMO. 

 
timschochet said:
After November 9, assuming she wins, I will remove my avatar, clear my head of all preconceived notions, and read all criticisms of Hillary Clinton with an open mind. If she did awful things I will join in the criticism. If she committed real crimes I will support her impeachment, removal from office and prosecution. So long as the evidence is explicit. 

Until she wins and the greater threat has been removed, however, I believe all of this stuff, no matter how damning it might appear, should be ignored. It shouldn't even be examined IMO. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
Politician Spock said:
There is no better time than right now to be talking about this, because we've seen years and years of people "voting for the lesser of two evils", and what happens is after every election people quickly forget about this problem until it's time to do it again, when they ask "why do we always have this problem". We will continue to have this problem until there is a tipping point, and that tipping point is the year that people DON'T quickly forget about the problem after the election. The only way that tipping point is going to happen is if people talk about it ad nauseum for the next month. Again, there is no better time than right now for these conversations!!!
Click to expand...
Nope. That is not enough. Another breed of politician (Spock?) to stand is also required

 
I'm not buying what McCain said. If you listened to McConnell and Grassley last spring, their whole argument was that an election was about to take place and the public should be given a chance to decide. Once Hillary is elected that argument goes out the window. They won't block nominations, IMO. 

 
timschochet said:
After November 9, assuming she wins, I will remove my avatar, clear my head of all preconceived notions, and read all criticisms of Hillary Clinton with an open mind. If she did awful things I will join in the criticism. If she committed real crimes I will support her impeachment, removal from office and prosecution. So long as the evidence is explicit. 

Until she wins and the greater threat has been removed, however, I believe all of this stuff, no matter how damning it might appear, should be ignored. It shouldn't even be examined IMO. 
Click to expand...
She's survived all the damning stuff before. Why would new damning stuff be any different. Her supporters don't care. Your post being evidence A of that. 

 
timschochet said:
After November 9, assuming she wins, I will remove my avatar, clear my head of all preconceived notions, and read all criticisms of Hillary Clinton with an open mind. If she did awful things I will join in the criticism. If she committed real crimes I will support her impeachment, removal from office and prosecution. So long as the evidence is explicit. 

Until she wins and the greater threat has been removed, however, I believe all of this stuff, no matter how damning it might appear, should be ignored. It shouldn't even be examined IMO. 
Click to expand...
Agreed that it's fair to judge her as President when she becomes President, on her actions as President. Sadly it seems emails, Benghazi, servers, the foundation and the like arguments aren't going anywhere.

 
jon_mx said:
What McCain said was so unprecedented.....Schumer saying the exact same thing in 2007.
Click to expand...
:sigh:

Not the exact same thing. He was talking about blocking a SCOTUS nominee for the last year of Bush's term in 2007, same argument GOP has used to block Merrick Garland in 2016.

McCain is calling for all SCOTUS nominees for Hillary's entire first term be blocked leaving a 8 member SCOTUS until 2020, and presumably until 2024 if she is reelected.

 
timschochet said:
I'm not buying what McCain said. If you listened to McConnell and Grassley last spring, their whole argument was that an election was about to take place and the public should be given a chance to decide. Once Hillary is elected that argument goes out the window. They won't block nominations, IMO. 
Click to expand...
What is to stop them if they still control the senate? Answer: Nothing.

 
squistion said:
timschochet said:
I'm not buying what McCain said. If you listened to McConnell and Grassley last spring, their whole argument was that an election was about to take place and the public should be given a chance to decide. Once Hillary is elected that argument goes out the window. They won't block nominations, IMO. 
Click to expand...
What is to stop them if they still control the senate? Answer: Nothing.
Click to expand...
HOnestly doubt they would. And if they did, I think that they'll answer for it in mid-term elections. A Many Americans are annoyed with the obstructionism, but at least understand this delay. We won't put up with 2 years more of it, let alone 4 or 8.

 
renesauz said:
HOnestly doubt they would. And if they did, I think that they'll answer for it in mid-term elections. A Many Americans are annoyed with the obstructionism, but at least understand this delay. We won't put up with 2 years more of it, let alone 4 or 8.
Click to expand...
If she nominates a left wing justice, they will block it.  Most Americans are sick of the extremist views from 10% of right and 10% of left sucking the air out of the room.   That's a big reason the performance of Johnson has been such a shame.  

 
Politician Spock said:
I disagree with the bolded. It has served the rich that own the two parties fairly well. For the rest of us, not so much. 
Click to expand...
That's fine. But in that case, let's be clear about the fact that our main disagreement lies not in any specific about this election cycle, but instead in terms of how we perceive American political history- I think your view is overly pessimistic. You think I am overly naive. That seems to be the root of all our arguments. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Yeah putting out fires by telling people not to look at facts because it might hurt your cause is counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Cointerproductive to what? 

Using your logic we should have started the Cold War in 1944. We had all sorts of terrible info on Stalin at that time- such as when we discovered his massacre of Polish soldiers at Katyn. But we wisely kept our mouths shut, and you damn well know why. Only after 1945, when the bigger threat had passed, did we start questioning our former ally. 

 
timschochet said:
 It's not a question of courage, but of priorities. Put out the fire first. Then we can look for signs of arson. 
Click to expand...
Problem is she'll be setting new fires down the street while your still looking for the fire hose she had destroyed.

 
Jon_mx:

What McCain said was so unprecedented.....Schumer saying the exact same thing in 2007.
Click to expand...
Well, not quite the exact same thing:

Schumer: "I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

McCain: “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up."

 
Joe Summer said:
Jon_mx:
 

Well, not quite the exact same thing:

Schumer: "I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

McCain: “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up."
Click to expand...
Both sides pull political crap all the time then act nuts when the other side does it but how are those things even remotely similar?

 
Coeur de Lion said:
It's amazing how many people completely lack any semblance of critical thinking ability. It's James O'Keefe, dude -- it's probably totally fake. Like most of the other nonsense you find on Breitbart and Infowars.
Click to expand...
You haven't even watched it.  Lot of critical thinking there!  Don't know who that guy is or have I ever been to those sites you mentioned.

I'd like to know how all those conversations on tape are fake.

 
timschochet said:
Cointerproductive to what? 

Using your logic we should have started the Cold War in 1944. We had all sorts of terrible info on Stalin at that time- such as when we discovered his massacre of Polish soldiers at Katyn. But we wisely kept our mouths shut, and you damn well know why. Only after 1945, when the bigger threat had passed, did we start questioning our former ally. 
Click to expand...
It's counterproductive to your argument to say that Hillary is better but that the facts will make her seem worse. You're basically conceding that the facts are against her up front.

The other stuff seems off point.

 
squistion said:
:sigh:

Not the exact same thing. He was talking about blocking a SCOTUS nominee for the last year of Bush's term in 2007, same argument GOP has used to block Merrick Garland in 2016.

McCain is calling for all SCOTUS nominees for Hillary's entire first term be blocked leaving a 8 member SCOTUS until 2020, and presumably until 2024 if she is reelected.
Click to expand...
When Schumer said it, Bush had over 18 months left in his term, or nearly 40 percent of his last term.  I never favored the GOP stance.  They should have been more honest and opposed it because it would throw off the balance of the court.  

 
BassNBrew said:
Problem is she'll be setting new fires down the street while your still looking for the fire hose she had destroyed.
Click to expand...
:lmao: What do you think- Hillary is Carrie White after the prom, wandering down the street setting off fires with pigs blood in her hair? 

Actually, maybe you DO believe this...

 
Joe Summer said:
Jon_mx:

Well, not quite the exact same thing:

Schumer: "I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

McCain: “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up."
Click to expand...
Disclaimer - I haven't checked the link, but if this is the true gust then this is standard party opposition to USSC nominees.

It's not a statement by Maverick that the GOP will not be taking any votes, which is where we are now.

I suspect this will be resolved when the GOP loses the Senate anyway.

 
Joe Summer said:
Jon_mx:

Well, not quite the exact same thing:

Schumer: "I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

McCain: “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up."
Click to expand...
Why do you think they call him wrong_mx?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's counterproductive to your argument to say that Hillary is better but that the facts will make her seem worse. You're basically conceding that the facts are against her up front.

The other stuff seems off point.
Click to expand...
I never said the facts are against her. What I wrote is that after Nov 9 I'd be open to examining the facts to see if they're against her. I'm not now. 

 
jon_mx said:
When Schumer said it, Bush had over 18 months left in his term, or nearly 40 percent of his last term.  I never favored the GOP stance.  They should have been more honest and opposed it because it would throw off the balance of the court.  
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure I know what this means.  If you're suggesting that there would be more liberal justices than conservative, that's the natural and intended result of "liberals" having won 4 of the last 6 POTUS elections.

 
timschochet said:
I never said the facts are against her. What I wrote is that after Nov 9 I'd be open to examining the facts to see if they're against her. I'm not now. 
Click to expand...
Why not back when there was still a chance to nominate someone else?

And let's be honest here; your definition of "evidence" is pretty closed when it comes to Clinton.  Your standard answer is "I read about it once, a long time ago, and I don't remember the details, but I'm positive she didn't do anything wrong".

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Fwiw this is Assange's actual claim:


 


- So he's claiming Ecuador cut him off, which technically is the only way it could work.

- I have no idea why Ecuador would do this considering they are giving him refuge from Sweden. I also don't think they are particularly friendly to the likes of GS.  If Ecuador was done with him they would just kick him out the front door.

- However I also have no idea why Assange would (falsely) claim his protectors, Ecuador, did this.
Click to expand...
Assange is an attention-whoring con man?  Just a guess.

 
Rich Conway said:
I'm not even sure I know what this means.  If you're suggesting that there would be more liberal justices than conservative, that's the natural and intended result of "liberals" having won 4 of the last 6 POTUS elections.
Click to expand...
"Let the voters decide."

 
Rich Conway said:
I'm not even sure I know what this means.  If you're suggesting that there would be more liberal justices than conservative, that's the natural and intended result of "liberals" having won 4 of the last 6 POTUS elections.
Click to expand...
It is the same arguement Democrats have raised every time their fear a shift in the court. They vow to protect the balance of the Supreme Court because the women's right to choose is just one vote away.  The GOP should have made the same arguement and use things such as the individual right to bear arms, and thus the 2nd Amendment is just one vote away from being lost forever.  

 
timschochet said:
That's fine. But in that case, let's be clear about the fact that our main disagreement lies not in any specific about this election cycle, but instead in terms of how we perceive American political history- I think your view is overly pessimistic. You think I am overly naive. That seems to be the root of all our arguments. 
Click to expand...
People have been talking about having to vote for the lesser of two evils for decades now and the gap between rich and poor continues to rise. If recognizing those things makes me a pessimist than so be it. I'd rather be what I am based on what is, than be naive about what is. 

 
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
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Back
Top