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 (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
cstu said:
Those people paid a lot of money to ride with the SoS!!
Click to expand...
Well I'm sure it helped them in their work to be put on the curb for a personal assistant when SOS came to town. Really showed the foreign ministry they had her ear. Not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
With heavily edited video that was a lie as numerous investigations showed. Pretty sad commentary on your standards.
Click to expand...
LOL....  never heard of the guy before.  The wikipedia link provided by SOMEONE ELSE indicated he had a hand in getting ACORN shut down.

 
NCCommish said:
Does it cost more than having to move very single human being out of the Middle East when it becomes uninhabitable by humans?
Click to expand...
Try to ease off the coffee, if you are interested in anything resembling normal conversation/discussion

 
unless your a man of intestinal fortitude, of good moral ideals, & an ideal mix of drugs & alcohol this election may take you to far away places.   Most of them dark.   just my opinion take that to the bank bromigos.

tribute to SWC with the last 6 words.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Like not riding in Limos with the right people? 

 
David Dodds said:
Not much discussion of all of the Hillary supporters agreeing to take the illegal campaign money.  For those that support Hillary, should criminal charges be levied for all that conspired in this pay for play scam?

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

It's simple.  Follow this money.  and if we had branches of government that actually cared about their citizens this would not be happening.  It's one branch now.  The Democratic Party.  Conspiring with the media, DOJ, NSA, and everyone else.  No need to follow any laws as this Democratic Party will never be held responsible.

These leaks unveil the truth in politics.  It's a criminal enterprise.  HRC is going to win this election both because she is running against possibly the most hated person ever, but also because her team was willing to do all kinds of illegal deals with foreign governments to get her the dollars to win.  I can't support that.  Maybe it's being naive, but I want people that actually care about what's best for the US and it's citizens.

- Fracking isn't best for us.  And her team know this too, but they went to where the money was.

- Secret handshakes with rogue governments for big campaign contributions aren't good for citizens of the US.  

- A media / DOJ / NSA all unwilling to do their job is not good for it's citizens.  
Click to expand...
Dodds' heel turn to InfoWars/Trump sympathizer is one of the more surprising aspects of the '16 election.  

 
timschochet said:
Speaking of Warren, one reason why Hillary is winning this election is her collection of "stars". Think about it:

Barack Obama

Michelle Obama

Chelsea Clinton

Bill Clinton

Bernie Sanders

Liz Warren

Joe Biden

I'm not even mentioning Tim Kaine. Hillary's campaign can send these people out to any state she likes, at any time. Trump has himself and Mike Pence. I don't recall such a lopsided situation ever.
Click to expand...
You forgot her biggest star.  That said, I've never seen such a large group of "stars" so active in a campaign and yet it still be as close as it was up until the last debate.  Telling.

 
David Dodds said:
A pretty good top 10 of the WikiLeaks emails so far: http://louderwithcrowder.com/top-10-wikileaks/

Daily Mail - How Clintons are being rocked by scandal: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3844274/Bill-having-hard-time-Chelsea-livid-Hillary-p-ed-Clinton-family-rocked-Wikileaks-donors-friends-furious-candid-aides-said-them.html#ixzz4NN4QPFrh

I found both quite amusing.  
Click to expand...
I'm sure Chelsea's emails about Teneo/Foundation affairs aren't going over too well back at home base. As de facto First Lady I hope Chelsea just does her job instead of go off the rails like her mom did. It's a simple, awesome job, just do that.

 
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
What changes specifically and why?  You're an establishment guy...mucking with the current process is the last thing a person in your position should want.
Click to expand...
The most important change I'd like to see is that the order of primary states should be randomly selected every 4 years. One cycle it might be Hawaii first, then Texas. It shouldn't always be Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. That gives outweighed importance to those few states. 

Just because I don't want to see the entire system thrown out doesn't mean I'm not open to ideas to make it better. 
Click to expand...
And what significant impact do you see this having on the process?

ETA:  I'm not for throwing the whole system out either....most of us aren't.  I just want to see changes that would have significant impact.  I don't really care about the changes that give the appearance of trying fix things, but in the end, do very little to fix anything.
Click to expand...
bump

 
So here's a list of possible VP candidates from Podesta directly to Hillary.

A couple notes:

- Well it looks like Hillary's email accounts are allll  the way up to HDR29 now.  That gal just loves to add email accounts, doesn't she?

- Here's the list, and in the actual you will find Bernie alllllllll the way at the bottom all in his own little space:

Javier Becerra Julian Castro Eric Garcetti Tom Perez Ken Salazar

Tammy Baldwin Kirsten Gillibrand Amy Klobuchar Claire McKaskill Jeanne Shaheen Debbie Stabenow Elizabeth Warren

Michael Bennet Sherrod Brown Martin Heinreich Tim Kaine Terry McAuliffe Chris Murphy Tom Vilsack

Steve Benjamin Corey Booker Andrew Gillum Eric Holder Deval Patrick Kasim Reed Anthony Foxx

John Allen Bill McCraven Mike Mullen

Mary Barra Michael Bloomberg Ursula Burns Tim Cook Bill Gates Melinda Gates Muhtar Kent Judith Rodin Howard Schultz

Bernie Sanders
Click to expand...


- Basically the way this breaks down is:

  • Hispanic dudes
  • Likeable Females for $800, Alex
  • Traditional Party Machine guys (that's where they picked from, though I would have guessed Kaine was front and center all along, I guess not)
  • Black dudes
  • National Security names
  • Hyper-rich independent types that people love, you know likeable Trumps
  • Annnnndddd Sanders, all by his lonesome, at the bottom.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
bump
Click to expand...
Changing up the primary order and changing the rules of awarding delegates, including superdelegates, is a really good suggestion. Since you're really gung-ho on having this discussion pre-election day, how do you not see that changing the order the state primaries occur would absolutely have an impact? You enjoy them all spending all their time in NH and IA for like a year prior to anything getting started, or do you see a benefit in them having to go to, you know, other states other than NH and IA to make an initial impact on voters?

 
David Dodds said:
- Fracking isn't best for us.  And her team know this too, but they went to where the money was.
Click to expand...
I think out of all the issues you mention this was the one where Hillary was most blatant.

“Fracking was developed at the Department of Energy,” the document shows Clinton saying. “I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I've promoted fracking in other places around the world.”
Click to expand...
- HDR22

 
tommyGunZ said:
Dodds' heel turn to InfoWars/Trump sympathizer is one of the more surprising aspects of the '16 election.  
Click to expand...
What I've found interesting is that for the first time in this long campaign, there is actually a R vs D debate on policy, it just so happens both sides are coming from Private Hillary vs Public Hillary.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Changing up the primary order and changing the rules of awarding delegates, including superdelegates, is a really good suggestion. Since you're really gung-ho on having this discussion pre-election day, how do you not see that changing the order the state primaries occur would absolutely have an impact? You enjoy them all spending all their time in NH and IA for like a year prior to anything getting started, or do you see a benefit in them having to go to, you know, other states other than NH and IA to make an initial impact on voters?
Click to expand...
I thought I had already answered this, but your response in more eloquent than mine was. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm sure Chelsea's emails about Teneo/Foundation affairs aren't going over too well back at home base. As de facto First Lady I hope Chelsea just does her job instead of go off the rails like her mom did. It's a simple, awesome job, just do that.
Click to expand...
Maybe she can do something everyone can get behind. Like healthier lunches for students. I'm sure no republicans would have a problem with that...

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Changing up the primary order and changing the rules of awarding delegates, including superdelegates, is a really good suggestion. Since you're really gung-ho on having this discussion pre-election day, how do you not see that changing the order the state primaries occur would absolutely have an impact? You enjoy them all spending all their time in NH and IA for like a year prior to anything getting started, or do you see a benefit in them having to go to, you know, other states other than NH and IA to make an initial impact on voters?
Click to expand...
Bold is what Tim was talking about.  And I asked what he believed the significant impact would be given this was his "most important" change.  While I agree that changing things up would be fine, it's far down my personal list of changes.  Higher up my list is the concept of super delegates and the awarding of delegates.  I agree that those are really good suggestions.  Should be noted, that as soon as I started paying actual attention to the goat rodeo that is the primary season, I started asking questions.  I will continue to bring it up going forward until the weaknesses are addressed.  I'd add the funding of these primaries, who gets to participate in the primaries and the use of caucuses are high on my list of things that need to be addressed as well.  

 
timschochet said:
I thought I had already answered this, but your response in more eloquent than mine was. 
Click to expand...
There is certainly a discussion to be had about our system and processes of nominating candidates. Frankly I find the insistence upon having these discussions now, prior to Nov. 9th, to be a distraction from the point. The system, the process, the third-party moralist discussions, are distracting from the fact that we have to elect Hillary Clinton president first, to do the right thing for the country right now. Because of the realistic, binary outcome we're faced with in 21 days, this is the primary discussion right now IMO.

 
David Dodds said:
A pretty good top 10 of the WikiLeaks emails so far: http://louderwithcrowder.com/top-10-wikileaks/

Daily Mail - How Clintons are being rocked by scandal: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3844274/Bill-having-hard-time-Chelsea-livid-Hillary-p-ed-Clinton-family-rocked-Wikileaks-donors-friends-furious-candid-aides-said-them.html#ixzz4NN4QPFrh

I found both quite amusing.  
Click to expand...
"Amusing" pretty much sums up the weight of what they've found so far though, unless Wikileaks is holding back a real heavy hitter. Really, I would have expected far worse from the inner workings of any random political campaign, both Dems and Republicans alike. And with Trump's recent problems I can't imagine why they would hold back any true "bombshell" if they had one.

I do think the mere existence of Wikileaks can potentially change the landscape for future campaigns for the better. Politicians should be afraid of being held accountable when their closed-door policies and behind-the-scenes actions do not line up with what they say publicly. But I'm also disappointed that Julian Assange has turned out to be such an obvious partisan player with a grudge against Hillary. If this is going to be the new norm for political campaigns then I want to see the dirty laundry from both sides.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Colts Win said:
Maybe she can do something everyone can get behind. Like healthier lunches for students. I'm sure no republicans would have a problem with that...
Click to expand...
Michelle's has been a great First Lady, if she follows that model, she will be fine with everybody and even popular.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
So here's a list of possible VP candidates from Podesta directly to Hillary.

A couple notes:

- Well it looks like Hillary's email accounts are allll  the way up to HDR29 now.  That gal just loves to add email accounts, doesn't she?

- Here's the list, and in the actual you will find Bernie alllllllll the way at the bottom all in his own little space:

- Basically the way this breaks down is:

  • Hispanic dudes
  • Likeable Females for $800, Alex
  • Traditional Party Machine guys (that's where they picked from, though I would have guessed Kaine was front and center all along, I guess not)
  • Black dudes
  • National Security names
  • Hyper-rich independent types that people love, you know likeable Trumps
  • Annnnndddd Sanders, all by his lonesome, at the bottom.
Click to expand...
Kind of surprised to see Terry McAuliffe's name on that list.  I'm sure this was just spit-balling, but I have a hard time seeing a Clinton-McAuliffe ticket as anything other than a bad joke.  

 
LittlePhatty said:
"Amusing" pretty much sums up the weight of what they've found so far though, unless Wikileaks is holding back a real heavy hitter. Really, I would have expected far worse from the inner workings of any random political campaign, both Dems and Republicans alike. And with Trump's recent problems I can't imagine why they would hold back any true "bombshell" if they had one.

I do think the mere existence of Wikileaks can potentially change the landscape for future campaigns for the better. Politicians should be afraid of beng held accountable when their closed-door policies and behind-the-scenes actions do not line up with what they say publicly. But I'm also disappointed that Julian Assange has turned out to be such an obvious partisan player with a grudge against Hillary. If this is going to be the new norm for political campaigns then I want to see the dirty laundry frm both sides.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear at this point that Wikileaks is just a mouthpiece for Putin and Russian intel -- and Assange himself is obviously a pretty gigantic pile of ####. In a vacuum, holding public officials accountable is a good thing, but IMO Wikileaks specifically is completely compromised and untrustworthy.

 
The Commish said:
Bold is what Tim was talking about.  And I asked what he believed the significant impact would be given this was his "most important" change.  While I agree that changing things up would be fine, it's far down my personal list of changes.  Higher up my list is the concept of super delegates and the awarding of delegates.  I agree that those are really good suggestions.  Should be noted, that as soon as I started paying actual attention to the goat rodeo that is the primary season, I started asking questions.  I will continue to bring it up going forward until the weaknesses are addressed.  I'd add the funding of these primaries, who gets to participate in the primaries and the use of caucuses are high on my list of things that need to be addressed as well.  
Click to expand...
For my part, I admit that being complacent in the off-cycle caught me off guard with the nominees we ended up with this year, perhaps because Obama came out of the 2008 primaries, which was my desired outcome. 2016 has definitely been an eye-opener, and I plan to be more involved and informed earlier in the process as well, because we can't fall into the trap where we get even worse candidates then these two going forward.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
There is certainly a discussion to be had about our system and processes of nominating candidates. Frankly I find the insistence upon having these discussions now, prior to Nov. 9th, to be a distraction from the point. The system, the process, the third-party moralist discussions, are distracting from the fact that we have to elect Hillary Clinton president first, to do the right thing for the country right now. Because of the realistic, binary outcome we're faced with in 21 days, this is the primary discussion right now IMO.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree. But the Commish is one of those who reject the binary choice argument. 

 
Coeur de Lion said:
It's pretty clear at this point that Wikileaks is just a mouthpiece for Putin and Russian intel -- and Assange himself is obviously a pretty gigantic pile of ####. In a vacuum, holding public officials accountable is a good thing, but IMO Wikileaks specifically is completely compromised and untrustworthy.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
When one of the top 10 wikileaks revelations is that Chelsea got called a spoiled brat, I think we can go ahead and call in that drone strike now and end it.  

 
timschochet said:
I thought I had already answered this, but your response in more eloquent than mine was. 
Click to expand...
You still haven't told me why shaking up the order of states is the #1 thing on your list given all the other things that need to be addressed.  Trying to understand what significant positive impact you think there's going to be by doing this.  About all I can come up with is it might help some feel like their vote "matters" when they are early.  Given all the other issues and your position that you'd rather not see average Americans interested in politics, I don't see why that would be positive to you.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
So here's a list of possible VP candidates from Podesta directly to Hillary.

A couple notes:

- Well it looks like Hillary's email accounts are allll  the way up to HDR29 now.  That gal just loves to add email accounts, doesn't she?

- Here's the list, and in the actual you will find Bernie alllllllll the way at the bottom all in his own little space:

- Basically the way this breaks down is:

  • Hispanic dudes
  • Likeable Females for $800, Alex
  • Traditional Party Machine guys (that's where they picked from, though I would have guessed Kaine was front and center all along, I guess not)
  • Black dudes
  • National Security names
  • Hyper-rich independent types that people love, you know likeable Trumps
  • Annnnndddd Sanders, all by his lonesome, at the bottom.
Click to expand...


I wish they had actually titled different sections of the list this way.  That would have made the wikileaks emails noteworthy.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Kind of surprised to see Terry McAuliffe's name on that list.  I'm sure this was just spit-balling, but I have a hard time seeing a Clinton-McAuliffe ticket as anything other than a bad joke.  
Click to expand...
It's basically any Dem with any national profile, so I'm not that surprised.  I do sort of wish they'd have gone the Bloomberg/Gates/Schultz/Rodin route just to see the reaction.  

 
So Podesta uses Gmail and doesn't set up two-factor ID, gets his email hacked (probably just by social engineering) and wikileaks is reporting on back and forths with HRC.  HRC seems at least savvy enough to know not to send anything too embarrassing to a Gmail account.

 
I read an article yesterday from aNew Republic that speculated that Hillary should be prepared for a Democratic majority in the House, which is now very possible. She has been anticipating a change in the Senate but the same old gridlock in the House. 

The article didn't give too many details and I'm wondering just how feasible this really is, given the gerrymandering of recent years. 

 
culdeus said:
So Podesta uses Gmail and doesn't set up two-factor ID, gets his email hacked (probably just by social engineering) and wikileaks is reporting on back and forths with HRC.  HRC seems at least savvy enough to know not to send anything too embarrassing to a Gmail account.
Click to expand...
Throughout all this, official Foia and hacks, she has shown a penchant for not writing much of anything beyond 'pls print', with a few exceptions. Which is smart.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I read an article yesterday from aNew Republic that speculated that Hillary should be prepared for a Democratic majority in the House, which is now very possible. She has been anticipating a change in the Senate but the same old gridlock in the House. 

The article didn't give too many details and I'm wondering just how feasible this really is, given the gerrymandering of recent years. 
Click to expand...
Tim the House and Senate have been in play for months.

 
timschochet said:
I read an article yesterday from aNew Republic that speculated that Hillary should be prepared for a Democratic majority in the House, which is now very possible. She has been anticipating a change in the Senate but the same old gridlock in the House. 

The article didn't give too many details and I'm wondering just how feasible this really is, given the gerrymandering of recent years. 
Click to expand...
This would be my nightmare scenario.  

 
timschochet said:
I read an article yesterday from aNew Republic that speculated that Hillary should be prepared for a Democratic majority in the House, which is now very possible. She has been anticipating a change in the Senate but the same old gridlock in the House. 

The article didn't give too many details and I'm wondering just how feasible this really is, given the gerrymandering of recent years. 
Click to expand...
Short answer is no one really knows.  The polling so far seems to show that the House is holding for the Reps and this is just a wave for Hillary herself, but these type of things tend to break late as well.  

 
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: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top