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.
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.
Absolutely agree. But the Commish is one of those who reject the binary choice argument. 
While I do reject this argument, because it's not true (or there would only be two names on the ballots to choose from), what I take issue with more on this topic is this notion that we can't have parallel discussion as the events unfold in front of us.  Hell, we probably even disagree on "the point".  For me, "the point" is that we have a system in place that has allowed for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to be the two "major party" options for this country.  If I know that the system is going to produce garbage if I put garbage in, why do I have to wait until I see the end product garbage before I begin discussing how I'm going to fix the system?  There's nothing to distract from.  There is absolutely no reason we can't be discussing the problems in our system while we are watching the problems in our system.  None.  Might as well roll up our sleeves and begin.

 
I dunno.  Some people might think that being a good diplomat is an important part of being Secretary of State.  Crazy, I know, but those people are out there.
Hillary couldn't have those ambassadors in the limo while she was planning and ordering the Benghazi Code Red.  

 
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. 
The Presidential election has been over for months.  I'd put D Senate odds at 66%.  D House 10%.  

 
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.
Let me address your last point first because I really think you have misunderstood me (which I'll freely acknowledge may be my fault.) I want ipeople interested and knowledgeable about political issues to have more influence than those who are not. I despise populism. The more the general public, which hates politics, are disinterested in what's going on, I believe the better off we are. But there are interested and knowledgeable people in every state, of every persuasion. And they all deserve equal amounts of say. Iowa and New Hampshire have far too much influence in deciding who our next President will be. That seems like a no brainer to me. 

As far as "all the other things that need to be addressed" I'm not sure of any of it, because as you know I hold that the current system works fairly well. In most cases it produces a good outcome- I believe that is true even this year because in the end Hillary Clinton will, IMO, make an excellent President. The problems I currently see are almost solely with the base of the Republican Party, and not with the overall system. So none of this specific discussion is very important to me. Things are good. 

 
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.
Surprised Bernie even made the list.  Podesta being charitable. 

 
Blumenthal spoke on this in 2015, although he gave no specifics:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/blumenthal-i-had-a-real-job-at-the-clinton-foundation/article/2591138

"I had a real job at the Clinton Foundation working on educational projects, that was a separate matter."

Politico went into a little more detail, but was also rather vague:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359

Blumenthal’s foundation job focused on highlighting the legacy of Clinton’s presidency
 


What job would you say Blumenthal was doing here and who was he working for?

 
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.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you think a First Lady trying to use her smarts, education, abilities and connections to try and push for universal healthcare is akin to "going off the rails"  I, myself, found it a great attempt at using the pulpit for more than ceremonial bs.  Reminded me a bit of Eleanor Roosevelt who, not coincidentally, suffered some of the same disparagements for daring to speak up.

 
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you think a First Lady trying to use her smarts, education, abilities and connections to try and push for universal healthcare is akin to "going off the rails"  I, myself, found it a great attempt at using the pulpit for more than ceremonial bs.  Reminded me a bit of Eleanor Roosevelt who, not coincidentally, suffered some of the same disparagements for daring to speak up.
I was thinking TravelGate actually.

Eleanor doesn't have any stories like that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wish they had actually titled different sections of the list this way.  That would have made the wikileaks emails noteworthy.
Actually Podesta has come off very well, responsible and professional. I would have guessed if any scandal came out of his emails it would have been him emailing with TPP stakeholders, so far I haven't seen any of that. Credit goes to him on that front.

 
Let me address your last point first because I really think you have misunderstood me (which I'll freely acknowledge may be my fault.) I want ipeople interested and knowledgeable about political issues to have more influence than those who are not. I despise populism. The more the general public, which hates politics, are disinterested in what's going on, I believe the better off we are. But there are interested and knowledgeable people in every state, of every persuasion. And they all deserve equal amounts of say. Iowa and New Hampshire have far too much influence in deciding who our next President will be. That seems like a no brainer to me. 

As far as "all the other things that need to be addressed" I'm not sure of any of it, because as you know I hold that the current system works fairly well. In most cases it produces a good outcome- I believe that is true even this year because in the end Hillary Clinton will, IMO, make an excellent President. The problems I currently see are almost solely with the base of the Republican Party, and not with the overall system. So none of this specific discussion is very important to me. Things are good. 
Would you "despise populism" if the electorate was properly educated on politics in this country?  Personally, I believe that the anger/hatred is misplaced.  People have very real and valid reasons to hate politics in this country and it doesn't seem like our politicians really care.  They are happy being responsible to those paying them.  Makes their job easier, but it contributes significantly to the gap that keeps growing and growing.  

It's easy to say, "well, you don't want to be engaged, fine....keep your mouth shut".  You'll never convince me that the fewer people involved in the process the better.  

 
Would you "despise populism" if the electorate was properly educated on politics in this country?  Personally, I believe that the anger/hatred is misplaced.  People have very real and valid reasons to hate politics in this country and it doesn't seem like our politicians really care.  They are happy being responsible to those paying them.  Makes their job easier, but it contributes significantly to the gap that keeps growing and growing.  

It's easy to say, "well, you don't want to be engaged, fine....keep your mouth shut".  You'll never convince me that the fewer people involved in the process the better.  
If the electorate was properly educated it wouldn't be populism. 

 
Would you "despise populism" if the electorate was properly educated on politics in this country?  Personally, I believe that the anger/hatred is misplaced.  People have very real and valid reasons to hate politics in this country and it doesn't seem like our politicians really care.  They are happy being responsible to those paying them.  Makes their job easier, but it contributes significantly to the gap that keeps growing and growing.  

It's easy to say, "well, you don't want to be engaged, fine....keep your mouth shut".  You'll never convince me that the fewer people involved in the process the better.  
If the electorate was properly educated it wouldn't be populism. 
:confused:  Why not?  Because "regular people" aren't properly educated?  Populism isn't anything more than the belief in "regular people" having control of their government instead of an "elite few". 

 
:confused:  Why not?  Because "regular people" aren't properly educated?  Populism isn't anything more than the belief in "regular people" having control of their government instead of an "elite few". 
To play devil's advocate here -- Trump.
You need to go up a couple posts.  As pessimistic as I am, I am still not willing to say Trump is even a remote possibility if the electorate is sufficiently educated on politics in this country.  He is the epitome of an uneducated electorate that is engaged in politics to some extent.

ETA:  I am challenging the notion that education level is a component of populism.  That's an assertion I have never heard before, including college, high school or middle school.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
scary thing boo@jesseltaylor 4m4 minutes ago

What I've learned today: stories about Clinton's emails are serious big stories

because...they remind voters about her emails.
With a few exceptions have any of HDR22's emails been released since last March or so?

- eta - I don't think Jesse Taylor of Netflix fame understands the current issues. Hillary's emails are not front and center right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You need to go up a couple posts.  As pessimistic as I am, I am still not willing to say Trump is even a remote possibility if the electorate is sufficiently educated on politics in this country.  He is the epitome of an uneducated electorate that is engaged in politics to some extent.
I think you have to go back to why you believe the populace isn't educated on politics.  

 
I do.  My "quippy little twitter posts" and links to articles generate more discussion and favorable comments


When are we going to get to THIS portion of the thread?  This was a couple hundred pages ago.  I think I've been patient.

 
I think you have to go back to why you believe the populace isn't educated on politics.  
My primary premise for this belief is the lack of those who vote in the first place.  I can't see a properly educated electorate being one that has so little interest in primaries.  What was it?  Less than 30% participation (my guess) in the primaries.  Of course, this is probably up from prior elections (except maybe Obama?) but the fact remains.  Will we even get to 50% of the population voting in the general?

 
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.  
I support doing away with superdelegates, caucuses (cauci/cauca?), public funding of private primaries and new/non members of said private parties being eligible to stand.

And that might just kill the two party system in the longer run

 
My primary premise for this belief is the lack of those who vote in the first place.  I can't see a properly educated electorate being one that has so little interest in primaries.  What was it?  Less than 30% participation (my guess) in the primaries.  Of course, this is probably up from prior elections (except maybe Obama?) but the fact remains.  Will we even get to 50% of the population voting in the general?
Also on board here for more participation, not less. Would it ideally be an educated populace? Definitely. Do I support that all are created equal, and the right to vote rests with every individual regardless of their status? Vigorously. Even though we are are republic-democratic system, it seems like a clear American principle and the intent of many of the founders (notwithstanding their slavery and women problem of course) was that everyone has the right to vote, participate, and be included. I support that principle in the way that if it means the stupidest guy gets to vote, I will drive him there.

 
His head is buried so far into the sand about this country actually works
Bull####. I'm not as cynical as you.  

Did you ever see All The President's Men? One of my favorite movies (it will show up on my list later.) A key message from that movie is that in Washington, secrets are hard to keep. Too many people talk. This is true even more now, in our internet age, than it was 40 years ago. 

There is no power elite. There are no people secretly deciding what's going to happen. Most things that happen are as big a surprise to our leaders as they are to us. 

 
:confused:  Why not?  Because "regular people" aren't properly educated?  Populism isn't anything more than the belief in "regular people" having control of their government instead of an "elite few". 
I probably stated that incorrectly. I wouldn't mind if people were knowledgeable having input. In that case the more the merrier. 

 
Also on board here for more participation, not less. Would it ideally be an educated populace? Definitely. Do I support that all are created equal, and the right to vote rests with every individual regardless of their status? Vigorously. Even though we are are republic-democratic system, it seems like a clear American principle and the intent of many of the founders (notwithstanding their slavery and women problem of course) was that everyone has the right to vote, participate, and be included. I support that principle in the way that if it means the stupidest guy gets to vote, I will drive him there.
I agree with all this, in terms of rights. I would never take away the stupidest guy's right to vote. But unlike you I'm not driving him there. Sorry. And I hope he doesn't exercise that right. I'm certainly not going to encourage him to do so. 

 
:confused:  Why not?  Because "regular people" aren't properly educated?  Populism isn't anything more than the belief in "regular people" having control of their government instead of an "elite few". 
I probably stated that incorrectly. I wouldn't mind if people were knowledgeable having input. In that case the more the merrier. 
Well, now all you have me wondering is if you know why you "despise populism".  It seems to me that your belief is that you don't want stupid people as part of the process.  That's fine, but that's NOT populism.  That's being intolerant towards stupid people.  FWIW, stupid people are a problem for me too.  Where we differ is you'd rather discard them.  I'd rather educate them and create incentive for them to explore and realize that they actually ARE part of the system and not simply a group cast aside by the "elite" in this country.  The more people that understand the importance of their vote, the better.

 
Bull####. I'm not as cynical as you.  

Did you ever see All The President's Men? One of my favorite movies (it will show up on my list later.) A key message from that movie is that in Washington, secrets are hard to keep. Too many people talk. This is true even more now, in our internet age, than it was 40 years ago. 

There is no power elite. There are no people secretly deciding what's going to happen. Most things that happen are as big a surprise to our leaders as they are to us. 
None of this post has anything to do with your contention that every president who has used a federal agency for their own benefit has been caught.  It just more of your BS anti-conspiracy mantra based on a 40 year old move :lmao:

 
 No Commish, it's not quite that simple. Ever since democracy took hold of the modern state, populism has produced the worst results because it appeals to people's emotions rather than their reason. Never forget that Adolf Hitler was the populist result of a democratic system. 

In the Trump thread, Tobias notes that one of his grave concerns about the Trump supporters is their willingness to give up our constitutional rights and freedoms. And that's largely true, except that these people have always been there since we started. There is a portion of the public who knows nothing and cares nothing about American ideals; you threaten their economic livelihood, you present them with somebody to blame for that threat, and they're willing to chuck all of our ideals away, and our form of government too if need be. Luckily for us we have less of these sorts than the Germans or Russians have had, but they're still around. And right now, unfortunately, they comprise a significant portion of the Republican base. THAT's the big problem, not our system. 

 
I agree with all this, in terms of rights. I would never take away the stupidest guy's right to vote. But unlike you I'm not driving him there. Sorry. And I hope he doesn't exercise that right. I'm certainly not going to encourage him to do so. 
now this....this is elitism.  

 
None of this post has anything to do with your contention that every president who has used a federal agency for their own benefit has been caught.  It just more of your BS anti-conspiracy mantra based on a 40 year old move :lmao:
You can't prove otherwise. You can assume all you want that Presidents are secretly using federal agencies to destroy opponents, but there are very few actual examples. 

 
Bull####. I'm not as cynical as you.  

Did you ever see All The President's Men? One of my favorite movies (it will show up on my list later.) A key message from that movie is that in Washington, secrets are hard to keep. Too many people talk. This is true even more now, in our internet age, than it was 40 years ago. 

There is no power elite. There are no people secretly deciding what's going to happen. Most things that happen are as big a surprise to our leaders as they are to us. 
Tim, you really seem to believe everything that comes on your television. Whether it's CNN, movies, TV shows...

Of course there isn't a group of people that decides EVERYTHING.

But it's ridiculously naive to think that there isn't a power elite.  Guys like Alex Jones have ruined the words "global elite", but in many ways it's true.  There are big money people who secretly make big decisions, influence laws, decide important matters, etc.

While most conspiracies are proven wrong, there are conspiracies that do happen, and there are secrets.

 
now this....this is elitism.  
It is. But note that it's not an elitism based on class or wealth or position or race or even ability- any of the traditional ways we think of elitism- it's elitism based purely on interest and knowledge. If you're uninterested in politics, if like Sarah Palin you don't read newspapers, if your main source of news is Drudge or the National Enquirer, I don't want you making decisions. I would never try to stop you, but I don't want you. Is that so wrong? 

 
Because it would have been reported from the very beginning of the Republican primary that Jeb! had a huge lead in delegates and people love to vote for the front runner.
For this to be true, this means the media would have to turn from it's "what brings the most eyeballs to our station" approach and stop covering Trump.  I don't think the media would have been willing to do that and I'm not sure why you'd think they would be willing to do that.

 
You can't prove otherwise. You can assume all you want that Presidents are secretly using federal agencies to destroy opponents, but there are very few actual examples. 
You may have a point if anyone had actually said what you are claiming I am assuming.  Instead, you're just muddying the waters again instead of defending your bull#### claims

 
Tim, you really seem to believe everything that comes on your television. Whether it's CNN, movies, TV shows...

Of course there isn't a group of people that decides EVERYTHING.

But it's ridiculously naive to think that there isn't a power elite.  Guys like Alex Jones have ruined the words "global elite", but in many ways it's true.  There are big money people who secretly make big decisions, influence laws, decide important matters, etc.

While most conspiracies are proven wrong, there are conspiracies that do happen, and there are secrets.
OK. Give me an example please. 

 
It is. But note that it's not an elitism based on class or wealth or position or race or even ability- any of the traditional ways we think of elitism- it's elitism based purely on interest and knowledge. If you're uninterested in politics, if like Sarah Palin you don't read newspapers, if your main source of news is Drudge or the National Enquirer, I don't want you making decisions. I would never try to stop you, but I don't want you. Is that so wrong? 
This coming from the guy that often says....."I heard it on the radio"

 
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.
Historically speaking, the discussion is never had because as soon as the election is over, everyone forgets about the problems of the nomination process until two turds are nominated yet again. 

 
I'm not muddying anything. I specifically defended what I wrote earlier. 
If you aren't muddying, then you do not understand the differences between the words "all" and "any" or "personal benefits" and "destroying political enemies" 

Maybe you should spend less time insulting the intelligence of other voters with these basic mistakes

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 No Commish, it's not quite that simple. Ever since democracy took hold of the modern state, populism has produced the worst results because it appeals to people's emotions rather than their reason. Never forget that Adolf Hitler was the populist result of a democratic system. 

In the Trump thread, Tobias notes that one of his grave concerns about the Trump supporters is their willingness to give up our constitutional rights and freedoms. And that's largely true, except that these people have always been there since we started. There is a portion of the public who knows nothing and cares nothing about American ideals; you threaten their economic livelihood, you present them with somebody to blame for that threat, and they're willing to chuck all of our ideals away, and our form of government too if need be. Luckily for us we have less of these sorts than the Germans or Russians have had, but they're still around. And right now, unfortunately, they comprise a significant portion of the Republican base. THAT's the big problem, not our system. 
What's not quite that simple Tim?  Populism is the battle between entrusting the direction of a country to the people vs entrusting the direction of the country to an elite few.  Whatever you're talking about here isn't populism.  Now I am thinking you think populism is "doing what everyone else is doing" or "the popular opinion based on emotion" or some such.  I don't really know, you're all over the place it seems.  In this paragraph you're talking about people who are willing to throw away their rights to be lead by the government.  That's lazy, yes, but it's not populism.  As a matter of fact, it's more elitism than anything.  Why you aren't happy with that is beyond me....fewer engaged with fewer making the decisions.  

I'm not sure you want to go down the path of those "willing to to chuck all our ideals away"....there's plenty of that going around all over Washington DC.  That is, if you can get people to agree on what the "American Ideals" are in the first place, which would be a fun exercise.

 
Bumping since you don't seem to remember this ridiculous claim
It's not a ridiculous claim. To disprove it you would have to come up with an example of a President who used a federal agency for his personal benefit but wasn't caught doing so. Which you can't do, since if you had proof of such a thing it would mean the President was caught (by "caught" I mean exposed by the media in some fashion). 

And my main point was that while this does happen, it does not happen on a regular basis and I strongly doubt it would ever happen with the NSA, which is about as independent as any federal agency. Thus I find Dodd's prediction that Hillary will use the NSA to destroy her political enemies to be unfounded and absurd. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top