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.
David Dodds said:
Hillary's Calendars while Secretary of the State

http://thememoryhole2.org/blog/sec-clinton-schedules

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
Click to expand...
You REALLY need to do a better job of researching stories before spreading them online. This story has been trashed repeatedly as misleading and misguided and AP has been admonished for it. Here's Fortune magazine doing so.  Here's CNN doing the same. I can give you a mile long list of others if you like. In fact the vast majority of the first few pages of google results on a search for the story are news organizations and nonprofits trashing it. I'm not sure how this escaped you.

Oh, and that ridiculous group of reddit conspirators/Fascist bigot-loving lunatics you linked to?  Just last week introduced a moronic and dangerous theory about Scalia's death that I was able to debunk with ten seconds of internet research those internet sleuths apparently couldn't be bothered to do.

:thumbdown:

 
Hmmm....David Soloff/Podesta/Larry Summers

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/587lbg/i_have_been_looking_into_the_san_fransisco/

Soloff protected his Twitter account 6 hours ago.  I'm sure @SaintsInDome2006 can flesh this out better, but Summers has been a long-time Clintonite, tied to Soloff on several projects, and Soloff creates Toddandclare that originated the pedophilia claim on Assange, who has been targeted by Podesta for years (Coincidence Podesta's emails were hacked? Probably not.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
You REALLY need to do a better job of researching stories before spreading them online. This story has been trashed repeatedly as misleading and misguided and AP has been admonished for it. Here's Fortune magazine doing so.  Here's CNN doing the same. I can give you a mile long list of others if you like. In fact the vast majority of the first few pages of google results on a search for the story are news organizations and nonprofits trashing it. I'm not sure how this escaped you.

Oh, and that ridiculous group of reddit conspirators/Fascist bigot-loving lunatics you linked to?  Just last week introduced a moronic and dangerous theory about Scalia's death that I was able to debunk with ten seconds of internet research those internet sleuths apparently couldn't be bothered to do.

:thumbdown:
Click to expand...
So because you "debunked" a conspiracy theory that most people in that sub rejected, that means all other posts from that sub-reddit, including the one Dodds posted, are false?

Calling a group of people "ridiculous, fascist, bigot-loving, and lunatics" is a tactic I've seen you employ over the last few months numerous times.  It's a pretty poor way to conduct yourself and reminds me of how Donald Trump behaves. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
So because you "debunked" a conspiracy theory that most people in that sub rejected, that means all other posts from that sub-reddit, including the one Dodds posted, are false?

Calling a group of people "ridiculous, fascist, bigot-loving, and lunatics" is a tactic I've seen you employ over the last few months numerous times.  It's a pretty poor way to conduct yourself and reminds me of how Donald Trump behaves. 
Click to expand...
I'm not gonna bother responding to the notion that a reddit subgroup is a trusted source of news and information. I'll let common sense and the links below deal with that.  I just presented that one debunked conspiracy theory because (1) it shows how bad they are at this (I read the subreddit thread a day after the theory was posted and not one person had taken the time to do a ten second google search of the relevant date) and (2) it's funny.

On the bolded- for the most part that isn't a "tactic," it is the truth.  They are ridiculous. They love a fascist bigot- one of their rules is literally "no dissenters" (rule number 6 on the right).  "Lunatics" was maybe a bit of a stretch but I felt it like it was OK to use a little creative license when talking about this group of devoted internet trolls/conspiracy theorists. 

Here's some stories about them you can peruse if you disagree with this "tactic" of saying things that are true:

How an army of Pro-Donald Trump trolls are taking over Reddit

Donald Trump finds support in Reddit's unruly corners

How r/the_donald became a melting pot of frustration and hate

You worthless ... scum: what it's like to be targeted by a Donald Trump subreddit

I can go on if you'd like. There's article like this for days.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm not gonna bother responding to the notion that a reddit subgroup is a trusted source of news and information. I'll let common sense and the links below deal with that.  I just presented that one debunked conspiracy theory because (1) it shows how bad they are at this (I read the subreddit thread a day after the theory was posted and not one person had taken the time to do a ten second google search of the relevant date) and (2) it's funny.

On the bolded- for the most part that isn't a "tactic," it is the truth.  They are ridiculous. They love a fascist bigot- one of their rules is literally "no dissenters" (rule number 6 on the right).  "Lunatics" was maybe a bit of a stretch but I felt it like it was OK to use a little creative license when talking about this group of devoted internet trolls/conspiracy theorists. 

Here's some stories about them you can peruse if you disagree with this "tactic" of saying things that are true:

How an army of Pro-Donald Trump trolls are taking over Reddit

Donald Trump finds support in Reddit's unruly corners

How r/the_donald became a melting pot of frustration and hate

You worthless ... scum: what it's like to be targeted by a Donald Trump subreddit

I can go on if you'd like. There's article like this for days.
Click to expand...
Those links are funny.  Thanks for sharing.

Just lay off the name-calling.  It's not necessary.  The conversation wasn't about whether Trump or his supporters are "bigots", but once again you swung it that direction.  The conversation was about alleged criminal activities by Hillary.  If you want to debate that, get into the link Dodds provided.  Otherwise, ignore it.  But you can't eliminate the source just because it came from a sub-reddit that supports a presidential candidate that you don't like.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Hmmm....David Soloff/Podesta/Larry Summers

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/587lbg/i_have_been_looking_into_the_san_fransisco/

Soloff protected his Twitter account 6 hours ago.  I'm sure @SaintsInDome2006 can flesh this out better, but Summers has been a long-time Clintonite, tied to Soloff on several projects, and Soloff creates Toddandclare that originated the pedophilia claim on Assange, who has been targeted by Podesta for years (Coincidence Podesta's emails were hacked? Probably not.)
Click to expand...
This is all starting to make Netflix's House of Cards look tame. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
Hmmm....David Soloff/Podesta/Larry Summers

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/587lbg/i_have_been_looking_into_the_san_fransisco/

Soloff protected his Twitter account 6 hours ago.  I'm sure @SaintsInDome2006 can flesh this out better, but Summers has been a long-time Clintonite, tied to Soloff on several projects, and Soloff creates Toddandclare that originated the pedophilia claim on Assange, who has been targeted by Podesta for years (Coincidence Podesta's emails were hacked? Probably not.)
Click to expand...
Hey I'll be glad to look at it later when I get a chance.This interests me:

This address was searched with the association of the business name of toddandclare.com, but that isn't who actually resides there. Who really resides there is a company known as Premise Data Corporation, some sort of private intelligence corporation.
Click to expand...
- To me putting addresses in State SOS online databases is one of the best transparency tools there is. Very few, by which I mean maybe 3 or fewer, states actually do this. And it's too bad because it's one of the best tools for tracking dark money. Personally to me that sort of thing is even more important than CU and campaign contribution limits. It's a basic reform that all states could easily do but it flies under the  radar.

- Fwiw for the sake of my own forthrightness I am not a fan of Assange of late, and really for a while now. This transparency thing is a two way street and I'd also like to know where his funding and support comes from and where it originated back in early Snowden days and what his real motives are. Anyway I'll take a look as objectively as I can later when I get a chance.

 
David Dodds said:
Not sure what to make of the Enquirer Story.  They have a pretty good track record on some of these things, but Hillary as a Sex Machine isn't very believable.  
Click to expand...

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm not gonna bother responding to the notion that a reddit subgroup is a trusted source of news and information. I'll let common sense and the links below deal with that.  I just presented that one debunked conspiracy theory because (1) it shows how bad they are at this (I read the subreddit thread a day after the theory was posted and not one person had taken the time to do a ten second google search of the relevant date) and (2) it's funny.

On the bolded- for the most part that isn't a "tactic," it is the truth.  They are ridiculous. They love a fascist bigot- one of their rules is literally "no dissenters" (rule number 6 on the right).  "Lunatics" was maybe a bit of a stretch but I felt it like it was OK to use a little creative license when talking about this group of devoted internet trolls/conspiracy theorists. 

Here's some stories about them you can peruse if you disagree with this "tactic" of saying things that are true:

How an army of Pro-Donald Trump trolls are taking over Reddit

Donald Trump finds support in Reddit's unruly corners

How r/the_donald became a melting pot of frustration and hate

You worthless ... scum: what it's like to be targeted by a Donald Trump subreddit

I can go on if you'd like. There's article like this for days.
Click to expand...
Maybe they're just resume building to get picked up by the DNC.

 
shader said:
Those links are funny.  Thanks for sharing.

Just lay off the name-calling.  It's not necessary.  The conversation wasn't about whether Trump or his supporters are "bigots", but once again you swung it that direction.  The conversation was about alleged criminal activities by Hillary.  If you want to debate that, get into the link Dodds provided.  Otherwise, ignore it.  But you can't eliminate the source just because it came from a sub-reddit that supports a presidential candidate that you don't like.
Click to expand...
I try not to call posters in this forum names or insult them (the content of a post perhaps, but hopefully never the poster). But I don't see any reason to stop calling a ridiculous group of people who support a fascist bigot "ridiculous fascist bigot-lovers."  That's what they are, as the links show. :shrug:

On addressing the substance of the accusations in detail- I'm kind of burned out on it, to be honest. It gets exhausting being proven right over and over again only to have people keep making the same disproved claims ;)

 
renesauz said:
See, here's the thing....I don't for one minute believe she's any worse re. these things than most of our President's have been. But she's certainly been more heavily scrutinized by a partisan right than any other politician has EVER been. And with all of that scrutiny, the best they've found (proven) is no worse than what has been normal in politics forever. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about and try to change that...just sayng it isn't new or unique to CLinton
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
David Dodds said:
I am cool with everyone voting their conscience.  That's what makes this country great.  If you like Hillary, support her strongly. That's cool.  I am not in that camp.  I hate everything she stands for (well I am not sure what she stands for as her public policy is quite a bit different than what the emails and paid speeches to Wall Street uncovered.  I am making the assumption that her paid speeches are her real positions.).  I see her as a shill for big business, a war hawk, and a person who is always on the take.  I don't think she connects with America well and I feel she is in politics for her financial gain only.  But hey she is going to win in a landslide.  So what do I know.  
Click to expand...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L5hn5B8TYI

 
It's not even worth looking at this corruption stuff anymore because every one of these stories eventually gets debunked. Every one of them. And when they do, none of the haters acknowledge it, they just move on to the next story. So why should any one with an open mind even bother? 

 
timschochet said:
It's not even worth looking at this corruption stuff anymore because every one of these stories eventually gets debunked. Every one of them. And when they do, none of the haters acknowledge it, they just move on to the next story. So why should any one with an open mind even bother? 
Click to expand...
"Open mind" isn't something that people equate you with when you state you only believe things from the main stream media. 

 
Ghost Rider said:
Not only that, he has admitted to trolling his family about politics before, although he will deny it and then ask me to sift through his 4 million posts to find it, but he knows he did it. 
Click to expand...
Not shocking at all.  I had more examples but he'll just ignore them because we're not Anderson Cooper

 
timschochet said:
It's not even worth looking at this corruption stuff anymore because every one of these stories eventually gets debunked. Every one of them. And when they do, none of the haters acknowledge it, they just move on to the next story. So why should any one with an open mind even bother? 
Click to expand...
You have a strange definition of "debunked."  Hillary and her husband have both gotten rich through paid speaking engagements to entities that either had business before the State Department or who will have business with the executive branch going forward.  Nobody disputes that, and it's a very clear ethical breach all on its own.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
KO, Tim here's one.

Here's another one.
Click to expand...
The first is an opinion piece, not a news item. If a news item is reported in the Huffington Post but never elsewhere I'm not going to put too much stock in it. 

The second item is from PBS, right? I think that has been reported at length in the main stream media, if it relates to the Blumenthal connection; the New York Times covered that in depth.

Again I am not referring here to how a story originates; often times it will originate in a non mainstream source. But if it stays there and is never picked up by the mainstream, then I think it's reasonable to be highly skeptical of its veracity. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
You have a strange definition of "debunked."  Hillary and her husband have both gotten rich through paid speaking engagements to entities that either had business before the State Department or who will have business with the executive branch going forward.  Nobody disputes that, and it's a very clear ethical breach all on its own.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree; I don't think it's clear at all. And I don't regard it as an ethical breach unless you can demonstrate a quid pro quo, which nobody ever has. 

 
timschochet said:
The first is an opinion piece, not a news item. If a news item is reported in the Huffington Post but never elsewhere I'm not going to put too much stock in it. 

The second item is from PBS, right? I think that has been reported at length in the main stream media, if it relates to the Blumenthal connection; the New York Times covered that in depth.

Again I am not referring here to how a story originates; often times it will originate in a non mainstream source. But if it stays there and is never picked up by the mainstream, then I think it's reasonable to be highly skeptical of its veracity. 
Click to expand...


1. No, Tim, you cited it as fact to explain point blank why Hillary's email problems were not real. There non-MSM was great for your purposes. The fact it was written directly by a DNC party operative did not matter to you.

2. No, that's the actual FBI interview notes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
1. No, Tim, you cited it as fact to explain point blank why Hillary's email problems were not real. There non-MSM was great for your purposes. The fact it was written directly by a DNC party operative did not matter to you.

2. No, that's the actual FBI interview notes.
Click to expand...
If the actual FBI notes weren't written by the mainstream media then they don't exist.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
1. No, Tim, you cited it as fact to explain point blank why Hillary's email problems were not real. There non-MSM was great for your purposes. The fact it was written directly by a DNC party operative did not matter to you.

2. No, that's the actual FBI interview notes.
Click to expand...
Really? 

1. That wasn't news, that was an argument. I happen to believe that argument so I posted it. BTW that argument provided facts, all from mainstream sources, but it was not itself a news piece. 

2. I'm quite sure those notes were reported by the mainstream press. 

Im not even sure what point you're trying to make. You're certainly doing nothing to refute my position. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
cobalt_27 said:
Hmmm....David Soloff/Podesta/Larry Summers

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/587lbg/i_have_been_looking_into_the_san_fransisco/

Soloff protected his Twitter account 6 hours ago.  I'm sure @SaintsInDome2006 can flesh this out better, but Summers has been a long-time Clintonite, tied to Soloff on several projects, and Soloff creates Toddandclare that originated the pedophilia claim on Assange, who has been targeted by Podesta for years (Coincidence Podesta's emails were hacked? Probably not.)
Click to expand...
Hey I'll be glad to look at it later when I get a chance.This interests me:

This address was searched with the association of the business name of toddandclare.com, but that isn't who actually resides there. Who really resides there is a company known as Premise Data Corporation, some sort of private intelligence corporation.
Click to expand...
- To me putting addresses in State SOS online databases is one of the best transparency tools there is. Very few, by which I mean maybe 3 or fewer, states actually do this. And it's too bad because it's one of the best tools for tracking dark money. Personally to me that sort of thing is even more important than CU and campaign contribution limits. It's a basic reform that all states could easily do but it flies under the  radar.

- Fwiw for the sake of my own forthrightness I am not a fan of Assange of late, and really for a while now. This transparency thing is a two way street and I'd also like to know where his funding and support comes from and where it originated back in early Snowden days and what his real motives are. Anyway I'll take a look as objectively as I can later when I get a chance.
Click to expand...
Fwiw looking at this particular issue:

This is the address for T&C: Hazelhurst Dr., Houston TX.

If you check the WhoIs that's actually confirmed there.

I found this due to a Yahoo page after I Ducked(I use DuckDuckGo, I call searches Ducks). Curious, I went onto the Premise site, that lists a different address: 185 Berry Street, Suite 6850 San Fransisco CA, 94107.
Click to expand...
That SF address is indeed the address for Premise Data but it's not the same as T&C.  :shrug:

 
timschochet said:
Really? 

1. That wasn't news, that was an argument. I happen to believe that argument so I posted it. BTW that argument provided facts, all from mainstream sources, but it was not itself a news piece. 

2. I'm quite sure those notes were reported by the mainstream press. 

Im not even sure what point you're trying to make. You're certainly doing nothing to refute my position. 
Click to expand...
1. What facts were provided from MSM sources? He linked to nothing, he just claimed what people had said. YOU just CHOSE to believe it and then present it to others.

2. Uhm, no, where? Provide a link.

Tim you posted to non-MSM when it suited you now you try to protect your POV by claiming that non MSM is illegitimate.

When provided with an actual source document for YOU to make up your own mind you ignore it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
It's not even worth looking at this corruption stuff anymore because every one of these stories eventually gets debunked. Every one of them. And when they do, none of the haters acknowledge it, they just move on to the next story. So why should any one with an open mind even bother? 
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
cstu said:
Yes, you posted a link to a video that was attempting to paint Hillary as unsuited to be President because she and her former POTUS own 4 expensive homes.  Figured that makes Washington unfit to be President as well.
Click to expand...
Did Washington delete his e-mails?

 
cstu said:
Yes, you posted a link to a video that was attempting to paint Hillary as unsuited to be President because she and her former POTUS own 4 expensive homes.  Figured that makes Washington unfit to be President as well.
Click to expand...
1.  The video didn't say anything about her being unsuited to be President.
2.  It did paint her (and her husband) as wealthy and unrelatable to the average person.

Not that it matters, since your argument is unfounded anyway, but Washington got his wealth from marrying into a wealthy family...and he didn't want to be president.  But yeah, totally the same thing, 'cuz slaves 250 years ago and stuff.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
@timschochet, tellyawhat, find the MSM report on this, parrot what they tell you to think about it, link it, and then I will be more than willing to listen to the official MSM Timsplanation on it.
Click to expand...
Saints it's not worth my time. If you have a news story that has never been reported on by the mainstream media that you think I should believe please present it. Not FBI notes. Not an opinion piece. A news story, like the Drudge one about Hillary's secret affairs. 

 
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
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top