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.
Ramblin Wreck said:
If this election fiasco doesn't wake up the Republican Party then nothing will and they deserve to be blown up.  But this country will suck with one party in charge especially a corrupt one.  We need the checks and balances.
Click to expand...
To win again they need to become the Libertarian Party.  Drop the racism and lunacy.

 
Rich Conway said:
Primary Voters != General Election Voters

This should be obvious, but apparently bears repeating.
Click to expand...
It's been noted and obviously is part of what's happened  But general election voter opinions have also changed over the last five weeks or so, starting with the first debate.  She deserves credit for doing that, whether it's a result of doing a better job of selling herself (she also got a huge bump after the convention, remember) or doing a better job of exposing Trump.  It's not a coincidence that the two times she's surged in the general election polling have been during the two periods of the greatest visibility/public attention to the race. 

I know everyone here hates her and is reluctant to give her any credit at all, but she has run a disciplined and effective campaign.  Yes, Trump being Trump made it easier, but that doesn't mean she and her campaign haven't done well.  She's stayed away from major gaffes and controversies, made effective ads, targeted the right states, and maybe most importantly gotten under Trump's skin in a way that no GOP contender could do. Yes the audience was different then, but he also didn't show his ### during the primary anywhere near the degree he's done so in response to her needling.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
I would bet my life you said the exact same thing about Obama 8 years ago.
Click to expand...
No, but I feel good about my Romney and McCain vote 8 years later.  It amazed me how so many people could vote for a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama with very little track record. 7 years after the mass-murder of thousands of Americans as the hands of radical Islam.  Now attacks on our own soil are commonplace.  It's been a sad descent. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knowledge dropper said:
No, but I feel good about my Romney vote 8 years later.  It amazed me how so many people could vote for a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama 7 years after the mass-murder of thousands of Americans as the hands of radical Islam.  Now attacks on our own soil are commonplace.  It's been a sad descent. 
Click to expand...
Oh, I tell can you - some of us aren't ignorant and racist.  HTH.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer said:
Commish:
 

Not sure if I would describe Ted Cruz as "polished" and "without over-the-top rhetoric".

Also, are you the guy who is the spelling Nazi or are you the anti-spelling-Nazi guy? I can't remember. Anyway, it's "fray", not "frey".
Click to expand...
I can't spell for ####, but this was just a blunder.  I don't care if people point it out or not, but it always amuses me when they do.  My gripe in this area is people making up definitions to words or phrases.  When someone does that it just confuses the whole conversation.  Good example is when I say "these people suck" and whomever says "there goes Commish with his false equivalence again" it's annoying because that's not what the phrase means and I am not even attempting to equating anything in a statement like that.

To my original point about Cruz....one holding beliefs similar to Trump and Cruz can only be so "polished".  While he's probably not polished by the normal standard, he's as polished as one can be while still being that sort of bat#### crazy.  

 
knowledge dropper said:
No, but I feel good about my Romney and McCain vote 8 years later.  It amazed me how so many people could vote for a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama with very little track record. 7 years after the mass-murder of thousands of Americans as the hands of radical Islam.  Now attacks on our own soil are commonplace.  It's been a sad descent. 
Click to expand...
So the country is descending because you irrationally fear terror attacks and Islam.

Add some nonsense, stir, and therefore Trump.

Thanks for gleaning some insight into how the biggest buffoon ever was actually nominated.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/21978
 
- Doug Band, director of Teneo.
Click to expand...
"The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it."

— Hilary Rosen on Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 in "The Diane Rehm Show"

is it safe to amend this statement to read: "The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it. Bill, however, does receive personal payments and gifts from an Initiative/Program created and funded by the Foundation." ?

 
Quint said:
"The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it."

— Hilary Rosen on Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 in "The Diane Rehm Show"

is it safe to amend this statement to read: "The Clinton Foundation is a charity where President and Secretary Clinton and their daughter, they take no salary, they get no money from it, they take no personal benefit from it. Bill, however, does receive personal payments and gifts from an Initiative/Program created and funded by the Foundation." ?
Click to expand...
Well yeah. And Bill's money is in community with Hillary and then Chelsea gets it one day. But yeah, seems fair up front.

 
The Commish said:
I can't spell for ####, but this was just a blunder.  I don't care if people point it out or not, but it always amuses me when they do.  My gripe in this area is people making up definitions to words or phrases.  When someone does that it just confuses the whole conversation.  Good example is when I say "these people suck" and whomever says "there goes Commish with his false equivalence again" it's annoying because that's not what the phrase means and I am not even attempting to equating anything in a statement like that.

To my original point about Cruz....one holding beliefs similar to Trump and Cruz can only be so "polished".  While he's probably not polished by the normal standard, he's as polished as one can be while still being that sort of bat#### crazy.  
Click to expand...
Funny how I would use "bat#### crazy" as a description of Hillary for years, but now it's used to describe her opponent. Funny and weird.

 
Workhorse said:
Yeah, that's a whole different discussion and a serious issue.  But Dodds was making a (really misinformed) point against the policy itself.
Click to expand...
She wants to arm everyone over there.  Remember when Bin Laden's group fighting in Afghanistan was armed.  Now ISIL has US weapons.  Where do you think those keep coming from.

Meddling in the Middle East is good for Hillary's trust fund and making her cronies rich, but bad for America.  Under her leadership in the State Department, we had twice the sales of arms.  She is a warhawk and would be labeled as a Republican if all of her "private" positions were all known.  

 
David Dodds said:
She wants to arm everyone over there.  Remember when Bin Laden's group fighting in Afghanistan was armed.  Now ISIL has US weapons.  Where do you think those keep coming from.

Meddling in the Middle East is good for Hillary's trust fund and making her cronies rich, but bad for America.  Under her leadership in the State Department, we had twice the sales of arms.  She is a warhawk and would be labeled as a Republican if all of her "private" positions were all known.  
Click to expand...
Hey DD-

Huge fan of the shtick.  Huge. Just to be clear here: are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton armed the Mujahideen when she was First Lady of Arkansas?

 
Sammy3469 said:
FWIW, that's inaccurate.  The poll numbers diverged after the first debate.  All the tape (and more importantly his response) did was reinforce and solidify her advantage.  I believe she was up like 1.6% before the first debate, 5.1% after it, and then 6.8% or so after the second.  Point being is that when he finally had to answer general election questions he wilted, but he ran a fine campaign before then.

Yes, his weaknesses have been exposed at this point, but until that debate he was still teflon and had a viable path to victory.  She was good enough in that debate to exploit his weakness.  She doesn't get enough credit for that as shown by 16 other Republicans not being able to pierce that bubble.    
Click to expand...
I stand corrected, thank you.  Just looked at 538 and that looks to be the trend.

It's still a question of causation.  If we assume the first debate moved the meter (which I think it did), it still remains unknown whether (1) she was good and he was just not as strong, (2) she was mediocre, and he was awful, or (3) she was bad and he was worse.  Or some variation in between.  The narrative seems to be that she cleaned his clock, but that doesn't mean she was necessarily very good.  I can pitch a perfect game against my 3-year-old daughter, but that doesn't mean by any objective metric I'm any good at pitching or baseball.  Donald was in the debates what he is in general:  terrible.  

Also, the dynamic of one-on-one versus Hillary was different than the Republican debates where Donald could hide from specific policy questions and, instead, just pick his spots for sound bytes.  It was a circus, those Republican debates where very little substance was meted out.  I thought the general election debates, particularly the 3rd moderated by Wallace, were excellent and exposed Donald as someone who hasn't given more than 5 minutes thinking about a particular topic.  And, I would say Hillary seemed very strong on the 3rd debate; much better than the prior two where I don't think she was as crisp, convincing, strong.

In science, we caution a lot about correlation:causation and creating narratives beyond the data.  All we know is Hillary was perceived to have done better than Trump in the debates (we have polling to indicate that) and Hillary started expanding her lead at/around the same time.  It could be because she was excellent.  It could be that Donald looked the fool.  It could be both.  But, I don't think the polling trajectory illuminates much in terms of causation and Hillary's impact, except that she is now perceived to be a more acceptable alternative for POTUS than Donald.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
Also, the dynamic of one-on-one versus Hillary was different than the Republican debates where Donald could hide from specific policy questions and, instead, just pick his spots for sound bytes.
Click to expand...
In the GOP primary Trump ran against the GOP "establishment" and built on the AM Radio Wing's rage and given the clown car scenario that Preibus created 30-40% was typically enough to win.

Get to the general, guess what, no one gives a damn about the GOPe, Donald. He probably could have wrapped Hillary into some argument against "the establishment" but like most things he could not enunciate anything substantive, he just insulted. It was (past tense, it's over) an Insult Campaign and that's all it ever was.

The craziest thing was him constantly, even until the debate a couple nights ago, going after Sanders supporters. Guy has no self-awareness.

 
timschochet said:
If Hillary hadn't ordered the removal of Mossedegh from Iran back in 1954, we wouldn't be in this mess we are now.
Click to expand...
Why don't you let David make his point. My guess is he is alluding to the dangers of arming 'insurgents' and 'freedom fighters' on the ground in proxy wars who eventually end up being loose cannons and were never our friends but rather our enemies to begin with, not to mention just in and of itself generating permanent war in the ME. Maybe everyone needs to take a long view of GOP & Democratic policies over there even dating to the 70s. It's of a piece now IMO and we should be turning a corner but instead we're turning back to an administration we already had.

But if you want to have a convo about Clinton policy towards AQ in the 90s yeah that's a lulu.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
I know everyone here hates her and is reluctant to give her any credit at all, but she has run a disciplined and effective campaign.  
Click to expand...
I agree with this.  That's my perception, anyway, and she does deserve credit for this.  I'm annoyed so much by her evasiveness (to the point of lying), but there is no denying that she avoided serious injury with this measure of discipline.  If I were her campaign manager, I would have done the same thing (or wished I had).

 
David Dodds said:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/17720

It's illegal to meet with a Super-Pac. I anxiously await the investigation from the DOJ.  
Click to expand...


Nine Things You Need to Know About Super PACs

Although a candidate cannot coordinate expenditures with a super PAC (tell the PAC where an ad might be placed, whether the ad should be positive or negative, or what voters canvassers should contact), there's no law that says a candidate can't have connections with the entities backing his or her election. Many super PACs -- such as the one supporting Romney, the pro-Newt Gingrich Winning Our Future, and Priorities USA, which backs President Obama -- are run by former top aides of the candidates. And candidates can headline fundraisers for the super PACs that are supporting them (as Romney has) so long as they don't ask for donations beyond the legal limits permitted for their own campaign committees.
Click to expand...
As I said, I enjoy the shtick.  Not sure whether it's parody or trolling, but its delightful either way.  I'm just thinking maybe it should stop short of disseminating false information about laws and regulations?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Why don't you let David make his point. My guess is he is alluding to the dangers of arming 'insurgents' and 'freedom fighters' on the ground in proxy wars who eventually end up being loose cannons and were never our friends but rather our enemies to begin with, not to mention just in and of itself generating permanent war in the ME. Maybe everyone needs to take a long view of GOP & Democratic policies over there even dating to the 70s. It's of a piece now IMO and we should be turning a corner but instead we're turning back to an administration we already had.

But if you want to have a convo about Clinton policy towards AQ in the 90s yeah that's a lulu.




 




 
Click to expand...
My point is we are the enemy to nearly all the Muslims in the Middle East.  Our close relationship with Israel all but guarantees that.  The right thing to do is to stop interfering with stuff over there.  There are a lot of bad guys.  But trying to help the less bad guys never works out.  Her plan seems to be that she wants to overthrow Assad and de-stabilize Syria.  OK, on paper that might make sense, but what fills the vacuum?  

It's simple.

- Collect US taxes to do American things.  Like roads, infrastructure, schools, etc.

- We are not the world peace keepers. If we are, then have those countries pay directly into the US government and not through the Hillary slush funds.   That way we can keep track of military expenses aginst actual costs. These tasks need to  be Nato driven / funded and seperate from the US Presidency.  

- Stop the US Arms sales to the Middle East.  Stop pretending we have a handle of who the good and bad guys are.  Our interference does not bring long-term peace.  Our involvement ensures future instability.

But there is no money for WallStreet and the war machine to grease this world of stability.  So Hillary and her team are meddling in anything and everything to keep the business flowing. It's disgusting. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
I stand corrected, thank you.  Just looked at 538 and that looks to be the trend.

It's still a question of causation, though.  If we assume the first debate moved the meter (which I think it did), it still remains unknown whether (1) she was good and he was just not as strong, (2) she was mediocre, and he was awful, or (3) she was bad and he was worse.  The narrative seems to be that she cleaned his clock, but that doesn't mean she was necessarily very good.  I can pitch a perfect game against my 3-year-old daughter, but that doesn't mean by any objective metric I'm any good at pitching or baseball.  Donald was in the debates what he is in general:  terrible.  

Also, the dynamic of one-on-one versus Hillary was different than the Republican debates where Donald could hide from specific policy questions and, instead, just pick his spots for sound bytes.  It was a circus, those Republican debates where very little substance was meted out.  I thought the general election debates, particularly the 3rd moderated by Wallace, were excellent and exposed Donald as someone who hasn't given more than 5 minutes thinking about a particular topic.  And, I would say Hillary seemed very strong on the 3rd debate; much better than the prior two where I don't think she was as crisp, convincing, strong.

In science, we caution a lot about correlation:causation and creating narratives beyond the data.  All we know is Hillary was perceived to have done better than Trump in the debates (we have polling to indicate that) and Hillary started expanding her lead at/around the same time.  It could be because she was excellent.  It could be that Donald looked the fool.  It could be both.  But, I don't think the polling trajectory illuminates much in terms of causation and Hillary's impact, except that she is now perceived to be a more acceptable alternative for POTUS than Donald.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with any of that besides saying that her team pretty clearly had a strategy for attacking him while looking Presidential. More importantly those attacks were geared to stay in the news cycle for 1-3 days after the debate with coordinated media releases after the debate.  That's a lot harder to pull off even accounting for Donald's disappearing act than it seems now, but they knew they had to turn the narrative from her to him.  

The mark of a good candidate/campaign is staying disciplined to your message, not making errors, and capitalizing on your opponents mistakes when they make them.  They've done all 3 exceeding well outside of the e-mails.

 
cobalt_27 said:
I agree with this.  That's my perception, anyway, and she does deserve credit for this.  I'm annoyed so much by her evasiveness (to the point of lying), but there is no denying that she avoided serious injury with this measure of discipline.  If I were her campaign manager, I would have done the same thing (or wished I had).
Click to expand...
As much as I hate her there is no denying the campaign prowess...the ability of her minions to get out her message in lightning speed is impressive (and it does help when the MSM is in the bag...their performance in this election has been embarrassing...but it accomplished their goals to a t)...using Putin to deflect from her lies and/or exposures was one of the turning points in this election...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Do you think they were meeting to discuss where they could find a good Happy Hour?

Super-PAC's spend money, that's what they do.

Good article here.
Click to expand...
I don't like Super PACs any more than you do.  My company just formed one and I was severely disappointed they took that step and I hope something can be done to eliminate them from the political spectrum in the near future.  But, Dodds said it was illegal to flat out meet with them, which just isn't true.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Nine Things You Need to Know About Super PACs

Although a candidate cannot coordinate expenditures with a super PAC (tell the PAC where an ad might be placed, whether the ad should be positive or negative, or what voters canvassers should contact), there's no law that says a candidate can't have connections with the entities backing his or her election. Many super PACs -- such as the one supporting Romney, the pro-Newt Gingrich Winning Our Future, and Priorities USA, which backs President Obama -- are run by former top aides of the candidates. And candidates can headline fundraisers for the super PACs that are supporting them (as Romney has) so long as they don't ask for donations beyond the legal limits permitted for their own campaign committees.
Click to expand...
As I said, I enjoy the shtick.  Not sure whether it's parody or trolling, but its delightful either way.  I'm just thinking maybe it should stop short of disseminating false information about laws and regulations?
Click to expand...
Actually I love this group, so I'm glad you linked to them.

The PAC must neither 1) give money directly to a candidate or other political committees that give directly to candidates, nor  2)  coordinate how it spends its money with a federal candidate.
Click to expand...


- That email isn't about Podesta being connected to the Super-PAC, it's about him meeting with the Super-PAC.

I don't know what you think they could have possibly been doing at that meeting that did not involve campaign activities and how to pay for them and how much to spend on them.

 
rodg12 said:
I don't like Super PACs any more than you do.  My company just formed one and I was severely disappointed they took that step and I hope something can be done to eliminate them from the political spectrum in the near future.  But, Dodds said it was illegal to flat out meet with them, which just isn't true.
Click to expand...
Ok, you and I are on the same page but tell me what happens at a Super-PAC meeting that doesn't involve spending and the activities being paid for.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to say, it's sad to see that the hate and fear mongering has gotten to @David Dodds 

i sense a reactionary, anachronistic response that is being fed by agenda driven elements who wish to seed distrust and mistrust - not constructive cynicism but unbridled nationalism parading around as false patriotism.

Love our country and values so much? Let's think critically and not let our emotional strings get played by those with selfish and dangerous motives.  Feeding into the paranoia and hate, including that for the next President of our nation, does only harm. It's a continuation of the vilification of Obama - obstructionism designed to put party above country that has eroded the very institutions that made America "exceptional" 

Parrotting Breibart fan boys may feel good, viscerally but let's get beyond the surface to better understand the nuance and context that lays underneath. Not to mention, those vessels who continue to promote the vitriolic Nationalism are being used as pawns by people who clearly couldn't care less about those at the lower rungs of society... which for them means 90% of those of us here on the boards.

I mean, do the uneducated white males who will vote in majority for Trump REALLY not see they are being used by a billionaire who would rather spit on them then lend a hand? Worse yet, how do the educated whites who parrot the same taking points not see this thin veil of deceit - selfish interests that parade billionaire sheister frauds as populist men of the people?

 
Also, I think people are kinda losing an important angle of this Wikileaks stuff- assuming it's not fraudulent, you're talking about illegally obtained information. Not just that, but unlike a lot of the Wikileaks stuff from the past, neither side of these exchanges is a government entity.  In other words, they can't possibly claim the moral high ground here. There is no universe in which we the people can possibly think that we have a right to see this stuff. And even if there were illegal or FEC rule-breaking activity identified here, the US government probably should not act on it, because that would encourage further unlawful attacks on US citizens.

Have your fun if you want, it's not nearly as objectionable as looking at the nude photos leaked in the Fappening. But don't forget who the real bad guys are here.  It ain't the risotto chef, it's the rapist who is laundering information for a journalist-killing strongman.

ETA:  And when you disseminate the information, you are doing exactly what they want you to do. Probably also something to keep in mind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Actually I love this group, so I'm glad you linked to them.

- That email isn't about Podesta being connected to the Super-PAC, it's about him meeting with the Super-PAC.

I don't know what you think they could have possibly been doing at that meeting that did not involve campaign activities and how to pay for them and how much to spend on them.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what they were meeting about, and there's no reason to assume it had to do with campaign expenditures. As the text says, "candidates can headline fundraisers for the super PACs that are supporting them."  How do you think those happen? The candidate just happens to show up in the hotel ballroom where the fundraiser is occurring at random?  No, they meet and plan the event.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top