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.
Koya said:
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?




 
Click to expand...
It's time to take back our country away from the Business Party.  There is no two party system.  Two sides of the same coin promoting big business.  They choose different social issues to keep the country focused on those differences while conspiring around the world to enrich the 1%. Time to wake up and realize Hillary is not the "Liberal" she says she is.  She is far right of most moderates.  She gets paid $200,000 an hour to talk to Wall Street, but can't get 100 people to attend her free rallies.  She is not representative of the people.   She is a war-hawk in bed with big business promoting all things that will enrich her and the corrupt people that surround her.

She is a virtual shoe-in to be our next President (possibly even with a mandate in the Senate and House).  I hope more real Democrats start questioning her "private" policies. Things like the TPP, fracking, selling arms to the Middle East, her foreign Pay-to-Play schemes, her cozying up to Wall Street.    

 
rodg12 said:
Setting up the next fund raiser that the candidate will speak at?  Getting a free lunch from the Super PAC dough?
Click to expand...
Ok I agree on that first suggestion, agree, good point. The second one is kind of redundant because what they would discuss at that lunch would be all important.

 
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
Like I just said above yes I agree it's a good point that conceivably there are things - like appearances - which could be discussed perfectly legally. Conceded.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with Gleen Greenwald on this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/on-wikileaks-journalism-and-privacy-reporting-on-the-podesta-archive-is-an-easy-call/

Some have been arguing that because these hacks were engineered by the Russian government with the goal of electing Trump or at least interfering in U.S. elections, journalists should not aid this malevolent scheme by reporting on the material. Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence (just unproven U.S. government assertions) that the Russian government is behind these hacks, the motive of a source is utterly irrelevant in the decision-making process about whether to publish.

Once the journalist has confidence in the authenticity of the material, the only relevant question is whether the public good from publishing outweighs any harm. And if the answer to that question is “yes,” then the journalist has not only the right, but the absolute duty, to report on it. It’s often — perhaps almost always — the case that sources have impure motives: a desire for vengeance, careerism, ideological or political advantage, a sense of self-importance, some delusional grievance, a desire for profit. None of that is relevant to the journalist, whose only concern should be reporting on newsworthy material, regardless of why it was made available.
Click to expand...

 
In any case Avi Glazer is a big donor to the DNC in general and the owner of the Bucs and ManU.  He's never given anything to PrioritiesUSA, so this looks like it was a meeting about him giving money which is perfectly legal especially since he never gave any.  I know it's more interesting to jump to the most extreme position possible, but yet again 5 minutes of internet snooping pretty easily debunks the whatever the conspiracy theory is.

https://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=glazer&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11

 
Sammy3469 said:
In any case Avi Glazer is a big donor to the DNC in general and the owner of the Bucs and ManU.  He's never given anything to PrioritiesUSA, so this looks like it was a meeting about him giving money which is perfectly legal especially since he never gave any.  I know it's more interesting to jump to the most extreme position possible, but yet again 5 minutes of internet snooping pretty easily debunks the whatever the conspiracy theory is.

https://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/?q=glazer&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11
Click to expand...
Good post, thanks, and it's interesting to me to learn this stuff, but an email showing Hillary's campaign treasurer meeting with a Super-PAC and discussing what that might mean is not a 'conspiracy theory'. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
I tend to agree with Gleen Greenwald on this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/on-wikileaks-journalism-and-privacy-reporting-on-the-podesta-archive-is-an-easy-call/
Click to expand...
Setting aside the strange notion that US intelligence agency claims of Russian involvement don't constitute "evidence" of Russian involvement, I don't really have a problem with journalists publishing this stuff. My point was more that people reading and sharing it should keep in mind whose interests are being served here and who the real bad guys are.  This isn't case where, for example, a disgruntled employee leaked something and we can disregard that motivation and consider the larger picture. We're being manipulated by (presumably) the Russian government here, through Wikileaks. They control the message. If there's something that makes Clinton look good, or makes Trump or Putin or anyone else they favor look bad, they are free to withhold it. People should remember that as they take in the information.

I would also ask Greenwald how journalists (or anyone) would go about confirming the authenticity of this particular material. Not saying they can't- I'm genuinely curious as to how they'd do it.  Surely the parties to the exchange aren't confirming it. Who would be the equivalent of, say, the Trump accountant who confirmed his tax return for the NY Times?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Good post, thanks, and it's interesting to me to learn this stuff, but an email showing Hillary's campaign treasurer meeting with a Super-PAC and discussing what that might mean is not a 'conspiracy theory'. 
Click to expand...
It is when you don't take the time to:

  • figure out who Avi Glazer is,
  • try to figure out what the meeting could rationally be about,
  • and just jump to the most extreme possible position (Podesta is meeting to coordinate spending and thus breaking the law).
There wasn't a shred of evidence for your theory, but you went with it anyway.  It's just irresponsible at this point, but you continually do it. 

 
timschochet said:
OK. I actually didn't disagree with your point about those "fundamental qualities" in my post, just expanded on it. But I notice you have no rebuttal other than "you have no clue what you're talking about." I wouldn't say I'm a historical expert but I'm a pretty big fan of modern history. I've read several books on this subject. I studied it in college. I wrote an essay on the Berlin Airlift for my major. And I've read even more books on Middle East history. So yeah I think I do know a little about this subject. 

What I wrote above is definitely controversial. You're welcome to disagree with me and many people do. But please don't patronize me or insult me by stating Im clueless. At least on the his issue, I'm not. 
Click to expand...
You could have written a peer reviewed dissertation and it doesn't change the fact that you can't see the forest. If you think "modern history" is the reason Germany and Japan are materially different from literally any ME country, I rest my case. 

 
Now to the important stuff. I saw 5 Clinton signs today. I don't think I've seen one Trump sign yet. To be fair to Donald this is in Boulder Colorado .

 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds said:
It's time to take back our country away from the Business Party.  There is no two party system.  Two sides of the same coin promoting big business.  They choose different social issues to keep the country focused on those differences while conspiring around the world to enrich the 1%. Time to wake up and realize Hillary is not the "Liberal" she says she is.  She is far right of most moderates.  She gets paid $200,000 an hour to talk to Wall Street, but can't get 100 people to attend her free rallies.  She is not representative of the people.   She is a war-hawk in bed with big business promoting all things that will enrich her and the corrupt people that surround her.

She is a virtual shoe-in to be our next President (possibly even with a mandate in the Senate and House).  I hope more real Democrats start questioning her "private" policies. Things like the TPP, fracking, selling arms to the Middle East, her foreign Pay-to-Play schemes, her cozying up to Wall Street.    
Click to expand...
I can accept and buy into this.   Don't necessarily agree, although certain points I do, but it's a legitimate response. It's also not the tone that so often creeps into the national dialogue, a tone of hate and vitriol, of emotion over critical thought.

That said, you are still spreading utterly false lies, and it undercuts the legitimate points you bring to the discussion. If you think Hillary can't get 100 people to attend her rallies then you are willingly ignoring the facts or you need to spread the breadth of your reading and research to sources that do not tell you what you already want to hear. While you avoided part of the tone of this election I mentioned, a comment like that suggests that cognitive dissonance is winning soundly against grounded fact.

 
Sammy3469 said:
It is when you don't take the time to:

  • figure out who Avi Glazer is,
  • try to figure out what the meeting could rationally be about,
  • and just jump to the most extreme possible position (Podesta is meeting to coordinate spending and thus breaking the law).
There wasn't a shred of evidence for your theory, but you went with it anyway.  It's just irresponsible at this point, but you continually do it. 
Click to expand...
That's funny. I concede the point, ask for your viewpoint, express that I think I've learned something, and you claim I'm being unfair. I enjoy these discussions because I feel like it's all profit for me, but no I didn't disregard any of what you mentioned. But if you want to discuss it further, glad to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mile High said:
Now to the important stuff. I saw 5 Clinton signs today. I don't think I've seen one Trump sign yet. To be fair to Donald this is in Boulder Colorado .
Click to expand...
I have seen a Trump yard sign and it says, "I Am A Deplorable" in large letters and then "Donald Trump Supporter" in smaller letters. I have also seen two homemade Trump signs.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Setting aside the strange notion that US intelligence agency claims of Russian involvement don't constitute "evidence" of Russian involvement,  don't really have a problem with journalists publishing this stuff. My point was more that people reading and sharing it should keep in mind whose interests are being served here and who the real bad guys are. 

I would also ask Greenwald how journalists (or anyone) would go about confirming the authenticity of this particular material. Not saying they can't- I'm genuinely curious as to how they'd do it.  Surely the parties to the exchange aren't confirming it. Who would be the equivalent of, say, the Trump accountant who confirmed his tax return for the NY Times?
Click to expand...
Yeah if you do a little digging, the whole 17 US intelligence agencies angle (not to mention which agencies--props Coast Guard!) is pretty interesting.  Really the number is 2 (DNI, DHS) and even in their own statement they fall short of saying there is "concrete evidence" that Russia was behind the hacks.  Having "confidence" or "belief" is not the same thing.  If I were a cynical sort, short of having evidence I might surmise there has been a political effort to pin this on Russia for the time being.  There is room for reasonable people (e.g., Greenwald) to doubt the Russian angle, especially at a time when the Clinton camp is crying "Sputnik!" as a means of avoiding talking about the content of what's been leaked.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I thought funny about that '17 agencies' line is it was that same intelligence community (ie the 17 agencies) who referred her emails out for criminal investigation just last year. But back then her campaign tried to tear down the IC IG as politically motivated. I guess we're free to believe them again now.

 
BeaverCleaver said:
So you think they are making up the info on the spreadsheet they included showing attendance for Trump and Clinton rallies in August?
Click to expand...
No idea.  Who made the spreadsheet and chose the events and dates to include? Why did you post it in support of the proposition that "Clinton can't get 100 people to attend her free rallies" when even if we take the spreadsheet at face value the information shows very clearly that she can?

More importantly, why do you get your news from a website that runs stories based on tweets that any idiot with ten seconds to spare could figure out are jokes? 

 
TobiasFunke said:
No idea.  Who made the spreadsheet and chose the events and dates to include? Why did you post it in support of the proposition that "Clinton can't get 100 people to attend her free rallies" when even if we take the spreadsheet at face value the information shows very clearly that she can?

More importantly, why do you get your news from a website that runs stories based on tweets that any idiot with ten seconds to spare could figure out are jokes? 
Click to expand...
Why do you ignore all the information out there comparing attendance at rallies for Trump and Clinton? And I get my news from many sources. Guess what, attendance at Clinton rallies is far less overall than Trump rallies. Deal with it. 

 
Clinton can't get 100 people to attend her rallies because she's not dumb enough to think that campaign rallies are the best way to win the election.

Trump banked everything on airport rallies and Fox News appearances. He chose....poorly.

 
BeaverCleaver said:
Why do you ignore all the information out there comparing attendance at rallies for Trump and Clinton? And I get my news from many sources. Guess what, attendance at Clinton rallies is far less overall than Trump rallies. Deal with it. 
Click to expand...
And attendance at a Kardashian rally would blow away a Trump rally.  Your point?

 
BeaverCleaver said:
Why do you ignore all the information out there comparing attendance at rallies for Trump and Clinton? And I get my news from many sources. Guess what, attendance at Clinton rallies is far less overall than Trump rallies. Deal with it. 
Click to expand...
There wasn't even a mention of the difference in attendance between Clinton and Trump rallies until you linked to that site. And that site does not refute the post you quoted which was referencing the absurd notion that "Clinton can't even get 100 people". 

 
BeaverCleaver said:
Why do you ignore all the information out there comparing attendance at rallies for Trump and Clinton? And I get my news from many sources. Guess what, attendance at Clinton rallies is far less overall than Trump rallies. Deal with it. 
Click to expand...
Why do you say I'm ignoring it?  I see it and I understand it.  It just doesn't bother me very much.  I'm far more concerned with polling data than rally attendance information, or yard sign counting, or any of the other data points losers sometimes cite to avoid confronting the fact that they're losing.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
This has been you for well over a week.  He just happens to hate something that you love.
Click to expand...
1. I'll await examples.  

2. What is it that I love? 

Because if you can't point out 1. where I've promoted and stoked hate and fear (continually over a period of time, mind you) or 2. what you claim to know I hate, then why waste my time giving your post any more thought.  And any future ones for that matter.  If you get me on both , then I'll have to take a look at my actions and their potential repercussions. 

And, fwiw, I've certainly changed my mind or recognized my faults after they've been pointed out to me on this board before, but you are going to have to do a lot better than that to have me even bother considering.

 
Geez...lot's of people uptight that DD used a little hyperbole to describe that both Trump and mores Bernie heavily outdrew Hillary.  Wasn't that hard to understand.  FYI...If he says that David Johnson is light years ahead of Ajayi in this weeks rankings, he really doesn't mean David Johnson will rush for 6 trillion more miles than Ajayi this weekend.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Why do you say I'm ignoring it?  I see it and I understand it.  It just doesn't bother me very much.  I'm far more concerned with polling data than rally attendance information, or yard sign counting, or any of the other data points losers sometimes cite to avoid confronting the fact that they're losing.
Click to expand...
Condescending once again

 
BassNBrew said:
Geez...lot's of people uptight that DD used a little hyperbole to describe that both Trump and mores Bernie heavily outdrew Hillary.  Wasn't that hard to understand.  FYI...If he says that David Johnson is light years ahead of Ajayi in this weeks rankings, he really doesn't mean David Johnson will rush for 6 trillion more miles than Ajayi this weekend.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree... he made a clear statement insinuating not that Hillary couldn't raise the energy of the others, but essentially had no such base, no such support.  It's a gross misrepresentation at best, if not an abject lie.  It certainly is not an exaggeration, as you suggest. 

 
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...
Actually she should never have started pumping oil in Saudi with Aramco

Possibly she shouldn't have sold the motorcycle to Lawrence of Arabia.

Did you know she was instrumental in the Sykes-Piquot deal also?

 
@BassNBrew - if you want to have a legitimate, contextualized and nuanced discussion as to the very disingenuous post you made (not as disingenuous as this board is the suck, though, since it takes a doctorate in computer sciences to properly quote), I'd be happy to.

Long story short, Hillary dating to her earliest days as a volunteer, has worked more than likely all of us in this thread in terms of bettering the conditions of African Americans / Black Americans, and americans of color.   

That said, the fervor and her role in it during the 1990's is an absolute disgrace with horrendous consequences, to this day.  That said, it's not as if Hillary has not tried through many avenues, including the "oh so evil" Clinton foundation, to assist and help the lives of those without means, of many colors, here and abroad. 

1. What the hell has Trump ever done in terms of expending his time, energy, resources in such a positive manner?

2. To my original point, go ahead, answer my question with half the effort I used to answer yours.  Why do those who will be harmed by Donald's policies, not to mention ignored by him literally his entire life, and used merely as consumers (emphasis, literally, on "con") and stepping stones to assuage his ego and serve his interests?

Tired of flippant responses that feel they get the one up. If you actually have anything of value to bring, please tell me the rationale for these people who have been ignored, derided and humiliated by Trump throughout his life AND will be further harmed by his policies vote for him.   

 
Koya said:
1. I'll await examples.  

2. What is it that I love? 

Because if you can't point out 1. where I've promoted and stoked hate and fear (continually over a period of time, mind you) or 2. what you claim to know I hate, then why waste my time giving your post any more thought.  And any future ones for that matter.  If you get me on both , then I'll have to take a look at my actions and their potential repercussions. 

And, fwiw, I've certainly changed my mind or recognized my faults after they've been pointed out to me on this board before, but you are going to have to do a lot better than that to have me even bother considering.
Click to expand...
:lmao:   I don't care what you consider or not.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy of you accusing someone of hate and fear mongering with your constant one-sided political attacks.  

 
Koya said:
@BassNBrew - if you want to have a legitimate, contextualized and nuanced discussion as to the very disingenuous post you made (not as disingenuous as this board is the suck, though, since it takes a doctorate in computer sciences to properly quote), I'd be happy to.

Long story short, Hillary dating to her earliest days as a volunteer, has worked more than likely all of us in this thread in terms of bettering the conditions of African Americans / Black Americans, and americans of color.   

That said, the fervor and her role in it during the 1990's is an absolute disgrace with horrendous consequences, to this day.  That said, it's not as if Hillary has not tried through many avenues, including the "oh so evil" Clinton foundation, to assist and help the lives of those without means, of many colors, here and abroad. 

1. What the hell has Trump ever done in terms of expending his time, energy, resources in such a positive manner?

2. To my original point, go ahead, answer my question with half the effort I used to answer yours.  Why do those who will be harmed by Donald's policies, not to mention ignored by him literally his entire life, and used merely as consumers (emphasis, literally, on "con") and stepping stones to assuage his ego and serve his interests?

Tired of flippant responses that feel they get the one up. If you actually have anything of value to bring, please tell me the rationale for these people who have been ignored, derided and humiliated by Trump throughout his life AND will be further harmed by his policies vote for him.   




 
Click to expand...
I won't speak for all, but I am not buying the mirage she is selling.  It's like the drug lords handing out Turkeys on Thanksgiving. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
:lmao:   I don't care what you consider or not.  Just pointing out the hypocrisy of you accusing someone of hate and fear mongering with your constant one-sided political attacks.  
Click to expand...
Actually, you are showing yourself to be a hollow shell. 

I asked two simple questions.  You can't answer even one.  You could not only show a basis for your comments, but happen to do so to a poster who is willing to re-assess things, admit fault, adjust my perspective and approach.

Instead you have an empty response.  When you can't even name what direction my one-sided attacks are coming from and going to.  Just answer my questions if you are correct here, that's all.  Unless you can't. 

 
Since we love outrageous analogies around here, I can make up some too.

Tony Stewart gives a ton to charity and helps a lot of people. He's still a first class ##### that ran over and killed another man because he lost his temper.

I'm sure Ray Lewis or Ray Rice or Josh Brown or Jay Cutler or Terrell Owens or numerous other athletes that are a-holes or criminals also do plenty of good things to help people too.

I'm quite sure the Clinton Foundation helps people and does some good things.  That doesn't mean it's not a criminal enterprise at the same time too.  It's not necessarily one or the other. 

 
Koya said:
Actually, you are showing yourself to be a hollow shell. 

I asked two simple questions.  You can't answer even one.  You could not only show a basis for your comments, but happen to do so to a poster who is willing to re-assess things, admit fault, adjust my perspective and approach.

Instead you have an empty response.  When you can't even name what direction my one-sided attacks are coming from and going to.  Just answer my questions if you are correct here, that's all.  Unless you can't. 
Click to expand...
I'm not spending time searching this site for your posts but you're showing Tim-level honesty if you don't think you've been one-sided politically promoting hate and fear mongering.  I'm also not going to go Squistion on you and start tracking all your posts in the future either nor am I going to play your game of listing 30 links to back my opinions.

 
David Dodds said:
I won't speak for all, but I am not buying the mirage she is selling.  It's like the drug lords handing out Turkeys on Thanksgiving. 
Click to expand...
David, everything I said about hearing the vitriolic language not only creep into, but take over some of your posts, is exemplified here. 

It's not only a shallow approach, it's a disservice to you and the causes you say you hold dear.  Honestly, it's sad more than anything.  We can have constructive discourse without resorting to comparisons between Hillary and Drug Lords.  It's really disgusting to be honest.  Just being totally honest and blunt with you, not trying to be inflammatory.  Heck, it would hard to be as inflammatory as you and your portrayal of Hillary has been.

And I'm not even a Hillary supporter. I'm just tired of seeing the damage such language is doing to our nation, to our social fabric, to our very institution of democracy.  You are showing a terrible lack of respect for the very values we used to care about in a presidential election. It's a base approach that is the very thing wrong with our nation today, our tenor, our lack of dialogue and willingness to sow further division through derision. 

 
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
263K
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