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.
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Is there a fact in that article that is in question?

Even if it 90% of the Clinton Foundation assertions were  :bs: , like I said in the other post the AIDs project alone is all that is needed to demonstrate the ignorance of your reply.   
Click to expand...
Lord, the rudeness. You crack me up. I know everyone's ready for the weekend :banned: people are feeling good. I don't know man, I pushed this off last night, maybe I will again. But for starters, square 1 it says: "Clinton: Clinton Foundation helped 9 million with lower-cost AIDS drugs".

That is not actually the same claim as 'saved millions of lives' which is what evoked laughter when Tommy posted it. Even Hillary didn't have the temerity to claim that.

Ok this is the entirety of what PF states about the work of CHAI on the AIDS program:

The foundation’s work on HIV/AIDS treatment dates back to 2002 with the creation of the Clinton Health Access Initiative. That was a time when some countries were paying $1,000 or more to treat each AIDS patient. The basic goal was to bring in bulk-buying to lower costs.

The program consolidated both the supply of raw materials to make the drugs and the bidding to supply the finished product. The result was lower production costs and lower drug prices. Today, the initiative tracks the going price for a menu of treatments and posts them to help health departments around the world as they negotiate with drug companies.
Click to expand...


- Now we don't know who CHAI's partners are.... because they don't tell us... but it's obviously is whoever is producing these drugs and as I understand it and the way it reads it sounds like the CF put pharmaceutical companies in touch with third world, under-developed and developing nations to sell their AIDS drugs in their nations... at a lower cost not only to the buyers but also to the producers.

Worthy goal? Yes. Profit generating? Yes.

What exactly does the CF/CHAI do here exactly? It acted as a consulting company or pr firm to put private entities and public actors, and probably public money, together, to enter an emerging market, develop that market, and as far as I can tell they put out this price list.

So is this 'saving millions of lives' (the original claim you responded to)? No, unless we want to say the drug companies making and selling these drugs are saving lives, then yeah I guess they are and the CF/CHAI (and whoever their corporate partners are) helped them do that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds said:
My point is we are the enemy to nearly all the Muslims in the Middle East.  
Click to expand...
I think you are painting with a pretty broad brush here. The Kurds come to mind as an ethnic group that that is very pro US from what I understand. A more accurate statement would be there are a lot of political and religious leaders in the middle east are enemies to the US.

David Dodds said:
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?  
Click to expand...
I agree with this for the most part but believe that the US destabilized the area when Saddam was overthrown. This has result in wide-spread destruction and death throughout the area. Do we not have an obligation to try and reduce the violence we created? If your answer is no, what are the consequences to our foreign policy in the future? 

I agree by large with your position about taxes and getting out. However, we created this situation and we need to take steps to mitigate the violence. I think we are approaching this more intelligently now than in the past (limited troops and air support). The solution might start with walk backing from our commitment to the Saudis, where much of the seeds of radical islamism have originated.

 
32 Counter Pass said:
Do we not have an obligation to try and reduce the violence we created? If your answer is no, what are the consequences to our foreign policy in the future? 
Click to expand...
If we can't solve the problem, then no we are not obligated to try and solve it. No one is obligated to do the impossible. The consequences being we are guilty of creating the situation, which comes with 1) the obligation to pay restitution for the damage we caused (we can afford it if we can keep affording to fight over there); and 2) the obligation to not try that crap again over there.   

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
But for starters, square 1 it says: "Clinton: Clinton Foundation helped 9 million with lower-cost AIDS drugs".

That is not actually the same claim as 'saved millions of lives' which is what evoked laughter when Tommy posted it. Even Hillary didn't have the temerity to claim that.
Click to expand...
How many people were on any AIDS drug in these places prior to these activities?  How many after?   How many people survive AIDS without such medication?

Here, this will help!  And, no I am not crediting 100% of this to CHAI.  

 
Koya said:
If it takes 25 months they aren't doing it right. 

Seriously, as a former Hillary hater who just has seen what that has begot us, how can intelligent people not at some level say they've been goin after this woman for nearly THREE DECADES. If she were 1/10th as crooked and awful as you claim, with the rise of a new hard right, the tea party, congressional investigations that tie into far right media channels ... how can she possibly have done anything close to the horrors you proclaim? 

Aint no conspiracy that good. But apparently there are people that gullible.
Click to expand...
You called me thoughtless among other things because you didn't like my claims yet your hostile response to those attacking Hillary is to call them names and say she's made it 30 years so she must be clean. Come on man. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything because most people here aren't interested in real discussion with an open mind anyway.  They want to defend their preference and attack the opponent. 

I'll say this and said it to Tim a week ago  I've worked in the same environment as Hillary before.  I certainly understand the basics of handling classified information and the penalties associated with mishandling.  You can believe what you want but any average person does 1/100th of what she did they lose their clearance and job at a minimum and most likely are prosecuted.  It certainly isn't swept under the rug by the head of the FBI.  As I told Tim if you want to discount my thoughts because I'm not elaborating about more specific work stuff then go right ahead.  Too many crazies here to go into real details.  

Anyone wants to vote for her because it's anyone but trump vote go for it  I don't care but she's still a politically corrupt power hungry menace that doesn't believe half of what she spouts.  She cares about power and money and Hillary.  Very similar to Donald but instead of off color stupidity she just lies.  

I found it it quite funny and hypocritical that you attack Donald and post all sorts of fear mongering stuff but get bent out of shape when it's about Clinton.  Not meant to be personal towards you but there's a lot of hypocrisy in these threads where people want to convince us Hillary is great instead of just admitting what she is:  corrupt, dishonest but still better than trump  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
You were once second highest classification authority in this nation?  Wow I'm impressed.
Click to expand...
Christ almighty tell me you're trolling and not ridiculous stupid.  Do you think same environment = same job?   Let's see.  The ball boy that deflated the Patriots balls works in the same environment as Bob Kraft and Bill Belicheck.  He doesn't have the same job as they do.  Better?

 
Hillary is entering the oval office from an incredibly weak position. From the start, republicans will claim she beat the weakest nominee ever that most of them didnt even really want. She will be the first new president since 1988 without both houses of congress. The public doesnt like her and that mood will probably grow WORSE after 4 years. 

I see a weak presidency in turmoil  

 
Riversco said:
Hillary is entering the oval office from an incredibly weak position. From the start, republicans will claim she beat the weakest nominee ever that most of them didnt even really want. She will be the first new president since 1988 without both houses of congress. The public doesnt like her and that mood will probably grow WORSE after 4 years. 

I see a weak presidency in turmoil  




 




 
Click to expand...
538 says the Dems will win the Senate.  The House is forever stacked to be GOP as Democrats generally flock to the big cities.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds said:
It's been gerrymandered so badly that 538 does not even cover the House race anymore.  For the foreseeable future that will be GOP.  
Click to expand...
Yeah... it's pretty bad.  Dems would have to win 54% of the vote to win 50% of the seats right now.  But those lines get redrawn every 10 years and if they can wrest control of a couple key states it would help.  

Another, and probably the more likely, possibility is the use of ballot initiatives to have districts drawn by non-partisan panels.  That's on the ballot in a bunch of states before 2020, and IIRC redrawing boundaries in a neutral way in just those states would net Dems something like 10-12 seats.

Also, I think the reason 538 doesn't cover House races because there's not enough polling at the District level.  And a lot of the little polling that does get done is shoddy and/or have small sample sizes.  It's not enough data to make a good prediction from.

ETA:  that 10-12 seat estimate assumes Republicans don't do the same thing in Dem gerrymandered states like IL.  Neutral districts in all 50 states might only worth a handful of seats.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Riversco said:
Hillary is entering the oval office from an incredibly weak position. From the start, republicans will claim she beat the weakest nominee ever that most of them didnt even really want. She will be the first new president since 1988 without both houses of congress. The public doesnt like her and that mood will probably grow WORSE after 4 years. 

I see a weak presidency in turmoil  
Click to expand...
I guess if I had to put a 20 down I'd guess a narrow Dem takeover of the Senate but IIRC races are favorable for the GOP in several key states. They might lose PA but win others people had been figuring for a flip.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fight between the "no compromise" GOPers and the GOPers that want to be adults could very well be more significant than a Democratic vs Republican majority i shaping the functioning in DC.  I don't want to get carried away, but the GOP as a party might be better served not fighting over "no hope to lead" leadership positions in this toxic environment they have allowed to fester.  Much the same way that the GOP as an institution is probably much better served if Trump loses in a few weeks. That "deep bench" and "bright future" is scarred right now but it need not be for life, but if the disgruntled Trump supporters go after those that ran from him and they both go after those that were "lukewarm" I'm not sure their worries are across the aisle or in the White House.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I guess if I had to put a 20 down I'd guess a narrow Dem takeover of the Senate but IIRC races are favorable for the GOP in several key states. They might lose PA but win others people had been figuring for a flip.
Click to expand...
I've never voted R in my life.  As a result of Hillary, I will pull all red and write in "Michelle Obama" for President.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Lord, the rudeness. You crack me up. I know everyone's ready for the weekend :banned: people are feeling good. I don't know man, I pushed this off last night, maybe I will again. But for starters, square 1 it says: "Clinton: Clinton Foundation helped 9 million with lower-cost AIDS drugs".

That is not actually the same claim as 'saved millions of lives' which is what evoked laughter when Tommy posted it. Even Hillary didn't have the temerity to claim that.

Ok this is the entirety of what PF states about the work of CHAI on the AIDS program:

- Now we don't know who CHAI's partners are.... because they don't tell us... but it's obviously is whoever is producing these drugs and as I understand it and the way it reads it sounds like the CF put pharmaceutical companies in touch with third world, under-developed and developing nations to sell their AIDS drugs in their nations... at a lower cost not only to the buyers but also to the producers.

Worthy goal? Yes. Profit generating? Yes.

What exactly does the CF/CHAI do here exactly? It acted as a consulting company or pr firm to put private entities and public actors, and probably public money, together, to enter an emerging market, develop that market, and as far as I can tell they put out this price list.

So is this 'saving millions of lives' (the original claim you responded to)? No, unless we want to say the drug companies making and selling these drugs are saving lives, then yeah I guess they are and the CF/CHAI (and whoever their corporate partners are) helped them do that.
Click to expand...
CHAI partnered with shady Pharma firms like Ranabaxy and distributed watered down AIDS drugs which made matters worse.Its truly horrifying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
How many people were on any AIDS drug in these places prior to these activities?  How many after?   How many people survive AIDS without such medication?

Here, this will help!  And, no I am not crediting 100% of this to CHAI.  
Click to expand...
Back from some trout pecan and Turbodogs.

Ok so this was Tommy's claim, not Hillary's or the Foundation's or even CHAI's, but you've decided to take this 'saved millions' claim on your back and walk up that hill? Yeah?

Then why am I doing your homework for your claim?

Right off the bat from your link I notice this:

To help ensure that the producers are ready to supply the increasing quantities of ARVs needed for the scale-up, WHO, in collaboration with UNAIDS, convened a global Forecasting Technical Working Group, comprising Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), GFATM, PEPFAR and the Futures Institute.
Click to expand...
- So it's really not just CHAI, is it? Also I can tell off the bat at least one of those is private group, PEPFAR, which includes AstraZenica. And we still don't know who CHAI'S corporate partners are.

And then there is Figure 5.4:

Figure 5.4 ARV suppliers and value of their sales (in Millions US$) registered in GPRM, 2006–2012
Click to expand...
We have:

  • Matrix Labs
  • Hetero Drugs Ltd.
  • Aurobindo Pharma
  • Cipla Ltd.
  • Strides AstroLab
  • Ranbaxy
  • Abbott (pretty sure they're with Pfizer)
  • MacLeod's Pharma
  • "All others." (includes GSK and others...)
Total sales: Looks like a shade under $1 trillion.

Kind of proves my point.

Clinton Foundation, what is it you would say you do around here, exactly?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anybody here following the Assange drama?

his Internet has gone dark for the foreseeable future.

Kerry allegedly pressured Ecuador to cut him off.

Today there there was huge DoS attack which hit social media sites which seems to be related

now it's being reported that there are heavily armed police outside the embassy

this all occurring after the phony pedophile charges brought by a fake dating site with ties to the Clinton camp.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Back from some trout pecan and Turbodogs.

Ok so this was Tommy's claim, not Hillary's or the Foundation's or even CHAI's, but you've decided to take this 'saved millions' claim on your back and walk up that hill? Yeah?

Then why am I doing your homework for your claim?

Right off the bat from your link I notice this:

- So it's really not just CHAI, is it? Also I can tell off the bat at least one of those is private group, PEPFAR, which includes AstraZenica. And we still don't know who CHAI'S corporate partners are.

And then there is Figure 5.4:

We have:

  • Matrix Labs
  • Hetero Drugs Ltd.
  • Aurobindo Pharma
  • Cipla Ltd.
  • Strides AstroLab
  • Ranbaxy
  • Abbott (pretty sure they're with Pfizer)
  • MacLeod's Pharma
  • "All others." (includes GSK and others...)
Total sales: Looks like a shade under $1 trillion.

Kind of proves my point.

Clinton Foundation, what is it you would say you do around here, exactly?
Click to expand...
I don't see anything here that proves millions of lives being saved by the initiative is laughable.   Throwing all kinds of stuff that is tangential at best to the actual claim proves nothing.  This is not a controversial topic.  Do you also laugh at the claim that W's AIDS policies saved millions of lives?   Do you denigrate that  accomplishment because W also pursued the unfunded "can't negotiate drug prices" Medicare D?   Does it matter that these two policies overlapped, work in concert, etc?  

Well yes it does matter actually since millions of lives have been saved!  

 
Rove! said:
Anybody here following the Assange drama?

his Internet has gone dark for the foreseeable future.

Kerry allegedly pressured Ecuador to cut him off.

Today there there was huge DoS attack which hit social media sites which seems to be related

now it's being reported that there are heavily armed police outside the embassy

this all occurring after the phony pedophile charges brought by a fake dating site with ties to the Clinton camp.
Click to expand...
Some interesting words in this post. What drama? Assange was shut down by the Ecuadorian govt.

"dark" seem to imply some kind of conspiracy but the Ecuadorian President was pretty clear about the reason. They did not want foreign countries (the Russians) influencing our election process. I applaud them. I don't want that either.

From what I understand the cyber attack was from a foreign country and required a lot of resources to pull off. Russia was the first country that came to my mind. They have motive (influencing the election) and the resources. I am not saying they are the culprits. I just find it interesting how you and I see this thru completely different lenses.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I don't see anything here that proves millions of lives being saved by the initiative is laughable.   Throwing all kinds of stuff that is tangential at best to the actual claim proves nothing.  This is not a controversial topic.  Do you also laugh at the claim that W's AIDS policies saved millions of lives?   Do you denigrate that  accomplishment because W also pursued the unfunded "can't negotiate drug prices" Medicare D?   Does it matter that these two policies overlapped, work in concert, etc?  

Well yes it does matter actually since millions of lives have been saved!  
Click to expand...
It's not tangential, it's what they do that I'm talking about.

I don't really credit presidents or politicians with saving lives in this regard. I really think you elevate them too much. The history of this AIDS program supposedly was that it at least partly was motivated by the accusation against Bill Clinton that he did not do enough or much of anything to fight the epidemic. This famously arose when Hillary dared compliment Nancy Reagan at her own funeral on this point. I'd say it would be grossly unfair to say the Reagans and the Clintons 'killed' people by not doing enough during their presidencies. By the same token I'd say it would be grossly aggrandizing for Bush fans to assert George Bush 'saved' people because he showed up and did his job.

The head of CHAI was just a fund manager VP from Merrill Lynch. Sorry so the CF hooked up a host of private corporations and NGOs with public funding and a pricing agreement in a burgeoning market to the tune of $1 trillion and that's 'saving' lives? It sounds like equity consulting with an admirable public purpose. If you're going this route the first in line for 'saving' lives should be the corporations developing and selling the product in the first place not the middle man who hooked them up with their respective markets in a price sharing agreement which - by the way - also helped them lower their own production costs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
I've never voted R in my life.  As a result of Hillary, I will pull all red and write in "Michelle Obama" for President.  
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, don't do this.  You think you're being funny but you're just creating extra work for the volunteers at your poll place.  Don't be an #######.

 
tommyGunZ said:
As others have pointed out, don't do this.  You think you're being funny but you're just creating extra work for the volunteers at your poll place.  Don't be an #######.
Click to expand...
Wait.  Are you seriously advocating people vote in a manner that conveniences the volunteers?  

 
tommyGunZ said:
Mr. Ham said:
I've never voted R in my life.  As a result of Hillary, I will pull all red and write in "Michelle Obama" for President.  
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, don't do this.  You think you're being funny but you're just creating extra work for the volunteers at your poll place.  Don't be an #######.
Click to expand...
I was with you when I thought "don't do this" referred to pulling all red. (Why would Mr. Ham vote for down-ticket candidates who endorsed Trump?) But I think writing in Michelle Obama is perfectly fine. It's far different from writing in Mickey Mouse. Writing in Michelle Obama isn't a joke; it's a signal that the voter would like her to consider running in the future. That's a signal that volunteers volunteered to transmit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I was with you when I thought "don't do this" referred to pulling all red. (Why would Mr. Ham vote for down-ticket candidates who endorsed Trump?) But I think writing in Michelle Obama is perfectly fine. It's far different from writing in Mickey Mouse. Writing in Michelle Obama isn't a joke; it's a signal that the voter would like her to consider running in the future. That's a signal that volunteers volunteered to transmit.
Click to expand...
The protest of Michelle is because first it indicates that my choice has nothing to do with race or gender.

By selecting another First Lady, I am contrasting with Hillary.  I believe Michelle demonstrates the character and integrity Hillary lacks.  I do not believe she would have stood by while Barack dishinered the office.  I do not believe she would accept Barack pardoning terrorists, drug dealers and billionaire embezzlers to propel her into office.  I do not think she would have stood for corruption in the DNC and her campaign.  I do not think she would lie endlessly to the American people or be embroiled in scandal after scandal of her own doing.  I do not think she would personally enrich herself while running.  I think she's as intelligent, gifted and savvy as Hillary, without the rotten core.  

Pulling all red is because I believe Hillary will win and want her obstructed.  She should be facing charges, not running the free world, and I also want to ensure that her crimes are properly investigated next year.  A Democratic Congress will bury them.  

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Some solid SOSing here.  Unless you're someone who thinks the US should let Russia continue to meddle in our election?
Click to expand...
What does pressuring Ecuador have to do with stopping Russia from meddling (assuming they are even the actors?). You think Assange has even been slowed down by this "solid SOSing?"

 
Look at Marco Rubio making sense!

"As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it," Rubio told ABC News. "Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us." 
Click to expand...

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
You'd never know it by how effective Sanders has been getting amendments passed into law.
Click to expand...
A bit of a myth I am afraid - even as I sit here with my Bernie shirt on

Out of 419 amendments Sanders sponsored over his 25 years in Congress, 90 passed, 21 of them by roll call votes. Here’s a breakdown (bold indicates Republican Congresses)

During his 25 years in Congress, Sanders introduced 324 bills, three of which became law. This includes a bill in a Republican Congress naming a post office in Vermont and two more while Democrats had control (one naming another Vermont post office and another increasing veterans’ disability compensation). 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Sorry so the CF hooked up a host of private corporations ... and that's 'saving' lives?
Click to expand...
I think a good way to answer this question is to change the CF from Clinton Foundation to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.   In the late '90s venture capital for biotech companies working to take ideas from the lab to trials and then to market for drugs that didn't have mass markets disappeared.   There was still funding for the "pure science" from the grants from the charities and the government, etc. and companies would of course sell profitable drugs but the path from lab to market had been cutoff.  So the CF Foundation made the controversial decision to take charitable donation and take on the role historically filled by venture capitalist.  Other charities in the same boat followed suit.   While there are many forms of CF and breakthroughs don't help everyone with this nasty disease, some of these investments paid of in the form of new treatments and even a treatment that addresses the cause rather than the symptoms.  That treatment returned the CF Foundation a 22x return on investment, or $3.3 billion.  (This is also controversial as this treatment is very expensive for CF patients that it helps.)

So the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation unprecedented "merely hooked up a host of private corporations" to the result of new treatments, new research dollars, and new hope and most of all  - saved a few lives.  But since they were merely doing their job ...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The Commish said:
You've gone to some major lengths to try and be argumentative lately.  Everything ok?
Click to expand...
I've barely been here since the start of summer so I guess you all got comfortable...

Don't worry, still quite busy so you guys will still get away with a good deal.
Click to expand...
I always welcome discussion from you BFS.  In the past, you've provided perspectives I wouldn't normally think about that make a lot of sense to me.  That's not the same as what's been happening as of late.  Not sure what we are "getting away with" here in the FFA.  Just making the observation that you seem to be making some major stretches in arguments, to the point where it seems like you're just wanting to argue.  That's all.

 
Mr. Ham said:
The protest of Michelle is because first it indicates that my choice has nothing to do with race or gender.

By selecting another First Lady, I am contrasting with Hillary.  I believe Michelle demonstrates the character and integrity Hillary lacks.  I do not believe she would have stood by while Barack dishinered the office.  I do not believe she would accept Barack pardoning terrorists, drug dealers and billionaire embezzlers to propel her into office.  I do not think she would have stood for corruption in the DNC and her campaign.  I do not think she would lie endlessly to the American people or be embroiled in scandal after scandal of her own doing.  I do not think she would personally enrich herself while running.  I think she's as intelligent, gifted and savvy as Hillary, without the rotten core.  

Pulling all red is because I believe Hillary will win and want her obstructed.  She should be facing charges, not running the free world, and I also want to ensure that her crimes are properly investigated next year.  A Democratic Congress will bury them.  
Click to expand...
@Maurile Tremblay Ham confirms writing Michelle in has nothing to do with an attempt to signal his support for a future Michelle campaign, and everything to do with Ham's anti-Hillary conspiracy theories. I stand by my comment that he should refrain from doing so b/c he's simply creating unnecessary work for volunteers. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I was with you when I thought "don't do this" referred to pulling all red. (Why would Mr. Ham vote for down-ticket candidates who endorsed Trump?) But I think writing in Michelle Obama is perfectly fine. It's far different from writing in Mickey Mouse. Writing in Michelle Obama isn't a joke; it's a signal that the voter would like her to consider running in the future. That's a signal that volunteers volunteered to transmit.
Click to expand...
Who do you think you are MT....only TGunz and his group get to tell us what our vote means and what they signals.

 
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: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top