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.
timschochet said:
Trump winning the nomination destroys all of their power elite theories. But they'll never admit it. Because then they'd also have to admit that Bernie lost because he was less popular than Hillary, and not for some nefarious reason. 
Click to expand...
The crazy thing is Trumpettes were shouting about the 'power elites' at the same time Trump was winning the nomination.  I tried to tell them back then that they could have got anyone nominated yet they still claimed the 'power elites' were in control.  SMH.

 
David Dodds said:
I read that as well.  But at this point, I trust nothing coming from The Huffington Post as it's been shown they are part of the "journalists" working hand in hand with HRC's campaign team.  It's another propaganda arm of the HRC campaign.  Did O'Keefe entrap Scott Foval and Bob Creamer?  Based on O'Keafe's past work, probably so.  But their own words are pretty damaging.  This all needs to be investigated, but I doubt that is going to happen.      
Click to expand...
I don't know about everyone else, but watching Mr. Football fall like this is like Shoeless Joe Jackson all over again.  Say it ain't so, David!

 
cstu said:
I don't know about everyone else, but watching Mr. Football fall like this is like Shoeless Joe Jackson all over again.  Say it ain't so, David!
Click to expand...
Why do you have so many issues with people that don't agree with you? You've even admitted you can't be friends with people that don't agree with you. That's pathetic.

 
cstu said:
I don't know about everyone else, but watching Mr. Football fall like this is like Shoeless Joe Jackson all over again.  Say it ain't so, David!
Click to expand...
I'm finding it really hard to not ask for FF advice with Dave and MT hanging around. One league I had to draft during a Saints tailgate and my lineup has been screwed up ever since.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Trump winning the nomination destroys all of their power elite theories. But they'll never admit it. Because then they'd also have to admit that Bernie lost because he was less popular than Hillary, and not for some nefarious reason. 
Click to expand...
Have you no shame that you put Hillary and "popular"in the same sentence?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds said:
and he has an agenda.  That's a given based on his ACORN videos, etc.  But I don't think he is just a hack making stuff up.  He goes after these organizations, because there is wrong-doing.  The fact that normal media has not covered these videos at all says a lot.  The Zero Hedge article I linked to shows Bob Creamer has been at the Whitehouse 47 times.  The same Bob Creamer with a criminal past that appears in these videos.  Will the POTUS tell us what this person's role is?  How is that any different than releasing the "full video".  Please provide minutes from these meetings with this sketchy convict.  The world wants to know what his role is.  
Click to expand...
140 times.  Not 47.  Can't wait for the next video.

 
Last edited:
cstu said:
The crazy thing is Trumpettes were shouting about the 'power elites' at the same time Trump was winning the nomination.  I tried to tell them back then that they could have got anyone nominated yet they still claimed the 'power elites' were in control.  SMH.
Click to expand...
The new world order  :tinfoilhat:  crazies believe politicians take orders from "power elites". That's different than believing that the 0.01%ers who own half the wealth are using their wealth to fund the parties and politicians to get the people they want elected in office. First of all, they don't always get the person in office they want. They are exercising their free speech rights by putting their money where they want, but the voters can still decide to vote for someone else, and sometimes that does happen. Bernie and Trump are examples of that. 2nd of all, once the people they want in office are in place, the politicians don't take their marching orders from these rich people. The rich still have to convince the politicians want they want is the right thing to do. That's much easier to accomplish when you get the politicians you want in office than it is when the voters put someone else there. So of course they benefit from the money they spend to get the people they want, but it's a not a "marching orders" relationship. So again, nothing illegal is going on here. But it has made our country a plutocracy. It's a democratic form of a plutocracy, but a plutocracy none the less. The new world order crazies believe there is a dictatorship of power that operates in secret. The truth of our democratic plutocracy gets lost in the conspiracy theories... and that's really unfortunate for the 99.99%

 
David Dodds said:
and he has an agenda.  That's a given based on his ACORN videos, etc.  But I don't think he is just a hack making stuff up.  He goes after these organizations, because there is wrong-doing.  The fact that normal media has not covered these videos at all says a lot.  The Zero Hedge article I linked to shows Bob Creamer has been at the Whitehouse 47 times.  The same Bob Creamer with a criminal past that appears in these videos.  Will the POTUS tell us what this person's role is?  How is that any different than releasing the "full video".  Please provide minutes from these meetings with this sketchy convict.  The world wants to know what his role is.  
Click to expand...
Boys and girls who run for highest office are not so different than mob bosses.  They maintain a public image and pay someone else to do the dirty work.

 
Politician Spock said:
The new world order  :tinfoilhat:  crazies believe politicians take orders from "power elites". That's different than believing that the 0.01%ers who own half the wealth are using their wealth to fund the parties and politicians to get the people they want elected in office. First of all, they don't always get the person in office they want. They are exercising their free speech rights by putting their money where they want, but the voters can still decide to vote for someone else, and sometimes that does happen. Bernie and Trump are examples of that. 2nd of all, once the people they want in office are in place, the politicians don't take their marching orders from these rich people. The rich still have to convince the politicians want they want is the right thing to do. That's much easier to accomplish when you get the politicians you want in office than it is when the voters put someone else there. So of course they benefit from the money they spend to get the people they want, but it's a not a "marching orders" relationship. So again, nothing illegal is going on here. But it has made our country a plutocracy. It's a democratic form of a plutocracy, but a plutocracy none the less. The new world order crazies believe there is a dictatorship of power that operates in secret. The truth of our democratic plutocracy gets lost in the conspiracy theories... and that's really unfortunate for the 99.99%
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
Mr. Ham said:
"But she's my fascist, gosh darn it!"

The contents of the videos hold up and lead back to the top of the campaign and DNC, including verified payments and video of operatives provoking violence. Apparently there is audio from the White House being released next week.  Rather than taking it, entire Web and Wikileaks is under attack. Enough truth.  Time to roll it all up and interfere directly with our democracy.  It's scary.  
Click to expand...
Do you realize that this has become the trademark of your FBG character?  The boy who cried wolf is a poor man's Mr Ham.  

 
Question.  Since I have no idea what is true and what is untrue when it comes to politics, I saw something online and wondered what the truth of the statement is.

I read that Hilary claimed at the debate that the Clinton Foundation uses 90% of their donations for charity.  

But then I read that this is a lie and according to the tax returns, it's only 5%.  Has then been broken down somewhere in this thread?

 
shader said:
Question.  Since I have no idea what is true and what is untrue when it comes to politics, I saw something online and wondered what the truth of the statement is.

I read that Hilary claimed at the debate that the Clinton Foundation uses 90% of their donations for charity.  

But then I read that this is a lie and according to the tax returns, it's only 5%.  Has then been broken down somewhere in this thread?
Click to expand...
It's all in how you look at it.  

For instance, if you have a charity that pays doctors to treat indigent patients, and you use 90% of funds to pay doctors, pay rent, and purchase medicines, the people claiming the 5% number would say that 90% of your funds are used for salaries and expenses and therefore don't count. 

only 5-7% of their funds go to grants to other charities, which is only a part of what they do. 80-90% of their funds go to either grants or programs they run directly that do charitable works.

 
shader said:
Question.  Since I have no idea what is true and what is untrue when it comes to politics, I saw something online and wondered what the truth of the statement is.

I read that Hilary claimed at the debate that the Clinton Foundation uses 90% of their donations for charity.  

But then I read that this is a lie and according to the tax returns, it's only 5%.  Has then been broken down somewhere in this thread?
Click to expand...
Here's one of their tax returns as a sample.

This one is from 2011 but it's pretty typical. Note it did have to be reviled with another 4 years worth because of improperly stated speech income but I think in general it works.

Grants and direct charity are like 6 mill out of 57 mill or so.

I think the expenses Henry mentions are in the program expenses, however I'm not really sure those are set out in terms of exactly what they're doing. Lots of overhead and salaries, etc. Just a question of what those program expenses are.

 
shader said:
Question.  Since I have no idea what is true and what is untrue when it comes to politics, I saw something online and wondered what the truth of the statement is.

I read that Hilary claimed at the debate that the Clinton Foundation uses 90% of their donations for charity.  

But then I read that this is a lie and according to the tax returns, it's only 5%.  Has then been broken down somewhere in this thread?
Click to expand...
Here is a site I look for looking at charities

They report 88%

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Here's one of their tax returns as a sample.

This one is from 2011 but it's pretty typical. Note it did have to be reviled with another 4 years worth because of improperly stated speech income but I think in general it works.

Grants and direct charity are like 6 mill out of 57 mill or so.

I think the expenses Henry mentions are in the program expenses, however I'm not really sure those are set out in terms of exactly what they're doing. Lots of overhead and salaries, etc. Just a question of what those program expenses are.
Click to expand...
I claimed 15 % went to charity 1 year ago & was laughed at(no prob.).   It's charity to enrich the Clintons.  Always has been.   If it was a real charity Hillary wouldn't have charged approx. $250,000.00 for a charity benefit.  Her time should have been free, but that's not how the/Clinton ball bounces.

 
How do we distinguish between the two President Clintons?  We can no longer say "President Clinton".and be sure everyone knows which one we refer to.

 
irishidiot said:
I claimed 15 % went to charity 1 year ago & was laughed at(no prob.).   It's charity to enrich the Clintons.  Always has been.   If it was a real charity Hillary wouldn't have charged approx. $250,000.00 for a charity benefit.  Her time should have been free, but that's not how the/Clinton ball bounces.
Click to expand...
LOL.  

This is why Trump gets 40% of the vote folks. 

 
A month or so ago, Dems win by 150+ electoral votes was +300 (bet 100 to win 300).  Yesterday, it was -130 (bet 130 to win 100).  Trump = oof.

 
Rohn Jambo said:
The election will be much closer than you think.  People may not be sure whose policies will really work, but they have no doubt corruption is bad for this country.
Click to expand...
It is actually anti climatic for me.

It's pretty simple. Hillary has the Blue Wall that no doubt will vote democrat. Since 1992 18 states and the District of Columbia have voted democrat. That is 242 electoral votes. I just don't see that changing this time around either. More because of the complete and utter ***kery of Donald Trump than Hillary's popularity. 

She wins Florida.....it's over. And I got news for all of you. IMO I think she will win Florida (in a tight race here). She wins any swing state for that matter and it's over.

We shall see.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Riversco said:
How do we distinguish between the two President Clintons?  We can no longer say "President Clinton".and be sure everyone knows which one we refer to.
Click to expand...
In the past I have heard news people refer to Bush as "Bush 43" and then "W. Bush." I've heard for Roosevelts be "FDR" and then "Teddy." Those two are differentiated that way. Not sure how Bill and Hillary may be. 

Edit for Chet for grammatical errors. 

 
Mario Kart said:
In the past I have heard news people refer to Bush as "Bush 43" and then "W. Bush." I've heard for Roosevelts be "FDR" and then "Teddy." Those two are differentiated that way. Not sure how Bill and Hillary may be. 

Edit for Chet for grammatical errors. 
Click to expand...
Philanderer and Murderer?

(Edit: Capitalized "Murderer."  For Chet.)

 
Last edited:
Todem said:
She wins Florida.....it's over. And I got news for all of you. IMO I think she will win Florida (in a tight race here). She wins any swing state for that matter and it's over.

We shall see.
Click to expand...
I said that a couple weeks ago.  I think the way election night goes is Hillary wins Florida and then everyone turns off the TV and goes to bed.

 
FWIW....in the Corridors of History, learned scholars refer to them as Johnny Ads and Q, Teddy and FDR, Willie H and Benji H,  Bush the Elder and Wubya and LBJ and Johnson the Jitbag......

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wazoo11 said:
What is Hillary's stance on trade agreement?
Click to expand...
Do you want her position when Bill was president, when she was in the Senate, when she ran for President the first time, when she is giving a paid speech for some multi-national corporation, when she was Secretary of State, during the primary or her current stance?  And do you want her officially stated position or the one she says to her financial supporters?

 
tommyGunZ said:
And Hillary really has flaws.  Of course it's easy to look past those flaws when the insane right crowd hypes conspiracy theories nonstop.  
Click to expand...
It's all the more difficult to have a legit discussion about her flaws, since that same insane right crowd either invents and/or hyperbolizes half of these flaws anyway. By the time you debunk all of the partisan driven bull####, there's no time nor energy to discuss the actual flaws and their implications. Like, was there some undo access through the Clinton Foundation and lets talk about that like adults, rather than "its a criminal enterprise that is buying the white house with bribes from the middle east in ca-hoots with the new world order and we need to throw Hillary in jail and lock away the key.  'MERICA!"

Moreso, lets talk about her legitimately poor policy and strategic choices re: Iraq, the war, actions as SoS and put down this ridiculous and utterly disingenuous Benghazi crap.  It's awful that we lost four souls there... but a SoS is not at the tactical level responsible directly., Why can't we just be honest about the situation, recognize there are risks for posts such as that and to be blunt, #### happens - doesn't mean you aren't critical and find ways to avoid it, but within the context of how many souls we lost directly as a result of other's decisions (and the list is many, from Beruit on up through the Iraq War itself) we get lost in a conspiracy about a sad but historically minor if not nearly irrelevant event (historically, those touched by the deaths obviously are affected forever) as compared to huge policy decisions. Some that Hillary was in favor of, mind you.  Instead we are talking about security of a post for how many years after we've stopped talking about say the attack on the post of Sandy Hook Elementary, in our country, even more souls, and far more pure ones, lost there.  

And we can then discuss gun rights vs. rights of others to not end up killed by someone using one, and we should - rather than talk about this one historical event that pales in comparison to probably thousands of others in relatively recent history.  

We really DO have serious issues and use all our energy on soundbites and misinformation circulated to avoid the very issues at stake.  And if you think the system is sending these distractions out through breitbart and other channels to help the little guy in somer populist effort well... once again, I just wish we actually examined the issues rather than this methodical disingenuous bull####.  Cause they are using the American public and a large percentage is just scooping it up and, worse yet, propagating the spread of that very intentional misinformation to benefit those sources that are creating and disseminating it out to begin with.

 
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