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 (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
2008 was an epic disaster......wish I took advantage of that buying opportunity. 
I hedged in 08 and bought in 09.  From a fundamentals point of view selling now is probably a mistake.  But then again, 30% drops are normal, so no telling.  Ford has no clue what the hell he's talking about in regards to market movements.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bankruptcy is a part of doing business.  I THINK I heard that he filed it four times.

Have you taken the time to look up Trumps SUCCESSFUL business ventures?

Here....I'll help you
“You’ve taken business bankruptcies six times.”
–Hillary Clinton

“On occasion – four times – we used certain laws that are there.”

–Donald Trump

THE FACT CHECKER | Clinton is correct.

Trump’s companies have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which means a company can remain in business while wiping away many of its debts. The bankruptcy court ultimately approves a corporate budget and a plan to repay remaining debts; often shareholders lose much of their equity.

Trump’s Taj Mahal opened in April 1990 in Atlantic City, but six months later, “defaulted on interest payments to bondholders as his finances went into a tailspin,” The Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow found. In July 1991, Trump’s Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. He could not keep up with debts on two other Atlantic City casinos, and those two properties declared bankruptcy in 1992. A fourth property, the Plaza Hotel in New York, declared bankruptcy in 1992 after amassing debt.

PolitiFact uncovered two more bankruptcies filed after 1992, totaling six. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004, after accruing about $1.8 billion in debt. Trump Entertainment Resorts also declared bankruptcy in 2009, after being hit hard during the 2008 recession.

Why the discrepancy? Perhaps this will give us an idea: Trump told Washington Post reporters that he counted the first three bankruptcies as just one.

 
So today we have:

2 FBI dumps

Pedophile ring

Yoko Ono

Godwin's Law pretty much everywhere

Podesta flatly stating that they should dump emails (whoops.)

Chris Matthews endorsing Trump (astonishing)

Tim declaring that if Hillary loses it isn't her fault.  

This might be the best day in politics ever.  I can't think of how this could be topped.

 
Just saw a pro-Hillary ad running in NC,

"I don't agree with many of her policies" but paraphrasing "she doesn't brag about groping women"

Pathetic.

 
So today we have:

2 FBI dumps

Pedophile ring

Yoko Ono

Godwin's Law pretty much everywhere

Podesta flatly stating that they should dump emails (whoops.)

Chris Matthews endorsing Trump (astonishing)

Tim declaring that if Hillary loses it isn't her fault.  

This might be the best day in politics ever.  I can't think of how this could be topped.
Don't forget Trump as a time-traveling savior.

 
What's HRCs end-game right now?  The FBI is not going to let her become the President.  I imagine the Democrats are better off if she wins, but you wonder if she just stepped down, if Tim Kaine would not get even more people to come out and vote.

A lot has happened late, but I will be super shocked if the bad news reverses any time soon.   

 
At the last commercial break....

Hillary ad...Some Rep saying Trump said bad things and he does want his kids to look up to that.

Trump ad...Trump is a builder and here is his blueprint...paid maternity leave, lower taxes, jobs, etc.

Yeah, I know it's all BS but interesting to see who's running positive campaign ads and who's running attack ads.

 
Well that's as good of an excuse as any to prove she didn't have intent.

Along these lines, time to crack the whip on whoever producing the Hoopsguys material.  Hillary could probably be doing as well.
She's so stupid she doesn't understand classified material or computers yet she's the most qualified candidate. However she's also smart enough to turn a $1000 investment into $100,000 profit trading cattle futures but didn't know that c stands for classified.

Pick one angle and stick with it, all this jumping back and forth based on the scandal of the day is getting tiresome 

 
Kudos to the Daily Commercial....a Florida newspaper that printed and editorial apology for its ongoing anti-Trump bias.

Try this:  Google "Florida newspaper apologizes" and just see if ANY members of the MSM are carrying this story.

Mexico Daily has a story....but NOT a WORD from the MSM.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So today we have:

2 FBI dumps

Pedophile ring

Yoko Ono

Godwin's Law pretty much everywhere

Podesta flatly stating that they should dump emails (whoops.)

Chris Matthews endorsing Trump (astonishing)

Tim declaring that if Hillary loses it isn't her fault.  

This might be the best day in politics ever.  I can't think of how this could be topped.
How about a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State claiming a counter-coup to a Clinton lead coup? Not sure how this was missed earlier:

Is @timschochet still backing Hillary? Wake up son. 

These videos by Dr. Steve Pieczenik are interesting: https://youtu.be/ov5kvWSz5LM

https://youtu.be/12zVlaZyX3Q

His bio: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik

Also interesting that he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Kissinger.

Have at it...

 
So today we have:

2 FBI dumps

Pedophile ring

Yoko Ono

Godwin's Law pretty much everywhere

Podesta flatly stating that they should dump emails (whoops.)

Chris Matthews endorsing Trump (astonishing)

Tim declaring that if Hillary loses it isn't her fault.  

This might be the best day in politics ever.  I can't think of how this could be topped.
At least 2 of the items on your list are hoaxes, if that matters. But in this election it's hard to tell what's real and what's an illusion.

 
At the last commercial break....

Hillary ad...Some Rep saying Trump said bad things and he does want his kids to look up to that.

Trump ad...Trump is a builder and here is his blueprint...paid maternity leave, lower taxes, jobs, etc.

Yeah, I know it's all BS but interesting to see who's running positive campaign ads and who's running attack ads.
When they go low...

 
Just an observation:

- Everyone sees the emails vs 'Russia/Putin' leak-off going on between the Hillary and Trump camps and their supporters. It's here in this thread too.

I myself have been banging the Trump/Russia drum for quite some time. However, something I find oddly missing from the Hillary supporters when they raise this is any sort of statement about Russia as a threat to the US. What is the problem, with Russia, exactly, in terms of geopolitical politics? I have strong feelings about this and IMO it's based on the long view of Russian history by which I mean pre-WW1 to now. Oddly enough I think Hillary being essentially a Scoop Jackson Democrat probably has feelings more in line with mine than most of her supporters.

Do any Hillary supporters now agree that Romney was right about Russia being a geopolitical foe of the US, or are they going to stick with Obama's snarky comment about the '80s calling and asking for their policy back'? Anyone feel differently now? Things have changed, right? Have we seen enough now to know he was right?
I have said it a few times. Romney was right. I did not think that at the time. Now russia is trying to take over the Arctic and they are pulling 1930s hitler moves in Europe using the same justification for crimea as hitler did. 

 
At the beginning of today, 538 has Hillary with a 71% chance of winning.  Just a few days ago (Sunday) she was at 79%. 

I'm guessing she'll be in the 60s by mid-day.

Holy crap.

 
With all the crazy flying around over the last few days, there are still two things that I find interesting.  They may mean nothing, or they may mean everything....

First, it has been widely reported that Comey and/or the FBI briefed the Justice Department on the developments last Thursday.  It has been reported that Lynch advised Comey against sending the letter to Congress.  As we all know, Comey ignored that advice - from his purported boss.  But, I don't find that terribly unusual.  What I do find interesting is that when teh news broke, all of the reporters embedded with the Clinton campaign reported that the campaign learned about the letter the same time as everyone else - in fact, they held a brief meeting about it on the plane after the media had disembarked.  That suggests that nobody in Justice leaked the report to the Clinton's in advance.  Now, ordinarily, you may think "Great, Justice should not be leaking anything to anyone."  But this is DC, where leaks are simply a part of doing business, and where people are constantly trying to gain political capital/favors.  So, I think it is interesting that this did not leak from a Democratic Justice Department to a Democratic Presidential candidate...

Second is the fact that the FBI went the route of obtaining a warrant to access the emails.  It has been reported that Weiner is cooperating, so surely he could have, and would have given permission.  To the extent that Huma's permission was required, her attorney has stated that they are willing to cooperate, but that the FBI has not contacted them yet.  Now, going for a warrant is "cleaner" from a legal perspective, in terms of being able to later use the evidence, but given "cooperating" witnesses, a warrant might have been a nuisance - after all you have to get in front of a judge and state, under oath, that you have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found.  You can't simply go in front of a judge and say "Hey, we found some emails we would like to read, can you sign off on that?"  Of course, the flip side is that witnesses who have lawyered up - like Huma and Weiner - rarely cooperate for free - there is usually a price, whether it is seeking some immunity, or some restriction on use.  Maybe the FBI did not want to cut any deals here - which seems odd.

 
This is the best summary of the corruption in a simple 18 minute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcqXijVzYU


Would LOVE to see some of the hardcore Clinton supporters respond to this.

So tempted to post this on FB to get a reaction from the Clinton supporters (not that I'm a trump supporter) but its just not worth the aggravation.

Its stuff like this that makes me want to rip my hair out when I hear people say stuff like "People only criticize Hillary because she is a woman".  I know that every presidential family takes absurd speaking fees after leaving office and generally, nobody cares. But you can't take $10's of millions of dollars from huge corporations just to go in and talk for 45 minutes at a time and seriously expect people to believe that they expected nothing in return.

 
With all the crazy flying around over the last few days, there are still two things that I find interesting.  They may mean nothing, or they may mean everything....

First, it has been widely reported that Comey and/or the FBI briefed the Justice Department on the developments last Thursday.  It has been reported that Lynch advised Comey against sending the letter to Congress.  As we all know, Comey ignored that advice - from his purported boss.  But, I don't find that terribly unusual.  What I do find interesting is that when teh news broke, all of the reporters embedded with the Clinton campaign reported that the campaign learned about the letter the same time as everyone else - in fact, they held a brief meeting about it on the plane after the media had disembarked.  That suggests that nobody in Justice leaked the report to the Clinton's in advance.  Now, ordinarily, you may think "Great, Justice should not be leaking anything to anyone."  But this is DC, where leaks are simply a part of doing business, and where people are constantly trying to gain political capital/favors.  So, I think it is interesting that this did not leak from a Democratic Justice Department to a Democratic Presidential candidate...

Second is the fact that the FBI went the route of obtaining a warrant to access the emails.  It has been reported that Weiner is cooperating, so surely he could have, and would have given permission.  To the extent that Huma's permission was required, her attorney has stated that they are willing to cooperate, but that the FBI has not contacted them yet.  Now, going for a warrant is "cleaner" from a legal perspective, in terms of being able to later use the evidence, but given "cooperating" witnesses, a warrant might have been a nuisance - after all you have to get in front of a judge and state, under oath, that you have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found.  You can't simply go in front of a judge and say "Hey, we found some emails we would like to read, can you sign off on that?"  Of course, the flip side is that witnesses who have lawyered up - like Huma and Weiner - rarely cooperate for free - there is usually a price, whether it is seeking some immunity, or some restriction on use.  Maybe the FBI did not want to cut any deals here - which seems odd.
This is all rather interesting and connects to an otherwise (and probably) innocuous anecdotal report yesterday where it was Pete Williams, I believe, who reported that Lynch and Comey met for a scheduled briefing, then Lynch pulled him aside for a brief conversation--and hen this was the part that stuck out to me--Williams reported that Lynch at one point had put her hand on Comey's arm and asked, "How are you doing [or "holding up," I can't remember exactly]?"

It was the sort of human moment I wasn't expecting from what was otherwise a mundane report from Williams.  And it could be totally innocuous.  But, there is some part of me who is wondering if we are bracing here in the quiet for something big.

 
This is all rather interesting and connects to an otherwise (and probably) innocuous anecdotal report yesterday where it was Pete Williams, I believe, who reported that Lynch and Comey met for a scheduled briefing, then Lynch pulled him aside for a brief conversation--and hen this was the part that stuck out to me--Williams reported that Lynch at one point had put her hand on Comey's arm and asked, "How are you doing [or "holding up," I can't remember exactly]?"

It was the sort of human moment I wasn't expecting from what was otherwise a mundane report from Williams.  And it could be totally innocuous.  But, there is some part of me who is wondering if we are bracing here in the quiet for something big.
We're already there. The FBI Director interjecting themselves into the election process days before election day, over emails that may or may not be to the candidate or from the candidate, in an election that had already been dominated by emails and the FBI, is something big.

 
Remember months ago when I said Clinton/Trump was going to go down to the wire if they were the candidates, and you thought I was crazy? Weird election.
To be honest, I thought you were crazy too.  I thought Sanders was the better candidate for the Democrats, but I always assumed that Hillary would beat Trump comfortably.  Too bad for all of us that I was wrong and you were right.
Throw me into this camp as well.  I knew it would be somewhat close and that would be good for a :pokey:  here or there.  Never did I imagine this sort of incompetence all around by the candidates.  I've used the phrase "epic race to the bottom" as a hyperbole laden catch phrase, but that's exactly what's unfolding in front of us.  All that's left is for the dogs and cats to begin sleeping together.  So embarrassing. 

 
Has the Podesta email saying she smells like boiled cabbage, urine and farts been confirmed?  If so anyone who voted early for her has a real dilemma...bad enough she's a liar and corrupt but do we really want our President smelling like an Irish Pub around midnight on St. Patrick's day...

 
From the WSJ:


Hillary Clinton Becomes the Unsafe Hand



In the last few days, she’s traded places with Donald Trump as the high-risk candidate.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top