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.
Henry Ford said:
Oh, and I completely made up the whole thing about Turton having an affair and being on drugs while sneaking back into her house.  These guys really gave me a gift.  It's fun to just say "rumor is..." and make up completely ridiculous BS in order to try to influence an election.  I should do this every four years.  
Click to expand...
Would've been been better if it was 'according to FBI sources'.

 
Henry Ford said:
538 has been saying since the Comey letter that the polls will capture the reaction, but it happened too late to capture the reaction to the reaction.  Silver expects a late slight bump to Clinton.
Click to expand...
I said after the Comey letter that Democrats woke the #### up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
avoiding injuries said:
NBC News just said on their nightly news that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation "has been going on for months and hasn't moved an inch." Doesn't sound at all accurate according to what I've read here and elsewhere. 
Click to expand...
You mean from 'anonymous FBI sources'?

 
timschochet said:
Who knows when another Republican will have even this high a percentage chance again?
Click to expand...
I'd say 2020, unless:

a.) The Rs #### up again with a candidate who's as bad or worse than Trump (hard to do)

or

b.) Hillary turns the trends upside down and enters 2020 with significantly higher favorability numbers than 2016 (also unlikely)

 
David Dodds said:
Are people really OK with an app branded as NeverTrump that allows people to swap votes.  I understand that it's not technically not illegal, but sure seems slimy to brand as NeverTrump.  

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nevertrump/id1139944159?mt=8
Click to expand...
This could make a Californian's vote mean something. I think I'll just make the offer straight up with a Libertarian I know in Florida. Of course, I already voted but he doesn't need to know that. The deceitfulness would make me feel truly a part of the Clinton machine. 

 
Chaos Commish said:
This could make a Californian's vote mean something. I think I'll just make the offer straight up with a Libertarian I know in Florida. Of course, I already voted but he doesn't need to know that. The deceitfulness would make me feel truly a part of the Clinton machine. 
Click to expand...
Which is why no one should ever take the swap vote scheme seriously.

 
David Dodds said:
Are people really OK with an app branded as NeverTrump that allows people to swap votes.  I understand that it's not technically not illegal, but sure seems slimy to brand as NeverTrump.  

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nevertrump/id1139944159?mt=8
Click to expand...
David, for a guy who's stated you disliked Trump as much as HIllary, and weren't voting for either of them, you've been awfully active in dragging her down here while ignoring the low-hanging fruit that is Donald Trump entirely (how about that FRAUD TRIAL NEXT MONTH!!???)

Is the fact that Hillary's crap is more secretive, more wrapped up in mystery and innuendo the reason why we talk about it so much while barely noticing Trump's thousand-some lawsuits, two DOJ settlements re. housing discrimination, blatant misuse of his "charity", and open bribery of State officials (FLorida AG)?

 
Dodds is a Trump supporter. He's expressed very strong preferences for his foreign policy. He's shared his thinking on the next four years with one or the other strongly favoring the Trump outcome.

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
Chaos Commish said:
Dodds is a Trump supporter. He's expressed very strong preferences for his foreign policy. He's shared his thinking on the next four years with one or the other strongly favoring the Trump outcome.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure u r wrong.
Click to expand...
Yep....99% certain he's stated he voted for Sanders in the primaries. But his big hang-up is money in politics and Wall-Street's level of influence in Washington, and believe Hillary is a much worse offender than most Republicans. I agree with his positions in general re. that, but he can't seem to consider other issues and problems.

We do have OTHER issues at stake here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
 


- Oh.
Click to expand...
Regarding Jake Tapper hearing about internecine warfare between the FBI and CIA over Clinton, I went to school with the author of this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge:_The_Secret_War_between_the_FBI_and_CIA*

The FBI and CIA have basically been at the war since the beginning (since the inception of the CIA, I should say, founded after the FBI?). One big problem is that if the CIA is tracking a spy abroad, they literally aren't supposed to maintain their watch domestically if they enter the country, BY LAW. Conversely, if the FBI is surveilling a suspected spy domestically and they leave the country, they are no longer under their purview. Each is supposed to hand off the case to the other agency/organization upon either entering or leaving the country. A big problem with that is often times a prevailing law enforcement mentality of wanting to "break the case" and being suspicious of handing over work to someone else has led to chronic, habitual cases of bad actors slipping through the cracks of systemic weaknesses in this uneasy alliance leading directly to bungled international and domestic espionage investigations, with frequently catastrophic results to the American public.

* Epilogue

  • The existence of major FBI CIA problems has typically been denied by the parties in power, while the sins of previous generations are acknowledged readily. In this, both sides have been much like the Soviet rulers they spent so long fighting attacking past administrations as bankrupt and moribund, in order to make the present seem more perfect.
  • After more than fifty years of rivalry, Agency people are still perceived by FBI agents as intellectual, Ivy League, wine drinking, pipe smoking, international relations types, sometimes aloof. The Bureau's people are regarded by CIA as cigar smoking, beer drinking, door-¬knocking cops. What kind of restructuring might overcome such stereo¬typical perceptions especially when they are generally true?
  • Why should counterintelligence duties be divided between two agencies? The traditional view is that it was Roosevelt's political instinct, in keeping with the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, that made him avoid concentrating secret powers and overall intelligence responsibility in a single law enforcement agency. In fact, however, the foreign domestic split was originally effected on bureaucratic, not constitutional grounds. The issues of political dictatorship and division of intelligence jurisdictions have nothing inherently to do with each other. The civil liberties argument, which equates these two issues, is to that extent false.
  • American culture has always been tormented by the idea of government secrecy in a way that European nations have never been.
  • That CIA counterspies operated in the U.S. for fifty years without greater civil liberties violations than actually occurred was a function of the uniquely American character—a pragmatism far more idealistic than usually recognized.
  • Every Government inquiry into intelligence, from the first Pearl Harbor inquiry to the 1992 Iraq-Gate probe, cited interagency non-coordination as a major problem to be solved. Failure to solve it damaged the national security of the Republic, and imperiled the Republic itself.
  • That such a phrase as The American Way of Life could no longer be uttered uncynically, at the end of what was once called The American Century, could be conceived as the consequence of various national traumas, and to catalog them was to review, for the large part, the circumstances of interagency strife. Japanese dive-bombers in the Hawaiian dawn; atomic bomb secrets stolen by Soviet spies; failure to prevent or properly investigate the death of a young President; an inability to understand student protest during the Vietnam War; the Watergate coverup; the blowing of CIA's illegal Iran-Contra networks; a bank raid that exposed U.S. complicity in arming Iraq; spy scandals which showed that our secrets were not safe; the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocents on a beautiful September morning—in such episodes could be discerned the FBI-CIA war, both as symptom and cause of an unmistakable national weakness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
renesauz said:
David, for a guy who's stated you disliked Trump as much as HIllary, and weren't voting for either of them, you've been awfully active in dragging her down here while ignoring the low-hanging fruit that is Donald Trump entirely (how about that FRAUD TRIAL NEXT MONTH!!???)

Is the fact that Hillary's crap is more secretive, more wrapped up in mystery and innuendo the reason why we talk about it so much while barely noticing Trump's thousand-some lawsuits, two DOJ settlements re. housing discrimination, blatant misuse of his "charity", and open bribery of State officials (FLorida AG)?
Click to expand...
I'm not Dodds, but I'll answer for myself.  I view a Trump presidency as unthinkable.  But, I don't find the Trump supporters -- at least here anyway -- capable of holding a coherent conversation.  Most are, with few exceptions, hysterical lapdogs who are more interested in exaggerating their lunacy for effect than they are giving any thought to any position they claim to support.  In short, it is impossible to lay a critique on Trump with the hopes of engaging in a reasonable discussion.  I honestly can't name one Trump supporter here--not anti-Hillary folks, but a true Trump supporter--who seems motivated to have a serious discussion. 

Hillary supporters suffer, by and large, with a different problem.  I'd first say, I respect a lot of the posters here.  I'd characterize many of them as bright--I know a number of them have earned advanced degrees.  But, a lot of people have developed a blind spot when it comes to Hillary.  It's born, I believe, from the same irrationality that causes us to root for sports teams.  They're rooting for laundry at this point, and there's just too much cognitive dissonance to really hold competing views that the Clintons are awesome, that democrats are awesome, that a Trump presidency would represent a state of emergency for this country, while at the same time being open to the dishonesty and corruption that defines the Clintons.  In some way, too, I think once you stake your claim to something publicly (e.g., an online community, many of whom have been around a decade or more and kinda gotten to know each other a bit), it's really hard to go back and say you were wrong.

So, I can't speak for Dodds, but I really do believe we have a role in shaping opinions here with dialogue.  It isn't always pretty--and it most certainly isn't always productive--but it would be naive to think we don't have some effect on others.  Why else are we here, sometimes for hours a day arguing a point?  And, I think the problem Hillary supporters have--this blind spot--is at least something we can work with.  There's hope. (And, incidentally, I think the reason HRC supporters engage with some of the left-leaning HRC haters is it's felt they suffer from a blind spot, as well, but that there is enough to work with).  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Follow the email address from the Wiki-Leak.  It was written from the lady doing the Satanic ritual.  John, Tony, and Mary Podesta.  Nice clan the Clintons use to run their campaign. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
I'm not Dodds, but I'll answer for myself.  I view a Trump presidency as unthinkable.  But, I don't find the Trump supporters -- at least here anyway -- capable of holding a coherent conversation.  Most are, with few exceptions, hysterical lapdogs who are more interested in exaggerating their lunacy for effect than they are giving any thought to any position they claim to support.  In short, it is impossible to lay a critique on Trump with the hopes of engaging in a reasonable discussion.  I honestly can't name one Trump supporter here--not anti-Hillary folks, but a true Trump supporter--who seems motivated to have a serious discussion. 

Hillary supporters suffer, by and large, with a different problem.  I'd first say, I respect a lot of the posters here.  I'd characterize many of them as bright--I know a number of them have earned advanced degrees.  But, a lot of people have developed a blind spot when it comes to Hillary.  It's born, I believe, from the same irrationality that causes us to root for sports teams.  They're rooting for laundry at this point, and there's just too much cognitive dissonance to really hold competing views that the Clintons are awesome, that democrats are awesome, that a Trump presidency would represent a state of emergency for this country, while at the same time being open to the dishonesty and corruption that defines the Clintons.  In some way, too, I think once you stake your claim to something publicly (e.g., an online community, many of whom have been around a decade or more and kinda gotten to know each other a bit), it's really hard to go back and say you were wrong.

So, I can't speak for Dodds, but I really do believe we have a role in shaping opinions here with dialogue.  It isn't always pretty--and it most certainly isn't always productive--but it would be naive to think we don't have some effect on others.  Why else are we here, sometimes for hours a day arguing a point?  And, I think the problem Hillary supporters have--this blind spot--is at least something we can work with.  There's hope. (And, incidentally, I think the reason HRC supporters engage with some of the left-leaning HRC haters is it's felt they suffer from a blind spot, as well, but that there is enough to work with).  
Click to expand...
This is well said, but I think you drastically over-state (over-estimate?) the "blindness" that exists among the Hillary "supporters". One can very reasonably believe Clinton is corrupt, while rejecting the constant stream of over-hyped and over-stated anti-Clinton hysteria from the right (IE: she's corrupt within the normal bounds (perhaps barely) of upper level Washington politicians and NOT the devil incarnate.) One can believe that Hillary is a poor choice for President, and perhaps should be DQ'd, while recognizing that Trump is several orders of magnitude WORSE, and therefore Hillary is the only reasonable/logical choice to make.

When one spends an inordinate amount of time denigrating the only alternative to Trump who has an actual CHANCE to win and prevent a Trump Presidency, these charges and discussions you suggest, however well-meaning or legitimate, do more to advance and legitimize the greater danger that is Trump. Perhaps many who appear on the surface to be denying Hillary's flaws and problems are doing so not so much because they refuse to see them or because they've made themselves blissfully unaware of them but instead because spending a lot of time contemplating them becomes counter-productive. Because even at their worst, if we gave Fox and friends credit for being mostly right (they aren't), SHE'S STILL A BETTER CHOICE THAN TRUMP!

This isn't a situation where we look at the candidate and say yeah or nay, only to await another candidate to consider, like the way the Senate is SUPPOSED to do with SC justices. We can only COMPARE the two candidates already presented and choose the better one. Deciding Hillary to be the better one should not be looked upon as deciding Hillary to be a particularly GOOD one. I think many supporters in here would have preferred a different choice from the Democrats.

 
David Dodds said:
Follow the email address from the Wiki-Leak.  It was written from the lady doing the Satanic ritual.  John, Tony, and Mary Podesta.  Nice clan the Clintons use to run their campaign. 
Click to expand...
Marina Abromovic is a performance artist. She is definitely weird. I personally wouldn't describe her as "Satanic", but then again I wouldn't describe Halloween or AC/DC as "Satanic", either. But that's just my personal opinion.

At any rate, there's no evidence that John Podesta ever had anything to do with her.

Also, I am now firmly convinced that BGP was a David Dodds alias.

 
renesauz said:
This is well said, but I think you drastically over-state (over-estimate?) the "blindness" that exists among the Hillary "supporters". One can very reasonably believe Clinton is corrupt, while rejecting the constant stream of over-hyped and over-stated anti-Clinton hysteria from the right (IE: she's corrupt within the normal bounds (perhaps barely) of upper level Washington politicians and NOT the devil incarnate.) One can believe that Hillary is a poor choice for President, and perhaps should be DQ'd, while recognizing that Trump is several orders of magnitude WORSE, and therefore Hillary is the only reasonable/logical choice to make.

When one spends an inordinate amount of time denigrating the only alternative to Trump who has an actual CHANCE to win and prevent a Trump Presidency, these charges and discussions you suggest, however well-meaning or legitimate, do more to advance and legitimize the greater danger that is Trump. Perhaps many who appear on the surface to be denying Hillary's flaws and problems are doing so not so much because they refuse to see them or because they've made themselves blissfully unaware of them but instead because spending a lot of time contemplating them becomes counter-productive. Because even at their worst, if we gave Fox and friends credit for being mostly right (they aren't), SHE'S STILL A BETTER CHOICE THAN TRUMP!

This isn't a situation where we look at the candidate and say yeah or nay, only to await another candidate to consider, like the way the Senate is SUPPOSED to do with SC justices. We can only COMPARE the two candidates already presented and choose the better one. Deciding Hillary to be the better one should not be looked upon as deciding Hillary to be a particularly GOOD one. I think many supporters in here would have preferred a different choice from the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Fair points.  And I can't count the number of times I've had to make explicitly clear the disclaimer that, "despite what I'm about to say [or have just said], Hillary is an infinitely better choice and I voted for her." 

It's too bad she and her campaign never really promoted a new narrative, except that she's better than Trump.  As the Wikileaks content is crystallizing, it's really hard to convince folks of the nuanced position that, "Yeah Hilary's a crook, but she's better than Trump."  I subscribe to that.  I know a few in here who get that.  But, for the population at large, she had to create a positive image of herself and never quite did, let alone advance a justification for her presidency beyond the "I'm better than Trump" theme.

She still holds an advantage, but it wouldn't shock me at all to see her win with 272 EVs, which is just insane to consider, given who she's running against.

 
[scooter] said:
Marina Abromovic is a performance artist. She is definitely weird. I personally wouldn't describe her as "Satanic", but then again I wouldn't describe Halloween or AC/DC as "Satanic", either. But that's just my personal opinion.

At any rate, there's no evidence that John Podesta ever had anything to do with her.

Also, I am now firmly convinced that BGP was a David Dodds alias.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean, chalk this up in the category of things I really couldn't care less about.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Yeah, I mean, chalk this up in the category of things I really couldn't care less about.
Click to expand...
This #### is beyond weird. You don't care if a person involved in this is advising the president?  :unsure:

 
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15893

involves Marina Abromovic, John Podesta, Mary Podesta, and Tony Podesta.

"I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place."

video from Marina on Spirit Cooking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EsJLNGVJ7E

Looks Satanic in nature to me.  Ritual involves breast milk, semen, blood.  They have a clay kid figure where they dump the blood on.  I could not get through the video - Too damn dark for me.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From 538: Election Update: Why Clinton’s Position Is Worse Than Obama’s

Couldn’t Clinton win Nevada to make up for the loss of New Hampshire? Or Florida? Or North Carolina? Well … of course she could. All those states remain highly competitive. The point, as we’ve said before, is just that Clinton’s so-called firewall is not very robust. If you’re only ahead in exactly enough states to win the Electoral College, and you’d lose if any one of them gets away, that’s less of a firewall and more of a rusting, chain-link fence.

 
Spirit Cooking?  WTF?  So now we have aliens & occult activity.  Alex Jones's head is going to explode.

 
For the Record - I think the wikileaks are helping Clinton, in a roundabout kind of way.  I would guess that most low-information voters conflate the wikileaks from Podesta and the FBI investigation - so the more the wikileaks fire blanks, the more I think people will exonerate her in the FBI investigation.

Today is a big day.  If Clinton can avoid any bombshells, I think she has enough left in the tank to get across the finish line.

 
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
252K
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