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 (7 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did Hillary address her supporters at that glass ceiling place?  That would be pretty lame if she didn't at least give an atta-boy to her volunteers.

Also, too bad that a day before the election she called off the fireworks show.  THAT would have been epic.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think that is probably a little harsh on Hillary.  I imagine last night was incredibly emotional, and yes, maybe she could have come out to address her supporters - but I think the decision to send Podesta was made at the same time they made the decision to concede to Trump.  Podesta was simply the mechanism to get the crowd to disperse quietly - potential to go sideways if they knew it was over.  She was not ready to face the public after an emotional and humiliating loss.  I am not going to find much fault there.

I don't think she waited too long to make the call, and I was expecting this to go well into today.  Bottom line, I think she made the tough call, at the right time, and I think she nailed her concession speech today. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I agree that it's probably not easy to go out there and face the music but she was trying to become the ####### president. Man the #### up and thank the people that worked so hard for such a horrible candidate as yourself. That's what a real person and real leader would have done. But no, she probably had to get her concession speech written by someone else focus group tested first. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hang 10 said:
If Trump can negotiate some more favorable trade deals and get a handle on illegal immigration flooding the market with cheap labor than the thought is that jobs and wages could increase for the working class. You might not agree that he can do that but that's why he won. 
Click to expand...
Add making sure Western Europe ponies up for their fair share of military expenditures.  I'm tired of paying for their vacations.

 
jonessed said:
With the Supreme Court?  I hope not.  Reid changed the rules to allow everything else though.  That's not going away.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it and think it'd be warranted.  With Reid creating the precedent, R's would have plenty of cover also.

 
I would like to be a fly on the wall when McCain, Rubio, Cruz and the like have to lineup to kiss the ring.   That is going to be AWKWARD!   "Hey, Melania see this guy here?  Yeah, that is McCain he said I wasn't fit to be President!"  

 
Statorama said:
You're trying real hard not to say she might have been blackout drunk
Click to expand...
No - I am just trying to keep some perspective here - I don't think there is any doubt on where I stood with respect to Clinton prior to the election.  There is a lot I disagree with her about - this does not even register.  I think she did the right thing by conceding and not going to hanging chads.  I think on a personal level she was probably emotionally drained from the events of the evening - and nothing was going to be accomplished by making a concession speech at 3:30 AM while the wounds were still fresh.  I don't think it speaks to her leadership, or lack thereof.

There was also a non-zero chance that a concession speech to that many people could have sparked the wrong reaction.  While Podesta was getting the supporters out, while still giving them hope, it was probably the best way to handle a potentially volatile situation.  As soon as Podesta's remarks cleared the room, Clinton was calling Trump - I don' think this was anykind of delay tactic, or that she later changed her mind - it was part of the plan to concede as gracefully as she could.

 
No, you 60 votes for a "normal" override of a fillibuster.  That's why they say 60 votes is "filibuster-proof."

In THEORY (Dems didn't have the sack to test it), with a simple 50+ majority, you could eviscerate the filibuster entirely.  I.e., eliminate it.  So you aren't "overriding" the filibuster, you are doing away with it.  Hence the "nuclear" description.

 
Rich Conway said:
No, it refers to changing the rules to eliminate filibusters for SCOTUS appointments.
Click to expand...
Right, and my guess is that the Dems didn't use the nuclear option because they envisioned a day that they'd have the minority and would want to use filibuster themselves.

My take:  If you want to keep the filibuster, fine.  HOWEVER, you should keep it like it was originally written.  That means, some jackhole would have to stand up "Mr. Smith Goes to Washintgon Style" and actually stand there for 17 hours talking. 

 
Does anyone know our friend from CA personally? Did he say he wasn't going to post for a certain time if she lost?

when he comes back, it'll be a replay of this morning. 

 
The Republicans just refused to hold any hearings or take any action at all on a SC nominee for approximately a full year.  They didn't vote him down or filibuster him or anything like that.  They just completely ignored him, as if Obama never even made the nomination.  For a year.  And they paid absolutely no political price for doing so.

Anybody who thinks that they'll somehow balk at the nuclear option hasn't been paying attention.  That's actually far less radical than what they actually just did.

 
I mean, you can actually make a good philosophical argument for the proposition that "Nominations should not be subject to filibuster."  By way of contrast, nobody even really attempted to make an argument for not action on the Garland nomination -- they just did it without bothering with any justification other than "Because #### you is why."

 
IvanKaramazov said:
The Republicans just refused to hold any hearings or take any action at all on a SC nominee for approximately a full year.  They didn't vote him down or filibuster him or anything like that.  They just completely ignored him, as if Obama never even made the nomination.  For a year.  And they paid absolutely no political price for doing so.

Anybody who thinks that they'll somehow balk at the nuclear option hasn't been paying attention.  That's actually far less radical than what they actually just did.
Click to expand...
The complacency of the D leadership not to push this is issue was shocking.  They were so sure they would win yesterday....

 
Sweet J said:
Right, and my guess is that the Dems didn't use the nuclear option because they envisioned a day that they'd have the minority and would want to use filibuster themselves.

My take:  If you want to keep the filibuster, fine.  HOWEVER, you should keep it like it was originally written.  That means, some jackhole would have to stand up "Mr. Smith Goes to Washintgon Style" and actually stand there for 17 hours talking. 
Click to expand...
I agree with this.  How the filibuster has evolved is an abomination.

 
beavers said:
She's 5, a girlie girl. She's been dreaming about our wedding. Mainly because she wants to wear a dress. She's already picked out our dresses. And, the setting ?

She asked a few weeks ago, when we plan to get married. If SS is overturned, I will definitely share with her. It's the unfortunate reality my family faces.
Click to expand...
Ummm...I don't think the SCOTUS decision allowed an adult to marry a 5 yo regardless of gender.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I thought it was great speech by Clinton.  I thought she hit all the right notes - and honestly, acted like the leader we all hope Trump will be.  

She was not ready to face her supporters last night, and I can understand that - but she conceded early enough for me, given the state of the voting, and put the overall country ahead of her own interests in potentially challenging some of the results.  That was not an easy decision to make - but she made it, and I think that deserves some recognition.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a good speech but the thing that irritated me was when she started listing all the categories of people. A big part of her loss was the identity politics of the left. She needed to say Americans. They are Americans. That divisive talk just shows she still doesn't get it. 

 
avoiding injuries said:
Does anyone know our friend from CA personally? Did he say he wasn't going to post for a certain time if she lost?

when he comes back, it'll be a replay of this morning. 
Click to expand...
Yeah I was looking for him. I wanted to personally thank him for getting me involved in politics. It was a blast working on my first campaign for president Trump. 

 
SHIZNITTTT said:
What is Trump going to give him a better job?  Is that their thought?
Click to expand...
It's hard to lump all Trump voters into one idea...but I'd say that a large portion of Trump voters see him as a last chance to the success that maybe they were on path for at one time that the last 25 years haven't given them.....and when you're left between a chance and nothing, you'll take a chance.

That's why a lot of those voters were Obama voters. He preached change and didn't deliver to this sect of people.  That's why the polls were wrong as the polls just seemed to take into account D and R turnout without understanding the idea that alot of D's would cross over and vote for him.  I don't think they particularly all of a sudden support the Republican Party....they just like that this guy destroyed virtually all of the political machines (Bush/Clinton/Obama) that haven't delivered on promises and he's believable enough for these people to think that this time is different.

He's the Third Party candidate everyone has wanted to come along to knock over the system. The Republicans are never going to be the same. He's going to squash dissidents on that side with probably more vigor than he subdues the Democrats.  He'll constantly threaten to side with the remanants of the Democratic Party if he doesn't get what he wants from them. It's just unfortunate that if you're a tried and true "liberal" Democrat.....there was something more than just the POTUS at stake in this election, i.e. The Supreme Court future. 

 
Adam West said:
12 choices here: 

1. Hillary lost because she is personally perceived as a liar and corrupt, and the public rejected her. 

2. Hillary lost because she is perceived as too pro-Wall Street, trade, and open immigration, and the public wants a new direction on these issues. 

3. Hillary lost because she represents the establishment and the public wants an outsider. 

4. Hillary lost because she is a woman and the public just doesn't trust a woman to be President. 

5. Hillary lost because she campaigned as Obama 2.0, this is really a rejection of him. 

6. Hillary lost because Donald Trump is bigger than life and people preferred his personality to hers. 

7. Hillary lost because the public is sick and tired of political correctness and that's what she represents to a lot of people; it was a rejection of modern day liberalism. 

8. Hillary lost because she ran a terrible campaign. 

9. Hillary lost because she pissed off people with her deplorables comment. 

10. Hillary lost because James Comey wrote a letter 11 days ago; otherwise she wins. 

11. Some of the above. 

12. All of the above. 
Click to expand...
The biggie was the deplorable, irredeemable non american sentiment she repeated several times at fund raisers. It had a motivating galvanizing effect. Much like on FBG Tim, McGarnicle and Tobias were showed so much condescending contempt for their fellow citizens that it motivated many who were the non voter, non political people to really see her for what she was and get involved to fight her corruption. A scummy politician who was using the government for power and money and hated the white trash hicks she had to pretend to represent. "Let them eat cake" has been a really poor political slogan over the ages. 

 
Thunderlips said:
It's hard to lump all Trump voters into one idea...but I'd say that a large portion of Trump voters see him as a last chance to the success that maybe they were on path for at one time that the last 25 years haven't given them.....and when you're left between a chance and nothing, you'll take a chance.

That's why a lot of those voters were Obama voters. He preached change and didn't deliver to this sect of people.  That's why the polls were wrong as the polls just seemed to take into account D and R turnout without understanding the idea that alot of D's would cross over and vote for him.  I don't think they particularly all of a sudden support the Republican Party....they just like that this guy destroyed virtually all of the political machines (Bush/Clinton/Obama) that haven't delivered on promises and he's believable enough for these people to think that this time is different.

He's the Third Party candidate everyone has wanted to come along to knock over the system. The Republicans are never going to be the same. He's going to squash dissidents on that side with probably more vigor than he subdues the Democrats.  He'll constantly threaten to side with the remanants of the Democratic Party if he doesn't get what he wants from them. It's just unfortunate that if you're a tried and true "liberal" Democrat.....there was something more than just the POTUS at stake in this election, i.e. The Supreme Court future. 
Click to expand...
Good post. 

Definitely agree that Trump is a 3rd party candidate. High jacking one of the major parties was the only way that the 3rd party could possibly win in it all.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
13.  Hillary lost because her most popular demographics are marginalized by the electoral college while those in which she is least popular are given outsize influence.

It's not the only reason of course, but if someone gets the most vote but doesn't win the election it damn sure belongs on the list, probably near the top of it TBH.
Click to expand...
Just yell RIGGED it will make you feel better  :loco:

 
Hang 10 said:
Good post. 

Definitely agree that Drumpf is a 3rd party candidate. High jacking one of the major parties was the only way that the 3rd party could possibly win in it all.  
Click to expand...
So now that he's in, why is he going to fill his cabinet with all those particularly vile Republicans he's reportedly going to appoint?

 
Walking Boot said:
PA or Wisconsin!

Wisconsin!

They don't get any bluer. It's practically socialist! How does she lose Wisconsin!

She was always a joke and a fraud and finally, the people saw through her.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin, like most states, is very much a tale of urban vs. rural.  Milwaukee and Dane County (where Madison is) vs. the rest of the state which is overwhelmingly comprised of working class whites.  As we know, that group turned out to vote for Trump more than they did other recent Republican candidates.

I'm also guessing that Trump's Law & Order message particularly resonated in both Wisconsin and North Carolina due to the recent riots in Milwaukee and Charlotte.

Several months back I pointed out that Nixon was swept into power in '68, in part, based on Americans' disgust with the urban riots they were witnessing, and the idea that Nixon would be better equipped to deal with those riots than his opponent.  I think this was a factor in Trump's victories in both Wisconsin and North Carolina.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Please stop  In the wake of the election a lot of people who opposed Trump are pledging to make a concerted effort to listen to the grievances of those who voted for him.  The least you can do is slow a little empathy towards people who are extraordinarily upset today.  Whether you have kids or not, calling someone a fool for expressing anxiety about a parenting concern is a little out of line.
Click to expand...
In, the wake of losing an election some people who opposed Trump are pledging to make a concerted effort to listen to the grievance of those who voted for him you mean. If Hillary had won, those people would still (and maybe you consider them to still be) "deplorables." I warned about this: that if we didn't address their concerns the next candidate would be worse. Tobias, this is the penalty the Left is paying for their arrogance, for their failure to show any empathy for those who were hurt by Leftist policies. Now it is too late to listen and the Left is paying for their arrogance in a big way. You sow what you reap.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scoresman said:
So if his ideologies are similar to Ben Carson, Giuliani, Gingrich, and Christie, etc, maybe he's not as 3rd party as you might think.  
Click to expand...
I think his ideology is "I want sycophants everywhere around me."  Other than that, I sincerely don't think Trump has an ideology.

 
The surge that led to previously solid blue states to flip red was not because of the Comey letter.

But she would have won if Comey looked at the emails first.

 
beavers said:
No. there are many reasons why she lost. This statement is in reference to her leadership qualities as president, not her ability to campaign. She showed us today what a true leader does. Trump on the other hand, undermined democracy with his rigging rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Goes to sleep rather than giving her concession speech in front of hundreds of her supporters?

 
NCCommish said:
Really? Have you met Mike Pence? The GOP gets votes promising those things and Mike likes to deliver.
Click to expand...
Pence is VP, meaning he has about as much power to produce as someone who has erectile dysfunction after having a vasectomy and a prostectomy.

 
beavers said:
She showed us today what a true leader does. Trump on the other hand, undermined democracy with his rigging rhetoric.
Click to expand...
So you don't think that Clinton's campaign and the DNC working in unison with debate moderators to provide Clinton the questions in advance and to provide the moderators with questions to pose the other candidates is a form of rigging?

Is that true leadership?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gary Coal Man said:
So you don't think that Clinton's campaign and the DNC working in unison with debate moderators to provide Clinton the questions in advance and to provide the moderators with questions to pose the other candidates is a form of rigging?

Is that true leadership?
Click to expand...
Or better yet, the DNC sending out people to rallies to incite violence....might be one of the more reprehensible revelations this cycle 

 
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
255K
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