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.
Pretty good CNN op-ed
TEAR UP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

There is only one silver lining in yesterday's election results, which will allow a con man, a pathological liar, a bold racist and a sexual predator to succeed the first African-American president.
We can now launch a difficult but urgent mission — shaking the Democratic Party down to its foundation, ejecting the failed Bill/Hillary Clinton economic and global worldview and standing up for a set of populist, sound economic and foreign policy principles that could earn majority support.
On the surface, it's astounding that a man who ripped off thousands of people who worked for him became the champion of the regular Joe. But, as Bernie Sanders reiterated in a recent podcast with me, the problem is that people have ceased to see a difference between the parties, particularly on economic issues. I'll briefly cite a few examples.
 
Starting out with NAFTA, Bill Clinton forced "free trade" upon the party. I warned multiple times during the election that Trump would make inroads with voters in the Rust Belt unless Democrats made a clean break from corporate trade deals. Around the globe, these deals are a key tool to drive down wages, exploit workers and prosecute global class warfare. But, the current president still serves up the malarkey about the benefits of these deals.
 
Bill Clinton's broader economic agenda was even more corrosive. During Clinton's so-called "good economy," the decline of organized labor continued. The president, and his secretary of labor, Robert Reich, did very little to arrest the decline.
 

No Democratic president was more focused on letting business interests off the leash. He gave more power to media companies, triggering consolidation and a powerful wave of concentration of the media into a few hands. The average person, not steeped in policy, understood this every time he or she opened their skyrocketing cable bills.
Hand-in-glove with Wall Street, Clinton got rid of Glass Steagall Act, which removed the separation between commercial banks, insurers and investment banks, allowing the self-dealing manipulation of mortgages and interests rates and accelerating the shifting of huge wealth into the hands of a few.
 
Again, the average person, just trying to make ends meet, eventually got the sharpest end of that spear when millions of people lost their homes, jobs and retirement in the thundering collapse known as the Great Recession, which, for many, has been a depression.



 




There is so much more: A planet dying because for years fossil fuel interests were coddled. Welfare reform. Mass incarceration of people of color, which had both racial and economic consequences. The praise of the Clinton years, and red-faced defense by its leader, was always couched in contrast to the Reagan and two Bush Administrations. Great.
 
Feeding off the Clinton machine, the Democratic Party has become riddled with lobbyists, billionaires, and hustlers who pocket huge sums of money by running either nonprofit "think tanks" or election-cycle networks, and politicians who, indeed, are focused mostly on reelection. Surrounding the party are extremely well-paid non-profit leaders, who end up defending the status quo.
 
Chief component of the Clinton machine in recent years, the Clinton Foundation operated somewhat out of sight. The big donations streaming from anti-union powerhouses like Wal-Mart or big financial entities like Bank of America not only whitewashed the policies of interests directly opposed to what the Democratic Party should stand for, but they also clouded the deeper systemic crisis within the party. We can only address climate change, poverty and global inequality by axing the very system benefiting many of the donors to the Clinton Foundation.
 
Fast forward to the 2016 election. There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump. His authenticity would have pierced through Trump's fraudulent appeal. His concise, point-by-point evisceration of a failed economic model and aggressive, blundering foreign policy was entirely understandable to voters.
As one of Sen. Sanders' national surrogates, I went to dozens of his rallies. At each one, he took to the stage, a big sheaf of papers in his hands, and, treating people as adults not just backdrops for TV ads, he conducted a seminar on America and the globe. People are quite familiar with Sanders' economic agenda, including higher taxes on the wealthy, expanding Social Security and a single-payer, Medicare for All system. All of which were sound economically, not to mention morally urgent.


 



What was often given short shrift was his broader philosophical willingness to challenge American exceptionalism. Many times, including during two national debates, he pointed out that, while he was proud as a son of immigrants to be an American, this country has supported repressive dictators, sent the CIA on missions to help overthrow democratically elected governments who were not supportive enough of our interests and sent our young men and women to die in immoral wars. And he wasn't afraid to point out that those failed foreign policies have been bedrocks of the Democratic Party for several decades.
 
Rather than foster a good debate during the primaries, the party, obsessed with the coronation of an anointed candidate, set out to destroy Sanders and his movement.
The various email leaks showing broad collusion only confirmed what was patently obvious on the surface: We stood in opposition to a virtual wall of elected Democratic officials, and party functionaries. Proudly so, I might add.
 
As a union member, I was particularly saddened to see the labor movement mostly line up in the primaries behind the status quo — a status quo often linked arm-and-arm with corporate interests bent on destroying unions. Beyond rhetoric, democracy was not valued. Once Sanders effectively conceded the race, he took on full-throated advocacy for Secretary Clinton. To support his position, many of us, including me, agreed to play nice at the convention and beyond, because we felt that Donald Trump was a unique threat to the nation.


 



On the night Tim Kaine spoke to the convention, many Sanders delegates like me wanted to express respectful opposition to President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement by holdings signs. But, our signs were confiscated, and, when we made some homemade versions on the back of the officially-sanctioned Kaine signs, we were told to cease and desist or our credentials would be revoked. So much for democracy.
More important, that gagging of pretty mild protest was symbolic. The party is not an open place, beyond rhetoric, to a whole swath of activists and voters who want deep, systemic change.
So, now what? Yesterday was indeed devastating. My niece texted me, "what do we do now?" Her desperate question broke my heart. I grew up in a feminist household: My mother was one of a handful of women to break a glass ceiling, going to medical school after she already had her three kids.
I know many young women are mourning the blow of a President Trump partly because of the rejection of a woman as the first president -- which is yet another reason I argue we must remake the Democratic Party.
 
First, the Clinton machine must be rooted out of the party. A quarter of a century is enough time to understand that its ideology has failed the American people.
 
Second, the Democratic National Committee has to be turned inside out. The disgraced and deposed chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is only the worst symptom of this wider truth. The party has lost hundreds of state legislative seats, Republicans now control two-thirds of state chambers and have a comfortable majority of governorships (who will determine redistricting in 2020). They have a historic margin in the House of Representatives, will continue to run the Senate and, thus, likely put a Trump-stamp on the Supreme Court.
 
Third, we need to run targeted primary contests broadly and across the board to replace elected officials who don't want to see a more open, vibrant and inclusive party. The Sanders movement has shown we can raise the money to fund challengers — and they are ready, by the thousands, to compete.
With these changes, and drawing from the energy of many great activists, a new Democratic Party can be revitalized. The progressive movement, in all its elements — advocates for labor, environmentalists, and civil rights of all stripes — can shape that future.

 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hubris all around.
Holding the anticipatory victory celebration gathering at the glass ceiling building seems in retrospect a case of getting ahead of herself. Maybe take care of business first before spending much time and devoting much thought to weighing symbolic architectural considerations of her presumptive victory.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Been listening to year's of Republicans harping on the emails.  The corruption.  "Lock her up."  To them it is a major issue.

Yet those same people will not admit Comey "reopening" the investigation a week before the election had an impact.   :loco:

Yes, I blame Clinton and those who nominated her.  But I can also blame Comey.  Unprecedented meddling in an election.  

And no it wasn't the reason for the Republican surge across the country especially in the Senate races.

But do I think Comey's decision may have influenced 0.5% of the electorate in Michigan, WI and PA?  Likely.

 
Been listening to year's of Republicans harping on the emails.  The corruption.  "Lock her up."  To them it is a major issue.

Yet those same people will not admit Comey "reopening" the investigation a week before the election had an impact.   :loco:

Yes, I blame Clinton and those who nominated her.  But I can also blame Comey.  Unprecedented meddling in an election.  

And no it wasn't the reason for the Republican surge across the country especially in the Senate races.

But do I think Comey's decision may have influenced 0.5% of the electorate in Michigan, WI and PA?  Likely.
You keep harping on this Comey thing.  Time to move on.  It had little or no impact at all.  People already knew Clinton was a corrupt, lying POS well before then.

You're letting Comey get in the way of any real critical analysis about your candidate.  If you keep making excuses you won't learn anything from this.

 
You keep harping on this Comey thing.  Time to move on.  It had little or no impact at all.  People already knew Clinton was a corrupt, lying POS well before then.

You're letting Comey get in the way of any real critical analysis about your candidate.  If you keep making excuses you won't learn anything from this.
Timing matters on these things.  Not to the right who hate her anyway, but to the people that made the difference in the election.  Having it come up right then was damaging.  We saw that with Trump's access hollywood video.  After 5 weeks people had let its impact slip away.  Folks that had publicly denounced Trump and questioned the moral character of anyone willing to vote for him were back to voting for him.

I think you'd be crazy to think that the results wouldn't have been at least to some extent different if Comey's thing had come out 5 weeks ago and Trump's ##### grab video had come out this week.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Been listening to year's of Republicans harping on the emails.  The corruption.  "Lock her up."  To them it is a major issue.

Yet those same people will not admit Comey "reopening" the investigation a week before the election had an impact.   :loco:

Yes, I blame Clinton and those who nominated her.  But I can also blame Comey.  Unprecedented meddling in an election.  

And no it wasn't the reason for the Republican surge across the country especially in the Senate races.

But do I think Comey's decision may have influenced 0.5% of the electorate in Michigan, WI and PA?  Likely.
This is about the 12th time you've posted some version of this today.  Guy, we got your ######ed point the first 11th times. Move the #### on with your life for ####'s sake.

 
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.
This is the game we play by.  And it ensures that all of the country gets attention - if we went by a popular vote whole swaths of the country would be forgotten.  

The electoral college is easily one of the best parts of the constitution.  And, yes, I'd say that if Hillary won 80% of the counties like Trump just did.

 
Holding the anticipatory victory celebration gathering at the glass ceiling building seems in retrospect a case of getting ahead of herself. Maybe take care of business first before spending much time and devoting much thought to weighing symbolic architectural considerations of her presumptive victory.
That is who she was. It was always about her. She planned out a huge production involving her making history and thousands of paper shards of glass with her Olympian accomplishments. Couldn't be bothered by the people or the election. 

 
Been listening to year's of Republicans harping on the emails.  The corruption.  "Lock her up."  To them it is a major issue.

Yet those same people will not admit Comey "reopening" the investigation a week before the election had an impact.   :loco:

Yes, I blame Clinton and those who nominated her.  But I can also blame Comey.  Unprecedented meddling in an election.  

And no it wasn't the reason for the Republican surge across the country especially in the Senate races.

But do I think Comey's decision may have influenced 0.5% of the electorate in Michigan, WI and PA?  Likely.
Are you claiming the election was RIGGED? I heard that was crazy talk.

 
Been listening to year's of Republicans harping on the emails.  The corruption.  "Lock her up."  To them it is a major issue.

Yet those same people will not admit Comey "reopening" the investigation a week before the election had an impact.   :loco:

Yes, I blame Clinton and those who nominated her.  But I can also blame Comey.  Unprecedented meddling in an election.  

And no it wasn't the reason for the Republican surge across the country especially in the Senate races.

But do I think Comey's decision may have influenced 0.5% of the electorate in Michigan, WI and PA?  Likely.
Comey did exactly what I'd expect him to do.  There's one thing I know about his actions....they pissed off both Dems and Repubs.  In this culture of politics, that's a pretty good indication that he did the right thing.  It sucks that Clinton and her campaign put him in that situation in the first place and that shouldn't be overlooked.

 
This is the game we play by.  And it ensures that all of the country gets attention - if we went by a popular vote whole swaths of the country would be forgotten.  

The electoral college is easily one of the best parts of the constitution.  And, yes, I'd say that if Hillary won 80% of the counties like Trump just did.
Wait what?  The electoral college does ensure most of the country gets no attention. How many campaign stops were in California?  

I fail to see how making every vote actually matter would marginalize some voters. The EC was put in place to essentially keep dumb people from directly electing a President. It failed and probably is unnecessary at this point. 

 
Wait what?  The electoral college does ensure most of the country gets no attention. How many campaign stops were in California?  

I fail to see how making every vote actually matter would marginalize some voters. The EC was put in place to essentially keep dumb people from directly electing a President. It failed and probably is unnecessary at this point. 
That is not the purpose of the EC.

 
That is not the purpose of the EC.


It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

 
Very good concession speech.  I'm fine with her waiting until the next day .  Wasn't sure thing for a while and it was 3 am

 
You keep harping on this Comey thing.  Time to move on.  It had little or no impact at all.  People already knew Clinton was a corrupt, lying POS well before then.

You're letting Comey get in the way of any real critical analysis about your candidate.  If you keep making excuses you won't learn anything from this.
"And no it wasn't the reason for the Republican surge across the country especially in the Senate races."

I think that's pretty clear that I don't think Comey was the reason she lost.  Just the straw the broke the camels back.

Be like if Comey opened an investigation into Trump U the week before the election only to say nevermind.  Kidding yourself to think that would not have an effect and also flip the right out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could argue she is the biggest failure in presidential history. 

She was going against a man who had a disapproval rating of 60%+.  

She was going against a man who had never held public office.

She had, on her side, the current president, who has a very good approval rating right now, a very popular first lady, most of the MSM and the full support of her party, unlike her opponent.

And she still lost.

What a total embarrassment this turned out to be for Hillary Clinton.  She needs to quietly go away and enjoy the millions her and Bill have made.       

 
You keep harping on this Comey thing.  Time to move on.  It had little or no impact at all.  People already knew Clinton was a corrupt, lying POS well before then.

You're letting Comey get in the way of any real critical analysis about your candidate.  If you keep making excuses you won't learn anything from this.
2% - 3% which made the difference in key states.

 
On the night Tim Kaine spoke to the convention, many Sanders delegates like me wanted to express respectful opposition to President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement by holdings signs. But, our signs were confiscated, and, when we made some homemade versions on the back of the officially-sanctioned Kaine signs, we were told to cease and desist or our credentials would be revoked. So much for democracy.
I think it would help if both parties' conventions returned to actual, functioning political organisms. Something similar happened at the GOP convention.

IMO the Dem and GOP party rank and file should have been having serious arguments, debates, open democracy about the candidates they had before them. In a sense every democratic benefit and firewall available to us failed. We shoved it aside. The conventions could be great forces fo vetting candidates. Instead they have become potemkin tv shows.

 
Good to be back. You guys see that some Congressmen still want to have hearings about the emails?

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/305334-chaffetz-would-be-totally-remiss-to-not-continue

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah.) indicated Wednesday he would continue probing Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server despite Clinton's loss in the election.

“It would be totally remiss of us to dismiss [the email investigation] because she’s not going to be president," the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman said, according to The Washington Post.


Are you ####### kidding me???

 
Good to be back. You guys see that some Congressmen still want to have hearings about the emails?

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/305334-chaffetz-would-be-totally-remiss-to-not-continue

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah.) indicated Wednesday he would continue probing Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server despite Clinton's loss in the election.

“It would be totally remiss of us to dismiss [the email investigation] because she’s not going to be president," the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman said, according to The Washington Post.


Are you ####### kidding me???
What do you mean still?  Nothing has changed. The only question is if Trump will bi. ch out & pardon her.  His base wants her rotten butt to pay. 

 
Good to be back. You guys see that some Congressmen still want to have hearings about the emails?

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/305334-chaffetz-would-be-totally-remiss-to-not-continue

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah.) indicated Wednesday he would continue probing Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server despite Clinton's loss in the election.

“It would be totally remiss of us to dismiss [the email investigation] because she’s not going to be president," the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman said, according to The Washington Post.


Are you ####### kidding me???
Now that her political career is over, maybe she will be punished like normal civil servants would for these actions

 
Congress should drop this. Whether or not she is guilty of anything, it's very bad for the country. Hillary is done.

I argued the exact same thing 8 years ago when certain liberals wanted to investigate George W. Bush for torture and possible war crimes. Obama, wisely IMO, chose not to pursue this. Both Donald Trump and Paul Ryan said last night that it was important for the nation to move forward and try to unite; I agree with that sentiment. Republicans have control of the White House, the House, and the Senate; they can do what they want. If their first move is to conduct investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails, I think they're making a huge mistake.

 
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
A read this and the rest and I am just in awe how idealistic and brilliant these men were.

And I think of how much we have failed them.

It's funny to me because this time I actually took the time to read the names of the electors on the ballot. I thought, you know what this is Louisiana and I bet there will surely be some old hack on these lists. Sure enough there was, Karen Carter of NO. Carter (Peterson) is of an old NO machine family. She is part of the problem here.

This part of the FP68 brought that to mind:

They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
How beautiful is that. What an idea, in 1789, so far ahead of our time, to try to create a system free of corruption.

Anyway Karen Carter is in the LA Senate and she is probably of the very sort of person whom the FF thought to exclude from the EC. I think they also did not expect the electors to just be proxies for a party system which had not yet been created This kind of goes hand in hand with my comment about the conventions further up. We should expect more from our democracy not less and we should lean on it more not less. Be democrats, not Democrats, be republicans, not Republicans.

As to your point, I think of the EC as keeping big states - back then it was VA, MA & NY, today it would be CA, TX, NY, IL - from wielding too much power in the choosing of the president, and also to ensure that it was the States doing the final approving of the president because of the power and authority of the federal government comes from the People and the States. Which (esp. being from a smaller state) I think is beautiful. But even so I don't think you have stated it properly, Neither Hillary nor Trump won a majority of the votes. But one will have a majority of the representation of the states. The goal was to prevent the fractious interests of the various states who might, as here, produce a president who did not have a majority support much less a mandate, but instead " The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes."

 
Congress should drop this. Whether or not she is guilty of anything, it's very bad for the country. Hillary is done.

I argued the exact same thing 8 years ago when certain liberals wanted to investigate George W. Bush for torture and possible war crimes. Obama, wisely IMO, chose not to pursue this. Both Donald Trump and Paul Ryan said last night that it was important for the nation to move forward and try to unite; I agree with that sentiment. Republicans have control of the White House, the House, and the Senate; they can do what they want. If their first move is to conduct investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails, I think they're making a huge mistake.
It is cute how you still think this will be business as usual under Trump :lmao:

 
Good to be back. You guys see that some Congressmen still want to have hearings about the emails?

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/305334-chaffetz-would-be-totally-remiss-to-not-continue

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah.) indicated Wednesday he would continue probing Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server despite Clinton's loss in the election.

“It would be totally remiss of us to dismiss [the email investigation] because she’s not going to be president," the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman said, according to The Washington Post.


Are you ####### kidding me???
I tend to agree with you but just some thoughts:

- If you want to raise Bush as precedent, ok let's raise Nixon. Obama can resolve this by just granting blanket clemency via pardon.

 - Hillary could have resolved all this by turning over the server in whole to the State IG as originally proposed in March 2015. This would have been over a long time ago if she had done that and Lanny Davis proposed exactly that. Hillary continues to pay and pay and pay, not for the mistake of the original sin of the server, but the compound sin when she decided to blow up her data.

- Let's see what comes out of the deleted material. So far the main question marks have been Chelsea getting access to cabinet level classified information and also the possibility that people with no clearance and no role in the SD beginning but not ending with Weiner had access to the data. However as of right now I do not see the need, but again wait for all the information to come out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry if this has been asked already, but I am genuinely curious: do we have any idea what Hillary is up to tonight? Like did she just put on her pj's and eat ice cream and watch tv? Or is she still trying to lead a team with a a goal of...something? What does a competitive, ambitious pol do when it is finally totally over? She must be exhausted.

 
Congress should drop this. Whether or not she is guilty of anything, it's very bad for the country. Hillary is done.

I argued the exact same thing 8 years ago when certain liberals wanted to investigate George W. Bush for torture and possible war crimes. Obama, wisely IMO, chose not to pursue this. Both Donald Trump and Paul Ryan said last night that it was important for the nation to move forward and try to unite; I agree with that sentiment. Republicans have control of the White House, the House, and the Senate; they can do what they want. If their first move is to conduct investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails, I think they're making a huge mistake.
So, how are you?

 
The more I process the loss, I realize Dems have a lot to do with the loss....horrible turnout by minorities and millennials. So honestly, if you don't show up to vote, and basically get the other guy elected, you lose all right to complain about the policies that will impact you for 4 years....(mainly if you did not vote in a swing state/rust belt). 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top