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 (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
jon_mx said:
By the letter of the law, Hillary is a felon.  The intent thing was invented by Comey as it is not in the law, at least not in the applicable law to this case. I don't think there has ever been a case where so much classified information was so recklessly exposed.  Comey ignored the law since it had not beeen used before.  But yet why was the law written if it is not to be enforced?  

Insisting it is absurd to think Hillary should have been indicted is really to be ignorant of what the law says.  
Click to expand...
No wonder you got fired as a comic, none of this is even remotely funny. 

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
I continue to believe the issue itself is overblown and to the extent information was mishandled it falls into a range where you would probably find a large % of federal employees guilty.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on everything but this.  It speaks to the heart of the matter.  No other Federal employee has done anything close in scale or nature (SAP data is involved).  The prosecutorial standard was adjusted and hasn't already failed to hold up for others in similar cases.  There is no one, no one, who hasn't done similar wihout prosecution.  And there is not apt to be anyone. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
None of us are experts, but I'd be willing to guess that they overestimated Dem and minority turnout based on 2008 and 2012.

There's also something really weird and off in the polling about Hispanic and black support.
Click to expand...
Minority turnout increased from 28% to 30% of voters.  Problem was HRC dropped 11 points with minorities compared to 2012.

 
Short Corner said:
Minority turnout increased from 28% to 30% of voters.  Problem was HRC dropped 11 points with minorities compared to 2012.
Click to expand...
Did it really? Wow.

But the polling for blacks and hispanics was ridiculously low at time. I recall the black vote being supposedly 0-1% Trump, and the hispanic vote being in the low to mid 10's for Trump, do I not remember this correctly? If I remember that right it just seems like some specifically incorrect models for minority voting were used or people were flat out deceiving or avoiding pollsters.

 
Mr. Ham said:
I'm with you on everything but this.  It speaks to the heart of the matter.  No other Federal employee has done anything close in scale or nature (SAP data is involved).  The prosecutorial standard was adjusted and hasn't already failed to hold up for others in similar cases.  There is no one, no one, who hasn't done similar wihout prosecution.  And there is not apt to be anyone. 
Click to expand...
I work with classified info and work around hundreds of people.  Not one of them believes they could have gotten away with what Hillary did.  I have seen several instances of very minor violations either lead to suspensions or dismissals.  Nothing even remotely close to this level of recklessness.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Did it really? Wow.

But the polling for blacks and hispanics was ridiculously low at time. I recall the black vote being supposedly 0-1% Trump, and the hispanic vote being in the low to mid 10's for Trump, do I not remember this correctly? If I remember that right it just seems like some specifically incorrect models for minority voting were used or people were flat out deceiving or avoiding pollsters.
Click to expand...
I could see this. A lot of the economic concerns about illegal immigrants that stirred up rural white voters are probably shared by inner city POCs. If you're an inner city black or legal Hispanic immigrant and you can't find a job, it would be pretty easy to blame the flood of illegal immigrants taking less money. 

 
GroveDiesel said:
I could see this. A lot of the economic concerns about illegal immigrants that stirred up rural white voters are probably shared by inner city POCs. If you're an inner city black or legal Hispanic immigrant and you can't find a job, it would be pretty easy to blame the flood of illegal immigrants taking less money. 
Click to expand...
This happened in NO & LA after Katrina for sure. Local black Democrats sounded like 2016 Trump voters back then.

 
Gary Coal Man said:
Since Squis is currently away, I'll fill his void in this thread and share this fun Tweet:
Click to expand...
Not what I would have shared, but I digress...anyway, due to popular demand, I will try to get back into the swing of things in the next few days. :hophead:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
I work with classified info and work around hundreds of people.  Not one of them believes they could have gotten away with what Hillary did.  I have seen several instances of very minor violations either lead to suspensions or dismissals.  Nothing even remotely close to this level of recklessness.  
Click to expand...
Seemed to be just a minor detail many people wanted to overlook

Lolzzzzz

 
Walking Boot said:
Random trivia I learned today: The Clinton team only rented out the Javits center until 2AM for the election night party. Podesta was pretty much forced to shut it down when he did.
Click to expand...
Nah don't believe that one. Elections typically run late and they had to have that place secured and ready to go days if not weeks in advance. Zero chance that's true. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
I'm with you on everything but this.  It speaks to the heart of the matter.  No other Federal employee has done anything close in scale or nature (SAP data is involved).  The prosecutorial standard was adjusted and hasn't already failed to hold up for others in similar cases.  There is no one, no one, who hasn't done similar wihout prosecution.  And there is not apt to be anyone. 
Click to expand...
How in the world could you possibly know this?  

 
I would bet hillary was corresponding with everyone in the administration on her server.  You charge her?  You open up the question why was everyone else on those email chains.  It was a can of worms.  

Hillary screwed up.  But i hope going forward we have practices in place that dont allow anyone at that level to go rogue.  The NSA should know about this before the Russians.  NSA should be testing our own people's defense.  To protect and offer advice.

I find it alarming that the NSA couldn't key in on a private server talking about the matters the SoS does.  If they cant do that?  What is the point.

 
Walking Boot said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-series-of-strategic-mistakes-likely-sealed-clintons-fate/2016/11/11/82f3fcc0-a840-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

Every article I find mentions that Hillary's main campaign message was "Don't Vote For Trump". And, to a degree, it worked... 75% of the electorate didn't.

However, she never came up with a campaign message that said "Vote For Me Instead". So, 50% of the people just stayed home, and her and Trump just split the rest.
Click to expand...
Those were the same ads in PA over and over again. Trump's were much better. I remember thinking at the time that in a vacuum trump seemed better based kn his ads. There is a reason why she lost to a junior senator in 2008, almost lost to an independent socialist in 2016, and lost the rust belt to a fascist-- she is a terrible candidate and campaigner regardless of intellect or qualifications to be president. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This happened in NO & LA after Katrina for sure. Local black Democrats sounded like 2016 Trump voters back then.
Click to expand...
exactly 

I've been saying that the reason they had the Hispanic numbers so wrong was because they assume that hispanics are some homogeneous voting bloc which they aren't.   A Puerto Rican man in NYC has no ties to a migrant worker from Guatemala, a Cuban from Miami doesn't have any affection for a Mexican in Southern California.  They only have a common language, not a uniform mentality.  I know plenty of hispanics who feel the same way about Mexicans as Trump does.    Some see issues with immigration and drug lords, others see a chance for compassion, some are directly affected by it, others are not, some are welcoming while others see illegal immigration as their own "NAFTA"  

As for the black vote, painting the entire African American electorate with a broad brush was a mistake.  Obama overperformed with AA because he was black and the voters probably looked past other issues and saw his presidency as vindication, which in many ways it was.    Hillary still won large with the community but people fell back into their normal voting patterns based on personal experiences, situations and interests.   

The entire idea that all of these ethnic and racial groups vote are a homogeneous bloc is as laughable as saying all white men supported Trump

 
Righetti said:
As for the black vote, painting the entire African American electorate with a broad brush was a mistake.  Obama overperformed with AA because he was black and the voters probably looked past other issues and saw his presidency as vindication, which in many ways it was.    Hillary still won large with the community but people fell back into their normal voting patterns based on personal experiences, situations and interests.  
Click to expand...
I heard a discussion on NPR about this, mainly in relation to the various protests/riots that have gone on over the last few years. One of the interesting conclusions one of the participants (a mixed race guy who's spent a lot of time going to these things and interviewing the people at them) came up with is that Black people are pretty ambivalent about voting now. They feel like not much has gotten better for them (particularly in the area of what they perceive as institutionalized racism) even with a black man as President, so there's really not much point in voting. 

 
So, i was thinking this morning - all this Monday morning quarterbacking about why Clinton lost - but if the Clintons are being really introspective, Hillary lost this campaign 8 years ago when she negotiated to become Obama's Secretary of State.

Its easy to look back in retrospect, and I can understand why she pushed for the SOS job - she wanted to bolster her foreign policy credentials.  But, that one move cost her the presidency - and I think it was completely unnecessary.

If you look at the three things that really really hurt the campaign throughout the cycle - Benghazi, Email Server, and Clinton Foundation - none of those would have been an issue if Clinton was not Secretary of State.

If Clinton had remained in the Senate, she would have been a 3-term Senator from New York.  That is enough time to attach her name to enough stuff to look like she did something.  She would not have Benghazi, and all the hearing associated with that.  Nobody would even know how she had her emails set up.  And, as a Senator, the Foundation would not be an issue - in fact, she could have used the Foundation to boost her foreign policy chops - by meeting with foreign officials on behalf of the Foundation.  She probably would have been part of the Democratic Leadership in the Senate, and could easily have gotten herself on some choice committees - if she wanted to boost her foreign policy credentials.

At the same time, she could still have used the Clinton brand to remain a prolific fund-raiser for herself, and to gain political favors in Washington.  When she started this campaign, she would have had everything she needed to become president - minus all most of the baggage. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
So, i was thinking this morning - all this Monday morning quarterbacking about why Clinton lost - but if the Clintons are being really introspective, Hillary lost this campaign 8 years ago when she negotiated to become Obama's Secretary of State.

Its easy to look back in retrospect, and I can understand why she pushed for the SOS job - she wanted to bolster her foreign policy credentials.  But, that one move cost her the presidency - and I think it was completely unnecessary.

If you look at the three things that really really hurt the campaign throughout the cycle - Benghazi, Email Server, and Clinton Foundation - none of those would have been an issue if Clinton was not Secretary of State.

If Clinton had remained in the Senate, she would have been a 3-term Senator from New York.  That is enough time to attach her name to enough stuff to look like she did something.  She would not have Benghazi, and all the hearing associated with that.  Nobody would even know how she had her emails set up.  And, as a Senator, the Foundation would not be an issue - in fact, she could have used the Foundation to boost her foreign policy chops - by meeting with foreign officials on behalf of the Foundation.  She probably would have been part of the Democratic Leadership in the Senate, and could easily have gotten herself on some choice committees - if she wanted to boost her foreign policy credentials.

At the same time, she could still have used the Clinton brand to remain a prolific fund-raiser for herself, and to gain political favors in Washington.  When she started this campaign, she would have had everything she needed to become president - minus all most of the baggage. 
Click to expand...




Her own ego got in the way.

Again. 

She couldn't walk away from her loss to Obama without getting some sort of 'win.'

Learning from her defeats is not in her DNA.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
So, i was thinking this morning - all this Monday morning quarterbacking about why Clinton lost - but if the Clintons are being really introspective, Hillary lost this campaign 8 years ago when she negotiated to become Obama's Secretary of State.

Its easy to look back in retrospect, and I can understand why she pushed for the SOS job - she wanted to bolster her foreign policy credentials.  But, that one move cost her the presidency - and I think it was completely unnecessary.

If you look at the three things that really really hurt the campaign throughout the cycle - Benghazi, Email Server, and Clinton Foundation - none of those would have been an issue if Clinton was not Secretary of State.

If Clinton had remained in the Senate, she would have been a 3-term Senator from New York.  That is enough time to attach her name to enough stuff to look like she did something.  She would not have Benghazi, and all the hearing associated with that.  Nobody would even know how she had her emails set up.  And, as a Senator, the Foundation would not be an issue - in fact, she could have used the Foundation to boost her foreign policy chops - by meeting with foreign officials on behalf of the Foundation.  She probably would have been part of the Democratic Leadership in the Senate, and could easily have gotten herself on some choice committees - if she wanted to boost her foreign policy credentials.

At the same time, she could still have used the Clinton brand to remain a prolific fund-raiser for herself, and to gain political favors in Washington.  When she started this campaign, she would have had everything she needed to become president - minus all most of the baggage. 
Click to expand...
This is likely true.  And it is kind of a sad statement on where we are as a country that limiting your role in the public sector is apparently beneficial to aspiring presidential campaigns.  In addition to the point you make about how she'd have been better off in the lower profile/easier job, part of the reason Trump was able to get away with as much as he did is because people expect selfishness, dooshbaggery and occasional mistakes in the private sector. 

Perhaps if the Trump failures to come can be linked to his inexperience in the public sector we can reverse this.

 
I believe that the main reason Hillary accepted the role of Secretary of State is because she believes in public service and wanted to do good for her country. I think she was an excellent Secretary and she did do good. Even if Sinn Fein is right and it hurt her campaign for the Presidency, I don't think she should regret the decision. What she should regret is the email decision and her looseness with the Foundation. 

 
Agreed that Hillary's downfall was taking the Secretay of State job.  But when your prime motivation is enriching your own coffers, it was too good of a deal to pass up.  She had the very thing (arms and access) that she could bankroll into tens of millions of dollars in personal gain.  No way someone as corrupt as her would just stay a lowly Senator biding her time when there was a boatload of illegal dollars to be gained by increasing arms sales to all sides in the Middle East.      

 
TobiasFunke said:
This is likely true.  And it is kind of a sad statement on where we are as a country that limiting your role in the public sector is apparently beneficial to aspiring presidential campaigns.  In addition to the point you make about how she'd have been better off in the lower profile/easier job, part of the reason Trump was able to get away with as much as he did is because people expect selfishness, dooshbaggery and occasional mistakes in the private sector. 

Perhaps if the Trump failures to come can be linked to his inexperience in the public sector we can reverse this.
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly sure this is true as the general statement you've made.  We've said over and over that this election is an anomaly with two pretty unique individuals.  I'm not sure we're ready to conclude (at least I'm not) that THIS is where the country's at.  Yes, it was absolutely true for THIS election when Trump and Hillary were the options from the two major parties.  I just have a problem saying the country is at this point when both individuals were so unliked.  Based on popular opinion, they were the least like candidates in history.

 
David Dodds said:
Agreed that Hillary's downfall was taking the Secretay of State job.  But when your prime motivation is enriching your own coffers, it was too good of a deal to pass up.  She had the very thing (arms and access) that she could bankroll into tens of millions of dollars in personal gain.  No way someone as corrupt as her would just stay a lowly Senator biding her time when there was a boatload of illegal dollars to be gained by increasing arms sales to all sides in the Middle East.      
Click to expand...
She would have made 10X the amount in the private sector than she did as SoS.  

 
Sinn Fein said:
So, i was thinking this morning - all this Monday morning quarterbacking about why Clinton lost - but if the Clintons are being really introspective, Hillary lost this campaign 8 years ago when she negotiated to become Obama's Secretary of State.

Its easy to look back in retrospect, and I can understand why she pushed for the SOS job - she wanted to bolster her foreign policy credentials.  But, that one move cost her the presidency - and I think it was completely unnecessary.

If you look at the three things that really really hurt the campaign throughout the cycle - Benghazi, Email Server, and Clinton Foundation - none of those would have been an issue if Clinton was not Secretary of State.

If Clinton had remained in the Senate, she would have been a 3-term Senator from New York.  That is enough time to attach her name to enough stuff to look like she did something.  She would not have Benghazi, and all the hearing associated with that.  Nobody would even know how she had her emails set up.  And, as a Senator, the Foundation would not be an issue - in fact, she could have used the Foundation to boost her foreign policy chops - by meeting with foreign officials on behalf of the Foundation.  She probably would have been part of the Democratic Leadership in the Senate, and could easily have gotten herself on some choice committees - if she wanted to boost her foreign policy credentials.

At the same time, she could still have used the Clinton brand to remain a prolific fund-raiser for herself, and to gain political favors in Washington.  When she started this campaign, she would have had everything she needed to become president - minus all most of the baggage. 
Click to expand...
I agree that her experience hurt her with some folks.  But we should all agree how ridiculously stupid that is, and hopefully not make the same mistake again.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
I agree that her experience hurt her with some folks.  But we should all agree how ridiculously stupid that is, and hopefully not make the same mistake again.  
Click to expand...
You say that like you mean it - but if you put any thought into it you would know better.

What exactly was the experience you think she gained as SOS - that made you more likely to vote for her?  What were her policies v. Obama's policies?  

Now, compare her experience as SOS to what she could have done in the Senate - where she was already part of the Armed Services Committee, including the sub-committee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and could have easily taken a role in the Committee on Foreign Relations - which is what Obama had on his resume...what did she gain?

Now, put your thinking cap on, and try to recall the last SOS who went on to become president....I'll give you a few minutes.  If it was such great experience, or a stepping stone to becoming a great president, you might have been able to come up with that person by now.

The office of the President, and the responsibilities that go with the office, are nothing like those of the SOS - which is why we have a SOS in the first place.  And, I do think its a little humorous that Clintonites placed so much emphasis on "most qualified candidate ever" given that she was perhaps the least qualified Secretary of State ever.

Still wondering about the last SOS to become president?  It was James Buchanan, who was SOS nearly 170 years ago, and is widely regarded as one of the worst presidents in our short history....

 
Loan Sharks said:
Amazing! Since President Trump was elected jobless claims are the lowest in 4 decades, the stock market hit an all-time high, President Trump is not taking a salary and the dollar is the strongest it has been in 14 years. President Trump is truly making america great again. 
Click to expand...
Correlation does not imply causation.

 
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
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top