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.
tommyGunZ said:
I agree with most of this, but it's just further proof of the underlying ignorance and underlying sexism Hillary faced in the campaign.  She was vilified for her Wall st ties but when Trump does it, just a yawn from those same Hillary haters.  
Click to expand...
I don't think this analysis makes a lot of sense.  She was vilified for her Wall Street ties during the Democratic primaries, when she was running against Bernie Sanders, who has views on Wall Street that resonate a lot more with Democratic voters.  The yawning when Trump does it is because we expect Republicans to be in bed with Wall Street.

 
tommyGunZ said:
I agree with most of this, but it's just further proof of the underlying ignorance and underlying sexism Hillary faced in the campaign.  She was vilified for her Wall st ties but when Trump does it, just a yawn from those same Hillary haters.  
Click to expand...
Well people were foolish for thinking a player like Trump is anything but just that. That was always ridiculous. 

And maybe the practice should be vilified because we deserve uninfluenced decisions, or maybe it should be defended as I stated, and frankly I think Hillary does believe that Wall Street serves an important purpose in the economy (as she herself stated in her speeches), but that's a. a conservative argument and b. maybe if she had honestly argued her belief instead of dissembling she would have earned respect and admiration. 

Were the speeches we saw so bad? I don't think so. The problem was the contrast with what she was saying in the Dem primary more than the general.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
I repeat, Hillary would never ever have appointed a Goldman Sachs guy to run Treasury. Maybe someone else with Wall Street connections, but this nomination wouldn't have happened, as it would have resulted in a ####storm of bad press from both the left and right.
Click to expand...
We'll never know what she would have done.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course there's lots of hypocrisy and always will be. When people attacked Hillary for her Wall Street ties (and contrary to what fatguy wrote, they continued to do so long after the general election contest had started), I and others wrote that it was ridiculous to criticize Hillary for this in light of who she was running against. Those arguments weren't taken seriously and so here we are.

That being said, I really don't want to waste a lot of time with "I told you so"s; there's plenty to go around (for me, too!) The only important question at this point is: is this a good pick? I think it probably is. I don't know much about the guy, but I think that Goldman Sachs is a good resume for this position. And I continue to assert, against popular opinion, that what is good for Wall Street is most likely good for the nation's prosperity.

 
tommyGunZ said:
I agree with most of this, but it's just further proof of the underlying ignorance and underlying sexism Hillary faced in the campaign.  She was vilified for her Wall st ties but when Trump does it, just a yawn from those same Hillary haters.  
Click to expand...
yeah no....if it's "proof" of anything it's she is/was (?) much more Republican than any of you wanted to admit.  It's shameful to appoint someone like this, but sadly, I expect it from Republicans.

 
timschochet said:
Of course there's lots of hypocrisy and always will be. When people attacked Hillary for her Wall Street ties (and contrary to what fatguy wrote, they continued to do so long after the general election contest had started), I and others wrote that it was ridiculous to criticize Hillary for this in light of who she was running against. Those arguments weren't taken seriously and so here we are.

That being said, I really don't want to waste a lot of time with "I told you so"s; there's plenty to go around (for me, too!) The only important question at this point is: is this a good pick? I think it probably is. I don't know much about the guy, but I think that Goldman Sachs is a good resume for this position. And I continue to assert, against popular opinion, that what is good for Wall Street is most likely good for the nation's prosperity.
Click to expand...
This is a great post but the point to Squiz is that it was utterly ridiculous to think people would think - believe - Hillary wasn't going to be influenced by Wall Street or incensed when she lied about it to their face. 

Tim you've made the best argument here on it (i.e. about Wall Street as a beneficent constituency) and you've conceded that Hillary should have just argued her beliefs. That's all I'm saying too. Problem is Hillary's mindset on that point is essentially conservative and that was impossible in the primary, and then her political instinct is always to duck, roll and cover.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This is a great post but the point to Squiz is that it was utterly ridiculous to think people would think - believe - Hillary wasn't going to be influenced by Wall Street or incensed when she lied about it to their face. 

Tim you've made the best argument here on it (i.e. about Wall Street as a beneficent constituency) and you've conceded that Hillary should have just argued her beliefs. That's all I'm saying too. Problem is Hillary's mindset on that point is essentially conservative and that was impossible in the primary, and then her political instinct is always to duck, roll and cover lie.
Click to expand...

 
timschochet said:
When people attacked Hillary for her Wall Street ties (and contrary to what fatguy wrote, they continued to do so long after the general election contest had started)
Click to expand...
Again, those criticisms after the primary ended were typically to show that Bernie would have been better, or that there wasn't all that much difference between Trump and Hillary on this issue, or something like that.  I wasn't a "Hillary hater" -- I voted for her in the general election and I'm still pretty devastated that she lost to Trump.  I think it's a national tragedy.  But you and tommygunz are mischaracterizing the arguments made by the Bernie-or-Bust types.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Again, those criticisms after the primary ended were typically to show that Bernie would have been better, or that there wasn't all that much difference between Trump and Hillary on this issue, or something like that.  I wasn't a "Hillary hater" -- I voted for her in the general election and I'm still pretty devastated that she lost to Trump.  I think it's a national tragedy.  But you and tommygunz are mischaracterizing the arguments made by the Bernie-or-Bust types.
Click to expand...
Trump was anti-Goldman in his campaign too.  Here's one example where he referred to both Cruz and Hillary as under the "total control" of Goldman Sachs: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-goldman-sachs/

 
tommyGunZ said:
I agree with most of this, but it's just further proof of the underlying ignorance and underlying sexism Hillary faced in the campaign.  She was vilified for her Wall st ties but when Trump does it, just a yawn from those same Hillary haters.  
Click to expand...
Well the Democrat party told us it was totally a non issue. So now it is a problem? 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I don't think this analysis makes a lot of sense.  She was vilified for her Wall Street ties during the Democratic primaries, when she was running against Bernie Sanders, who has views on Wall Street that resonate a lot more with Democratic voters.  The yawning when Trump does it is because we expect Republicans to be in bed with Wall Street.
Click to expand...
Those same Democratic voters didn't have a problem with Obama's Wall St ties in '08 or '12.   And Trump vilified her as "crooked Hillary" for her Wall St and hedge fund ties.  Yet his supporters are yawning now.  

 
squistion said:
Outside of the 2 million more voters who cast their ballots for Hillary.,
Click to expand...
Yeah, most of them from California.  Unfortunately for you, that is only ONE state.  Most people don't live in CA.

Also something to point out is that we don't elect Presidents using the popular vote.  Seriously, I'm not lying about this.  Go ahead and fact check me.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Those same Democratic voters didn't have a problem with Obama's Wall St ties in '08 or '12.   And Trump vilified her as "crooked Hillary" for her Wall St and hedge fund ties.  Yet his supporters are yawning now.  
Click to expand...
:shrug: Obama didn't run against Bernie.  I do remember a mild kerfuffle about Larry Summers at one point.

If you were talking about Trump supporters, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions.  But I don't think any of us expect any ideological consistency from them.

 
squistion said:
Have a drink with Saints the next time you are in NO, he worked as hard as you did for a Trump victory.
Click to expand...
I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who slung more fake, bull#### conspiracy theory crap than Saints.  He made emails a higher priority than anything else.  And it retrospect that's insane.  

He deserves a seat at the head table at Trump's  inauguration.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who slung more fake, bull#### conspiracy theory crap than Saints.  He made emails a higher priority than anything else.  And it retrospect that's insane.  

He deserves a seat at the head table at Trump's  inauguration.  
Click to expand...
Wait, YOU'RE accusing someone else of throwing fake bull#### around?  YOU? TGUNZ? :lmao: :lmao:

I can't think of a single other poster who is more of a lemming than you.  You believed and posted every fake bull#### story Hillary, the DNC and any far left website you could get your hands on put out.

No one is more of a sycophant than you on these boards.  And we have some die hard supporters.  You are absolutely THE worst.  Most cult leaders only wished they had followers as blind and zealous as you are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
Of course there's lots of hypocrisy and always will be. When people attacked Hillary for her Wall Street ties (and contrary to what fatguy wrote, they continued to do so long after the general election contest had started), I and others wrote that it was ridiculous to criticize Hillary for this in light of who she was running against. Those arguments weren't taken seriously and so here we are.

That being said, I really don't want to waste a lot of time with "I told you so"s; there's plenty to go around (for me, too!) The only important question at this point is: is this a good pick? I think it probably is. I don't know much about the guy, but I think that Goldman Sachs is a good resume for this position. And I continue to assert, against popular opinion, that what is good for Wall Street is most likely good for the nation's prosperity.
Click to expand...
This is a great post but the point to Squiz is that it was utterly ridiculous to think people would think - believe - Hillary wasn't going to be influenced by Wall Street or incensed when she lied about it to their face. 

Tim you've made the best argument here on it (i.e. about Wall Street as a beneficent constituency) and you've conceded that Hillary should have just argued her beliefs. That's all I'm saying too. Problem is Hillary's mindset on that point is essentially conservative and that was impossible in the primary, and then her political instinct is always to duck, roll and cover.
Click to expand...
I liked most of it too except for the bold.  The events/actions stand on their own and don't change just because of who she was running against.  You look at the actions on their own and condone or criticize.  You're either ok with them or you aren't and who is running against her is only part of the equation if you're looking for a justification to support/reject someone you really aren't comfortable with....IMO anyway.

 
tommyGunZ said:
I think we'd be hard pressed to find someone who slung more fake, bull#### conspiracy theory crap than Saints.  He made emails a higher priority than anything else.  And it retrospect that's insane.  

He deserves a seat at the head table at Trump's  inauguration.  
Click to expand...


SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hey guys I want to tell you all how much I have enjoyed this thread over the months.  It's great see all the folks jumping in now, it's a real hotbed.

To Tim, Jon, CIA, Ham, Squiz, Tommyboy & Tgunz, Ivan, Cobalt, Bananafish, Commish, Henry, BFS, Quez, Quint, Cleaver, Dodds, Koya, DParker and everybody (you know who you are) who have held this thing up by the bootstraps through the serious issues, the scandals, the policy, the trash talk, the respect, the back and forth, to me it's all been educational and I've really enjoyed talking to such a diverse, intelligent group from all over the country. I tip my hat to all of you.

I dedicate this song to you.

Not too much time left to hash things out. Anyway I just want to say thanks for listening and helping me learn some stuff about politics and the world along the way.

Good luck to the Hillaryites and Trumpers Tuesday. God Bless America & Go Saints.
Click to expand...
- Well Tommy that was my post to you and others before the election date (and I apologize if I forgot anyone like Slap and Max), I'd like to think it was reciprocal, even if you and Squiz can't leave the personal out of political discussions.

And this was from the article I posted on this page just further up:

Team Clinton repeatedly reassured us that Hillary was the most highly qualified and most hyper-competent person evah! to run for president. They possessed the unshakeable conviction that they, the best and the brightest, could not possibly fail–so much so that on election day, her aides prematurely uncorked the celebratory champagne. So extreme was their recklessness that they actually wanted to run against Trump. Out of the outrageous hubris, complacency, and incompetence of Hillary's presidential campaign came the Clintons' horrifying parting gift to America: President Donald Trump. This is where the Clintons led us. Trump's election, and the nightmare to which America is awakening, is on them. And it is unforgivable.
Click to expand...
- Maybe consider that the point was given the magnitude of the risk of Trump winning the risk taken with Hillary as his opponent grew as the days went by. I'm sorry you never saw that point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Wait, YOU'RE accusing someone else of throwing fake bull#### around?  YOU? TGUNZ? :lmao: :lmao:

I can't think of a single other poster who is more of a lemming than you.  You believed and posted every fake bull#### story Hillary, the DNC and any far left website you could get your hands on put out.

No one is more of a sycophant than you on these boards.  And we have some die hard supporters.  You are absolutely THE worst.
Click to expand...
Tommy is the guy that responded to every post with BENGHAZI!!!!!!! for like three months. Best case scenario for TG is he has no sense of perspective. 

 
The Commish said:
I liked most of it too except for the bold.  The events/actions stand on their own and don't change just because of who she was running against.  You look at the actions on their own and condone or criticize.  You're either ok with them or you aren't and who is running against her is only part of the equation if you're looking for a justification to support/reject someone you really aren't comfortable with....IMO anyway.
Click to expand...
That works for you and anybody else who didn't vote for either candidate, and I can accept that. 

But my comments were specifically for those who voted for Donald Trump because of Hillary's supposed corruption and ties to Wall Street. 

 
timschochet said:
But my comments were specifically for those who voted for Donald Trump because of Hillary's supposed corruption and ties to Wall Street. 
Click to expand...
I don't think that "supposed corruption" and "ties to Wall Street" are the same thing or should be lumped together.

Actual Trump supporters may have said stuff about Hillary's ties to Wall Street but I'm not sure you really should take anything they said at face value.  As best as I can tell the real Trump fans don't really have strong policy views other than Making America Great Again. 

I don't think there were very many people that were honestly weighing pros and cons between Hillary and Trump and decided to vote Trump due to Hillary's Wall Street ties.

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
I liked most of it too except for the bold.  The events/actions stand on their own and don't change just because of who she was running against.  You look at the actions on their own and condone or criticize.  You're either ok with them or you aren't and who is running against her is only part of the equation if you're looking for a justification to support/reject someone you really aren't comfortable with....IMO anyway.
Click to expand...
That works for you and anybody else who didn't vote for either candidate, and I can accept that. 

But my comments were specifically for those who voted for Donald Trump because of Hillary's supposed corruption and ties to Wall Street. 
Click to expand...
Gotcha...single issue voters is a whole other thread IMO.  I am formulating a new theory on this supposed approach based on this last election.  The short of it is, I don't believe people vote single issue.  I believe they use it as an excuse to vote for someone they really don't want to (as if they don't have a choice) OR they are ok with WAY more of a candidate's platform than they are comfortable admitting to other people.  But as I said before, that's a thread of it's own.

 
Saints, nothing personal in my post.  I've told you before that I think you're good peoples and mean well.  If I bumped into you in a bar in nawlins, I'd instantly buy you a beer and shake your hand.

You have to admit, you pushed the email nonsense as much as anyone.  You're not as crazy as Dodds and Ham, but you outwork them by a magnitude of 100.  No one in the FFA worked harder to call Hillary out than you did the past two years.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
Saints, nothing personal in my post.  I've told you before that I think you're good peoples and mean well.  If I bumped into you in a bar in nawlins, I'd instantly buy you a beer and shake your hand.

You have to admit, you pushed the email nonsense as much as anyone.  You're not as crazy as Dodds and Ham, but you outwork them by a magnitude of 100.  No one in the FFA worked harder to call Hillary out than you did the past two years.  
Click to expand...
:yes:

 
tommyGunZ said:
Saints, nothing personal in my post.  I've told you before that I think you're good peoples and mean well.  If I bumped into you in a bar in nawlins, I'd instantly buy you a beer and shake your hand.

You have to admit, you pushed the email nonsense as much as anyone.  You're not as crazy as Dodds and Ham, but you outwork them by a magnitude of 100.  No one in the FFA worked harder to call Hillary out than you did the past two years.  
Click to expand...
"email nonsense" :lmao:

 
tommyGunZ said:
Saints, nothing personal in my post.  I've told you before that I think you're good peoples and mean well.  If I bumped into you in a bar in nawlins, I'd instantly buy you a beer and shake your hand.

You have to admit, you pushed the email nonsense as much as anyone.  You're not as crazy as Dodds and Ham, but you outwork them by a magnitude of 100.  No one in the FFA worked harder to call Hillary out than you did the past two years.  
Click to expand...
Tommy, thanks, I appreciate that.

I also have hammered the Trump thread pretty hard on the same sorts of issues, especially national security and conflicts of interest. Your help is welcome there. - And on the emails I gave you my heartfelt opinion about it. It was (is) of great interest to me but I thought it posed a serious threat to not only Hillary but also her campaign. I think the key here is if that Hillary had won, like I expected, I was totally prepared to bend the knee to her supporters and accept their slings and arrows that the email investigation did not harm her either personally or politically. In this situation I am not going to fire back at this point. I will treat you like I would want to be treated. I'd just suggest looking at that post-mortum I posted for what I think is a very fair overview on that and other things that went wrong in the election. Please read it and consider it. If the DNC is to make a comeback it and its supporters should pay attention to those issues and not invent gimmicks which will assuage the pain of the mistakes that were made.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Trump wants to be hypocritical and appoint actual qualified people to cabinet positions, as opposed to alt-right bozos, that's fine with me.  I'll let that slide.

(I don't actually know anything about Mnuchin, but I assume he's more qualified for this position than somebody like Steve Bannon).

 
IvanKaramazov said:
If Trump wants to be hypocritical and appoint actual qualified people to cabinet positions, as opposed to alt-right bozos, that's fine with me.  I'll let that slide.

(I don't actually know anything about Mnuchin, but I assume he's more qualified for this position than somebody like Steve Bannon).
Click to expand...
From what I understand, not only was he a former employee of Goldman-Sachs, but he is also a member of the Lolipop Guild.

 
Michigan recount to cost state taxpayers over 2 million dollars.   Stein had till today at noon to move forward. 

 
It's always tough to tell who TGunz and squis are talking about when they use such generic terms like "Hillary haters" etc.  That term covers a lot of different groups of people.  It's not just Trump supporters.  If TGunz and squis want to pick fights with them (Trump supporters), go for it, but at least be direct and stop with the broad brush.  I have no idea why they'd want to bring it up though.  You aren't going to get a genuine discussion from them on any sort of policy double standards.  And I'm not sure any of the other "haters" would disagree that it's hypocrisy for Trump supporters to bag on Hillary for things Trump is doing as well.  The best part of this whole thing are watching the "well, when Hillary did what Trump is doing......" arguments beginning to fly (both here and IRL) and the missed fact that Trump is acting like Hillary.  Yeah, Trump "drained the swamp" and now is proceeding to fill it back up with more of the same.

 
squistion said:
Enjoy your Trump victory. It is what you wanted all along. Congrats!
Click to expand...
Honest question - do you feel that it's possible for someone to genuinely be happy that Hillary lost but somewhat equally unhappy that Trump won?  I think that is how some/most of the Bernie supporters feel (I won't pretend to speak for any/all of them).

ETA - I think most are more unhappy about Trump than happy about it not being Hillary for what that's worth

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
Honest question - do you feel that it's possible for someone to genuinely be happy that Hillary lost but somewhat equally unhappy that Trump won?  I think that is how some/most of the Bernie supporters feel (I won't pretend to speak for any/all of them).
Click to expand...
This is EXACTLY how I feel.

 
AAABatteries said:
Honest question - do you feel that it's possible for someone to genuinely be happy that Hillary lost but somewhat equally unhappy that Trump won?  I think that is how some/most of the Bernie supporters feel (I won't pretend to speak for any/all of them).

ETA - I think most are more unhappy about Trump than happy about it not being Hillary for what that's worth
Click to expand...
For me, the difference between Trump and Hillary is that Trump is a poisonous snake that I can see on the path before me.  Hillary is a python I know is somewhere out there while I'm sleeping.  Both snakes, and I'm like Indy when it comes to those.  

 
MaxThreshold said:
Wait, YOU'RE accusing someone else of throwing fake bull#### around?  YOU? TGUNZ? :lmao: :lmao:

I can't think of a single other poster who is more of a lemming than you.  You believed and posted every fake bull#### story Hillary, the DNC and any far left website you could get your hands on put out.

No one is more of a sycophant than you on these boards.  And we have some die hard supporters.  You are absolutely THE worst.  Most cult leaders only wished they had followers as blind and zealous as you are.
Click to expand...
yep.

 
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: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top