Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Hillary Clinton thread. 'Done' but not going away. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Hilts
- Start date
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
And critical thinking has never been a strength of her critics. You sure do a great job of parroting the rights' HRC talking points though.
Congrats?
The Commish
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
The critical thinking nonsense again. By a guy still bitter about losing 10 months ago.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
You're not a very good one if all you do is spout false realities and talking points. Your defense of HRC is similar to the behavior of people in cults.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
It's ironic, don't you think?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
You sure do a great job of defending the Clintons no matter what and going down with the ship.
Congrats?
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I sure did read it, it was mostly nonsense. They make a statement about how HRC does take responsibility in the book - but then they don't give any examples or bother to discuss how. Instead they embark on some weird attempt to subjectively rate the criticality of her excuses. My main takeaway was, who gives a #### what these three people think? Silver's great at doing numerical analysis. He sucks at non-stats based political analysis, which is mostly what's going on there. It's silly, near juvenile. Comey cost her the election? Trump was engaged in a ####### fraud lawsuit while he was running - somehow he managed to get by that. How do you suppose that happened? Why did controversy sink HRC but not Trump? Here's a hint - it has to do with HRC being a miserable candidate. But according to Silver "Clinton was a below-average candidate, but not terrible." What a joke.
They complain about negative media coverage for HRC - they're nuts if they think she got worse treatment from the media than Trump did. But more importantly, beyond that, they never ask or answer the fundamental question at the heart of the whole media thing - why was Trump so appealing as a media fixture, why was he such a draw and she wasn't? The media doesn't just give someone tons of coverage for the heck of it, the media featured him for a reason. That goes a long way towards explaining her failure - he was appealing in ways (good and bad) she wasn't. But she, and they, don't seem capable of admitting or understanding that, and instead of figuring it out and adjusting, they whine about it after she got beat. Similarly with a lot of their other "observations."
She ####ed up. She couldn't read the state of the electorate well enough to campaign effectively. I have to point it out again because it's incredible to me to see it in print as a direct quote attributed to her staff:
How in the world can you assign the blame to anything other than the candidate when things like this are the case? The candidate campaigning for themselves may have hurt - that's one lousy ####### candidate. But no, it's the media's fault for giving coverage to her email issue that's to blame (by the way if she could have handled that with anything like humility, grace and honesty in the first place it's not a problem) for her failure. Get out of here with that.
And this is exactly, exactly why she needed to give more time between getting beaten and whining about it. Because now the conversation is about all her bs excuses as to why she lost rather than focusing on what the Democratic party needs to do to avoid becoming increasingly irrelevant on the national stage.
msommer
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
In fairness, it's hard to fully capture the scope of Hillary's incompetence in an essay or magazine article. This is one of those things that demands a book-length treatment.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I didn't blast her for not taking responsibility - I blasted her for being a liar and being corrupt which is how many people who didn't vote for her perceive her. I'm happy to take whatever blame you want to place on me.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
You just said Democrats are for all the things progressives want - which is it? Because you can sit there and say that Hillary wants all the same things Bernie/progressives want. She decided to co-op the ones she felt would get her elected and declared the rest to be a pipe dream.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I think many have talked about it in their biographies but I'm not sure how many made it the primary topic of the book.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is not accurate. Hillary is a pragmatist. She always notes the difference between JFK on one side, and Lyndon Johnson on the other. For all of JFK's high flying rhetoric on civil rights, he was unable to get anything done. It took LBJ, notably a non-ideologue, to twist arms in Congress and actually get laws passed. In order to do that, Johnson had to compromise. Hillary believes that Bernie is too much of an ideologue to actually get most of his agenda pushed through. Now you can agree or disagree with her on this, but it's a valid argument and not at all deceptive or cynical.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
You basically repeated exactly what I said but attempted to make it sound like a good thing. Either believe in something or don't. Maybe if she had conviction in some of the things that Bernie was pushing people would have found her more authentic.
timschochet
Footballguy
I think she believed in all of it. But her delivery sucks. Like LBJ, she doesn't have the soaring rhetoric. Most politicians don't.
But to your last point, I doubt it. As I've mentioned before, the most important thing about Hillary, which I did not anticipate (and which to the best of my knowledge is not mentioned in her book), is that the dislike of her is visceral, emotional, and irrational, and not subject to change by anything she could have done.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Sarah Palin not only wrote a book about how she was so crazy she helped America elect a black person as President, she made an entire career out of it.
Bob Dole wrote one, but it was light-hearted so that doesn't really count.
Yeah, it's narcissistic. And I wish she'd tone down some of the rhetoric, especially the Bernie stuff. She wasn't as good to Obama in 08 as Sanders was to her last year and she's making herself look worse every time she mentions him. And honestly if I had my way I'd probably prefer the whole book/tour never happened just because rehashing '16 is exhasting
But it's also not really fair to compare it to previous campaigns. There was a lot about '16 that was unprecedented. To cite the two most obvious examples- she was the first woman ever to get a major party nomination for president, and to my knowledge no other candidate for public office in America has ever lost an election in which they got way more votes than anyone else. There have been a couple near 50/50 ones in presidential elections, but never anything like this.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
The way she approached education in the primaries disagrees with your assessment Tim and a perfect illustration of how different their visions were. Hillary was content with picking and choosing who's school would be paid for. Bernie was not.
timschochet
Footballguy
Actually I think it fits fine. Hillary basically said that we can never get Bernie's plan passed. Her plan was realistic in terms of what legislation would actually get done (in her opinion.)
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Yes Tim - millions of people are irrational and just don't get it. It's not possible that people dislike her for valid reasons because you and Gunz say so. I mean she only lost to the worst Presidential candidate of all-time.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well on Earth2 Hillary comes to office in January, prioritizes health care reform probably expanding benefits for some, withdrawing it for others and likely propping up the insurance and medical industries, while the Republicans block the legislation and claim she was socializing medicine. And then by March or April 2017 we probably already would have had a push to 2018 or even 2020 that quickly. The way it turned out the GOP now has a very weird problem, they can't claim they have an alternative. And TBH I am not sure that the Democrats don't have one also because if they win back the House and Senate they have the same problem with purple states and districts they had in 2009-2010.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I'll stand by what I wrote. Frankly, and I don't mean this to be rude, but you're an example of what I'm talking about. The other day you wrote that Hillary was corrupt, without evidence as if it were a self-explanatory obvious fact, when in truth all arguments about her corruption have been debunked. Others here have stated that she is a Republican and not a liberal, which is completely absurd. All of this stuff is irrational. And its coming from progressives. The conservative reaction to Hillary is even more irrational- a lot of them think she's a murderer. It's truly astonishing and really sad.Yes Tim - millions of people are irrational and just don't get it. It's not possible that people dislike her for valid reasons because you and Gunz say so. I mean she only lost to the worst Presidential candidate of all-time.
The Commish
Footballguy
Which lacks vision for a lot of people. And honestly I don't really buy this excuse. If one believes in education for all that should be their stated goal and what they should work towards. I don't think she had any desire to try and get education for all. I think she was perfectly content with picking and choosing.
timschochet
Footballguy
I am never going to convince you, or anyone on a message board, that a pragmatic candidate is preferable to an idealist. This type of forum is designed for idealism, which is fine. But the real world doesn't work that way.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Yes, it's always best to state your goals as the bare minimum of what you might be able to achieve. That's clearly the best way to inspire popular support and be able to negotiate from a position of strength.
The Commish
Footballguy
I often labeled her liberal lite and she was on the unsettled issues. She wanted to tweak Obama's aca not move to the liberal solution of single payer. She wanted to give education to some more but not go to " all " which would be the liberal approach. In terms of her views on corporate America all we have is her actions. They were far from liberal. On military her stated positions weren't liberal. They were incredibly hawkish and certainly not liberal.
IMO this whole discussion goes back to the attempted hijack of the party by those of you who lost your party. It should tell you how liberal it is if a self proclaimed conservative believes this party is more of what they want than their own party. Liberals are now facing a similar issue and the pushback you are experiencing is what you should have done when the tea party types began hijacking you party.
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't know what you're saying here. It's not either/or. You should work towards ideals in a pragmatic way. Your ideals define who you are and what you believe. It makes absolutely no sense to set your goal at x if you want it to be y because you don't think you can get to y. That's doomed thinking from the start.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
You are talking about corruption in the legal sense - I'm talking about in the moral sense - you know like when she opposes Glass-Steagall or when she takes hundreds of thousands for speeches/from lobbyists or calls progressives sexist and misogynist because they supported Bernie or when she voted for the Iraq War or when she talked about Robert Kennedy/claimed she dropped out and immediately supported Obama or that she didn't use to be friends with Trump or when she was against gay marriage or a variety of other things that I personally find distasteful - but yes, please keep telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about - please tell me what in that list is made up. She's morally bankrupt and not someone I want representing me.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
I agree but there were back door deals by the DNC that really hurt Sanders and put her in a better position...more than we probably know. As far as winning by more votes that is a different topic as in the states you campaign to win states not total. Clinton only need one more vote than Trump in California but got 4 million more. I saw a show on this very topic that was called "wasted votes" That is why Trump never went to California and focused on the states he thought he could flip. Who knows if Trump had gone to California as much as he did the other he still would not have won the state but may have knocked the total down.
Anyway Hillary is going to be in Ann Arbor at Hill auditorium. $200.00 a seat to hear her talk about the book. Who said politics don`t pay well?
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
How about this for a genius move...instead of campaigning in rural areas, go to the cities and try to increase turnout and support to counteract the lack of support in the rural districts?
I'm no political mastermind, so maybe I'm way off base here.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
This is off-topic, but I think it's fairly clear that if we used a popular vote total the Dem candidates would increase their margin in every election in recent history, simply because their bases are in dense areas so targeted campaigning and GOTV efforts would be much easier and more productive for them than the GOP. I've made this argument before. Imagine, for example, what a Dem would do in Houston (America's fourth-largest city, leans far left and has large minority population) if they knew those votes might matter. You can't really point to a similar way the GOP would be helped. Yeah Trump didn't campaign in Cali, but neither did Clinton really. Both campaigns knew from the start where those electoral votes were going.
BTW do you remember where you saw that show on wasted votes? I'd be interested in checking it out, did a quick google search but didn't see anything?
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Can`t remember. It was not called "wasted votes" but that was the topic of the show. It had already started when I tuned in. And it was before the election not after.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
This is exactly what I fear. The populism that took over the GOP is now taking over my party, and it's likely to lead to the same problems - politicians making promises that they knew (or should have know) were not possible. From an electoral standpoint, this may be the right road to take - no one can argue that Republican's haven't been rewarded for their over-the-top rhetoric so it's difficult to tell Democrats not to follow that model.
Interesting times.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
This is a perfect example of what I'm afraid of. If you don't support getting rid of the ACA for single payer, you're not a liberal? If you support massive increases in education spending but don't support free college you're not a liberal?
This is nonsense, but unfortunely it's a view shared by many.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
It's been a long held liberal belief that picking and choosing is NOT the goal. That's a conservative position/approach. The solutions Hillary supported were not all inclusive. They were the same
picking and choosing solutions that are driving a wedge between the classes of this country. Sorry that hurts your feelings. Maybe you should consider labeling yourself something else? TLDR: "liberal" is NOT simply "not conservative"
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Bernie supported and voted for the ACA. The ACA was not single payer, and did not provide universal coverage, even though both Obama and Bernie both want universal coverage.It's been a long held liberal belief that picking and choosing is NOT the goal. That's a conservative position/approach. The solutions Hillary supported were not all inclusive. They were the same
Are Obama and Bernie not liberals?
The Commish
Footballguy
In Bernie's case this was a pragmatic step to get to his ideal. An actual illustration of what I posted too Tim earlier. ACA was not the end for him. He wants more and will continue to move forward that ultimate goal. Hein less the difference. Thanks for bringing it up.
As far as Obama is concerned I can only assume since he proposed way more than the dems were willing to pass he saw this as a step toward something bigger later but I am not as sure about his end goal.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
W/re to me "labeling myself something different" - I'll certainly do that if the time comes. While I've seemingly been one of the more liberal posters on these boards for the last 15+ years, I'm more of a liberal in the Obama vein than a Kucinich liberal. I believe that at this time in our history liberals hold superior positions on most of the hot button issues currently before us, but I'm not a "BURN IT ALL DOWN BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS EVIL" liberal. I believe our society has the right engine, but it needs to be tweaked to more effectively benefit the have nots.
If it comes to the point where folks like Obama, Maddow, HRC, Paul Krugman, etc. have no place in the Democratic Party because they aren't liberal enough, I'll probably reconsider my party affiliation.
If it comes to the point where folks like Obama, Maddow, HRC, Paul Krugman, etc. have no place in the Democratic Party because they aren't liberal enough, I'll probably reconsider my party affiliation.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Constantly supporting the centrist route and belittling/blaming/ignoring anyone who wants more...yeah, not really liberal.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Not a chance - Hannity would never say blame him for anything.
Look, I only jumped in here when you implied that progressives were being children. I don't really think about HRC any more - I don't wish her ill will, I just wish she'd go away. I think it doesn't help the DNC which as of now is the party that is addressing most of the issues/concerns that I have.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I'm not a burn it all down type either but I'm a lot closer than I used to be. I've been jaded by Corporate America and Big Business. Too much of our policies are driven by money - lobbyists run Washington - the rich just keep getting richer. Bernie's entire message resonated with me and many people like me. We see Hillary as being in bed with Wall St. and for us we see that as the thing that is driving the machine so we reject her and her ideals. I still think greed is the either the number one problem in this country/world or is in the top 3 for sure - a lot of social ills that you wouldn't expect would be resolved if people could lead a comfortable life.
The Commish
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I'm actually kind of grateful to Hillary Clinton for the occasional reminder of why I categorically refused to vote for her. Gary Johnson may have been a goofball, but he was seriously the best candidate in the race.
Dedfin
Footballguy
Similar threads
