Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[DavidJames]

You assume incompetence, admit you cannot imagine a scenario where she is competent, and that means one should take it as a given that she is incompetent. That is assuming your conclusion. If one does not assume incompetence, there is no need to prove competence.
That seems a stretch to read into what I wrote.

We're dealing with people who live in an echo chamber. They can't even begin to imagine they are wrong. That's one of the side affects from the Internet. People are able to live completely in a bubble with others who think like them. It doesn't take long to begin believing they and only they know the truth. There is no ambiguity, there is no gray or context.

 

[wareyin]

The easiest way to counter my argument would be to present such a scenario, but you didn't. Because you can't. Because there is no such scenario. All the possibilities require incompetence.



But it's not based on ignorance. It's based on knowledge. I don't need to know how Jenny McCarthy did in highschool biology class to know that she's clueless about science, because she has demonstrated that incompetence through other actions. Similarly, Hillary has demonstrated incompetence on security issues. Hell, she claims such ignorance herself, as part of her defense. It's ridiculous for you to assert the contrary with neither evidence nor logic to support your position.

You have managed to convince yourself that your beliefs were correct even though you admit ignorance about Clinton's political career, because all the possibilities that you can imagine require your assumption to be correct. I'm not entirely sure why you think your lack of imagination is convincing to others, nor why you think I have to disprove your claims rather than you proving them with something better than 'I can't imagine being wrong'.

 

[wareyin]

We're dealing with people who live in an echo chamber. They can't even begin to imagine they are wrong. That's one of the side affects from the Internet. People are able to live completely in a bubble with others who think like them. It doesn't take long to begin believing they and only they know the truth. There is no ambiguity, there is no gray or context.

Exactly.

 

[DavidJames]

Exactly.

There are very few who are actually excusing or defending what she's done. Yet, magically, that shows up in their criticism. In a country defined by it's due process. Guilt is determined because a rabid partisan can't imagine a scenario where the person they don't like is innocent. To top it off, those that ask for due process to take it's course or refuse to participate in Internet Lawyering are ridiculed.

 

[The Big Dog]

We're dealing with people who live in an echo chamber. They can't even begin to imagine they are wrong. That's one of the side affects from the Internet. People are able to live completely in a bubble with others who think like them. It doesn't take long to begin believing they and only they know the truth. There is no ambiguity, there is no gray or context.

Exactly.

HEE HEE!!

Please tell me that was planned because that is next level hilarious

 

[Ziggurat]

You have managed to convince yourself that your beliefs were correct even though you admit ignorance about Clinton's political career, because all the possibilities that you can imagine require your assumption to be correct. I'm not entirely sure why you think your lack of imagination is convincing to others, nor why you think I have to disprove your claims rather than you proving them with something better than 'I can't imagine being wrong'.

You're just repeating yourself now. Your argument failed the first time, you have addressed nothing in my followup. Don't bother posting if you can't have an actual conversation.

Oh, and as for that whole echo chamber thing? It might be more convincing if you weren't just echoing yourself.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh, and as for that whole echo chamber thing? It might be more convincing if you weren't just echoing yourself.

EXACTLY!-LY-Ly--ly-- eee-- eee---eeeee

 

[Beeyon]

Instead, I have searched for possible explanations, and none include competence regarding security. Nor has anyone here (including you) offered any explanation for her actions which include competence regarding security.

It could all be an elaborate counter-intelligence plan set up before she was secretary of state. Hillary used her SoS email for all real communications and maintained the personal server to distribute misinformation to China. But she can't admit this in public because national security relies on critical misinformation being believed.

Hillary could be endangering her presidential odds for the good of the nation. Thia would make her a genuine Hero.

Hmm.

 

[mgidm86]

first that's not a comparison, it's a supposition. Second, if that actually happened, I'd agree with you. Finally, I see no value in making up scanarios which support my bias.

Edit - Of course you can be angry with anyone you like for any reason you like. In this case for many here, if it wasn't this it would be something else. So color me unimpressed with such anger.

I was merely telling another specific poster, who does not appear to be a Hillary hater, not to feel guilty for being angry at something somebody did just because they feel that person is stupid. I used an example and you're picking at that example. I guess I just don't know why you would bother to do that.

The point I was making seems pretty obvious, which is what I highlighted above. So we agree with that it seems, so I kindly request we move on

 

[wareyin]

You're just repeating yourself now. Your argument failed the first time, you have addressed nothing in my followup. Don't bother posting if you can't have an actual conversation.

Your follow-up failed to rebut my point, so there was nothing to address. Are you attempting to give weight to your failure to imagine being wrong by imagining that you are correct, and that you somehow have the power to decree who may post? If so, this is not a convincing tack.

Oh, and as for that whole echo chamber thing? It might be more convincing if you weren't just echoing yourself.

That might be somewhat of a good line, had I said a word about echo chambers. Or did you imagine that DavidJames was me?

 

[Ziggurat]

That might be somewhat of a good line, had I said a word about echo chambers.

But you did say a word about echo chambers. And that word was "Exactly."

I'm still waiting for you to describe a scenario in which Hillary was not incompetent. Beeyon finally stepped up to the plate, but I doubt you want to try his suggestion as a serious proposition.

 

[wareyin]

But you did say a word about echo chambers. And that word was "Exactly."

At last you begin to display an imagination. Either that or a difficulty with reading comprehension.

I'm still waiting for you to describe a scenario in which Hillary was not incompetent. Beeyon finally stepped up to the plate, but I doubt you want to try his suggestion as a serious proposition.

What a coincidence! I'm still waiting for you to support your own claim, rather that expect others to disprove it. Remember, an inability to imagine being wrong is not supporting your claim. I know you dislike repetition, but I find it does help when someone is struggling with a concept. Obviously it's not always effective, though.

 

[davefoc]

You assume incompetence, admit you cannot imagine a scenario where she is competent, and that means one should take it as a given that she is incompetent. That is assuming your conclusion. If one does not assume incompetence, there is no need to prove competence....

The easiest way to counter my argument would be to present such a scenario, but you didn't. Because you can't. Because there is no such scenario. All the possibilities require incompetence.
...

I'd like for the Clinton defenders to be right or something within shooting distance of right, but I'm with Ziggurat here. What is a scenario where Clinton's use of the personal email server didn't demonstrate incompetence with regards to security issues?

I just really have a hard time making a guess about what was going on in Clinton's mind because it seems so bizarre to me that she would have done what she did with regard to the email/server issue.

If it was a straightforward effort to allow her to hide incriminating information it is bizarre how poorly she did if that was her goal.

If it was a straightforward effort to streamline her email procedures then it is bizarre that she or her support staff did not understand the potential illegalities and potential security problems with this approach.

If it was a straightforward attempt to prevent all her state department emails from being archived then it is bizarre that over the long run she thought she could get away with it.

I'm with Ziggurat here, whatever scenario I can imagine suggests that Clinton acted with unexpected* incompetence.

If you disagree, the simple thing to do is to put forward a scenario by which Clinton's use of her private email server didn't suggest incompetence on the part of Clinton.

* Unexpected to me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's another POV of the issue presented by one of the talking heads on the news, probably MSNBC but I'm not sure which station.

You turn over 50K emails with permission or even a request they be made public. And/or there is a FOIA request for the emails.

Before said emails are released to the public, the departments from which the emails originated or were relevant to are given the option of reviewing the material and approving or denying release. Denying the release to the public involves reclassifying the material if it wasn't previously deemed classified.

It may turn out that is all this is about.

 

[Mike!]

Here's another POV of the issue presented by one of the talking heads on the news, probably MSNBC but I'm not sure which station.

You turn over 50K emails with permission or even a request they be made public. And/or there is a FOIA request for the emails.

Before said emails are released to the public, the departments from which the emails originated or were relevant to are given the option of reviewing the material and approving or denying release. Denying the release to the public involves reclassifying the material if it wasn't previously deemed classified.

It may turn out that is all this is about.

An Aerosmith song comes to mind here...

 

[wareyin]

I'd like for the Clinton defenders to be right or something within shooting distance of right, but I'm with Ziggurat here. What is a scenario where Clinton's use of the personal email server didn't demonstrate incompetence with regards to security issues?

The problem here is that Ziggurat, and now you, are basing your scenarios on the assumption of incompetence while having absolutely no knowledge on what security measures were taken. That should give you pause, here, if you are not one who has already assumed his conclusion that Clinton is incompetent.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here's another POV of the issue presented by one of the talking heads on the news, probably MSNBC but I'm not sure which station.

You turn over 50K emails with permission or even a request they be made public. And/or there is a FOIA request for the emails.

Before said emails are released to the public, the departments from which the emails originated or were relevant to are given the option of reviewing the material and approving or denying release. Denying the release to the public involves reclassifying the material if it wasn't previously deemed classified.

It may turn out that is all this is about.

lol wut.

the data was classified by intelligence agencies before it was sent to the State Department.

you know Hillary and her people are lying about data not being classified right?

 

[wareyin]

Here's another POV of the issue presented by one of the talking heads on the news, probably MSNBC but I'm not sure which station.

You turn over 50K emails with permission or even a request they be made public. And/or there is a FOIA request for the emails.

Before said emails are released to the public, the departments from which the emails originated or were relevant to are given the option of reviewing the material and approving or denying release. Denying the release to the public involves reclassifying the material if it wasn't previously deemed classified.

It may turn out that is all this is about.

We do have evidence that 2 emails forwarded to Clinton contained information that was unmarked but considered classified at the time. However, the vast majority of the emails containing classified information have been retroactively deemed classified, according to all the reporting on this issue.

 

[WildCat]

We do have evidence that 2 emails forwarded to Clinton contained information that was unmarked but considered classified at the time. However, the vast majority of the emails containing classified information have been retroactively deemed classified, according to all the reporting on this issue.

Even if that were true it illustrates gross incompetence, doesn't it?

What email server did Hillary have for classified material?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You assume incompetence, admit you cannot imagine a scenario where she is competent, and that means one should take it as a given that she is incompetent. That is assuming your conclusion. If one does not assume incompetence, there is no need to prove competence.

As the head of her department, she couldn't follow basic procedure or standards. Part of that standard is to use the same tools provided as a standard feature of the department - in this case emails. It ensures the same security measures are in place, and that the same representation of the department is followed in email communications. In most areas of work, failing to follow proper procedure for basic tasks, that makes an entity look disorganized and as ranks as incompetence. This is regardless of whether it's a democrat or a republican violating the procedure. Hillary just looks worse because she did all of this as the head of her department.

If you want to say her decisions were no big deal.... fine, but the incompetence label doesn't come out of a vacuum