Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Trakar]

You have stated on these forums that you are a Republican, which is why I felt theprestige's idea that you represent any faction of the Democratic Party is wrong. Your claims that I am a "right-leaning moderate", "conservative-lite", and/or "corporatist", however, are entirely off-topic, as well as completely without merit or support.

I apologize if my characterization of the establishment Democratic party does not reflect your personal views, I was under the impression that you supported Hillary and the establishment democratic party that she represents.

 

[Trakar]

I'm not talking about selected examples/samples. I'm talking about the whole picture. For example, this chart has been cited. Both Clintons are higher on the truthful statements chart than Sanders. And the article cited, If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears, is extensively detailed covering false accusation after false accusation.

What is it about Clinton except all those false accusations that makes her so evil? It's ludicrous!

What makes you believe that these sources and their evaluations are objective, and compelling with regard to these issues?

Because I've been a political activist and Progressive liberal through all of the accusations and smear campaigns against both Clintons. And I've followed them closely.

Clinton is vilified based on the constant negative attacks on her character and when you look at the actual facts the vilification is not supported by the evidence. Is she perfect no. Does she deserve all the worst ever, most corrupt, most dishonest accusations thrown at her? Absolutely not.

So you seem to be saying that, trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion. I find that a peculiar method of measuring of objectivity.

Please demonstrate where I have ever stated that I determine the objectivity of the sources I reference by how closely they match my own impressions and opinions of the world (which is what you have just done).

I do occasionally cite sources which reflect my perspectives, but I am almost always very explicit that these sources are demonstrations that my perspectives are not singular and are shared by a significant number of people with similar perspectives, I do not claim them to be objective qualifications of any issue.

Demonstrate that you are affected by confirmation bias? Did I miss the evidence you posted that I was so affected?

What on Earth makes you think you are free from confirmation bias re Clinton? I've posted links with evidence contradicting the claims she's some corrupt, lying, politician. What have you posted and why is that any less cherry picked you claim without evidence that my links were?

I've never claimed that I was without bias.

You are the one who asserted that you found the source referenced to be an objective and compelling source because it agreed with your experience and opinions, and then you claim it supremely ironic that I stated that I find this definition of objective to be peculiar. Please point to any post I have made where I assert or claim that any reference or citation I have made is objective because it agrees with what believe and my experience.

Well guess I do need to spell it out, I posted citations that contained evidence. That is I posted evidence you are welcome to address. Instead you hand-waved said evidence away with an ad hominem attack—if I posted it, it is therefore biased.

That is pure irony.

That may be your impression of what happened, but the reality of our posted comment chain does not support this recollection. Please point out where in the above exchange I have hand-waved anything or used an ad hominem attack.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That may be your impression of what happened, but the reality of our posted comment chain does not support this recollection. Please point out where in the above exchange I have hand-waved anything or used an ad hominem attack.

What makes you believe that these sources and their evaluations are objective, and compelling with regard to these issues?

Because I've been a political activist and Progressive liberal through all of the accusations and smear campaigns against both Clintons. And I've followed them closely. Clinton is vilified based on the constant negative attacks on her character and when you look at the actual facts the vilification is not supported by the evidence. Is she perfect no. Does she deserve all the worst ever, most corrupt, most dishonest accusations thrown at her? Absolutely not.

So you seem to be saying that, trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion. I find that a peculiar method of measuring of objectivity.

How does , I've followed them closely," and, "when you look at the actual facts," amount to: "trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion"? And how is that not dismissing my posts with an ad hominem?

ad hominem:
Person A makes claim X: I've followed the claims and looked at the facts.

Person B makes an attack on person A: Trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion

Therefore A's claim is false.

 

[Trakar]

How does , I've followed them closely," and, "when you look at the actual facts," amount to: "trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion"? And how is that not dismissing my posts with an ad hominem?

I asked the question regarding trust, objectivity and compelling support before you gave your response that your trust, objectivity and compelling weight were based upon your experiences and perceptions.

Hard to dismiss miss something that hasn't been said yet, much less make an attack on you based upon words you had not said yet.

ad hominem:
Person A makes claim X: I've followed the claims and looked at the facts.

Person B makes an attack on person A: Trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion

Therefore A's claim is false.

Actually, as is clearly depicted in the record of our exchange it is:

Person A presents a selection of statements as evidence for X
Person B asks, why do you accept that these sources and their evaluations are objective, and compelling with regard to these issues?
Person A responds Because I've been a political activist and Progressive liberal through all of the accusations and smear campaigns against both Clintons. And I've followed them closely.
Person B responds So you seem to be saying that, trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion. I find that a peculiar method of measuring of objectivity.

No hand-waving apparent, and no ad hominem attack in evidence.

 

[The Big Dog]

How does , I've followed them closely," and, "when you look at the actual facts," amount to: "trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion"? And how is that not dismissing my posts with an ad hominem?

ad hominem:
Person A makes claim X: I've followed the claims and looked at the facts.

Person B makes an attack on person A: Trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion

Therefore A's claim is false.

That is not an ad hominem... Plus if you put your own credibility at issue attacking that credibility is not fallacious.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I asked the question regarding trust, objectivity and compelling support before you gave your response that your trust, objectivity and compelling weight were based upon your experiences and perceptions [OF THE EVIDENCE].

ftfy

Person A presents a selection of statements as evidence for X
Person B asks, why do you accept that these sources and their evaluations are objective, and compelling with regard to these issues?
Person A responds Because I've been a political activist and Progressive liberal through all of the accusations and smear campaigns against both Clintons. And I've followed them closely.

Quote mine much?
You left this part out: "when you look at the actual facts the vilification is not supported by the evidence."

Person B responds So you seem to be saying that, trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion. I find that a peculiar method of measuring of objectivity.

No hand-waving apparent, and no ad hominem attack in evidence.

Only if you ignore the fact you quote mined to make your point. But if you don't ignore that fact, then you did indeed dismiss the evidence by trying to dismiss the messenger, aka an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Garrison]

Speak for yourself, Trump is a train wreck and he's as dangerous as hell. So is Cruz.

I believe that Trakar and other Sanders supporters are aware of this and don't care. The attitude appears to be, if the voters won't put Bernie in the White House then they deserve to suffer under Trump/Cruz.

 

[Trakar]

ftfy

Your distortion of my statement does not fix anything except to further demonstrate your own disingenuity and propensity to try and make reality fit your own perspective biases

You left this part out: "when you look at the actual facts the vilification is not supported by the evidence."

yes, I left out your take on the statements made by the sources, as my question was directed at why you believe that these sources and their evaluations are objective, and compelling with regard to these issues? Your response was that you have been a political activist and Progressive liberal through all of the accusations and smear campaigns against both Clintons.

Our words speak for themselves and are open to review by all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You quote mined my post and now you are doubling down: the very definition of confirmation bias.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I believe that Trakar and other Sanders supporters are aware of this and don't care. The attitude appears to be, if the voters won't put Bernie in the White House then they deserve to suffer under Trump/Cruz.

Well, you wet your bed, you get to sleep in it.

 

[Trakar]

I believe that Trakar and other Sanders supporters are aware of this and don't care. The attitude appears to be, if the voters won't put Bernie in the White House then they deserve to suffer under Trump/Cruz.

This is a popular mischaracterization.

My attitude is, I will vote for significant advancement of specific progressive action in certain specific areas, and will not vote or support anyone that does not agree to support and fight for those specific progressive actions. It is as simple as that.

1) a substantive (at least majorly revenue neutral) carbon tax
2) all fossil fuel resources on public lands stay in the ground
3) major campaign finance and election reform to include A) having decennial redistricting accomplished by nonpartisan independent boards with the goal to achieve parity, not safe districts, B) to limit all candidates and campaigns to public funding.

Those are the minimal conditions I have for my vote and support going forward

 

[BenBurch]

By former Clinton white house counsellor Bill Curry;

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/09/it_...t_prop_her_up_after_bernies_michigan_miracle/

<SNIP>

You wouldn’t know it from watching TV last night or reading the national papers this morning but Bernie Sanders’ Michigan win ranks among the greatest upsets in presidential primary history.

Should he win the nomination it will be go down as the biggest upset of any kind in American political history.

<SNIP>

 

[Travis]

This is a popular mischaracterization.

My attitude is, I will vote for significant advancement of specific progressive action in certain specific areas, and will not vote or support anyone that does not agree to support and fight for those specific progressive actions. It is as simple as that.

1) a substantive (at least majorly revenue neutral) carbon tax
2) all fossil fuel resources on public lands stay in the ground
3) major campaign finance and election reform to include A) having decennial redistricting accomplished by nonpartisan independent boards with the goal to achieve parity, not safe districts, B) to limit all candidates and campaigns to public funding.

Those are the minimal conditions I have for my vote and support going forward

Interesting. To heck with pragmatism lets live on a cloud where fundamentalist extremism has become a platform.

I find it interesting that, if those are your pet issues, there really isn't any particular reason to hate Hillary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

By former Clinton white house counsellor Bill Curry;

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/09/it_...t_prop_her_up_after_bernies_michigan_miracle/

That's absurd. Both CNN and MSNBC and a number of online mainstream news sites are calling it this huge upset, yadda yadda despite the fact the only thing earthshaking was that the polls were wrong. The win is self was a marginal 2%, hardly the biggest upset since sliced bread.

 

[Mike!]

That's absurd. Both CNN and MSNBC and a number of online mainstream news sites are calling it this huge upset, yadda yadda despite the fact the only thing earthshaking was that the polls were wrong. The win is self was a marginal 2%, hardly the biggest upset since sliced bread.

Who was ever upset about sliced bread?

 

[Trakar]

Interesting. To heck with pragmatism lets live on a cloud where fundamentalist extremism has become a platform.

I find it interesting that, if those are your pet issues, there really isn't any particular reason to hate Hillary.

I don't hate Hillary, I don't trust Hillary, she generally works against the issues I laid out and I dislike her propensity to go right on governance, economics, foreign policy, and individual rights and freedoms.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

By former Clinton white house counsellor Bill Curry;

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/09/it_...t_prop_her_up_after_bernies_michigan_miracle/

Interesting article, I took this from it:

Reporters who know nothing else can’t conceive how voters choosing among a democratic socialist, a pay-to-play politician and a fascist might pick door number one. They bought Hillary’s myth of inevitability, but as Lawrence of Arabia told Prince Ali in the desert, nothing is written.

In another thread I was commenting on the poll showing Bernie beating Trump by 18 points and Hillary beating Trump by 13.

That doesn't mean I think Bernie is going to win the nomination or that this particular win is so huge. It's more about Hillary's vulnerabilities against Trump having been underestimated and Bernie being sold short on how he'd do against a Republican.

He isn't a communist. More like a moderate European. But he was cast as such, too extreme for a general election. These numbers contradict that notion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who was ever upset about sliced bread?

Surely you know words have multiple definitions but it turns out the 1st definition of upset is "To cause to overturn; knock or tip over"

tr.v. up·set, up·set·ting, up·sets
1. To cause to overturn; knock or tip over: upset the flowerpot.
2.

a. To disturb the functioning, order, or course of: Protesters upset the meeting by chanting and shouting. See Synonyms at overthrow.
b. To cause (the stomach) to feel ill.​

3. To distress or perturb mentally or emotionally: The bad news upset me.

It's not until you get to the 3rd definition that you reach the one you are using.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't hate Hillary, I don't trust Hillary, she generally works against the issues I laid out and I dislike her propensity to go right on governance, economics, foreign policy, and individual rights and freedoms.

So here are 2 examples from tonight's debate:
Both Sanders and Clinton voted for the stand alone auto industry bailout. It failed.

Along comes the bank bailout with the auto bailout attached. It's your only option at this point. Sanders stood his ground and had the bill been defeated there wouldn't have been either the auto or the bank bailout. Clinton compromised and voted for the good and the bad together.

Now you may be against either bailout, I get that. But if you were for saving the auto industry and all the related jobs, then which was the right decision: a sacrifice on principle or a compromise on principle to avoid the sacrifice?

The second example is Sanders' continual complaint that the decision to oust Gaddafi had terrible consequences. But had we not taken that route we'd have the thing we have in Syria where Assad is slaughtering his people and the population is flooding into Europe. Which is worse? Which was preventable and how? Which is the bad decision when both are bad?

The Middle East is a mess and the invasion of Iraq lit the fuse, neither Sanders nor Clinton are at fault for that. Then came the Arab Spring. Was it wrong for Clinton to think the Arab Spring had a chance? To help it grow by helping get a dictator out that was threatening to slaughter the rebellion?

It failed, so far anyway. And now we have ISIS. But hindsight doesn't include how we'd feel had the US not intervened and had Gaddafi slaughtered millions or had the EU been inundated with Libyans as well as Syrians?

 

[Trakar]

So here are 2 examples from tonight's debate:
Both Sanders and Clinton voted for the stand alone auto industry bailout. It failed.

Along comes the bank bailout with the auto bailout attached. It's your only option at this point. Sanders stood his ground and had the bill been defeated there wouldn't have been either the auto or the bank bailout. Clinton compromised and voted for the good and the bad together.

Now you may be against either bailout, I get that. But if you were for saving the auto industry and all the related jobs, then which was the right decision: a sacrifice on principle or a compromise on principle to avoid the sacrifice?

The second example is Sanders' continual complaint that the decision to oust Gaddafi had terrible consequences. But had we not taken that route we'd have the thing we have in Syria where Assad is slaughtering his people and the population is flooding into Europe. Which is worse? Which was preventable and how? Which is the bad decision when both are bad?

The Middle East is a mess and the invasion of Iraq lit the fuse, neither Sanders nor Clinton are at fault for that. Then came the Arab Spring. Was it wrong for Clinton to think the Arab Spring had a chance? To help it grow by helping get a dictator out that was threatening to slaughter the rebellion?

It failed, so far anyway. And now we have ISIS. But hindsight doesn't include how we'd feel had the US not intervened and had Gaddafi slaughtered millions or had the EU been inundated with Libyans as well as Syrians?

I am not in support of U.S. military interventionism on a global scale, it is crude and often ineffectual, mostly counter-productive and ridiculously expensive, if not immediately, in the fat tail of it.