Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
And her penchant for sneaky secrecy is Nixonian, even when it works against her. How many different stories has she told about her email server? The fact that she doesn't want us to know what she's telling her private, paying audiences tells us more about her than the content itself.
Click to expand...


Hillary is the reincarnation of Richard Nixon. Their only difference is that Nixon was better dressed. With all of her millions from speaking fees, you would think she could buy something appropriate to wear.

It doesn't convey a presidential image when she's dressed in an outdated, ill-fitting pantsuit. My 92 year old grandmother is more stylish and has better fashion sense than 68 year old Hillary.

 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
Hillary is the reincarnation of Richard Nixon. Their only difference is that Nixon was better dressed. With all of her millions from speaking fees, you would think she could buy something appropriate to wear.

It doesn't convey a presidential image when she's dressed in an outdated, ill-fitting pantsuit. My 92 year old grandmother is more stylish and has better fashion sense than 68 year old Hillary.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/696355724f2a46388b.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I would have thought most people on a skeptic board, even in the politics section, would be embarrassed to make such blatant ad hominem arguments.

I guess not. :cool:
 
Fudbucker said:
Right. All criticisms of Hillary are sexist. Her voice is like nails-on-a-chalkboard. Sexist. She lies to make herself look better. Sexist. She screwed up the most important vote in her Senate career. Sexist.
Click to expand...

Criticising her dress sense is simply pointless. Calling her a screeching harpy is certainly sexist.

This thread is hardly devoid of sexism.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I would have thought most people on a skeptic board, even in the politics section, would be embarrassed to make such blatant ad hominem arguments.

I guess not. :cool:
Click to expand...


Let's just recap what has been said at this forum so far:

Trump has incredibly bad hair…
Trump has weird stumpy fingers…
Trump is a loud mouth bigot…
Trump is an ass-clown with a comb over…
Trump is a rapist…
Trump is a womanizer…
Trump is a fascist…
Trump is Hitler…
Trump is a fraud…
Trump is a racist…
Trump is a sexist…
Trump is a homophobe…
Trump is a xenophobe…
Trump is a closet KKK member…
Trump is a contemptible demagogue…
Trump is a lowlife scumbag…
Trump is a liar and a loon…

And it goes on and on; there are hundreds more.

But my mentioning Hillary's pantsuit should be cause for embarrassment? Right!
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I get it now. You don't actually have any evidence ... you just decided that what they were doing.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's where the evidence points.

Simply, if you're going to pay somebody to astroturf for you, you don't plaster a disclaimer all over it so that it's obvious these folks are being paid. That would be a waste of $1 million dollars.

This is hardly anything new. There are companies that buy and sell reddit accounts. Accounts that are older and have more karma are worth more, because they have more of an air of legitimacy about them. Now, if you're working for an ad agency representing Chocka Cola, you don't buy one of those accounts and post to reddit saying "Wow! I'm really thirsty! I could really go for an ice-cold Chocka Cola right now! (Disclaimer: I represent an ad agency working for Chocka Cola.)" You'd be a total idiot to run a campaign like that.

Is the guy running the campaign a total idiot? No. Far from it. In fact, this was the guy in charge of running attacks on Anita Hill, David Brock. So, this isn't his first rodeo.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Yes, because that's where the evidence points.

Simply, if you're going to pay somebody to astroturf for you, you don't plaster a disclaimer all over it so that it's obvious these folks are being paid. That would be a waste of $1 million dollars.

This is hardly anything new. There are companies that buy and sell reddit accounts. Accounts that are older and have more karma are worth more, because they have more of an air of legitimacy about them. Now, if you're working for an ad agency representing Chocka Cola, you don't buy one of those accounts and post to reddit saying "Wow! I'm really thirsty! I could really go for an ice-cold Chocka Cola right now! (Disclaimer: I represent an ad agency working for Chocka Cola.)" You'd be a total idiot to run a campaign like that.

Is the guy running the campaign a total idiot? No. Far from it. In fact, this was the guy in charge of running attacks on Anita Hill, David Brock. So, this isn't his first rodeo.
Click to expand...

So, you have evidence of a market for Reddit accounts. Then it shouldn't be too hard to get evidence of the Hillary astroturfing.
 
Let's review, sorry if these are out of order:
Axiom_Blade said:
Oh, I see what you're getting at. I can't prove that they wouldn't have done this anyway, without paying them. Therefore, I can't prove they're pretending! Genius! :rolleyes:

Well, if this isn't astroturfing, then nothing is. It must be a meaningless concept.
Click to expand...
So you made this assumption ^ and you cited this evidence at some point in time:
Axiom_Blade said:
OK, here's the evidence. I posted it earlier.
Click to expand...

That's when I pointed out there were other possibilities as to how to spend one's millions:
Skeptic Ginger said:
There are some levels to consider here besides your black and white false dichotomy.

1) If computer nerds that had no interest in Clinton were hired to post fake stuff on social media, the way some products were advertised with fake viral videos, for example, that's probably the category you are putting all your black into. I might agree.

2) If computer nerds were simply hired to track down negative BS about Clinton and counter the army of fanatics posting it, that's a shade of grey.

3) If Clinton campaign staff were paid to post and or counter post in an effort to address the social media issue, that's an off-white shade.

4) And if Clinton campaign volunteers were given the computer programs to search for the stuff and the equipment and whatever other resources they needed that would be a pretty white shade in your black and white dichotomy.

So, other than you heard money was being spent, do you know how the program is being carried out?
Click to expand...

To which you seemed to agree:
Axiom_Blade said:
If the people clearly identified themselves as working for the Clinton campaign, then I'm okay with it. Otherwise, I would call it scummy. I think that from the news article, it's pretty clear that they did not identify themselves and were instead pretending to be grassroots support.
Click to expand...


Then you digressed in the same post:
What if some corporation (say, Wal-Mart or Monsanto) hired some PR goons to go online and defend the corporation against attacks while posing as ordinary, disinterested citizens? Would that be okay, too? Don't you find it a bit ridiculous that Clinton's fans have gone from

"Oh, you think Clinton has shills? How ridiculous! What a crazy conspiracy theory!"

to

"Well, duh. Of course she has shills! And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that!"

The pretense is that they're just some ordinary Clinton supporters. Not people paid to be Clinton supporters.

Do you honestly not see the difference?
Click to expand...

And doubled down:
Axiom_Blade said:
Yes, because that's where the evidence points.

Simply, if you're going to pay somebody to astroturf for you, you don't plaster a disclaimer all over it so that it's obvious these folks are being paid. That would be a waste of $1 million dollars.

This is hardly anything new. There are companies that buy and sell reddit accounts. Accounts that are older and have more karma are worth more, because they have more of an air of legitimacy about them. Now, if you're working for an ad agency representing Chocka Cola, you don't buy one of those accounts and post to reddit saying "Wow! I'm really thirsty! I could really go for an ice-cold Chocka Cola right now! (Disclaimer: I represent an ad agency working for Chocka Cola.)" You'd be a total idiot to run a campaign like that.

Is the guy running the campaign a total idiot? No. Far from it. In fact, this was the guy in charge of running attacks on Anita Hill, David Brock. So, this isn't his first rodeo.
Click to expand...

But here's the problem, you admit you don't know if it was 1, 2, 3, or 4 (numbers and hilites added for ease of reference). Yet you revert right back to claiming it was #1 with no evidence, just your assertion. And that after you yourself admitted it could be any of the 4.

You seem to think it matters if I say I'm working for the campaign. Does that include if I, as a pro-Clinton supporter, go from an unpaid volunteer to a minimum wage staffer in the local Clinton campaign office? Where is the magical line between supporter and paid supporter? If I hunt down social media attacks and respond to them, how am I any less grass roots if I've snagged a campaign job?

People that work for the Clinton campaign, paid or volunteer, are supporters. That's how you get a job as a campaign staffer.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
I just fed "hillary sings" into youtube and the first result I clicked is something apparently called "bye bye birdie". Pretty creepy - maybe even Illuminati predictive programming. :eek:
Click to expand...


Hillary looked sensational 20 years ago. She looks great in a skirt; or at least she did once upon a time. Haven't seen her don a skirt in ages.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
But here's the problem, you admit you don't know if it was 1, 2, 3, or 4 (numbers and hilites added for ease of reference). Yet you revert right back to claiming it was #1 with no evidence, just your assertion. And that after you yourself admitted it could be any of the 4.
Click to expand...

No. I think your premise is ridiculous. But I've already seen that Hillary supporters will give her a free pass on anything. It's all "Republican propaganda".

You seem to think it matters if I say I'm working for the campaign. Does that include if I, as a pro-Clinton supporter, go from an unpaid volunteer to a minimum wage staffer in the local Clinton campaign office? Where is the magical line between supporter and paid supporter? If I hunt down social media attacks and respond to them, how am I any less grass roots if I've snagged a campaign job?
Click to expand...

I remember when The Onion poked fun at this:

I'd Love This Product Even If I Weren't A Stealth Marketer

Again, if we follow this line of reasoning, the concept of astroturfing, stealth marketing, and so on...Complete nonsense. Because I can't prove that those people don't actually support those things.

I'm used to cognitive dissonance from Democrats, but this is a whole other level.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
No. I think your premise is ridiculous. But I've already seen that Hillary supporters will give her a free pass on anything. It's all "Republican propaganda".



I remember when The Onion poked fun at this:

I'd Love This Product Even If I Weren't A Stealth Marketer

Again, if we follow this line of reasoning, the concept of astroturfing, stealth marketing, and so on...Complete nonsense. Because I can't prove that those people don't actually support those things.

I'm used to cognitive dissonance from Democrats, but this is a whole other level.
Click to expand...

Not true. Cops have to gather evidence on intent all the time. You can try interrogation, or tapping their phone, or wearing a wire.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
No. I think your premise is ridiculous. But I've already seen that Hillary supporters will give her a free pass on anything. It's all "Republican propaganda".



I remember when The Onion poked fun at this:

I'd Love This Product Even If I Weren't A Stealth Marketer

Again, if we follow this line of reasoning, the concept of astroturfing, stealth marketing, and so on...Complete nonsense. Because I can't prove that those people don't actually support those things.

I'm used to cognitive dissonance from Democrats, but this is a whole other level.
Click to expand...

So you have no evidence what the funds for the rapid response team are spent on and nor who is on the response team: volunteers, paid supporters or paid astroturffers. In the mean time you also don't know if there are paid instigators out there posting anti-Clinton messages in social media. The GOP surely uses such tactics
 
Last edited:
I think this was posted earlier, but I want to point again to a couple paragraphs: Snopes: Bernie Sanders Facebook Groups Controversy
A now-deleted post published to r/sandersforpresident (and reproduced to r/conspiracy) was submitted by an individual who claimed to be a former astroturfer for Clinton operatives. That individual claimed that they were instructed to paint Sanders supporters as racist, sexist, and bullies...

However, moderators for r/sandersforpresident removed the post, because its original author failed or refused to provide any proof of their accusations....

On 26 April 2016, digital and social media manager for the Sanders campaign Aiden King addressed the rumors on the campaign's official Slack channel:

All of the groups are back up and it wasn't just Bernie groups.
Click to expand...

Seems to me to be business as usual for individuals, including liars, paid groups and support groups. It makes perfect sense that a campaign for POTUS absolutely needs a response team to address social media. They'd be incompetent not to.

[/yet another faux reason to contrive outrage]
 
Fudbucker said:
Right. All criticisms of Hillary are sexist. Her voice is like nails-on-a-chalkboard. Sexist. She lies to make herself look better. Sexist. She screwed up the most important vote in her Senate career. Sexist.
Click to expand...

You don't treat Hillary! in a sexist fashion. That's sexism!

http://www.aww.com.au/latest-news/e...oses-it-during-risque-on-air-exchange-26883\\

Mrs Clinton, whose new book, Hard Choices, is published today, writes that "many leaders choose to ignore the fact that they are dealing with a woman when they deal with me".

"But I try not to let them get away with that," she writes,
Click to expand...

And comparing the 2012/2016 photos. Hillary got old
 
lionking said:
Criticising her dress sense is simply pointless.
Click to expand...
It's not pointless. Girls are taught from birth that only their 'looks' are important. Criticizing a woman's 'dress sense' is an effective way of putting her down. A male politician is rated for his policies, character etc. A female politician is judged by her 'fashion sense'. How is that not sexist?

Slings and Arrows said:
Let's just recap what has been said at this forum so far:

Trump has incredibly bad hair…
...
And it goes on and on; there are hundreds more.

But my mentioning Hillary's pantsuit should be cause for embarrassment? Right!
Click to expand...
Tu quoque
Tu quoque (/tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom