Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Fudbucker]

Since the difference of perception was about 5%, it shouldn't be much of a problem getting more people to realize that the economy would do better under a Democratic administration. After all, reality is a pretty good ally.

And the poll is months old, so things may have drastically changed. I'm just saying, based on what we currently know, the GOP has (and has had for awhile) a slight edge on the economy.

What's far more relevant is how the economy does before the election. A slowdown probably won't mean anything, but if we get into a recession, Trump will benefit from it. Probably not enough to offset his negatives, but a recession would be a political headache for Clinton.

 

[The Big Dog]

They would be misrepresenting themselves. Now, produce evidence that has occurred.

Brock and Correct the Record admitted that they are paying a million bucks to fund internet commenters to attack the "Bernie Boys." Do you think they are lying about it?

Have you read nothing about it???

I am blown away that you are not appalled by the concept itself, an organized well funded astro-turf attack.

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is a pretty good explanation of why anyone and everyone should be appalled by Brock's admited astroturf campaign:

The “Correct the Record” project should disgust anyone who values open participatory democracy. It’s sinister for two reasons: first, astroturfing is a psychologically manipulative attempt to use money to distort the process of political deliberation. It represents the worst kind of cynical politics, a politics that instead of building support the hard way, simply buys it. (One senses that an aide told Hillary Clinton “Madam Secretary, Bernie Sanders seems to have lots of grassroots support online,” to which she replied “Hmm, that’s what we need. Get me $1 million worth!”) Second, it constitutes a total repudiation of the supposed “progressive” stance on campaign finance and SuperPACs.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Brock and Correct the Record admitted that they are paying a million bucks to fund internet commenters to attack the "Bernie Boys." Do you think they are lying about it?

Have you read nothing about it???

I am blown away that you are not appalled by the concept itself, an organized well funded astro-turf attack.

Hillary Clinton and her surrogates have taken a page straight out of Vladimir Putin's playbook: paid shills spreading propaganda throughout social media.

Donald Trump probably debated over whether to call her Crooked Hillary or Sleazy Hillary; but in this particular case, Hillary Rodham Nixon would be suitable (or should that be pant-suitable?).

 

[BobTheCoward]

Brock and Correct the Record admitted that they are paying a million bucks to fund internet commenters to attack the "Bernie Boys." Do you think they are lying about it?

Have you read nothing about it???

I am blown away that you are not appalled by the concept itself, an organized well funded astro-turf attack.

I have read everything about it. You will also notice I haven't shared if I have a gut feeling of they are astroturfing or not. I also haven't shared my feelings about astroturfing. This isn't about those questions.

This is about evidence. The quote from the PAC is ambiguous on what "pushing back" involves. You are making a claim that includes astroturfing. That isn't the only conclusion probable from the single piece of evidence, the press release.

That means it is either on you to provide evidence of their astroturfing, or state that you have a suspicion you cannot prove.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
What's far more relevant is how the economy does before the election. A slowdown probably won't mean anything, but if we get into a recession, Trump will benefit from it. Probably not enough to offset his negatives, but a recession would be a political headache for Clinton.

Or Clinton can play this bit of scary ignorance up:

Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

He added, “And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can’t lose.”

Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money.

Experts also described Mr. Trump’s proposal as fanciful, saying there was no reason to think America’s creditors would accept anything less than 100 cents on the dollar, regardless of Mr. Trump’s deal-making prowess.

Gee, it worked for Trump Inc, just declare bankruptcy and cover your own ass on the way out.

'King Of Debt' Trump Suggests He'd Default On National Debt

This right here is why Donald Trump is dangerous. In a wide-ranging interview with CNBC yesterday, he intimated that he would cause a default on the national debt to make bondholders take a haircut.

He didn't say that. Instead, he framed things in his usual Drumpfian way, but the implication is clear.

"I am the king of debt. I do love debt. I love debt and I love playing with it, but of course now you're talking about something that's very, very fragile, and it has to be handled very, very carefully," Trump said.

Analysts reacted with some alarm. .... What are we, Argentina?"

A shocked Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo wrote, "The United States is not a struggling casino. It's a sovereign nation with sovereign debt."

... he doesn't really know what he's talking about, as most of us already knew. He blows smoke and pretends we should all take a whiff.

Donald Trump seems to think the United States is just like Trump Holdings, or whatever he calls his company now. ...

A good campaign will expose this nutjob for what he is. Clinton needs to up the loose cannon rhetoric.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have read everything about it. You will also notice I haven't shared if I have a gut feeling of they are astroturfing or not. I also haven't shared my feelings about astroturfing. This isn't about those questions.

This is about evidence. The quote from the PAC is ambiguous on what "pushing back" involves. You are making a claim that includes astroturfing. That isn't the only conclusion probable from the single piece of evidence, the press release.

That means it is either on you to provide evidence of their astroturfing, or state that you have a suspicion you cannot prove.

yawn, not the only piece of evidence, as linked above.

They say they are going to push back against users on Reddit. Anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge knows exactly what that means, pure astroturfing. Explain what the hell else it could mean.

I notice you ignore the fact that Brock is bragging about pushing the bounds of what super pacs can do. And Hillary says she is going to limit citizens United. And people believe her.

 

[bruto]

Actually what they admitted was sleazy enough that it ought to turn anyone's stomach.

But the fact of the matter is that if the Brock trolls are not identifying themselves as being compensated by the the Clinton Cabal, then they are misrepresenting themselves.

Correct the Record, a Brock/Goebbels Production.

Big if here, and your use of it suggests that you do not know. There's no harm in guessing of course, and giving opinions based on that guess, but it's not honest to suggest you know things that you do not.

 

[The Big Dog]

Big if here, and your use of it suggests that you do not know. There's no harm in guessing of course, and giving opinions based on that guess, but it's not honest to suggest you know things that you do not.

What a silly comment, of course I know that no one has identified themself as as Brock astroturfer on Reddit or Twitter or elsewhere.

Hey, maybe there is a chance that Brock was lying about paying a million dollars to pay for pro Hillary posters on Twitter and Reddit, huh? His group has already spent 4.5 million. Yeah, he was probably lying.

Putin's trolls don't I.d. themselves why would Hillary's trolls?

 

[BobTheCoward]

What a silly comment, of course I know that no one has identified themself as as Brock astroturfer on Reddit or Twitter or elsewhere.

Hey, maybe there is a chance that Brock was lying about paying a million dollars to pay for pro Hillary posters on Twitter and Reddit, huh? His group has already spent 4.5 million. Yeah, he was probably lying.

Putin's trolls don't I.d. themselves why would Hillary's trolls?

The problem here is you don't realize you actually dont know that. It os also very easy standard to clear. A single instance of a paid operative making a message in that capacity without attribution or a company document that they should not attribute would work. But you don't have that.

 

[The Big Dog]

The problem here is you don't realize you actually dont know that. It os also very easy standard to clear. A single instance of a paid operative making a message in that capacity without attribution or a company document that they should not attribute would work. But you don't have that.

Yes, I know that because they admitted it and you appear to not know how Reddit or Twitter work. You are being deliberately obtuse, of course, because of course Brock's strategy is completely indefensible.

What exactly do you think they are paying money for to post on Reddit?

 

[wareyin]

Yes, I know that because they admitted it and you appear to not know how Reddit or Twitter work. You are being deliberately obtuse, of course, because of course Brock's strategy is completely indefensible.

What exactly do you think they are paying money for to post on Reddit?

Do you have any evidence they are paying people to post on Reddit, rather than paying to create and provide things that non-paid supporters can use to contradict false statements on Reddit?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, I know that because they admitted it and you appear to not know how Reddit or Twitter work. You are being deliberately obtuse, of course, because of course Brock's strategy is completely indefensible.

What exactly do you think they are paying money for to post on Reddit?

What we think they are doing (which we agree on) and what we know through evidence are two different things. The press release says they are responding, but it doesn't say if it is attributed or astroturfing. You are making the claim it is astroturfed, so show me that evidence (the press release is clearly insufficient).

 

[The Big Dog]

What we think they are doing (which we agree on) and what we know through evidence are two different things. The press release says they are responding, but it doesn't say if it is attributed or astroturfing. You are making the claim it is astroturfed, so show me that evidence (the press release is clearly insufficient).

The fact that you don't find the whole concept as admitted appalling is simply remarkable to me.

The very definition of astroturfing is that is without attribution. With all due respect your request that I show something that by definition cannot exist is easily the most disengenuous position I have seen in a long while.

So you've set a new low in the defense of the indefensible while constantly dodging any answer to the question of just what they hell you think they are doing on Reddit and Twitter.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The fact that you don't find the whole concept as admitted appalling is simply remarkable to me.

The very definition of astroturfing is that is without attribution. With all due respect your request that I show something that by definition cannot exist is easily the most disengenuous position I have seen in a long while.

So you've set a new low in the defense of the indefensible while constantly dodging any answer to the question of just what they hell you think they are doing on Reddit and Twitter.

I do find the whole thing appalling. That isn't the point.

It is able to be proven. I wouldn't ask evidence for something you can't falsify. One method would be to identify someone paid by the organization and then look at their message history. Police have to do stuff like that all the time.

 

[The Big Dog]

I do find the whole thing appalling. That isn't the point.

It is able to be proven. I wouldn't ask evidence for something you can't falsify. One method would be to identify someone paid by the organization and then look at their message history. Police have to do stuff like that all the time.

I have a dream that you will explain what they are doing on Twitter and Reddit.

Oh well, another article in the long line of articles I will post here, and to think if I just lowered my standards I could be getting paid by Brock and Clinton.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/21/1518537/-Clinton-SuperPac-Admits-to-Paying-Internet-Trolls

 

[BobTheCoward]

I have a dream that you will explain what they are doing on Twitter and Reddit.

Oh well, another article in the long line of articles I will post here, and to think if I just lowered my standards I could be getting paid by Brock and Clinton.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/21/1518537/-Clinton-SuperPac-Admits-to-Paying-Internet-Trolls

I have no additional evidence on what they do or how they do it, so I am not making a claim.

 

[bruto]

What a silly comment, of course I know that no one has identified themself as as Brock astroturfer on Reddit or Twitter or elsewhere.

Hey, maybe there is a chance that Brock was lying about paying a million dollars to pay for pro Hillary posters on Twitter and Reddit, huh? His group has already spent 4.5 million. Yeah, he was probably lying.

Putin's trolls don't I.d. themselves why would Hillary's trolls?

Talk about silly comments, I never suggested a shill would identify himself. I suggested, and still suggest, that you have no evidence that such shills exist at all on this board.

 

[Fudbucker]

Talk about silly comments, I never suggested a shill would identify himself. I suggested, and still suggest, that you have no evidence that such shills exist at all on this board.

Ehhh, I wouldn't say "no evidence". Some of the people posting here seem pathologically determined to defend Hillary in any and all matters.

 

[uke2se]

Ehhh, I wouldn't say "no evidence". Some of the people posting here seem pathologically determined to defend Hillary in any and all matters.

I'd say that they are more than made up for by the people who seem pathologically determined to attack Hillary in any and all matters. The sheer amount of hatred spewing towards Hillary from a few posters leads to some posters making an inordinate amount of posts defending Hillary. I don't think there's any evidence there, except for evidence that a few people on these forums really should think about what they are doing with their lives.