Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fudbucker said:
Ehhh, I wouldn't say "no evidence". Some of the people posting here seem pathologically determined to defend Hillary in any and all matters.
Click to expand...

That is no more evidence of paid shills than the people pathologically determined to attack Clinton for any and all matters, or those who defend Trump, etc.


eta: Ninja'd, and better said, by uke2se
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
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.
Click to expand...

That doesn't disprove my point. That just suggests there are paid shills on both sides.
 
Fudbucker said:
Of course we're talking about perceptions. It's an election year.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Facts are meaningless - perception is all that matters. Hillary Clinton is done because people think she is done - facts be damned!

But we still have a way to go before the election, and people's perceptions are changing. Even HuffPost is coming around...

Hillary Clinton Is A Progressive Democrat, Despite What You May Have Heard
Minimum Wage:... Relative to today’s minimum wage, the level that Clinton proposes would represent an increase of about two-thirds, which would make it the largest jump in the history of the federal minimum wage....

Climate Change:... By 2027, Clinton has said, 33 percent of electricity should come from renewable sources. That’s short of what climate scientists believe is necessary to get a handle on global warming, but it’s also more ambitious than Obama’s goal, which is 28 percent renewables by 2030...

Paid Family Leave: Clinton, a longtime proponent for supporting working parents, has called for providing 12 weeks of paid leave for new mothers and fathers...

Higher education:... Community college would be free, which is a big deal, since that’s where 38 percent of undergraduates are getting their educations. All told, the Clinton program would require $350 billion over 10 years... far more than Obama suggested in either of his presidential campaigns.

Taxes: Clinton has proposed a raft of new taxes that would fall almost entirely on wealthy individuals or corporations. Her agenda includes higher estate taxes and a minimum tax on incomes higher than $1 million, which has come to be known as the “Buffett Rule.”...

Note that this partial list leaves out whole categories of policies — like immigration, gun violence, and abortion rights — where Clinton also has staked out strongly progressive positions. In some cases, her positions are arguably more progressive than the ones Sanders has taken.
Click to expand...


Only one problem with this article - it's full of facts. How can we protect our perceptions against such virulent attacks? :mad:
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Exactly. Facts are meaningless - perception is all that matters. Hillary Clinton is done because people think she is done - facts be damned!

But we still have a way to go before the election, and people's perceptions are changing. Even HuffPost is coming around...

Hillary Clinton Is A Progressive Democrat, Despite What You May Have Heard


Only one problem with this article - it's full of facts. How can we protect our perceptions against such virulent attacks? :mad:
Click to expand...

It is not full of facts, it is full of statistics, which are being used deceptively
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Exactly. Facts are meaningless - perception is all that matters. Hillary Clinton is done because people think she is done - facts be damned!

But we still have a way to go before the election, and people's perceptions are changing. Even HuffPost is coming around...

Hillary Clinton Is A Progressive Democrat, Despite What You May Have Heard


Only one problem with this article - it's full of facts. How can we protect our perceptions against such virulent attacks? :mad:
Click to expand...

Exit polling suggests peoples' problems with Clinton are:
1. Not that she's not progressive, but that she's not progressive enough. Clinton's pitch is realistic incremental change, not wholesale reform.
2. She's not honest and trustworthy
3. She's too close to Wall Street
 
Fudbucker said:
Ehhh, I wouldn't say "no evidence". Some of the people posting here seem pathologically determined to defend Hillary in any and all matters.
Click to expand...
And that, to me, is what is wrong with this whole business. That is evidence that there are some people who like Hillary an awful lot, just as there are people who like Trump or Cruz or just about anyone else a lot, whatever your own opinion is. It ought to be obvious enough that such people exist unless you're so crazy you think Hillary is paying off millions of people. That such an event should be introduced as evidence that Hillary's agents are paying off forum posters strikes me as very close to insanity, even if you think that liking Hillary is insane.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Lacks A Simple, Clear Economic Message
Click to expand...
For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clear, and wrong.

This is the key difference between Hillary and Trump/Sanders. It's also the main difference between those who support her and those who don't. People who think there are 'simple, clear solutions' (ie. idealistic fools) support Trump or Sanders because they are getting the message they want to hear - never mind that those solutions are unworkable.

Those of us who have a brain and have been around for while know that complex problems need complex solutions. That pragmatism and flexibility achieve more than ideological purity. That successful implementation of a plan is more important than whether it is the 'best'. But that's nuance. Most people don't do nuance. Nuance requires thought. Nuance isn't certain. Nuance is unsettling. We want a simple solution that we can blindly support without question - who cares if it's wrong!
 
bruto said:
And that, to me, is what is wrong with this whole business. That is evidence that there are some people who like Hillary an awful lot, just as there are people who like Trump or Cruz or just about anyone else a lot, whatever your own opinion is. It ought to be obvious enough that such people exist unless you're so crazy you think Hillary is paying off millions of people. That such an event should be introduced as evidence that Hillary's agents are paying off forum posters strikes me as very close to insanity, even if you think that liking Hillary is insane.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's crazy at all. People are paid to post fake product reviews. Why not pay people to troll message boards in support of a candidate? With all the money in politics since Citizens United, I'd be surprised if paid shills weren't a thing.
 
Fudbucker said:
I don't think it's crazy at all. People are paid to post fake product reviews. Why not pay people to troll message boards in support of a candidate? With all the money in politics since Citizens United, I'd be surprised if paid shills weren't a thing.
Click to expand...

Your analogy fails. You pay people to promote a product that isn't yet well known. If there already were minions of supporters on the social media, adding drops in the already full bucket is a waste of money.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You are ignoring the one critical key piece of evidence. Why would anyone need to pay shills?:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

But... They are.... They admitted it.

:eye-poppi

By the way, the rhetorical question isn't evidence. Hillary's cabal is paying people because Hillary's people are scumbags. It is what they do.

Like take over half a million dollars cash from Goldman Sachs and bury the transcripts.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Exit polling suggests peoples' problems with Clinton are:
1. Not that she's not progressive, but that she's not progressive enough. Clinton's pitch is realistic incremental change, not wholesale reform.
Click to expand...
I already showed how perceptions are changing on this point. Clinton only appears to be 'not progressive enough' when compared to hard left wingers like Sanders (who was so 'progressive' that he didn't even consider himself to be a Democrat until he needed them to get elected).

2. She's not honest and trustworthy
Click to expand...
This too will change. Right now she is still suffering from Bernie's attacks. But after the nomination is over this will fade. Then she will release her transcripts, the Feds will wrap up their investigation, and people's perceptions of her will improve.

Truth is, most of that 'not honest and trustworthy' perception was invented and fueled by conservatives. But they may go quiet on that now that they have a greater threat - Trump. We just heard Charles Koch suggest that Hillary might make a better president than the likely GOP candidate - a position that would have been untenable a few years ago.

3. She's too close to Wall Street
Click to expand...
Obama was pal'ing around with terrorists. Kennedy was cozying up to the Pope! Didn't stop them from getting elected.
 
16.5 said:
But... They are.... They admitted it.

:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Nobody has admitted it. They admitted to responding to criticisms and setting up resources for people to meet and discuss. What they didn't admit to is astroturfing (that would depend on what their paid reps said). But we Ave no evidence of what they said or what they were told to say.

But you or right, what the other presented wasn't evidence.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Hillary's cabal is paying people because Hillary's people are scumbags. It is what they do.

Like take over half a million dollars cash from Goldman Sachs and bury the transcripts.
Click to expand...
No evidence for these claims of course... but paid trolls don't need evidence.

I should know - because I are one. But that doesn't mean I don't provide evidence. Hillary personally pays me $100 for every 'fact' I post that puts her in a good light. And an extra bonus if it turns out to be true!

You should talk to your handler about being paid to post facts. Could be much more profitable than your current strategy...
 
Fudbucker said:
1. Not that she's not progressive, but that she's not progressive enough. Clinton's pitch is realistic incremental change, not wholesale reform.
Click to expand...

This actually shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the political system that the US Founding Fathers put in place. They recognised that any system where a President could change it with wholesale reform would be inherently unstable, and worse, would be highly susceptible to tyranny.

As such they designed the US system with so many checks and balances that the only way to change things is via slow increments and a consensus between all of those involved.

Those that want wholesale reform should consider the dangers this creates for when a President who is the opposite of their position comes in. What would prevent them doing a equally large "wholesale reform" in the other direction? Such a thing creates chaos. The US System is designed to be stable and orderly.
 
Fudbucker said:
I don't think it's crazy at all. People are paid to post fake product reviews. Why not pay people to troll message boards in support of a candidate? With all the money in politics since Citizens United, I'd be surprised if paid shills weren't a thing.
Click to expand...
And once again, of course you can believe this to be the case, and you can say why you believe it to be the case, and you can argue your point. Belief is not evidence. "Why not" is your speculation. It is the contention that it is evidence that I am arguing about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom