Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hillary Clinton Whiffs on Digital Strategy Against Trump

The Clinton-allied SuperPAC “Correct the Record,” (on Twitter as @CorrectRecord) is hiring paid Internet trolls who will “find and confront” anyone posting unflattering messages about or bearing false witness against the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee. The online army, which is supposed to look grassroots and organic, is made up of former reporters, bloggers and public affairs professionals.

Correct the Record is the brainchild of longtime Clinton ally David Brock, also the founder of American Bridge, a vast left-wing opposition research and media dissemination network.

Clinton and Brock are exposing Clinton’s frightening lack of digital knowledge—and self-awareness—with this project. Internet culture abhors what it considers to be “fake” attempts at control, and Correct the Record certainly fits that description.

Actor Tim Robbins recently commented, "go ahead with your David Brock narrative and cash those checks and feed the dysfunction. You are supporting a deeply flawed candidate with a disapproval rating that continues to grow with every tweet from your SuperPAC."

Where Trump can command an army of online trolls to “correct his record” across social media platforms (often without regard to Trump’s actual history), Clinton and her allies must pay millions for digital support. True believers will troll for free—but Hillary doesn’t have many.

A group of fake Twitter lackeys certainly won’t help, well, correct the record.

https://heatst.com/politics/hillary-clinton-whiffs-on-digital-strategy-against-trump/ (May 10, 2016)
Click to expand...


Crooked Hillary's pathetic attempt to bring jobs back to America -- an army of paid shills spreading propaganda.

Also see:
Be nice to Hillary Clinton online — or risk a confrontation with her super PAC (May 9, 2016)

Reference:
#BrockBots
#HillTrolls
@CorrectRecord
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Crooked Hillary's pathetic attempt to bring jobs back to America -- an army of paid shills spreading propaganda.

Also see:
Be nice to Hillary Clinton online — or risk a confrontation with her super PAC (May 9, 2016)

Reference:
#BrockBots
#HillTrolls
@CorrectRecord
Click to expand...

The fact you can't provide evidence of a single specific person being a paid Twitter user is telling.

As far as I can tell, it allows use to simply dismiss legitimate critics without addressing their arguments.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You would think many. Yet no one has pointed to a single tweet by a person as evidence.

I'm sure the situation is exactly as you believe. But as skeptics we must be up front about the evidence. And we have no evidence of a single person being apaid troll for the Clinton campaign
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? It doesn't matter who sent the tweets. It's a matter of record that there were a million dollars worth that were sent. By your logic, we can't name the winner of tomorrow's primaries unless we have a list of voters names to prove the votes were actually cast.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
You're kidding, right? It doesn't matter who sent the tweets. It's a matter of record that there were a million dollars worth that were sent. By your logic, we can't name the winner of tomorrow's primaries unless we have a list of voters names to prove the votes were actually cast.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it would be more like "we cannot be sure there was voter fraud until someone provides evidence of voter fraud"*. Suspicion of fraud isn't sufficient, especially if the source of those suspicions is very biased. Allegations of a slush fund to pay for voter fraud is more damning, especially if true but again for the case to be proven actual instances of fraud would have to demonstrated (after all, the fund could have been frittered away on other matters).

* - except obviously allegations of paid social media contributions are several orders of magnitude less serious (not even being a crime AFAIK) than actual voter fraud.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
You're kidding, right? It doesn't matter who sent the tweets. It's a matter of record that there were a million dollars worth that were sent. By your logic, we can't name the winner of tomorrow's primaries unless we have a list of voters names to prove the votes were actually cast.
Click to expand...

It definitely matters who sent the tweets just as it matters who made the post. The claim is that someone has budgeted a million bucks to hire trolls to spam the internet and flame Bernie supporters. That is not the statement they made when they announced the initiative but the CT that devoted Clinton haters read between the lines. it's only conspiracy theorists who now view every pro-Clinton tweet or blog or forum message as the product of that million dollar largess. And rather than simply nodding our heads and agreeing, posters on these forums ask for the long-awaited proof.

Your assertion is not proof. You have an interesting view of politics but entertainment notwithstanding, you have zero credibility.
 
Democrats, Too Clever by Half on Clinton

Some Democrats reportedly are slipping into panic mode as they watch Clinton’s poll numbers tank and the Republican Party come to grips with the Trump phenomenon.

Party insiders are worrying now about their decision to coronate a deeply flawed and wounded candidate in Hillary Clinton. Not only could she lose to Trump but she could take many of the House and Senate candidates down with her.

At a moment when the American people are demanding change – even willing to risk entrusting the White House to the unorthodox and inexperienced Donald Trump – the Democratic Party may be stuck with an uninspiring status quo candidate.

Clinton could stagger to the Democratic convention in July with a dispirited party lining up glumly to witness her long-delayed coronation. The onlookers might sense that they had made a terrible mistake but couldn’t correct it. They would be left to grit their teeth and hope that Clinton’s self-inflicted wounds, such as her private emails as Secretary of State, don’t fester and become fatal.

Arguably, it is the Democrats who would benefit the most from a contested convention, one that might give them an opportunity to reconsider the choice of Clinton and either nominate Sanders, who fares much better against Trump in poll match-ups, or pick someone else.

While that may be highly unlikely, it is beginning to dawn on Democratic insiders that their scheme to grease the skids for a Clinton nomination might end up slipping Donald Trump into the White House.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/13/democrats-too-clever-by-half-on-clinton/ (May 13, 2016)
Click to expand...


At this point in time, the nation's mood is decisively anti-establishment, yet the Democrats seem bound and determined to give the nod to a career politician; who incidentally, is now touting the idea of putting her husband in charge of running the lackluster US economy. Wouldn't that be her official job? Guess not. Well, good luck with that strategy.
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
At this point in time, the nation's mood is decisively anti-establishment, yet the Democrats seem bound and determined to give the nod to a career politician; who incidentally, is now touting the idea of putting her husband in charge of running the economy. Wouldn't that be her official job? Guess not. Well, good luck with that strategy.
Click to expand...

You do realize that we all have the internet and those of us interested in finding obscure "Here's something bad someone said about Hillary...." articles can find them ourselves. (Just ask your fellow HDS sufferers.)

Bubba is popular. Bubba is particularly popular with the Reagan Democrats and NeoCons who remember fondly the good times of the 90s. Just as Bill ran on the two-for-the-price-of-one platform, this will appeal to all but the Ken Starr fan club (the GOP monomaniacs who despise Clinton for his philandering, and who are now lining up behind a HUGE philanderer).
 
Slings and Arrows said:
At this point in time, the nation's mood is decisively anti-establishment, yet the Democrats seem bound and determined to give the nod to a career politician; who incidentally, is now touting the idea of putting her husband in charge of running the lackluster US economy. Wouldn't that be her official job? Guess not. Well, good luck with that strategy.
Click to expand...
And the Republicans have decided on an establishment figure for their candidate so the choice would seem likely to be between two establishment figures no matter what the mood of the country is
 
Darat said:
And the Republicans have decided on an establishment figure for their candidate so the choice would seem likely to be between two establishment figures no matter what the mood of the country is
Click to expand...


The choice is actually between a successful businessman, and a career politician -- a crooked one at that.

So it really comes down to which one is better qualified to put the US economy back on track. Trump or Clinton?

Surprisingly, Hillary believes the answer is neither. If elected, she plans to turn it over to her husband Bill and let him run the country.

What does the US Constitution say about that? Ah, forget I asked.
 
Darat said:
And the Republicans have decided on an establishment figure for their candidate so the choice would seem likely to be between two establishment figures no matter what the mood of the country is
Click to expand...

Are you going to back up that rather provocative statement with an argument of some kind?
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Surprisingly, Hillary believes the answer is neither. If elected, she plans to turn it over to her husband Bill and let him run the country.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact believe you are typing out your butt, go and take a look at what the US Economy was doing in the 1990's under Bill.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
You're kidding, right? It doesn't matter who sent the tweets. It's a matter of record that there were a million dollars worth that were sent. By your logic, we can't name the winner of tomorrow's primaries unless we have a list of voters names to prove the votes were actually cast.
Click to expand...

If they said the money was used for paid trolling that would help. It didn't

A better comparison would be voter fraud. Your evidence points to conspiracy, but no evidence it occured.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom