Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[The Don]

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.

My thoughts too but as I pointed out earlier, I think that actual voter fraud is several orders of magnitude more serious than paid trolling.....

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.

 

[wareyin]

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?

If one thinks the US filing for bankruptcy would be the best way to get us on track, it would be Trump. After all, that's how much of a successful businessman he's been, 4 bankruptcies and a net worth of $10billion less than he would have had just leaving his money in the stock exchange.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If one thinks the US filing for bankruptcy would be the best way to get us on track, it would be Trump. After all, that's how much of a successful businessman he's been, 4 bankruptcies and a net worth of $10billion less than he would have had just leaving his money in the stock exchange.

I think a fair number of Bernie supporters believe countries should not make debt payments....Argentina vs vulture funds.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Trump is not an establishment "figure."

 

[The Big Dog]

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

as we discussed before, that is exactly the point: we can't point to attribution to show that it is unattributed. We know that they have spent a million dollars on the project, we know that they have in fact ghostwritten at least one pro-Hillary propaganda piece.

It would appear that it is incumbent on you to show that they do give attribution.

 

[wareyin]

as we discussed before, that is exactly the point: we can't point to attribution to show that it is unattributed. We know that they have spent a million dollars on the project, we know that they have in fact ghostwritten at least one pro-Hillary propaganda piece.

It would appear that it is incumbent on you to show that they do give attribution.

No. Your claims are not going to be accepted as truth until proven wrong. They are your claims, you provide evidence for them.

 

[The Don]

Trump is not an establishment "figure."

I suppose it depends on how you define "establishment".

I mean he's an Ivy League educated scion of a prominent multi-millionaire who has rubbed shoulders for decades with (and generously funded the campaigns of) politicians who are well known nationally and internationally.

He is a nationally and internationally famous "successful" big businessman with a contacts list which includes the great and the good.

He is the presumptive candidate for one of the two major political parties....

About the only thing he hasn't done to complete the "establishment" set is hold major public office.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

as we discussed before, that is exactly the point: we can't point to attribution to show that it is unattributed. We know that they have spent a million dollars on the project, we know that they have in fact ghostwritten at least one pro-Hillary propaganda piece.

It would appear that it is incumbent on you to show that they do give attribution.

Here's 8k attributed tweets.
https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord

Your turn to provide evidence for your claim.

 

[BobTheCoward]

as we discussed before, that is exactly the point: we can't point to attribution to show that it is unattributed. We know that they have spent a million dollars on the project, we know that they have in fact ghostwritten at least one pro-Hillary propaganda piece.

It would appear that it is incumbent on you to show that they do give attribution.

I'm still not making a claim. I'm only pointing out your conclusion lacks evidence.

 

[Darat]

Trump is not an establishment "figure."

In what way isn't he an establishment figure?

 

[sunmaster14]

I suppose it depends on how you define "establishment".

<snip>

He is the presumptive candidate for one of the two major political parties....

About the only thing he hasn't done to complete the "establishment" set is hold major public office.

Interesting bit of Catch-22-ism. Do you think that's what Darat had in mind? If so, then it was hardly worth putting those thoughts to screen.

 

[sunmaster14]

In what way isn't he an establishment figure?

How about you defend your claim that he is one? I mean the default position held by just about every sane political observer is that somebody who has never worked in politics before, never has held public office before, and, until about a year ago, wasn't even easily identifiable with a specific political party, is not part of the establishment.

 

[theprestige]

I'm still not making a claim. I'm only pointing out your conclusion lacks evidence.

I think it's incumbent on the paid advocates to identify themselves. Once we know that advocacy is being bought, and advocacy is being done, I think it's reasonable to suspect shilling if the paid advocates are not in evidence.

The fact that the campaign is paying for advocates on Twitter, but no advocates can be found, is a huge red flag.

 

[DavidJames]

How about you defend your claim that he is one? I mean the default position held by just about every sane political observer is that somebody who has never worked in politics before, never has held public office before, and, until about a year ago, wasn't even easily identifiable with a specific political party, is not part of the establishment.

The Don posted this earlier. Your thoughts?

I suppose it depends on how you define "establishment".

I mean he's an Ivy League educated scion of a prominent multi-millionaire who has rubbed shoulders for decades with (and generously funded the campaigns of) politicians who are well known nationally and internationally.

He is a nationally and internationally famous "successful" big businessman with a contacts list which includes the great and the good.

He is the presumptive candidate for one of the two major political parties....

About the only thing he hasn't done to complete the "establishment" set is hold major public office.

I think this is spot on, unless your definition is limited to politics.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think it's incumbent on the paid advocates to identify themselves. Once we know that advocacy is being bought, and advocacy is being done, I think it's reasonable to suspect shilling if the paid advocates are not in evidence.

The fact that the campaign is paying for advocates on Twitter, but no advocates can be found, is a huge red flag.

I think it is incumbent on the accusers to positively identify someone being paid and the nature of their tweets.

Scratch that.

You were really close to what we can say.

Once we know that advocacy is being bought, and advocacy is being done, I think it's reasonable to suspect shilling if the paid advocates are not in evidence.


Your first part is correct, but I think the correct statement is after cursory searching, we cannot find a member on Twitter who identifies as paid.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

I see the choice is between Donald Trump and Hilliary Clinton. Don't see much of a successful businessman in there.

But assuming you're referring to Trump, he's more crooked than Hilliary could ever manage to be. He's unqualified based on his total lack of diplomatic skills alone.

 

[wareyin]

I think it's incumbent on the paid advocates to identify themselves. Once we know that advocacy is being bought, and advocacy is being done, I think it's reasonable to suspect shilling if the paid advocates are not in evidence.

The fact that the campaign is paying for advocates on Twitter, but no advocates can be found, is a huge red flag.

I think it is incumbent on the accusers to positively identify someone being paid and the nature of their tweets.

Scratch that.

You were really close to what we can say.

Once we know that advocacy is being bought, and advocacy is being done, I think it's reasonable to suspect shilling if the paid advocates are not in evidence.


Your first part is correct, but I think the correct statement is after cursory searching, we cannot find a member on Twitter who identifies as paid.

Do you guys have TheL8Elvis on ignore or something?

Here's 8k attributed tweets.
https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord

Your turn to provide evidence for your claim.

 

[NoahFence]

In what way isn't he an establishment figure?

Establishment figures get corporate sponsorship and super-pac money. Trump is 100 percent totally self-funded because he's a yyuuuggee billionaire.

oh wait...

 

[Mader Levap]

The choice is actually between a successful businessman,

I see you think multiple bankrupties makes one successful businessman.

I eagerly await another copy&pasta article or three made in (vain) hope to distract us from your blunders.

Do you guys have TheL8Elvis on ignore or something?

Haha, no. Trump supporters have uncanny ability to not see anything that they don't like. This, in fact, explains a lot about their choice.

 

[theprestige]

Do you guys have TheL8Elvis on ignore or something?

Nope. I've just been scrolling past him l8tly.

Anyway, that settles that.

ETA: Or does it? Say a paid advocate tweets as CTR. So far, so good. We know that CTR is a paid advocacy Twitter feed. Ideally, Hillary's voluntary supporters will subscribe to the feed and retweet its content. But what about a paid advocate who retweets the content on their own twitter account, without disclosing that they are a paid advocate (possibly even the same advocate who just got paid for creating the CTR content they're retweeting)? Is that shilling? I think it is.