Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[The Big Dog]

You are just posting more of your crap instead of posting the evidence which you repeatedly assure everyone does support your various anti-Clinton claims.

This may be news to to you, but all politicians will say things in private that they will never say in public.

I know that I have never seen someone declare evidence "crap" so avidly and repeatedly.

What is not news to people who have read the actual email is that we KNOW that Hillary Clinton has said things in her paid speeches that are totally inconsistent with the positions she staked out on the campaign trail, in particular with respect to concerns raised by Bernie Sanders supporters.

Perhaps you could address that?

 

[Steve]

Actually I was asking someone else, but oh well.

Open discussion board etc....

"everybody does it" is not really an answer now is it?

It is a valid response to a poster who takes one specific minor case of a politician doing this and uses it in an attempt to vilify that particular politician to the exclusion of all others.

Hmmm, which "politically expedient position" is it then that Hillary is taking with respect to the Wall Street comments

It will not be known for sure until she is in a position to act.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is a valid response to a poster who takes one specific minor case of a politician doing this and uses it in an attempt to vilify that particular politician to the exclusion of all others.

This board is dedicated to critical thinking so it behooves us to take a "deeper dive" into this claim, does it not.

This one sentence contains the following fallacies: fallacious appeal to common practice, unsupported assertion, tu quoque, strawman, and begging the question ("minor case" indeed). WOW!!!

Here in the Hillary is Done thread we are dealing Hillary's KNOWN two faced conduct, lets focus on that!

In the meantime, here is a primer on why you should really stop arguing that "everybody does it"

Everybody does it is a TERRIBLE argument

 

[Dr. Keith]

I know that I have never seen someone declare evidence "crap" so avidly and repeatedly.

I know that I have never seen someone refuse to discuss their "crap" so avidly and repeatedly.

What is not news to people who have read the actual email is that we KNOW that Hillary Clinton has said things in her paid speeches that are totally inconsistent with the positions she staked out on the campaign trail, in particular with respect to concerns raised by Bernie Sanders supporters.

How shocking is this for the average voter?

Like finding out that a many with two ex-wives is womanizer or finding out that a man with daughters thinks sexual assault is kinda fun to brag about? I'm trying to find a level here . .

Perhaps you could address that?

Maybe you could address it?

 

[Dr. Keith]

This board is dedicated to critical thinking so it behooves us to take a "deeper dive" into this claim, does it not.

This one sentence contains the following fallacies: fallacious appeal to common practice, unsupported assertion, tu quoque, strawman, and begging the question ("minor case" indeed). WOW!!!

Here in the Hillary is Done thread we are dealing Hillary's KNOWN two faced conduct, lets focus on that!

In the meantime, here is a primer on why you should really stop arguing that "everybody does it"

Everybody does it is a TERRIBLE argument

The straw is strong with this post: Who said being a two-face politician is good? Answer: nobody.

Your fallacy: The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice.

Yet, nobody here supports the practice, they just find it non-shocking and fail to see how it can be used as a criteria to make a choice for president. If all available choices do one thing then that thing can not be used to differentiate between the available choices.

 

[The Big Dog]

Like finding out that a many with two ex-wives is womanizer or finding out that a man with daughters thinks sexual assault is kinda fun to brag about? I'm trying to find a level here . .

Maybe you could address it?

On a forum that allegedly encourages critical thinking, lets take a deeper dive:

That is the most blatant, desperate and transparent attempt to derail one is likely to ever see.

 

[Crossbow]

I know that I have never seen someone declare evidence "crap" so avidly and repeatedly.

What is not news to people who have read the actual email is that we KNOW that Hillary Clinton has said things in her paid speeches that are totally inconsistent with the positions she staked out on the campaign trail, in particular with respect to concerns raised by Bernie Sanders supporters.

Perhaps you could address that?

Just more of your crap.

If you want to get irate about your imaginary problems, then that is your affair and I will not participate in it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Just more of your crap.

If you want to get irate about your imaginary problems, then that is your affair and I will not participate in it.

Oh dear...

Baseless declaration of "crap" again and a dramatic flounce.

Color me shocked.

 

[Dr. Keith]

On a forum that allegedly encourages critical thinking, lets take a deeper dive:

That is the most blatant, desperate and transparent attempt to derail one is likely to ever see.

No, I've seen worse. That post is garden variety, might I even say common. As common as a politician being a bit two faced. AS common as a poster saying they have shocking evidence that turns out to be grainy photos and poorly drawn sketch.

As opposed to something shocking. As shocking as getting a substantive responsive out of a cat. We all know our pets can't talk, and yet we talk to them. Why is that?

 

[Crossbow]

Oh dear...

Baseless declaration of "crap" again and a dramatic flounce.

Color me shocked.

Just another of your crap postings.

Color me unsurprised that you have consistently failed to provide any evidence that supports any of your various anti-Clinton claims.

Some dogs just cannot hunt.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Oh dear...

Baseless declaration of "crap" again and a dramatic flounce.

Color me shocked.

The straw is strong with this post: Who said being a two-face politician is good? Answer: nobody.

Your fallacy: The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice.

Yet, nobody here supports the practice, they just find it non-shocking and fail to see how it can be used as a criteria to make a choice for president. If all available choices do one thing then that thing can not be used to differentiate between the available choices.

No love for defending your critical thinking?

 

[CapelDodger]

That email consists of

Team, Attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with Policy. In terms of what was opened to the press and what was not, the Washington Examiner got a hold of one of the private speech contracts (her speeches to universities were typically open press), so this is worth a read

from Podesta, followed by a Washington Examiner interpretation of select excerpts from Clinton speeches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

The paper became influential in conservative political circles, hiring much of the talent from The Washington Times and replacing The Times as the primary conservative paper in the capital city

So The Big Dog is, in his inimitably sceptical way, going by what a conservative newspaper wrings from Clinton's speeches. While imagining we live in a bubble.

There's a reason why the Podesta emails aren't setting off many Bernie supporters is that they don't get their interpretations of Clinton's speeches from a conservative source. They look at what's actually in them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

On a forum that allegedly encourages critical thinking, lets take a deeper dive:

That is the most blatant, desperate and transparent attempt to derail one is likely to ever see.

If you think it's a derail, you should alert the mods.

All I see is you refusing to engage in a discussion.

 

[Crossbow]

If you think it's a derail, you should alert the mods.

All I see is you refusing to engage in a discussion.

Thanks much!

That is well spoken.

 

[CapelDodger]

We all know our pets can't talk, and yet we talk to them. Why is that?

I can tell m'dog is wondering exactly the same thing when I'm doing it.

 

[jimbob]

I have a novel* idea. Rather than linking to the emails, it might be more convincing to quote the relevant parts and explain why they are so bad.

Bonus points if you can show how they are worse than the catalogue of flaws that Trump has demonstrated



*Not that novel

 

[Dr. Keith]

All I see is you refusing to engage in a discussion.

 

[The Big Dog]

That email consists of


from Podesta, followed by a Washington Examiner interpretation of select excerpts from Clinton speeches.

What in the name of god are you talking about?? That email was not written by Podesta and the summaries are NOT from the Washington Examiner, in fact many of them were from transcripts that have never been released.

They are from the transcripts paid speeches the campaign got from from HWA, the Harry Walker Agency, who was Hillary's agent for her paid speeches.

Remarkable

 

[jimbob]

I can tell m'dog is wondering exactly the same thing when I'm doing it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheFarSideGallery/comments/3jn4a3/what_we_say_to_dogswhat_dogs_hear/

http://www.wayofcats.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/cats_hear-color.gif

 

[Dr. Keith]

I can tell m'dog is wondering exactly the same thing when I'm doing it.

More derail. This is why we can't have substantive discussions with serious posters.