Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[acbytesla]

The Hillary Echo Chamber tells us that only the "GOP echo chamber" cares, and the Irony Meter explodes!!!

The desperation continues. In the meantime Hillary is very close to becoming the President Elect.

 

[The Big Dog]

The desperation continues. In the meantime Hillary is very close to becoming the President Elect.

see, terrible "argument."

 

[Dr. Keith]

That's exactly what I've been thinking. When you need to believe in the evidence to make it real, it isn't.

What I see in the emails is an ordinary level of vacillation that one would expect of a politician in changing circumstances and contexts. What TBD sees is analogous to concluding that some camera jitter means that a burnt, blurry, low-res tree stump is a a mythical cryptid in motion.

The emails are simply not damning at all, and it doesn't help that TBD fails to understand the difference between data and evidence.

It's not even the one shaky video, anyone can dismiss one video, it is all the shaky videos that can't all be fake, therefore when you take them together it creates a body of evidence that supports the existence of bigfoot:

Literally the whole thing is bad, how are you people missing this?

It is a campaign email that lists all the things that she said in private that contradict her public positions.

I get that it is "long" but that is because Hillary is a complete and utter phony.

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but it seemed more like she was shading here and there, not really contradicting herself. She says publicly that we need to regulate the banks. She tells the banks, you want this regulation to work so you better help make it work. Is that really a contradiction?

Look, Romney got burned on his 47% comment because in order to get to that number he had to include a lot of people who support him. He had to include government workers and the retired. That is what burned him, he told half his supporters that they were moochers.

But even more importantly, it was a concise passage that encapsulated his contempt for a large segment of the population. If you can't provide something similar than this is all just a waste of time.

Pull out the money quote, even if you have to take it out of context, just so we can see what's got your fever up.

 

[Dr. Keith]

shockingly, this is actually the best argument I have heard all day from the HEC (I believe Noah said something similar).

"say, this does not look great for Hillary, fortunately for her the news about Trump is knocking it to the back pages."

Try that next time.

It certainly puts it into some context. Maybe we are looking for Trumpian errors and you are looking at this email as if this were a normal election.

In a normal election this may have been a huge stumbling block, but in an normal election her opponent wouldn't have issues that so far overshadow this. We have turned a corner, you need more than this to be The Worst.

 

[Stacko]

Interesting contrast in message coming out now.

Clinton:
To women: You can do anything

Donald:
To women, you can do anything

 

[Dr. Keith]

Interesting contrast in message coming out now.

Clinton:
To women: You can do anything

Donald:
To women, you can do anything

Brilliant! Original?

 

[acbytesla]

see, terrible "argument."

What makes you think I'm arguing? I see nothing worthy of arguing about.

It's just more of same Hillary hating. It's boring and of no consequence. In the meantime her opponent had two more women accuse him of the actions he admitted to on his hot microphone.

The thread is about Hillary being done and yet all evidence points to the fact that no, she's not done. In fact she is very close to becoming the 45th President of the United States.

 

[Belz...]

So are you going to answer my question, The Big Dog?

 

[Crossbow]

Wow a post without the word crap in it? Progress.

I have a hacked email from that person which says that *CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS* which helped me learn that Hillary Clinton is a complete and utter phony.

Well, ...

Going from a poster who posts crap to being a poster who is terribly ignorant of basic things is not what I would call a step in the right direction. However, if the change in your status actually does makes you feel happy, then by all means please do consider it to be a good thing.

By the way, I also have another hacked e-mail that you may want to see ...

It flat-out says that Santa Claus is not actually a real person and that he does not have a sleigh that is propelled by flying reindeer.

So, I do I hope that you just finding out this disturbing news is not too terrible a disappointment for you either.

 

[xjx388]

It took me awhile to process why the whole "public/private position" thing was a big deal. I took it for granted that politicians publicly say one thing and privately believe something else. Many conservatives, for example, proclaim that they are pro-life when privately, their beliefs fall more along the lines of pro-choice. I understand the need to pander to parts of the base in once circumstance and then maybe be a little more frank in other, more private, circumstances. Sounds like par for the political course and thus, no big deal, really.

But the Podesta emails show something a little bit beyond this. Take the TPP for example. Hillary once proclaimed this to be the "gold standard" of trade deals and was solidly behind it. But after much internal debate, she decided to come out publicly against it in order to solidify her support from Labor. Yet her private position seems to be support for TPP; her inner circle certainly seems to think she will ultimately end up supporting it.

So she's basically telling us that she's against TPP but in reality, she will probably end up supporting it. Maybe not a bombshell, but it certainly shows that her public position on TPP is basically a lie.

 

[jimbob]

Or it could just be pragmatism. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the second amendment is a disaster and that the US would be better with it repealed, yet decide that that wouldn't be politically possible so stick to a policy that is against one's private views.

 

[Steve]

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.

Dr. Keith's post is as good a response as anything I could write. Your mountain = everyone else's mole hill!.

 

[Stacko]

Brilliant! Original?

Nope but I've seen it from too many people to know who came up with it first.

 

[Garrison]

It took me awhile to process why the whole "public/private position" thing was a big deal. I took it for granted that politicians publicly say one thing and privately believe something else. Many conservatives, for example, proclaim that they are pro-life when privately, their beliefs fall more along the lines of pro-choice. I understand the need to pander to parts of the base in once circumstance and then maybe be a little more frank in other, more private, circumstances. Sounds like par for the political course and thus, no big deal, really.

But the Podesta emails show something a little bit beyond this. Take the TPP for example. Hillary once proclaimed this to be the "gold standard" of trade deals and was solidly behind it. But after much internal debate, she decided to come out publicly against it in order to solidify her support from Labor. Yet her private position seems to be support for TPP; her inner circle certainly seems to think she will ultimately end up supporting it.

So she's basically telling us that she's against TPP but in reality, she will probably end up supporting it. Maybe not a bombshell, but it certainly shows that her public position on TPP is basically a lie.

I think this all comes back to politics being the art of the possible. Do you make a principled stand on A, knowing it might cost you the support you need to do B and C? Every politician has a wish list of things they want to do, but all of them will inevitably have to sacrifice some to get others done. And she would hardly be the first president to lie outright. Reagan was the unyielding Cold Warrior in public, while in private dreading what a nuclear war would do to the USA and being desperate to avoid it. FDR did everything in his power to provoke Germany in to declaring war while telling the public his support of the UK was intended to keep them out. And right now how many US politicians think the 2nd Amendment is an antiquated piece of junk that should be consigned to the history books but are constrained by public opinion to pretend otherwise?

That Trump always seem to say whatever is on his mind without any internal censor is one of the things that makes him dangerous.

 

[acbytesla]

I think this all comes back to politics being the art of the possible. Do you make a principled stand on A, knowing it might cost you the support you need to do B and C? Every politician has a wish list of things they want to do, but all of them will inevitably have to sacrifice some to get others done. And she would hardly be the first president to lie outright. Reagan was the unyielding Cold Warrior in public, while in private dreading what a nuclear war would do to the USA and being desperate to avoid it. FDR did everything in his power to provoke Germany in to declaring war while telling the public his support of the UK was intended to keep them out. And right now how many US politicians think the 2nd Amendment is an antiquated piece of junk that should be consigned to the history books but are constrained by public opinion to pretend otherwise?

That Trump always seem to say whatever is on his mind without any internal censor is one of the things that makes him dangerous.

I also think it's absurd to think that Trump doesn't do the same thing. Trump has no policy convictions at all. The man is a lifelong sales person. Don't tell me that Trump does say one thing and do another. As for TPP, there is no way at this point can she support it. So what she may have said about months ago becomes irrelevant.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lolz, wikileaks emails show concerted attack on sanders for attending dnc fundraisers on marthas vinyard and hamptons

Gee no "skeptic"s posted those ******** attacks here, did they?

Correct the record.

 

[acbytesla]

Lolz, wikileaks emails show concerted attack on sanders for attending dnc fundraisers on marthas vinyard and hamptons

Gee no "skeptic"s posted those ******** attacks here, did they?

Correct the record.

I'm not a skeptic that they went after Bernie. He was the opposition after all. I just don't care.

 

[varwoche]

It took me awhile to process why the whole "public/private position" thing was a big deal. I took it for granted that politicians publicly say one thing and privately believe something else. Many conservatives, for example, proclaim that they are pro-life when privately, their beliefs fall more along the lines of pro-choice. I understand the need to pander to parts of the base in once circumstance and then maybe be a little more frank in other, more private, circumstances. Sounds like par for the political course and thus, no big deal, really.

But the Podesta emails show something a little bit beyond this. Take the TPP for example. Hillary once proclaimed this to be the "gold standard" of trade deals and was solidly behind it. But after much internal debate, she decided to come out publicly against it in order to solidify her support from Labor. Yet her private position seems to be support for TPP; her inner circle certainly seems to think she will ultimately end up supporting it.

So she's basically telling us that she's against TPP but in reality, she will probably end up supporting it. Maybe not a bombshell, but it certainly shows that her public position on TPP is basically a lie.

Let's get the email on record here...

All, I want to share our draft letter on trade. As you'll recall, the idea here is to use this to lay out her thinking on TPA & TPP ahead of action on the Hill and a joint letter by all the former Secretaries of State and Defense. This draft assumes that she's ultimately going to support both TPA and TPP. It focuses on what needs to happen to produce a positive result with TPP, and casts support for TPA as one of those steps. It also says that we should walk away if the final agreement doesn't meet the test of creating more jobs than it displaces, helping the middle class, and strengthening our national security. We've tried to speak directly to the most prominent concerns expressed by Labor and Hill Dems, including Warren. Of course, if we go ahead with a meeting with HRC to lay out the pros and cons and then come to a different conclusion, this letter would change dramatically.

I don't particularly take issue with your interpretation xjx388. But nor would I take issue with other interpretations that might lean on these parts.

 

[Crossbow]

Lolz, wikileaks emails show concerted attack on sanders for attending dnc fundraisers on marthas vinyard and hamptons

Gee no "skeptic"s posted those ******** attacks here, did they?

Correct the record.

Wow! You really do not know very much at all about politics.

Do you need to see another hacked e-mail in order to learn that political opponents do attack each other?

 

[Nova Land]

...Take the TPP for example. Hillary once proclaimed this to be the "gold standard" of trade deals and was solidly behind it. But after much internal debate, she decided to come out publicly against it in order to solidify her support from Labor. Yet her private position seems to be support for TPP; her inner circle certainly seems to think she will ultimately end up supporting it.

So she's basically telling us that she's against TPP but in reality, she will probably end up supporting it. Maybe not a bombshell, but it certainly shows that her public position on TPP is basically a lie.

No. If she had come out against the TPP but she or her people had secretly been talking about how she was really for it, that would be one thing. But as these e-mails show, that's not what happened.

To understand this, you need to put the events in a timeline.

(a) From 2009 to 2013, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State for the Obama administration, Clinton spoke out favorably about the TPP -- which at that point was still being written.

(b) in 2013 Clinton left the Obama administration.

...

(d) In April 2015 Clinton officially announced her run for the presidency (although it had been pretty clear since 2013 she was going to).

...

(f) On October 5, 2015, the draft of the TPP was finalized.

(g) On October 7, 2015, Hillary Clinton came out against the TPP.

Hillary Clinton came out against the Trans Pacific Partnership in an interview Wednesday, breaking with President Barack Obama and his administration, which has forcefully promoted the deal.

In an interview Wednesday with PBS's Judy Woodruff in Iowa, Clinton said, "As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it" ...

"I have said from the very beginning that we had to have a trade agreement that would create good American jobs, raise wages and advance our national security and I still believe that is the high bar we have to meet," Clinton said.

Now, if the Podesta e-mails came as (h) on that timeline, I'd be first in line to criticize Clinton. But they don't. See where (c) and (e) are missing from the timeline? That's where these e-mails fit in.

The e-mail you linked to talking about coming out against the TPP to gain support from labor is from April 2015. That should go into slot (e) on the time line, a day after Clinton announced her candidacy. At that time the final text of the TPP was still to be determined, although there was already strong concern from Labor and other Democratic constituencies about provisions in it.

I was a strong Sanders supporter in the primaries, I was worried about whether Clinton was sincere in her opposition to the TPP, and I see nothing in this e-mail to confirm those fears. Indeed, if this had been leaked during the primaries I'd have been much more inclined to view Clinton's candidacy favorably. Here's the core of that e-mail:

But the key question for me is not the procedure - it's what’s in the final agreement. It has to pass two tests: First, does it protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home than it displaces? And second, does it also strengthen our national security? If the agreement falls short of these tests, we should be willing to walk away. The goal is greater prosperity for American families, not trade for trade’s sake.

There are a number of pivotal questions to be decided in the coming months: from improving labor rights, the environment, public health, and access to life-saving medicines; to cracking down on currency manipulation and unfair competition by state-owned enterprises; to opening new opportunities for our family farms and small businesses to export their products and services overseas. Getting these things right will go a long way toward ensuring that a final agreement will be a net plus for everyday Americans.

We also have to get dispute settlement provisions right. So-called “investor-state dispute settlement,” or ISDS, lets individual companies bring cases to enforce trade agreements. In the past, ISDS has benefited some American companies by letting them challenge unfair actions by foreign governments. But as I warned in my book, Hard Choices, we shouldn’t allow multinational corporations to use ISDS to undermine legitimate health, social, economic, and environmental regulations, as Philip Morris has tried to do in Australia.

So I’ll be watching closely to see how negotiations develop.

The other e-mail you linked to, the one expressing the view that Clinton will come out in favor of the TPP, is from March 2015, so that goes in slot (c) of the timeline.

Remember, this is 7 months before the final text of the TPP is complete. It's 7 months before Clinton comes out against the TPP. So this is not saying that she's publicly against it but privately for it; it's guessing, incorrectly, that the final text of the TPP will be one which Clinton can and will support.

I can understand the desire of those who support Trump or those who hate Clinton to try to spin this as being an example of Clinton being two-faced and untrustworthy. But if you take the time to actually read these e-mails and put them in the correct timeline they are nothing of the sort.