Let's make America smart again

[sunmaster14]

How is it a glaring flaw?

The accusation against Clinton was that this behaviour was criminal. The FBI, headed by a Republican, found nothing despite, it seems, having an anti-Clinton faction within it. We can thus conclude that it isn't criminal. So what is really so bad, here? Was it a mistake to do so? Sure, but you're going a lot further than this and, since you seem willing to offer an argument now, I'd like you to explain why.

That claim is utterly false. And that one is utterly illogical. Whether or not something is criminal depends on an objective evaluation of the actions and the law at issue. It does not depend on whether or not a particular prosecutor decides to indict or not. There are many reasons to not indict which have nothing to do with whether or not that something was criminal.

 

[Belz...]

Remember when i said that Hillary and her fans had set the bar so low?

Not criminal? That is such a ridiculous thing to say, and why I spent months pointing out how utterly silly it was: Hillary 2016, Not Indicted Yet.

That is not a demonstration of her guilt.

And now we are past the election that she lost in no little part because of her glaring unfavorables, caused in large part because of her contempt for transparency and her dissembling and you repeat the claim that "it wasn't criminal" so it can be dismissed?

The claim can be dismissed if it isn't true, which is why I'm asking you if you can demonstrate that it is.

 

[Belz...]

No. The FBI found a lot (despite being handicapped in its investigation). Comey decided it wasn't enough to prosecute, but 1) that doesn't mean that it's okay

"Okay" isn't a legal term. I'm interested in the claim that she's a criminal. Did the FBI say she commited a crime or not?

I know you want to conclude that, but it doesn't logically follow.

Why would I want to conclude that? Do you think I'm a Hillary fan or something?

That claim is utterly false. And that one is utterly illogical.

Then you simply don't believe in the presumption of innocence.

 

[The Big Dog]

That is not a demonstration of her guilt.

.

Face palm.

We are not discussing her guilt, for pete's sake, we are discussing why she lost the election and why her supporters were not smart enough to see it coming and what they should do about it.

 

[Belz...]

We are not discussing her guilt we are discussing why she lost the election

No. We are discussing the opinion of voters that she had glaring flaws and whether that opinion corresponds to reality. If you cannot establish that a particular flaw is REAL, then the opinion cannot be said to correspond to reality, and the people who hold it cannot be said to do so rationally.

 

[xjx388]

Oh, I get it. This thread isn't really about "Making America Smarter," it's about: Everyone who didn't vote the way I did must have voted out of ignorance/stupidity. Clinton was the only choice for smart people who think critically and participate on a skeptics forum.

Forgive my naïveté for thinking it was for discussing policies for actually making people smarter.

In that case: If you want Obamacare repealed/replaced/heavily-changed, revisions to the tax code that encourage business and creates jobs, renegotiating trade positions to make them more advantageous to us and immigration policy that focuses on security, then voting against Clinton was a smart thing to do. "The smart thing," depends upon what outcomes you want. We can disagree on which outcomes we want without calling each other stupid.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, I get it. This thread isn't really about "Making America Smarter," it's about: Everyone who didn't vote the way I did must have voted out of ignorance/stupidity. Clinton was the only choice for smart people who think critically and participate on a skeptics forum.

No, this is absolutely not what anyone is saying, which means that not only do you not get it, but haven't read the thread at all.

The thread is about the demonstratable flaws of Trump and the unfounded accusations against Clinton, the people who ignored the former and believed the latter, and whether or not one could say that these people need to get smarter, and how to do this.

 

[The Big Dog]

unfounded accusations against Clinton, .

 

[Belz...]

And again: you pretend that this isn't about the truth value of the accusations, but whenever I bring it up you roll your eyes. Now, if I ask to once again to demonstrate that the accusations were founded you'll again say that it's irrelevant?

It's absolutely relevant because we're trying to determine whether the voters voted stupidly. So step one is: did she commit a crime or not? Since there was no positive determination, and assuming we're operating under a presumption of innocence, we must conclude that she did not, which, of course, means that the voters who went for trump because of this specific accusation were misinformed.

Do you have an actual argument on this?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Because it's off topic.

No it's not..


Your banner post title is a play on Trump's campaign slogan..

I doubt that your millionaire, celebrity, talking heads would have raised the question if Hillary had won..

The opposite of smart, is stupid..

So, if America needs to be smart again, we must be stupid now..


So the question remains, how would a Hillary win have made us smarter?

 

[The Big Dog]

If you were to tell me that someone was going to repeat the utterly inane argument that Hillary was not charged with a crime after she LOST the election I would not ever have believed you.

I was wrong, I have learned something today: Terrible misguided arguments have a life of their own.

 

[Belz...]

If you were to tell me that someone was going to repeat the utterly inane argument that Hillary was not charged with a crime after she LOST the election I would not ever have believed you.

What does timing have to do with this? Did the FBI say a crime had been commited or not? Your reluctance to answer this seems to indicate that the answer is "no", since if the answer were "yes" you'd have been quick to say it.

 

[The Big Dog]

What does timing have to do with this? Did the FBI say a crime had been commited or not? Your reluctance to answer this seems to indicate that the answer is "no", since if the answer were "yes" you'd have been quick to say it.

Because i have pointed out at least a 100 times, not having been charged with a crime does not mean that the perpetrator is not a sleazy little ****, a fact that should have been hammered home by the fact that she lost to Donald Trump because lots and lots and lots of people thought she was a sleazy little ****.

they were smart enough to know that not being charged with a crime does not mean that she isn't a sleazy little ****, and if we want to make America smart again? We should all take to heart the fact that not being charged with a crime does not mean that she wasn't a sleazy little ****.

No, Hillary wasn't charged with a crime (yet) and no she ain't gonna be President.

drops mic

 

[Belz...]

Because i have pointed out at least a 100 times, not having been charged with a crime does not mean that the perpetrator is not a sleazy little ****

We were dealing with a specific claim, but ok: What other pieces of evidence do you have to show that she was a sleazy whatever? I ask because it sounds like an argument from ignorance.

a fact that should have been hammered home by the fact that she lost to Donald Trump because lots and lots and lots of people thought she was a sleazy little ****.

Reality is not a matter of popular vote.

they were smart enough to know that not being charged with a crime does not mean that she isn't a sleazy little ****

No, they just didn't let reality get in the way of their opinions. If you can't find evidence that someone is a criminal, or crooked or whatever, then you shouldn't conclude that they are unless you're an idiot, which is the whole point of the thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Okay" isn't a legal term. I'm interested in the claim that she's a criminal.

And other people are interested in more than that.

Why would I want to conclude that?

No idea. And yet, you keep straining to.

Then you simply don't believe in the presumption of innocence.

I believe in the presumption of innocence for criminal trials as a check on the potential abuse of government power. I see no reason to use that standard universally, especially on an internet forum which has no power. Why would I? There's nothing logical about that.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Oh, I get it. This thread isn't really about "Making America Smarter," it's about: Everyone who didn't vote the way I did must have voted out of ignorance/stupidity. Clinton was the only choice for smart people who think critically and participate on a skeptics forum.

No, this is absolutely not what anyone is saying, which means that not only do you not get it, but haven't read the thread at all.

The thread is about the demonstratable flaws of Trump and the unfounded accusations against Clinton, the people who ignored the former and believed the latter, and whether or not one could say that these people need to get smarter, and how to do this.

The choice of Trump would've been just as stupid regardless of whether his opponent had been Sanders or Biden or a garden hose. Trump's policies make no sense, he lies pretty much constantly, has a very shady business history and bases much of his campaign on hate towards people who couldn't possibly be responsible for the situation he and his supporters decry.

A smart person should be able to see through this, either by reasoning alone or by fact-checking. The fact that so many people didn't do that, or didn't care, is the issue here.

To me it does read as if you don't arrive at the same conclusion or are interested in a different outcome than me you are not smart.

 

[eeyore1954]

If you can't find evidence that someone is a criminal, or crooked or whatever, then you shouldn't conclude that they are unless you're an idiot, which is the whole point of the thread.

But are you the arbiter of what constitutes evidence that someone is criminal, or crooked or whatever. And are those who view the same information and come to a different conclusion stupid.

Just because there is not enough evidence to convict someone does not mean there is not any evidence against them.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...

I believe in the presumption of innocence for criminal trials as a check on the potential abuse of government power. I see no reason to use that standard universally, especially on an internet forum which has no power. Why would I? There's nothing logical about that.

Presumption of innocence is for the courtroom..

Everyone else is free to presume otherwise..

 

[Belz...]

And other people are interested in more than that.

Yes, but I think that morality is beyond the confined of the thread.

No idea. And yet, you keep straining to.

You are wrong. I'm following the evidence to what I believe is the reasonable conclusion.

I believe in the presumption of innocence for criminal trials as a check on the potential abuse of government power. I see no reason to use that standard universally, especially on an internet forum which has no power. Why would I?

Because it's reasonable. Why would you want to be unreasonable or irrational?

 

[Belz...]

To me it does read as if you don't arrive at the same conclusion or are interested in a different outcome than me you are not smart.

That might be because you haven't read any of my posts in this thread, because I've made actual points as to why I think the choice of Trump was bad.

But are you the arbiter of what constitutes evidence that someone is criminal, or crooked or whatever.

No, which is why I'm relying on the FBI for that. Seriously, have you read my posts? And, if not, why are you responding to them?