Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[DavidJames]

You're right. The fact that Hillary lies about everything isn't news. Uncovering additional lies changes nothing, because the people who didn't care that she's a liar before won't suddenly start caring now. It's not like you don't know that already.

Yeah, other then it's a fact that shes lied significantly less then other candidates.

But don't let facts get in your way, I mean, why start now?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, other then it's a fact that shes lied significantly less then other candidates.

But don't let facts get in your way, I mean, why start now?

You are relying on Politifact for that assesment, aren't you? But they cherry pick what statements to evaluate, making any statistics drawn from their cherry picked sample meaningless. So your claim is meaningless as well as being a tu quoque.

 

[NoahFence]

You're right. The fact that Hillary lies about everything isn't news. Uncovering additional lies changes nothing, because the people who didn't care that she's a liar before won't suddenly start caring now. It's not like you don't know that already.

She's a politician. She lies.

News at 11.

If you people put forth an alternative that didn't want to whitewash the country, maybe it would make a difference. As it is, you people chose Donald f'n Trump(??!?!!) as your standard bearer.

If Hillary gets in office, and something goes awry, IT'S ON YOU.

 

[Ziggurat]

She's a politician. She lies.

News at 11.

If you people put forth an alternative that didn't want to whitewash the country, maybe it would make a difference. As it is, you people chose Donald f'n Trump(??!?!!) as your standard bearer.

If Hillary gets in office, and something goes awry, IT'S ON YOU.

I'm not "you people", and Democrats, not Republicans, are responsible for Hillary getting the Democratic nomination, and this thread isn't about the election.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm not "you people", and Democrats, not Republicans, are responsible for Hillary getting the Democratic nomination, and this thread isn't about the election.

Hillary is qualified for the Democratic nomination. Trump is NOT qualified to wipe my ass.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hillary is qualified for the Democratic nomination. Trump is NOT qualified to wipe my ass.

This thread isn't about Trump, it's about Hillary. Democrats could have picked Bernie. Hell, they could have picked O'Malley. But they went with Hillary, because they don't care that she lies all the time. And no matter how many times you try a tu quoque, it won't change that fact.

 

[DavidJames]

But they went with Hillary, because they don't care that she lies all the time.

Why YOU keep lying about that makes me wonder.

This thread isn't about Trump, it's about Hillary. Democrats could have picked Bernie. Hell, they could have picked O'Malley.

But they didn't so we're left with only 2 possible winners. You can continue to ignore reality, but for the rest of us our choice is HRC and Trump. Why you only focus on the Democrat tells us all we need to know.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why YOU keep lying about that makes me wonder.

No, it doesn't. You don't wonder at all, about anything. You simply swallow whatever line the party give you.

Why you only focus on the Democrat tells us all we need to know.

I'm focusing on Hillary in this thread because Hillary is the subject of this thread. The fact that you can't stay on topic tells us all we need to know.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm focusing on Hillary in this thread because Hillary is the subject of this thread. The fact that you can't stay on topic tells us all we need to know.

What, pray tell, does not being able to stay on a thread's topic tell us all that we need to know?

 

[Ziggurat]

What, pray tell, does not being able to stay on a thread's topic tell us all that we need to know?

Nothing. Which is all we need to know about David or me.

 

[Upchurch]

What an odd thing to say. It's almost as if you're back-peddling.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why you only focus on the Democrat tells us all we need to know.

I'm focusing on Hillary in this thread because Hillary is the subject of this thread. The fact that you can't stay on topic tells us all we need to know.

What an odd thing to say. It's almost as if you're back-peddling.

Uhhh, upchurch? You might want to read the post to which he was replying???

 

[Ziggurat]

What an odd thing to say. It's almost as if you're back-peddling.

No, it's almost as if I'm demonstrating the absurdity of David's position.

But you can't see that, because despite your pretense, you aren't a critical thinker, you're a partisan thinker.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

You are relying on Politifact for that assesment, aren't you? But they cherry pick what statements to evaluate, making any statistics drawn from their cherry picked sample meaningless. So your claim is meaningless as well as being a tu quoque.

Ordinarily I would expect this post to be backed up by, say, a list of things outside the cherry picked sample group which both backs your statement and debunks Politifact, but then I look over and remember we don't need to expect any evidence of assertions because Ziggurat's Special Pleading rule of "I don't wanna!" applies.

 

[sunmaster14]

Ordinarily I would expect this post to be backed up by, say, a list of things outside the cherry picked sample group which both backs your statement and debunks Politifact, but then I look over and remember we don't need to expect any evidence of assertions because Ziggurat's Special Pleading rule of "I don't wanna!" applies.

Using Politifact statistics as any basis for real-life statistics is inherently flawed. That's just simply logic. No data is required. Politifact is even up-front about this. They're not taking random samples of statements of fact by each politician. They're looking at stuff that's politically interesting, and, in my opinion, stuff that they think is inconsistent with their liberal worldview.

There is another flaw, of course, which is that the importance of the lie is never measured. I think somebody who lies about trivial stuff (which is what Trump does mostly) is not so much a liar as a ******** artist (which is what Fareed Zarkaria insightfully argued, although he probably stole that argument from somebody else). Hillary tends to lie about very serious stuff, and she does it in a very practiced and conniving way. Her confidence in her skills as a liar makes her a greater threat to be extremely untrustworthy and corrupt with power.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ordinarily I would expect this post to be backed up by, say, a list of things outside the cherry picked sample group which both backs your statement and debunks Politifact, but then I look over and remember we don't need to expect any evidence of assertions because Ziggurat's Special Pleading rule of "I don't wanna!" applies.

First off, you're simply demonstrating exactly the problem I intended to highlight elsewhere. You challenge me, because I don't follow the orthodoxy, but you never challenge claims that do. So you were never going to ask for evidence of David's claim that Hillary lies less. And had he pointed to Politifact (which he didn't), you were never going to examine whether that claim made sense. Even now, concerning Politifact, you simply take it as a given that their sampling is representative, even though Politifact makes no claim that it is. And that's assuming that all of Politifact's analyses are correct, which they aren't.

So either you don't understand statistics, or you just don't care about honesty.

I'm leaning towards the former, since your challenge is so patently absurd. It's easy to pick statements by Trump that are true. For example, let's look at this speech:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-terrorism-speech-227025

"Last December, 14 innocent Americans were gunned down at an office party in San Bernardino, another 22 were injured."

Is that statement true? Yes it is. Does Politifact evaluate that statement? No, it does not. Would inclusion of this claim change the statistics? Yes, it would. Are there more true claims in that speech? Yes, there are.

Do you seriously not understand how sampling affects statistics? Do you seriously think that Politifact is sampling the statements that they evaluate in any sort of scientific manner, despite never claiming to? Hell, you can even look up what they say about themselves:

"Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones."

But newsworthiness and significance are subjective. They are susceptible to bias. So how can you possibly assume that their sampling will be representative?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Hillary is qualified for the Democratic nomination. Trump is NOT qualified to wipe my ass.

I can spot you a dozen squares from my avatar if it helps.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

First off, you're simply demonstrating exactly the problem I intended to highlight elsewhere. You challenge me, because I don't follow the orthodoxy, but you never challenge claims that do. So you were never going to ask for evidence of David's claim that Hillary lies less. And had he pointed to Politifact (which he didn't), you were never going to examine whether that claim made sense. Even now, concerning Politifact, you simply take it as a given that their sampling is representative, even though Politifact makes no claim that it is. And that's assuming that all of Politifact's analyses are correct, which they aren't.

So either you don't understand statistics, or you just don't care about honesty.

I'm leaning towards the former, since your challenge is so patently absurd. It's easy to pick statements by Trump that are true. For example, let's look at this speech:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-terrorism-speech-227025

"Last December, 14 innocent Americans were gunned down at an office party in San Bernardino, another 22 were injured."

Is that statement true? Yes it is. Does Politifact evaluate that statement? No, it does not. Would inclusion of this claim change the statistics? Yes, it would. Are there more true claims in that speech? Yes, there are.

Do you seriously not understand how sampling affects statistics? Do you seriously think that Politifact is sampling the statements that they evaluate in any sort of scientific manner, despite never claiming to? Hell, you can even look up what they say about themselves:

"Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones."

But newsworthiness and significance are subjective. They are susceptible to bias. So how can you possibly assume that their sampling will be representative?

A very verbose way of continuing to assert without proof. Thanks for making a quasi positive contribution to the forum.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Using Politifact statistics as any basis for real-life statistics is inherently flawed. That's just simply logic. No data is required. Politifact is even up-front about this. They're not taking random samples of statements of fact by each politician. They're looking at stuff that's politically interesting,

And since we are discussing politicians, it's a good place to start.

It's much better than simply hand-waving it away.

and, in my opinion, stuff that they think is inconsistent with their liberal worldview.

You could back that up with examples, and it might be meaningful.

There is another flaw, of course, which is that the importance of the lie is never measured. I think somebody who lies about trivial stuff

But wait, you already claimed "They're looking at stuff that's politically interesting," ... which seems to go against the "trivial stuff" theory.

(which is what Trump does mostly) is not so much a liar as a ******** artist (which is what Fareed Zarkaria insightfully argued, although he probably stole that argument from somebody else). Hillary tends to lie about very serious stuff, and she does it in a very practiced and conniving way. Her confidence in her skills as a liar makes her a greater threat to be extremely untrustworthy and corrupt with power.

Again, all simply your biased opinion. We already know what you and certain other posters think about Clinton. Simply repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it true.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Either of you can feel free to explain what undesirable outcome for president Clinton you predict.

More useless screeds and non-answers. Shocking

I go away for a week, and you still can't explain what undesirable outcome for president Clinton you predict.

I wish I could say I was surprised ...