Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Ziggurat]

You think Trump is truthful?

No, I do not. My point was to illustrate the futility of trying to establish a statistical measure of truthfulness based on a hand-selected sample of statements, a point which requires that the reader reject the results of my sampling. So obviously I do NOT think Trump is actually 100% truthful. That's the point, which you would realize if you were paying attention and think rather than reflexively reject whatever I say. You're in medicine, right? Would you accept the results of a study on a new drug where the drug company hand-picked which patients got their drug and which got the placebo? So why do you accept the results of Politifact's "sampling"? It makes no sense.

So no then? You don't like the one analysis we have but you also don't have one backing up your selective attention to Clinton's misstatements being a valid sampling method either.

I never presented a statistical analysis of Clinton's lies. It's an exercise in futility, for the reasons I've already given. I don't need to substitute a superior analysis in order to point out that the one provided is crap.

Got it.

No, you really don't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I do not. My point was to illustrate the futility of trying to establish a statistical measure of truthfulness based on a hand-selected sample of statements, a point which requires that the reader reject the results of my sampling. So obviously I do NOT think Trump is actually 100% truthful. That's the point, which you would realize if you were paying attention and think rather than reflexively reject whatever I say. You're in medicine, right? Would you accept the results of a study on a new drug where the drug company hand-picked which patients got their drug and which got the placebo? So why do you accept the results of Politifact's "sampling"? It makes no sense.



I never presented a statistical analysis of Clinton's lies. It's an exercise in futility, for the reasons I've already given. I don't need to substitute a superior analysis in order to point out that the one provided is crap.



No, you really don't.

Actually, yes I do. I've been following Clinton for a couple decades. Her career is about as open a book as a politician can have. I find she's subject to a double standard and the whole image of her dishonesty is fabricated by the right wing echo chamber.

Yes, I am being realistic, yes I know about all the scandals and mistakes, and yes I know about the stupid things she's said. As far as politicians go, her honesty is average at worst.

But you and many in the right wing contingent accept the pablum because it fits your confirmation bias. You excuse the actual criminal wrong doing of politicians like GW Bush and exaggerate the wrong doing of Clinton, elevating it to criminal level despite the fact even a conservative highly experienced FBI director failed to find anything at the level of criminal in her actions. Ken Starr found nothing except Bill lying about where his dick had been.

That can't be said for the Bush people even if no one had the guts to prosecute GW. A lot of wrong doing was uncovered in those Congressional hearings and it didn't take nine hearings looking at the same thing to find it.

 

[Kestrel]

Actually, yes I do. I've been following Clinton for a couple decades. Her career is about as open a book as a politician can have. I find she's subject to a double standard and the whole image of her dishonesty is fabricated by the right wing echo chamber.

The Hillary is dishonest meme seems to have started with a William Safire article "A Blizzard of Lies" written during the Watergate investigation. The results of that investigation proved Safire was dead wrong.

The right wing has been repeating the claim ever since. Spending millions to spread half truths and complete fabrications about Hillary. It's worth noting that the the Citizens United decision was about a Hillary smear piece.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, yes I do. I've been following Clinton for a couple decades. Her career is about as open a book as a politician can have. I find she's subject to a double standard and the whole image of her dishonesty is fabricated by the right wing echo chamber.

No, you still don't get it. Even if one accepts this assessment, it's still basically a subjective one. It does not, and cannot, validate the bull **** statistical analysis of crap data.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's worth noting that the the Citizens United decision was about a Hillary smear piece.

It's worth noting that Democrats are still trying to use government censorship to stop criticism of their favored candidates, and that none of the arguments used to do so depend upon that speech being false.

 

[Kestrel]

It's worth noting that Democrats are still trying to use government censorship to stop criticism of their favored candidates, and that none of the arguments used to do so depend upon that speech being false.

The Hillary smear piece in the Citizens United case was a collection of half truths and complete fabrications. All presented at the intellectual level of a middle school playground fight. And of course the funding was kept secret to avoid harming the personal of corporate reputations of those funding the smears.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Hillary smear piece in the Citizens United case was a collection of half truths and complete fabrications.

And yet, that's not the basis on which it was censored. It's completely irrelevant to the case.

And of course the funding was kept secret to avoid harming the personal of corporate reputations of those funding the smears.

Given what happened to Brendan Eich, I consider it perfectly reasonable to try to keep one's contributions secret.

 

[The Big Dog]

The Hillary is dishonest meme seems to have started with a William Safire article "A Blizzard of Lies" written during the Watergate investigation. The results of that investigation proved Safire was dead wrong.

The right wing has been repeating the claim ever since. Spending millions to spread half truths and complete fabrications about Hillary. It's worth noting that the the Citizens United decision was about a Hillary smear piece.

well a blizzard of lies was published in 1996, and the watergate investigation ended TWO decades earlier.

So...

so tired of correcting blatant misrepresentations

 

[sunmaster14]

The Hillary smear piece in the Citizens United case was a collection of half truths and complete fabrications. All presented at the intellectual level of a middle school playground fight. And of course the funding was kept secret to avoid harming the personal of corporate reputations of those funding the smears.

Have you actually seen Hillary: The Movie? Not many people have, including me.

 

[Foolmewunz]

well a blizzard of lies was published in 1996, and the watergate investigation ended TWO decades earlier.

So...

so tired of correcting blatant misrepresentations

Big Dog sniffed that out, did you?

Those of us who are not conveniently politically illiterate knew it was a typo... Kestrel meant to type Whitewater..... since that's what the "Blizzard of Lies" column was about.

But you keep those fine huntin' instincts workin.

 

[The Big Dog]

Big Dog sniffed that out, did you?

Those of us who are not conveniently politically illiterate knew it was a typo... Kestrel meant to type Whitewater..... since that's what the "Blizzard of Lies" column was about.

But you keep those fine huntin' instincts workin.

Oh it is my fault? Lolz!

Oh well, any comments about the fact that Hillary used bleachbit to cover up her email shenanigans?

Or are we waiting for talking points from correct the record?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oh it is my fault? Lolz!

Oh well, any comments about the fact that Hillary used bleachbit to cover up her email shenanigans?

Or are we waiting for talking points from correct the record?

Lolz, indeed. I think you mis-spelled. "Oh, you're right. Obviously he mis-spoke and meant to say Whitewater."

As to Bleachbit? I'm confused. I thought she wiped it with a cloth. Now she's this sooper dooper spy who's using the most advanced tools to hide the dirtiest secrets in history? Which is it? Incompetent? Mastermind?

Bleachbit seems to be milking this for publicity. No one in the IT sector seems to be terribly impressed. I'm sure Judicial Watch will be filing to see if Gowdy has any shares in the company, hitherto just another free cleaning and protection tool.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lolz, indeed. I think you mis-spelled. "Oh, you're right. Obviously he mis-spoke and meant to say Whitewater."

As to Bleachbit? I'm confused. I thought she wiped it with a cloth. Now she's this sooper dooper spy who's using the most advanced tools to hide the dirtiest secrets in history? Which is it? Incompetent? Mastermind?

Bleachbit seems to be milking this for publicity. No one in the IT sector seems to be terribly impressed. I'm sure Judicial Watch will be filing to see if Gowdy has any shares in the company, hitherto just another free cleaning and protection tool.

she is an incompetent mastermind who hired incompetent people to make sure her "private" emails were wiped. Leaving huge tracks and having them inadvertently backed up on the Cloud.

No one cares if the "IT sector" is impressed, **** I'd be shocked if they were. The significance is, of course, that she and her minions used a device to wipe the server including work related emails.

As such she lied, again.

Bleachbitch

 

[Foolmewunz]

she is an incompetent mastermind who hired incompetent people to make sure her "private" emails were wiped. Leaving huge tracks and having them inadvertently backed up on the Cloud.

No one cares if the "IT sector" is impressed, **** I'd be shocked if they were. The significance is, of course, that she and her minions used a device to wipe the server including work related emails.

As such she lied, again.

Bleachbitch

Are you, like Gowdy, just completely technically illiterate? It was established ages ago that emails were deleted. Now we're shocked, shocked I say, to find out that,...... gasp! ..... a utility was used that completes the job of deleting files and cleaning up registries?

I do that on my own laptop. It's just so that you clear up the optimal amount of space and don't find piles of laggard files months or years later. It's not like this was bought at Black Bag Utilities or from the back of a soldier-of-fortune magazine. The fact that Gowdy is impressed and doesn't know anything about the subject would apparently be enough to get some partisan hearts to pitter-patter settings.

The rest of us? It's just the detritus of a decade-long campaign to burn the witch.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you, like Gowdy, just completely technically illiterate? It was established ages ago that emails were deleted. Now we're shocked, shocked I say, to find out that,...... gasp! ..... a utility was used that completes the job of deleting files and cleaning up registries?

The revelation has nothing to do with the emails having been deleted or not. We knew about that ages ago. That she used a utility to ensure the data was destroyed however is significant considering it's questionable why such lengths had to be taken to delete emails that were supposedly personal in nature and unrelated. I get people use these utilities all the time but most people also arent involved in some kind of investigation either when their actions could raise more eyebrows from the investigations that have to be non partisan in nature. Complain about it being a witch hunt all you want.

 

[The Big Dog]

Boy it sure was nice of hillary's lawyer to clean up her registry after they deleted thousands of work related emails.

Totally innocent!

Hee hee!

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you, like Gowdy, just completely technically illiterate? It was established ages ago that emails were deleted.

No. Ages ago, Hillary lied and said that only her personal emails were deleted. Now we have confirmation that she deleted work emails. That's the news here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, you still don't get it. Even if one accepts this assessment, it's still basically a subjective one. It does not, and cannot, validate the bull **** statistical analysis of crap data.

Zig, all you are saying is you believe X. You have nothing to back that up.

I believe Y and that you are wrong.

To quote someone on another forum, because why reinvent the wheel:

Committed federal crimes on an e-mail server (which she didn't)
Committed perjury before Congress about it (which she didn't)
Willingly let Americans die in Benghazi and willfully lied about it (which she didn't)
Took donations in exchange for State Department favours through her charitable foundation (which she didn't)
Is mentally and physically too ill to be President (which she isn't)

And my own:
Has a vast criminal empire (which she doesn't have)

The evidence your belief that she's dishonest and whatever other nonsensical version of realty you live in about Clinton is not only not supported by actual evidence, the trend is not in your favor.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's worth noting that Democrats are still trying to use government censorship to stop criticism of their favored candidates, and that none of the arguments used to do so depend upon that speech being false.

CT forum that way ->->->

 

[sunmaster14]

You do know Comey and the FBI already looked at those additional emails, right?

They did so only in the context of determining if classified information was mishandled. Comey was pretty explicit in saying that his results had nothing to do with any other allegations of wrongdoing, especially those having to do with the Clinton Foundation.