Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

I have been curious for awhile about why an apparently intelligent person such as 16.5 thinks this is so important. If Hillary is a sleazoid, does this mean his overall ideology is more likely to be correct? If politicians that he aligns himself with do something similar does that mean his overall ideology is less likely to be correct?

Is this all about justifying the partisan witch hunt that the Clinton's have been enduring for years .....

The Clintons have been "enduring" a "partisan witch hunt" for "years."

Leave Hillary alone! It is the "partisans" who caused Hillary to set up her cowboy server and destroy thirty thousand emails, and Billy to lie about sexual relations with "that" woman.

Poor Clintons.....

 

[wareyin]

The Clintons have been "enduring" a "partisan witch hunt" for "years."

Leave Hillary alone! It is the "partisans" who caused Hillary to set up her cowboy server and destroy thirty thousand emails, and Billy to lie about sexual relations with "that" woman.

Poor Clintons.....

The Clintons have certainly been enduring a partisan witch hunt for years, even decades. After all this time, the fact that Bill was unfaithful and Hillary legally used her own email system is the best the witch hunters could find. Sad, but it's even more sad that a few people actually latch on to this stuff as though it means something.

 

[The Big Dog]

Because the skeptics are clamoring for it, lets take a peek in on Hillary's campaign adventures:

First, it was revealed that she had simply ignored congressional inquiries into her use of private emails during the time she was serving as secretary of state in 2012. Second, it was reported that the Clinton Foundation would continue taking money from foreign governments — even as Hillary officially ran for President of the United States.

None of these “serious” stories garnered as much coverage or commentary as her failure to leave a tip at Chipotle. This is both a commentary on the American public and the American media. But it’s also a warning to Hillary about how it will be the little things that kill.

I disagree that it elicited yawns, but I did guffaw over Candidate Hillary's complete lack of basic human skills.

"Hillary.... this is a Chipolte.... order a burrito....No we are not here picking up large checks from foreign countries, Chelsey is doing that... "

 

[davefoc]

The Clintons have been "enduring" a "partisan witch hunt" for "years."

Leave Hillary alone! It is the "partisans" who caused Hillary to set up her cowboy server and destroy thirty thousand emails, and Billy to lie about sexual relations with "that" woman.

Poor Clintons.....

So how does Clinton having a private email server compare with lying the US into a middle east war that led to the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of American soldiers, the increased destabilization of the middle east, and the expenditure of 2 trillion American dollars?

How does it compare with sitting on your hands while a gigantic real estate bubble was exploited by bank managers leading to the worst economic crisis in the US since the depression.

I used to be one that thought that Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the White House was just about the sleaziest thing that any president could do. Now I think the US government should supply the president with what they want with regard to that if it prevents another debacle like the Bush administration. In the face of the most corrupt, incompetent governance of my life you tell me that Clinton is a terrible woman because she had a private email server. I think you should think again.

 

[The Big Dog]

So how does Clinton having a private email server compare with lying the US into a middle east war that led to the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of American soldiers, the increased destabilization of the middle east, and the expenditure of 2 trillion American dollars?

How does it compare with sitting on your hands while a gigantic real estate bubble was exploited by bank managers leading to the worst economic crisis in the US since the depression.

I used to be one that thought that Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the White House was just about the sleaziest thing that any president could do. Now I think the US government should supply the president with what they want with regard to that if it prevents another debacle like the Bush administration. In the face of the most corrupt, incompetent governance of my life you tell me that Clinton is a terrible woman because she had a private email server. I think you should think again.

This is a site for skeptics, you know that? Therefore, false dichotomy and other fallacies like your post are heavily frowned on. We can disapprove of the Iraq war AND disapprove of the Clinton's sleazy behavior! And even more surprisingly, this thread is about Hillary's sleazy emails behavior, there are lots of threads to whine about Bush. Most of those are in history, you should look them up!

although you do raise somewhat of a related point: the only Candidate to vote for the Iraq War Resolutions was.... wait for it..... HILLARY CLINTON!

Great point davefoc!

 

[Foolmewunz]

This is a site for skeptics, you know that? Therefore, false dichotomy and other fallacies like your post are heavily frowned on. We can disapprove of the Iraq war AND disapprove of the Clinton's sleazy behavior! And even more surprisingly, this thread is about Hillary's sleazy emails behavior, there are lots of threads to whine about Bush. Most of those are in history, you should look them up!
although you do raise somewhat of a related point: the only Candidate to vote for the Iraq War Resolutions was.... wait for it..... HILLARY CLINTON!
Great point davefoc!

Hilited portion:

As avid readers (of newspapers and magazines) will recognize, this is a lie of omission. I believe you've formally come down against lies of omission. Or is that only for persons named "Clinton" or employers of persons named "Clinton".

Of the current declared candidates, one of them was a Congressperson or Senator when the vote came up.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hilited portion:

As avid readers (of newspapers and magazines) will recognize, this is a lie of omission. I believe you've formally come down against lies of omission. Or is that only for persons named "Clinton" or employers of persons named "Clinton".

Of the current declared candidates, one of them was a Congressperson or Senator when the vote came up.

protip, FMW: lies have to be, ya know, untrue. I was technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct.

By the way, it was not me who brought up the Iraq War, your pal daveloc brought it up, and avid readers will note that I hit that softball right out of the damn park!

 

[sunmaster14]

So how does Clinton having a private email server compare with lying the US into a middle east war that led to the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of American soldiers, the increased destabilization of the middle east, and the expenditure of 2 trillion American dollars?

Well, putting aside the false implication that we were lied into the Iraq War, it doesn't compare. Clinton's email shenanigans were at the very least unethical (as you have admitted), probably criminal, and clearly done with malicious intent. The decision to launch an invasion in Iraq was a legitimate policy choice made in the face of uncertainty and done with honorable intentions. Even if you think the ultimate outcome was a debacle (I don't - I think it was a huge net positive for the world), it is not fair to judge the decision based on hindsight. Furthermore, even if the decision at the time was objectively a bad one, it still was made in good faith. Hillary's decision to conduct government email exclusively on a private server and completely control what she allows the government to keep as a record was obviously made in bad faith.

How does it compare with sitting on your hands while a gigantic real estate bubble was exploited by bank managers leading to the worst economic crisis in the US since the depression.

Once again, I disagree with your implicit characterization of recent history. I think Bush handled the crisis quite well, and I think his role in creating or precipitating the crisis was small or nil. In any case, his responses were made in good faith. He always did what he thought was best for the country, not himself.

I used to be one that thought that Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the White House was just about the sleaziest thing that any president could do.

You're conveniently eliding over the fact that Bill Clinton lied egregiously about getting BJs in the Oval Office (both under oath and to the American people with a different extremity wagging) and enlisted other people to lie for him as well. That was far worse than the BJs. Arguably, he also launched military strikes (Operations Infinite Reach and Desert Fox) to distract from his mounting scandals (actually there was no mounting).

Now I think the US government should supply the president with what they want with regard to that if it prevents another debacle like the Bush administration.

A stupid idea. There's no reason to think that having affairs makes for a better President, even by whatever metric you use for evaluating Presidents (which clearly differs from mine).

In the face of the most corrupt, incompetent governance of my life you tell me that Clinton is a terrible woman because she had a private email server. I think you should think again.

Well, Clinton was part of that corrupt incompetent government for four years, so it actually seems consistent.

 

[Foolmewunz]

protip, FMW: lies have to be, ya know, untrue. I was technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct.

Actually, like your "political truths" (which are made-up opinions), that's just plain WRONG. A lie of omission is not something that is untrue; it is something that omits an inconvenient factoid that would make the statement false, misleading or as in this case, meaningless since none of the candidates who are declared ever had a chance to vote on the Iraq War. By extrapolation, would you say that Jeb, Ted, Rand or Marco would have voted against it? Perhaps you'd like to point out their statements against the invasion.

By the way, it was not me who brought up the Iraq War, your pal daveloc brought it up, and avid readers will note that I hit that softball right out of the damn park!

You hit the softball right out of what park? This isn't the Mother Cabrini Playground. Avid readers are the referee. You snuck in a zinger by making crap up. You were caught at it. At best, you got a screaming line drive just on the wrong side of the foul pole. You're still up. Bottom of the ninth and your team is trailing 379-159.

 

[The Big Dog]

Actually, like your "political truths" (which are made-up opinions), that's just plain WRONG. A lie of omission is not something that is untrue; it is something that omits an inconvenient factoid that would make the statement false, misleading or as in this case, meaningless since none of the candidates who are declared ever had a chance to vote on the Iraq War..

That is amazing! Do you really think any of that rationalizing and railing against me is going to change the fact that Hillary voted for the Iraq War Resolution? It is not "meaningless" friend, and again, it was not me who brought up the Iraq war looking to score a cheap point, it was your pal.

And like the hammer of the gods, I struck with swift and certain strength in a thunderbolt of truth.

Next time, just say "yes, but..." accusing me of lying is utterly absurd.

the only Candidate to vote for the Iraq War Resolutions was.... wait for it..... HILLARY CLINTON!

TRUE!

Now, lets focus again on Hillary's lies about her cowboy server, shall we?

 

[davefoc]

[see above

Your post is amazing testimony to the overwhelming effect tribal bias can have on the human thought process. Every aspect of your reply has been discussed endlessly in this forum and I won't repeat those arguments here where they would be off topic. I will say that your ability to rationalize the failures of the Bush administration with simplistic partisan arguments explains a lot about why you might vastly over estimate the importance of Clinton's private email server.

I doubt that you will ever understand that, but as a thought experiment you might try imagining that your favorite Republican candidate had done something similar. Do you think you reaction would have been remotely similar to what it has been about what Clinton did?

 

[The Big Dog]

I doubt that you will ever understand that, but as a thought experiment you might try imagining that your favorite Republican candidate had done something similar. Do you think you reaction would have been remotely similar to what it has been about what Clinton did?

I doubt that you will ever understand that, but as a thought experiment you might try imagining that your LEAST favorite Republican candidate had done something similar. Do you think you reaction would have been remotely similar to what it has been about what Clinton did?

this should be fascinating.....

 

[Foolmewunz]

That is amazing! Do you really think any of that rationalizing and railing against me is going to change the fact that Hillary voted for the Iraq War Resolution? It is not "meaningless" friend, and again, it was not me who brought up the Iraq war looking to score a cheap point, it was your pal.

And like the hammer of the gods, I struck with swift and certain strength in a thunderbolt of truth.

Next time, just say "yes, but..." accusing me of lying is utterly absurd.

the only Candidate of the currently declared batch who was in the US Congress or Senate to vote for the Iraq War Resolutions was.... wait for it..... HILLARY CLINTON!

TRUE!

Now, lets focus again on Hillary's lies about her cowboy server, shall we?

Now it's true.

 

[The Big Dog]

Now it's true.

It was true before, you are just putting lipstick on a pig.

But lets give that a run through the Hillarytizer:

Vote Hillary 2016! the only Candidate of the currently declared batch who was in the US Congress or Senate to vote for the Iraq War Resolutions and ran her own Cowboy Sever.

Feel better?

 

[davefoc]

I doubt that you will ever understand that, but as a thought experiment you might try imagining that your LEAST favorite Republican candidate had done something similar. Do you think you reaction would have been remotely similar to what it has been about what Clinton did?

this should be fascinating.....

I have no trouble with this. My response would be the same as it is about this event. Disappointment at what I consider inappropriate behavior and an understanding that any political leader is not going to be a perfect individual. If I tended to agree mostly with the individual's overall views something like this would probably not be a deciding factor as to whether I would support them or not. Most of my life I have been a Republican and I still am a registered Republican. I think long term successful governance by Democrats is not possible and Detroit is the perfect example of what happens when Democratic ideas are taken to extreme.

I would still vote for Republicans today if I didn't see them as a bunch of science denying, pro war, government shutting down, anti-gay nut jobs.

 

[sunmaster14]

Your post is amazing testimony to the overwhelming effect tribal bias can have on the human thought process. Every aspect of your reply has been discussed endlessly in this forum and I won't repeat those arguments here where they would be off topic. I will say that your ability to rationalize the failures of the Bush administration with simplistic partisan arguments explains a lot about why you might vastly over estimate the importance of Clinton's private email server.

Oh, and what tribe do I belong to? In any case, I have quite boldly put my contrarian arguments about the Bush administration in general, and the Iraq War in particular, out there for review and debate, and there is nary a peep of substantive rebuttal on this forum. You know it, and I know it.

I doubt that you will ever understand that, but as a thought experiment you might try imagining that your favorite Republican candidate had done something similar. Do you think you reaction would have been remotely similar to what it has been about what Clinton did?

My reaction would have been to admit that he was a sleazeball, and that he should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If you look back at the Chris Christie traffic jam thread, you can see that I fully supported an investigation, and in fact I actually believe that he knew about the whole thing and that he is a vindictive bastard. That being said, I would still vote for him for President if he were the Republican nominee. There is nothing hypocritical about that. Earlier in this thread, I advised Hillary's supporters simply to admit that she is corrupt and unethical but declare their partisan allegiance to her anyway. Party politics and policy is often much more important than the actual vehicle for that politics, especially these days. I don't think there's anything wrong about supporting a corrupt politician if you think that she's the best chance you have of getting your preferred agenda enacted.

Personally, if I were a Democrat, I would be looking at alternatives for Hillary. I don't think her advantage over other potential nominees in terms of probability of winning outweighs the disadvantage of her being a corrupt incompetent who feels that she is above the law. I think her advantage is only a few percentage points, and I don't think that's worth it. But I can see how some might think it is worth it, or that they might think her advantage is far greater than a few percentage points.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have no trouble with this. My response would be the same as it is about this event. Disappointment at what I consider inappropriate behavior and an understanding that any political leader is not going to be a perfect individual. If I tended to agree mostly with the individual's overall views something like this would probably not be a deciding factor as to whether I would support them or not. Most of my life I have been a Republican and I still am a registered Republican. I think long term successful governance by Democrats is not possible and Detroit is the perfect example of what happens when Democratic ideas are taken to extreme..

I, on the other hand, cannot imagine any other candidate from any other party having the combination of hubris, paranoia, megalomania and sneering contempt for governmental transparency and the rule of law that would allow them to even imagine doing what Hillary did.

She is next level sleazy, like Putin or a North Korean Dictator, except with a larger cult of supporters.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

protip, FMW: lies have to be, ya know, untrue. I was technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct.

Yet just one page back ...

"a lie of omission is still a lie. Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception."

“The slickest way in the world to lie is to tell the right amount of truth at the right time-and then shut up.”
― Robert A. Heinlein,

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is a site for skeptics, you know that? Therefore, false dichotomy and other fallacies like your post are heavily frowned on. We can disapprove of the Iraq war AND disapprove of the Clinton's sleazy behavior! And even more surprisingly, this thread is about Hillary's sleazy emails behavior, there are lots of threads to whine about Bush. Most of those are in history, you should look them up!
<>

So, I suppose, are these fallacies you posted in this very same thread ... yes ??

Your fallacy is red herring.

Why are you still avoiding explaining the elephant in the room ?

Let's see, how does this work ... oh yes...

Your Fallacy is Argument from Incredulity

Your fallacy is sweeping generalization.

your fallacy is ad hominem and poisoning the well

 

[plague311]

I, on the other hand, cannot imagine any other candidate from any other party having the combination of hubris, paranoia, megalomania and sneering contempt for governmental transparency and the rule of law that would allow them to even imagine doing what Hillary did.

She is next level sleazy, like Putin or a North Korean Dictator, except with a larger cult of supporters.

LoL didn't Bush jr. do the exact same thing only times about 1,000? They deleted or lost like 5 million emails didn't they?

So she's not even next level, she's amateur hour.