Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Straw men? maybe you should read your colleagues' posts in this thread.
Click to expand...

I never said that there were no concerns. Just that Republicans want to turn it into a huge scandal that will destroy her candidacy because they are terrified of her. They will fail like they did all the times before. She is the biggest lock to win the nomination that any non-incumbent has been perhaps ever and this whole "scandal" won't change that no matter how hard Republicans try to make it stick and attempts to do so will be clear signs of desperation that I will find hilarious.
 
Tony Stark said:
I never said that there were no concerns. Just that Republicans want to turn it into a huge scandal that will destroy her candidacy because they are terrified of her. They will fail like they did all the times before. She is the biggest lock to win the nomination that any non-incumbent has been perhaps ever and this whole "scandal" won't change that no matter how hard Republicans try to make it stick and attempts to do so will be clear signs of desperation that I will find hilarious.
Click to expand...

You will find it hilarious when she is testifying in front of Congress?

Huh.

well, I admire your unfettered enthusiasm for Ms. Clinton, despite the fact that it appears she treats the ideals of governmental transparency with sneering contempt.

I cannot think of a more appropriate supporter for her on this website than you, kudos!
 
16.5 said:
You will find it hilarious when she is testifying in front of Congress?

Huh.

well, I admire your unfettered enthusiasm for Ms. Clinton, despite the fact that it appears she treats the ideals of governmental transparency with sneering contempt.

I cannot think of a more appropriate supporter for her on this website than you, kudos!
Click to expand...

I think that if they have her testify at some hearing it will be a hilariously pathetic fishing expedition to see if they can get her to incriminate herself. I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.
 
Tony Stark said:
I think that if they have her testify at some hearing it will be a hilariously pathetic fishing expedition to see if they can get her to incriminate herself. I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.
Click to expand...

that is a fairly high recommendation: Vote Hillary 2016! She did not incriminate herself!

:rolleyes:
 
16.5 said:
that is a fairly high recommendation: Vote Hillary 2016! She did not incriminate herself!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Seems a pretty good counter to the effort on the paleo side... "Don't Vote Hillary in 2016! She might've done some stuff we can paint in a bad light if you just give us enough time and enough of Elf Grinder 3000's money to spend on this snipe hunt. Trust us. Have WE ever lied to you. Well, yeah, just that once, though. And that other time, well that, too."
 
16.5 said:
Support for Hillary plummeting as email row takes its toll

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...ing-toll-on-clintons-2016-hopes-31081209.html
Click to expand...

Spin Doctoring 101

The article you link to doesn't actually say "plummeting", does it? The headline says "taking toll"; the article cites a statistical out-lier of 45% support (no other poll has her below 50). And Reuters, the source of the poll? The headline says "Hillary Clinton Support Slips Slightly as Democrats Wobbly Over Email...".

Slips slightly? In what world does that mean "plummeting"?

Here's the poll.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!respon...PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150318/chart/360

As usual, one has to cook the numbers to come to the conclusions desired. The Daily Progressive (if there's such a newspaper) would report, "Over 80% Believe Hillary Has Right to Private Email Use".
 
Foolmewunz said:
Spin Doctoring 101

The article you link to doesn't actually say "plummeting", does it? The headline says "taking toll"; the article cites a statistical out-lier of 45% support (no other poll has her below 50). And Reuters, the source of the poll? The headline says "Hillary Clinton Support Slips Slightly as Democrats Wobbly Over Email...".

Slips slightly? In what world does that mean "plummeting"?

Here's the poll.

http://polling.reuters.com/#!respon...PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20140318-20150318/chart/360

As usual, one has to cook the numbers to come to the conclusions desired. The Daily Progressive (if there's such a newspaper) would report, "Over 80% Believe Hillary Has Right to Private Email Use".
Click to expand...

Yep, your post was excellent spin doctoring!

15 percent drop among democrats.

Plummeting? Hell yes.
 
16.5 said:
Yep, your post was excellent spin doctoring!

15 percent drop among democrats.

Plummeting? Hell yes.
Click to expand...

You didn't actually read the poll, did you? Nor have you checked the cross-section of polls in the last four weeks. "Plummeting" is a partisan wet dream. Add and subtract the strongly agree, strongly disagree etc... it's the only way to come to the partisan conclusion.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You didn't actually read the poll, did you? Nor have you checked the cross-section of polls in the last four weeks. "Plummeting" is a partisan wet dream. Add and subtract the strongly agree, strongly disagree etc... it's the only way to come to the partisan conclusion.
Click to expand...

wait, she has been plummeting for four weeks?

I cited the most non-partisan article I could find on it.

I understand that this upsets the Hillary is 45 crowd.

Fortunately it gives support to actual likable candidates like Martin O'Malley
 
16.5 said:
wait, she has been plummeting for four weeks?

I cited the most non-partisan article I could find on it.

I understand that this upsets the Hillary is 45 crowd.

Fortunately it gives support to actual likable candidates like Martin O'Malley
Click to expand...

You mis-cited the article. You used "plummeted", they didn't.

It doesn't matter if the article is viewed by a rabid partisan as non-partisan, you'd view O'Reilly as a disinterested observer, probably.

Hillary is not "plummeting". And it's not four weeks. It's about 12 weeks. And all analysts with a brain and the ability to read (as opposed to merely being "avid readers") know the reasons. And it ain't "Benghazi!!". But you and Trey can keep up the chase.

Oh, and O'Malley? Yeah, I can see how rabid partisans would like O'Malley. Rabid Democrats love Bachmann and Cruz. Candidates for the other guy who haven't a hope in hell of winning are de rigeur in the election season. I think O'Malley is tracking at about 1.24% favorable.
 
So now we move into the stick-our-fingers-in-our-ear phase of the operation in which we ignore the lack of evidence of any actual wrongdoing, and move on to pretending that the non-wrongdoing is having an actual affect effect...
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
partisan wet dream.... partisan conclusion.
Click to expand...

Foolmewunz said:
rabid partisan .... you'd view O'Reilly as a disinterested observer.... And all analysts with a brain and the ability to read (as opposed to merely being "avid readers") ... But you and Trey can keep up the chase. ..... rabid partisans .
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi "Lucky I didn't tell him about the dirty knife!" :eye-poppi

**********

Well, now that unpleasantness is over... here's a fun little intellectual exercise:

What if Dick Cheney, Not Hillary Clinton, Deleted 30,000 Emails from a Private Home Server?

While he is wrong on some of his little facts (Benghazi for one... but that is expertly dissected elsewhere on this forum), it is hard to quibble with his conclusions:

"I want a Democrat in the White House just as much as any other liberal, but certain behaviors must never be condoned by the American people."

I bet Hillary and her team is upset that she is being compared unfavorably with Cheney! Fun stuff.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
So now we move into the stick-our-fingers-in-our-ear phase of the operation in which we ignore the lack of evidence of any actual wrongdoing, and move on to pretending that the non-wrongdoing is having an actual affect ...
Click to expand...

But But.. cowboy servers! Libs! She MUST be wrong!
 
16.5 said:
:eye-poppi "Lucky I didn't tell him about the dirty knife!" :eye-poppi

**********

Well, now that unpleasantness is over... here's a fun little intellectual exercise:

What if Dick Cheney, Not Hillary Clinton, Deleted 30,000 Emails from a Private Home Server?

While he is wrong on some of his little facts (Benghazi for one... but that is expertly dissected elsewhere on this forum), it is hard to quibble with his conclusions:

"I want a Democrat in the White House just as much as any other liberal, but certain behaviors must never be condoned by the American people."

I bet Hillary and her team is upset that she is being compared unfavorably with Cheney! Fun stuff.
Click to expand...

I know you have trouble with it, but some of us are non-partisan on certain issues. Hill's not my candidate. No one is at the moment. I want to see this looked into and I want rules applied across the board, to members of all administrations. Several other posters in this thread who are not solely partisan cheerleaders have expressed the same. And, wow! So are some Democratic voters.

I don't think she likely did anything terribly illegal. And I doubt the moral terpitude police (remember Whitewater, Jennifer Flowers, blowjobgate... ah, those were the days, eh?) are going to find anything more dubious than what we see so far: elitism, aloof, arrogant, self-serving. Big whup. So was FDR, and we all agree he was the bestest president evah, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom