Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
You misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince you. You're trying to convince me. Specifically, you're trying to convince me to trust politicians as much as you do. You're trying to convince me to trust politicians so much that I should not even question whether the Hillary Clinton campaign might possibly be astroturfing on social media.

Please. Go ahead. Explain to me why you trust Hillary so much.
Click to expand...
He hasn't once made the claim that Clinton's campaign isn't " astroturfing”, or that you should trust her campaign that is a straw man you have constructed.
 
Darat said:
He hasn't once made the claim that Clinton's campaign isn't " astroturfing”, or that you should trust her campaign that is a straw man you have constructed.
Click to expand...

It's not a straw man. I think Clinton's campaign is probably astroturfing, and I don't trust her campaign. It's not up to me to convince him of this. It's up to him to convince me otherwise.
 
theprestige said:
It's not a straw man. I think Clinton's campaign is probably astroturfing, and I don't trust her campaign. It's not up to me to convince him of this. It's up to him to convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...
Repeating your straw man does not make it any the less of a straw man. FMO has not made the argument you attribute to him so he has no reason to support the argument you have made up.

Even that aside your response to your own straw man is not how claims are usually supported I. E. It is up to the person making the claim to support their claim, *your* claim is that her campaign is astroturfing therefore it is up to you to support your claim.
 
theprestige said:
It's not a straw man. I think Clinton's campaign is probably astroturfing, and I don't trust her campaign. It's not up to me to convince him of this. It's up to him to convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is weak sauce, weaker than most of the HDS arguments. This is the ISF. You made the claim; you provide the proof. All I keep asking from those of you relying on your sixth sense or intuition is to show us some proof.

If all you've got is "well, it just seems that way to me", just say so and stop pretending it's marginally related to "fact" and using it to support the conspiracy theory fans who are offering (and running away from) the same assertions. You can have your opinion all you want. If you expect anyone to respect it, show your work.
 
16.5 said:
as we discussed before, that is exactly the point: we can't point to attribution to show that it is unattributed. We know that they have spent a million dollars on the project, we know that they have in fact ghostwritten at least one pro-Hillary propaganda piece.

It would appear that it is incumbent on you to show that they do give attribution.
Click to expand...
SO no evidence for your claims then?
:rolleyes:
 
catsmate said:
SO no evidence for your claims then?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Excellent example of the use of the Rule of So!

The evidence has been presented. Clinton's sleazy friend admitted they were doing it. The response was that they are not doing it without attribution, unfortunately other than their official twitter account (whicj isn't what we are talking about of course) the Shillaries have failed to show attribution.

The Big Dog (aka 16.5) has found evidence that Correct the Record has ghost written opeds without attribution. :eye-poppi

But you keep up with your rule of so, you have an awful candidate whose water needs toting.
 
PhantomWolf said:
No, actually I don't, and the main reason is that the larger the economy the lower the overall percentage increase. It's harder to raise GDP 50% when the over all GDP is $13 Trillion than when is is $3 Trillion.

Percentages on an ever increasing figure will always bias to the earliest results, which is exactly what you show, simply because they had smaller figures to work with.

Consider a President in 2050 who raises the economy by 5 Trillion in inflation adjusted 2009 dollars. Would you consider this a good amount? well above anything ever see so far. Yet if we work on the idea of 2 Trillion per decade, then in 2050 the economy will be about $20 Trillion so a $5 Trillion increase would only be 25%, half of the 1960-1970 percentage increase.

Percentages just don't work well as comparisons when dealing with cumulative gains.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous, even putting aside the obvious effects of population growth (e.g. increasing GDP by $100,000 for a population of 10 people is impressive while increasing GDP by $100,000 for a population of 1000 people isn't).

Note that inflation adjustments only correct for the devaluation of the unit of currency over time, not the increase in productivity. Thus, even if inflation were zero, nominal GDP would still be growing at an exponential pace because productivity growth is geometric. For example, if ten years ago, a worker could produce 100 widgets per hour, but now, through the introduction of new technology, he becomes twice as productive, then his contribution to GDP has doubled. If over the next decade, no new innovations occur, but through more experience and better training he improves his productivity to 300 widgets per hour, that's all nice, but not as impressive. It's true that greater gains to productivity can result if an economy lags behind the state-of-the-art. Just as with Russia in the 1930s, Japan in the 1950s and 1960s, and China in the last 25 years, growth can be tremendous because lagging economies can simply copy technology and techniques which already exist rather than have to create them. But advanced economies, which do have to create new technologies and techniques from scratch, still have managed to maintain geometric productivity growth in the range of 1-3% per year. So we should expect inflation-adjusted GDP per capita to be growing at 1-3% per year as well. Throw in population growth of 1%, and "real" GDP should be growing in the range of 2-4% per year. Maybe some day such gains will end, but nobody expects it to happen any time soon, and it certainly didn't happen in the last 50 years.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
The proper metric is GDP per person. The graph below clearly shows that GDP/capita has been growing exponentially since 1870.

The only problem with GDP/capita is that it doesn't tell you whose wealth is increasing.
Exploding wealth inequality in the United States
Click to expand...

GDP correlates to income, not wealth. In fact, roughly 70% of GDP is consumed, so wealth only grows at about 30% of GDP. It is more appropriate to say that GDP/capita doesn't tell you whose income is increasing.

Regardless, the flipside of income is consumption. Every dollar of income (including foreigners) equals a dollar of consumption (including foreigners). If you only count domestic income, which GDP is, then consumption is even greater because we run a trade deficit. That is, US consumption is equal to GDP + trade deficit. That doesn't tell you who is consuming, but I guarantee you that the distribution of consumption is a hell of a lot flatter than the distribution of domestic income. And consumption is ultimately what it's all about, right?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
No need to wonder. Without Bush's tax cuts and illegal wars we could easily have weathered any bumps in the economy.

And Bush's policies weren't just disastrous, for many people they were fatal - literally.
Click to expand...

Public debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. It equals the net financial savings of the private sector. The Clinton surpluses were in fact very bad for the economy and led to the bursting of the tech bubble and the recession in 2001.
 
16.5 said:
Excellent example of the use of the Rule of So!
Click to expand...

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man.

SO Socrates is mortal.

HAHAHA RULE OF SO !! :cool:

16.5 said:
The evidence has been presented. Clinton's sleazy friend admitted they were doing it.
Click to expand...

They admitted they were AstroTurfing ? NO.
They admitted they were paid shills ? NO.

Please, quote what they "admitted" they were doing. I guarantee it's not what you are claiming.

16.5 said:
The response was that they are not doing it without attribution, unfortunately other than their official twitter account (whicj isn't what we are talking about of course) the Shillaries have failed to show attribution..
Click to expand...

That's because it's the HDS claim that there are paid shills posting without attribution. Your claim, your evidence.

16.5 said:
The Big Dog (aka 16.5) has found evidence that Correct the Record has ghost written opeds without attribution. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Lies.

That's weak sauce based on the emails. Correct the record did not "ghost write" the one editorial you are referring to.
It was written by a guy that managed his first campaign. Is that supposed to be somehow out of the ordinary ?
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/06/hillary-super-pac-draft-oped/

16.5 said:
But you keep up with your rule of so, you have an awful candidate whose water needs toting.
Click to expand...

Keep up with your pretend fallacies and lies, you have false pretenses of being a bernie supporter to keep up.
 
16.5 said:
Excellent example of the use of the Rule of So!

The evidence has been presented. Clinton's sleazy friend admitted they were doing it. The response was that they are not doing it without attribution, unfortunately other than their official twitter account (whicj isn't what we are talking about of course) the Shillaries have failed to show attribution.

The Big Dog (aka 16.5) has found evidence that Correct the Record has ghost written opeds without attribution. :eye-poppi

But you keep up with your rule of so, you have an awful candidate whose water needs toting.
Click to expand...

They did not admit to it. You are using poor reading skills to conclude it is an admission.

After you have found the ghost written evidence, did you notice the lot of us arguing with you didn't argue that point? That is how evidence works. We can infer that your evidence for the other claim hasn't cleared that bar.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man.

SO Socrates is mortal.

HAHAHA RULE OF SO !! :cool:



They admitted they were AstroTurfing ? NO.
They admitted they were paid shills ? NO.

Please, quote what they "admitted" they were doing. I guarantee it's not what you are claiming.



That's because it's the HDS claim that there are paid shills posting without attribution. Your claim, your evidence.



Lies.

That's weak sauce based on the emails. Correct the record did not "ghost write" the one editorial you are referring to.
It was written by a guy that managed his first campaign. Is that supposed to be somehow out of the ordinary ?
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/06/hillary-super-pac-draft-oped/



Keep up with your pretend fallacies and lies, you have false pretenses of being a bernie supporter to keep up.
Click to expand...

Calling it ghost written is not charitable, but fine given their uncredited involvement. Bigger fish to fry
 
BobTheCoward said:
Calling it ghost written is not charitable, but fine given their uncredited involvement. Bigger fish to fry
Click to expand...

I think it's more than "not charitable" to conflate minor corrections with actually authoring a piece.

And it's also not the same as the claims of "paid shills" and astroturfing.

But, since it's literally all the evidence that has been presented for the claims of AstroTurfing ... they have to keep trying to make it fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom