Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
What with hope springing eternal, I'll give it one more try...

The Big Dog said:
:eye-poppi

Wait, you claim that "Indeed, the article doesn't come even vaguely close to delivering the bs headline. I too assume that you didn't actually read the article."

And i respond by showing that the body of the article delivers in spades and your reply is:

"OMG do you reallly think that readers won't notice that you're quoting the author/propagandist here?"

OH EMM GEE that was exactly the entire point!

LOLZ! You guys really tickle my funny bone!
Click to expand...
The point is, the citations within the article in no way support the headline. It's also true that the propagandist's commentary is dissociated from fact. Thanks for bringing that to light, even if inadvertent.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh dear... do you not understand what the word "translation" is either?

We certainly know that the bare assertion of the word "crap" is the type of "argument" that "skeptics" use.
Click to expand...

Except the paraphrase or translation would have been less misleading if it claimed that Clinton was complaining about her hovercraft being full of eels.
 
varwoche said:
What with hope springing eternal, I'll give it one more try...

The point is, the citations within the article in no way support the headline. It's also true that the propagandist's commentary is dissociated from fact. Thanks for bringing that to light, even if inadvertent.
Click to expand...

It is odd, I went to all that trouble to add a reference to a bare assertion fallacy to my sig, yet you just keep on doing it.

The point is that saying that the article does not support the headline is utterly meaningless, particularly when in the very next breath you baselessly attack the author as a "propagandist."

It seems pretty clear that the body of an article that refers to Clinton's aides as clueless cynical spineless meritocratic centrist android *********** cowards supports the headline of "WikiLeaks Emails Show Clinton Aides Cowering In Fear Of Seeming To Care About The Poor."

Looking forward to your next bare assertion, tho.
 
The Big Dog said:
It is odd, I went to all that trouble to add a reference to a bare assertion fallacy to my sig, yet you just keep on doing it.

The point is that saying that the article does not support the headline is utterly meaningless, particularly when in the very next breath you baselessly attack the author as a "propagandist."

It seems pretty clear that the body of an article that refers to Clinton's aides as clueless cynical spineless meritocratic centrist android *********** cowards supports the headline of "WikiLeaks Emails Show Clinton Aides Cowering In Fear Of Seeming To Care About The Poor."

Looking forward to your next bare assertion, tho.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.
 
The Big Dog said:
It is odd, I went to all that trouble to add a reference to a bare assertion fallacy to my sig, yet you just keep on doing it.

The point is that saying that the article does not support the headline is utterly meaningless, particularly when in the very next breath you baselessly attack the author as a "propagandist."

It seems pretty clear that the body of an article that refers to Clinton's aides as clueless cynical spineless meritocratic centrist android *********** cowards supports the headline of "WikiLeaks Emails Show Clinton Aides Cowering In Fear Of Seeming To Care About The Poor."

Looking forward to your next bare assertion, tho.
Click to expand...
OK, the emails quoted in that article neither support the headline, nor the interpretation from the author of the article.
 
jimbob said:
OK, the emails quoted in that article neither support the headline, nor the interpretation from the author of the article.
Click to expand...

The Big Dog said:
there is that bare assertion fallacy. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

The same could be said of that article.

It is building its entire story on the final email

Getting on phone with poverty/social mobility group in a a few mins. Melissa and Indi have been working up ideas for us with Robert Gordon and Peter Edelman. We need something that works in primary and general. Obama got killed for this in 2012 for making some of these suggestions.

Will send thoughts back in an hour.
Click to expand...
in particular one sentence:" Obama got killed for this in 2012 for making some of these suggestions."

That is how politics works, along with over dramatic language.

There really isn't anything to see. Meanwhile, everything that comes out about Trump shows him in a bad light - down to using his foundation to pay for his son's Scout subscription of $7.
 
Thank you - and even better than saying (more plausibly) that Trump's do that
 
Getting on phone with poverty/social mobility group in a a few mins. Melissa and Indi have been working up ideas for us with Robert Gordon and Peter Edelman. We need something that works in primary and general. Obama got killed for this in 2012 for making some of these suggestions.

Will send thoughts back in an hour.
Click to expand...

So they are trying to come up with a better way to get their ideas across because previous attempts didn't work, and they want something they can get the voting public to support? And this is scandalous because????
 
Getting on phone with poverty/social mobility group in a a few mins. Melissa and Indi have been working up ideas for us with Robert Gordon and Peter Edelman. We need something that works in primary and general. Obama got killed for this in 2012 for making some of these suggestions.

Will send thoughts back in an hour.
Click to expand...

So they are trying to come up with a better way to get their ideas across because previous attempts didn't work, and they want something they can get the voting public to support? And this is scandalous because????
 
Garrison said:
So they are trying to come up with a better way to get their ideas across because previous attempts didn't work, and they want something they can get the voting public to support? And this is scandalous because????
Click to expand...

...Because Trump's campaign is showing there is an alternative - not trying to work out how to get the support of the voting public?
 
The Big Dog said:
The whole My father was a Teenaged Drapery Hanger was ******** populism from beginning to end and the words must have turned to dust in her mouth given the fact she admits she is totally out of touch in private.

Hell today if someone had the temerity to hang drapes in her presence, she'd flip the **** out on them.
Click to expand...
What speech? It's a simple enough question. Where did you hear or read it? Where was it made? What is in it that is incompatible with Clinton's words in the email?

You can't mean this http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-dnc-transcript.html, which is Clinton's acceptance speech. I thought it just might be, but it's not populism. It's a good speech, but far from rabble-rousing, and there's nothing about her father as a teenaged drapery hanger. He joined the Navy after Pearl Harbour and served the duration, so he wasn't a teenager when he started his own business.

There's a speech, then, but it's not that speech. So please enlighten me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom