Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

[Roger Ramjets]

People don't like watching upper-classers keep getting given more & more upper-class stuff,... And they don't like having the same person pushed at them over & over year after year

People who think that reality is being 'pushed' at them are morons.

Clinton was the best that Democrats had, so why wouldn't they run her again? Or do you think they should have done the same as Republicans - serve up 17 flawed candidates, none of whom was worth voting for? What a farce that turned out to be...

 

[Delvo]

There are some points in your last couple of posts that would be worth discussing, on their own, but the way you mixed them in with your collection of misrepresentations of what I said makes it clear that trying to actually discuss anything with you is not worth the bother.

 

[PhantomWolf]

1/ Including third party candidates, 54% of voters wanted somebody other than Trump. So a majority of voters did not get what they voted for. And almost half of eligible voters stayed home, so Trump was elected by only around a quarter of all Americans who could have voted. Not quite a resounding mandate.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligi...can-democrat-popular-vote-registered-results/

If they choose to vote for a 3rd party knowing that there was no chance of that candidate winning, or decided not to vote, then in doing so they were declaring that they didn't care which candidate won. So as such they got what they were wanting too, because they didn't care enough. If they can't be bothered getting involved an making sure that a candidate they want gets to the starting line, then why should anyone care about them?

2/ If some voters made their decision based on information that was false, maliciously planted by foreign entities or anyone else, did they really have a "free choice?"

Every person has the ability to accept information without question, or to determine the truth. If they can't be bothered in verifying the information they are given, then that is their free choice as well.

 

[Belz...]

The Hillary problem isn't the "trumpkins'" problem. It is the Democrats problem because the lying loser will not shut up and go away.

If the loser always went away we'd have been spared a Trump presidency.

 

[Belz...]

Why? Her political views are largely what used to be called moderate Republican. She's intelligent, knowledgable and generally respected by foreign leaders. There's no reason to think her Cabinet and judicial appointments wouldn't be fully qualified. The vilest criticisms of Clinton are based on her personality, not policies. The fact that Putin despises her is something Americans should consider a plus.

The only possible explanation for the claim that she would be worse or terrible is partisan politics.

 

[Belz...]

She was a fine candidate.
The only major drawbacks were amplified either by hyper partisan politics or Russia. She did nothing disqualifying to anyone but gullible morons.

Well, actually, one of her major problems, outside of Republican mud-slinging, was her utter lack of charisma. Of course, that doesn't make her incompetent in the least, and from what I hear she listens to advice and seeks to find common grounds with others, which is exactly what you want a President to be.

 

[Belz...]

Well, that and the whole lying thing

Is that the hidden-to-all-but-a-select-few-who-can-see-through-her-act lying or actual lying? I ask because since the current POTUS is the biggest liar in the history of the universe I doubt it was a major factor.

and being incompetent

That's partisan ideology talking.

and the arrogance

Now you're just making stuff up.

and being a racist piece of ****.

Wow, that's a good one, TDB. The one time you're going to agree with left-wing loons is when they call your favourite chew toy a racist, even though they're clearly talking nonsense. I guess it was convenient at the time.

 

[Belz...]

She put Trump there.

Yeah, it's still not the fault of people who voted for him!

'What she did wrong'... being a Democrat? Second name Clinton? Having the temerity to run for president?

She should have bowed out and let Sanders get the nomination. He would also have lost, but at least she wouldn't have to take this crap. Of course then people like you would blame her for not running...

Oh, sure. Right-wingers would always find a reason to blame her.

They had the choice to attempt to verify the information before acting on it, or simply accept it unquestioningly because it was what they wanted to believe.

Exactly. One can only blame misinformation up to a point.

Clinton was the best that Democrats had, so why wouldn't they run her again? Or do you think they should have done the same as Republicans - serve up 17 flawed candidates, none of whom was worth voting for? What a farce that turned out to be...

More than once.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Every person has the ability to accept information without question, or to determine the truth. If they can't be bothered in verifying the information they are given, then that is their free choice as well.

Picking at a scab here, but it was proffered that none of the 30,000 emails that were stored and then deleted in a manner so as to make them irretrievable contained anything other than personal matters.

How many here accept that, given that there is no longer any way to “determine the truth”?

 

[uke2se]

Picking at a scab here, but it was proffered that none of the 30,000 emails that were stored and then deleted in a manner so as to make them irretrievable contained anything other than personal matters.

How many here accept that, given that there is no longer any way to “determine the truth”?

It's as reasonable to assume that is true as it is that it is false. Thus, we can probably just stop talking about it, given that - as you say - there is no longer a way to determine the truth. The fact that the whole email kerfuffle was straw to stoke the fires of misogynist right-wingers in their irrational hatred of Hillary is something we can now look at as history. Now we have the person who ran against her in the White House, and he's producing actual scandals on a weekly - if not daily basis; scandals which really puts the spotlight on how benign anything Hillary has done is, comparably.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

It's as reasonable to assume that is true as it is that it is false.

I disagree.

If there was nothing incriminating in those 30,000 emails, why not cull them and archive them? A small thumb drive in a safe deposit box or the like? Why the Bleachbit for luncheon meetings and yoga classes?

Occam would certainly point to something to hide.

And there is a pattern of behavior, not all fabricated by a vast right wing conspiracy: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/06/us/elusive-papers-of-law-firm-are-found-at-white-house.html

 

[pgwenthold]

I disagree.

If there was nothing incriminating in those 30,000 emails, why not cull them and archive them?

Alternatively, there is nothing interesting in them either.

If there is nothing interesting in those 30 000 emails, why not just get rid of them?

Do you never delete worthless emails?

Occam and all that....

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Alternatively, there is nothing interesting in them either.

If there is nothing interesting in those 30 000 emails, why not just get rid of them?

Do you never delete worthless emails?

Not with Bleachbit!

Question: who determined which emails were personal, and why do you assume pure motives?

 

[Belz...]

I disagree.

If there was nothing incriminating in those 30,000 emails, why not cull them and archive them? A small thumb drive in a safe deposit box or the like? Why the Bleachbit for luncheon meetings and yoga classes?

Occam would certainly point to something to hide.

And there is a pattern of behavior, not all fabricated by a vast right wing conspiracy: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/06/us/elusive-papers-of-law-firm-are-found-at-white-house.html

I've deleted thousands of work-related e-mails and there was nothing nefarious about it.

 

[pgwenthold]

Not with Bleachbit!

Question: who determined which emails were personal, and why do you assume pure motives?

How do you determine emails are personal?

And why do you assume impure motives?

 

[WilliamSeger]

If there was nothing incriminating in those 30,000 emails, why not cull them and archive them? A small thumb drive in a safe deposit box or the like? Why the Bleachbit for luncheon meetings and yoga classes?

I dunno, maybe being hounded for a couple of decades by people who are quite adept at creating pseudo-scandals out of such evidence makes one a little paranoid. Pizzagate comes to mind.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The thing with emails: deleting one copy of an email does not delete all copies of the email. And every email that is sent has at least two copies. If there were nefarious emails out there they would have been found. So, you don't have to assume pure motives. Instead assume everyone is Machiavellian and note the lack of bad emails cropping up.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The thing with emails: deleting one copy of an email does not delete all copies of the email. And every email that is sent has at least two copies. If there were nefarious emails out there they would have been found. So, you don't have to assume pure motives. Instead assume everyone is Machiavellian and note the lack of bad emails cropping up.

Not sure I get your point.

It would be valid if the emails showed up and there were only personal email contained therein. We could all rest easy and conclude that nothing nefarious was going on when the 30,000 were selected and deleted beyond recovery.

The fact that none of the 30,000 copies has been unearthed to date proves nothing.

Does it?

 

[quadraginta]

The thing with emails: deleting one copy of an email does not delete all copies of the email. And every email that is sent has at least two copies. If there were nefarious emails out there they would have been found. So, you don't have to assume pure motives. Instead assume everyone is Machiavellian and note the lack of bad emails cropping up.

Only if someone looked for them.

It isn't like anyone spent a lot of time looking. Or money.

...

...

Oh. Wait.

 

[quadraginta]

Not sure I get your point.

It would be valid if the emails showed up and there were only personal email contained therein. We could all rest easy and conclude that nothing nefarious was going on when the 30,000 were selected and deleted beyond recovery.

The fact that none of the 30,000 copies has been unearthed to date proves nothing.

Does it?

Do we know that none of them were unearthed?

Or only that none were unearthed which were worth reporting?