• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Oh I'm sure the transcripts would provide plenty of grist for the mill. Some of it justified, even.

And I think there's a perfectly cromulent justification for not releasing the transcripts. A justification that isn't even very cynical at all. What amuses me is that instead of offering that justification here, her supporters are bending over backwards to appear as disingenuous and cynical as possible about the whole thing.

I'm also amused by the lack of curiosity. What does a candidate like Hillary say to the 1%, behind closed doors? Is it simply the same message, packaged for a different audience? Or is it something more problematic? Aren't you at least a little curious yourself?
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
theprestige already has, in post 3251.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

He did what?

:eye-poppi

What amuses me is that instead of offering that justification here, her supporters are bending over backwards to appear as disingenuous and cynical as possible about the whole thing.

Hee hee! HAHA!! BWHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh man..... You cannot make this up.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
theprestige already has, in post 3251.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with that. But it was TheL8Elvis's job to point that out, or answer it himself.

Personally, I doubt that Hillary said anything to Goldman Sachs that I wouldn't believe was reasonable. Democratic primary voters, who have an irrational hatred of Wall Street, might see things differently though.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Oh, I agree with that. But it was TheL8Elvis's job to point that out, or answer it himself.

Personally, I doubt that Hillary said anything to Goldman Sachs that I wouldn't believe was reasonable. Democratic primary voters, who have an irrational hatred of Wall Street, might see things differently though.
Click to expand...
Why was it TheL8Elvis' job to point out that the question had been answered multiple times, especially as you were aware of at least one of the answers?
Isn't pretending that a question hasn't been repeatedly answered while you ask it again a bit disingenuous?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Oh, I agree with that. But it was TheL8Elvis's job to point that out, or answer it himself.

Personally, I doubt that Hillary said anything to Goldman Sachs that I wouldn't believe was reasonable. Democratic primary voters, who have an irrational hatred of Wall Street, might see things differently though.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't post quicker and your "gotcha" was ruined ?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

The problem is, if Clinton releases the transcripts, Sanders and other progressive candidates could take even seemingly innocuous comments and make them sound as though Clinton is in the tank for Wall Street. And if she doesn’t, it makes her look like she has something very damaging to hide.

“On the one hand, if Clinton discloses these speech transcripts that’s not going to be the end of it,” said Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of financial reform group Better Markets. “I think you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t in this never ending game of gotcha. But as a political matter, she should probably just disclose it all and disclose it quickly.”

That kind of conflicted view — she should release the transcripts but will get hammered if she does — is rampant in Democratic circles. Some people close to the campaign both want Clinton to release the remarks, because they don’t think there is anything bad about them, but worry about what will happen if she does.

ETA: at least we can all agree gawker is ****, right ?
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Why was it TheL8Elvis' job to point out that the question had been answered multiple times, especially as you were aware of at least one of the answers?
Click to expand...

He claimed that gawker was guilty of fallacious reasoning, but he didn't demonstrate how. As for theprestige's answer, some might not think it is a sufficiently good one. It is necessary to come up with an alternative reason for her not releasing the transcripts. I think the fact that somebody can pick through it and find something to criticize is a borderline ok reason. It does sort of concede that there will be something new in there to criticize. After all, she has given dozens of speeches on the record, maybe hundreds.

Isn't pretending that a question hasn't been repeatedly answered while you ask it again a bit disingenuous?
Click to expand...

Once again, I wanted to point out that TheL8Elvis had a responsibility to answer it, if he wants to claim a fallacy. Also, I wanted to see what his answer was. Also, I don't think theprestige's answer is all that satisfying.
 
Not releasing them because they might hurt Hillary is not really a valid excuse.

She gave three speeches and collected $650k from Goldman Sachs.

No one forced her to do that, of course.

what baffles me is that she comes up with the most asinine condition to their release, yet, as so eloquently put:

What amuses me is that instead of offering that justification here, her supporters are bending over backwards to appear as disingenuous and cynical as possible about the whole thing.

I'm also amused by the lack of curiosity. What does a candidate like Hillary say to the 1%, behind closed doors? Is it simply the same message, packaged for a different audience? Or is it something more problematic? Aren't you at least a little curious yourself?
Click to expand...
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Sorry I didn't post quicker and your "gotcha" was ruined ?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

The problem is, if Clinton releases the transcripts, Sanders and other progressive candidates could take even seemingly innocuous comments and make them sound as though Clinton is in the tank for Wall Street. And if she doesn’t, it makes her look like she has something very damaging to hide.

“On the one hand, if Clinton discloses these speech transcripts that’s not going to be the end of it,” said Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of financial reform group Better Markets. “I think you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t in this never ending game of gotcha. But as a political matter, she should probably just disclose it all and disclose it quickly.”

That kind of conflicted view — she should release the transcripts but will get hammered if she does — is rampant in Democratic circles. Some people close to the campaign both want Clinton to release the remarks, because they don’t think there is anything bad about them, but worry about what will happen if she does.

ETA: at least we can all agree gawker is ****, right ?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think gawker is making too strong a statement. On the other hand, a weaker form of the claim is justifiable. She probably does say some things in there that don't sound so good to a Democratic primary voter who believes that Wall Street is a cancer on the colon of America.
 
sunmaster14 said:
He claimed that gawker was guilty of fallacious reasoning, but he didn't demonstrate how. As for theprestige's answer, some might not think it is a sufficiently good one. It is necessary to come up with an alternative reason for her not releasing the transcripts. I think the fact that somebody can pick through it and find something to criticize is a borderline ok reason. It does sort of concede that there will be something new in there to criticize. After all, she has given dozens of speeches on the record, maybe hundreds.
Click to expand...

They presented a false dichotomy, which had already shown to be so by several recent posts in this very thread. Posts which you acknowledge reading, and in some cases responded to, I might add.


Once again, I wanted to point out that TheL8Elvis had a responsibility to answer it, if he wants to claim a fallacy. Also, I wanted to see what his answer was. Also, I don't think theprestige's answer is all that satisfying.
Click to expand...

The fallacy was obvious, I thought.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Sorry I didn't post quicker and your "gotcha" was ruined ?

http://www.[HILITE]politico[/HILITE].com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969


ETA: at least we can all agree gawker is ****, right ?
Click to expand...


"gawker is ****."

Huh, why would the Shillaries be taking off after Gawker? Hmmmm... let see... could it be the fact that they sued the State Department for access to her aides's emails? Hmmmm.... maybe it is because they exposed deals cut by Politico with Hillary for favorable press?

Is Gawker slowly exposing the ugly underbelly of D.C.’s ‘transactional’ journalism?

Oh, that is from the Washington Post.... at least we can all agree the Washington Post is ****, right?

Hillary 2016, because Gawker is being mean to Hillary!

/by the way, for someone who dodged a simple question with a claim that it is a fallacy, he sure has NO problem riding that ad hominem fallacy.
 
16.5 said:
Not releasing them because they might hurt Hillary is not really a valid excuse.

She gave three speeches and collected $650k from Goldman Sachs.

No one forced her to do that, of course.

what baffles me is that she comes up with the most asinine condition to their release, yet, as so eloquently put:
Click to expand...
I appreciate your advocacy for a union group!


Wait, the United Quote-Miners of America is a union, right?
 
I cannot fathom that anyone thinks that the Prestige's post is doing anything other than mocking Hillary supporters.

Fantastic!
 
wareyin said:
They presented a false dichotomy, which had already shown to be so by several recent posts in this very thread. Posts which you acknowledge reading, and in some cases responded to, I might add.

The fallacy was obvious, I thought.
Click to expand...

I thought so too... *shrugs*

Apparently it takes a page of nonsense to explain things people already knew. Slow Hillary news day I guess...
 
16.5 said:
"gawker is ****."

Huh, why would the Shillaries be taking off after Gawker? Hmmmm... let see... could it be the fact that they sued the State Department for access to her aides's emails? Hmmmm.... maybe it is because they exposed deals cut by Politico with Hillary for favorable press?

Is Gawker slowly exposing the ugly underbelly of D.C.’s ‘transactional’ journalism?

Oh, that is from the Washington Post.... at least we can all agree the Washington Post is ****, right?

Hillary 2016, because Gawker is being mean to Hillary!

/by the way, for someone who dodged a simple question with a claim that it is a fallacy, he sure has NO problem riding that ad hominem fallacy.
Click to expand...

So let's see ... the other day, vice was an awesome news source, right ?

http://www.vice.com/pages/response

Gawker, a gossip site that openly traffics in rumor, innuendo, and in many cases straight-up ********, and whose founder, Nick Denton, has been slapped with a class-action lawsuit by former interns for violating federal wage laws, recently published an inaccurate and irresponsible story about VICE’s workplace...

It's not an ad hom- gawker is ****.
 
16.5 said:
I cannot fathom that anyone thinks that the Prestige's post is doing anything other than mocking Hillary supporters.

Fantastic!
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should try reading it again? I agree that part of that post was mocking Clinton supporters, but there was more than that little bit you keep crowing about.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
It's not an ad hom- gawker is ****.
Click to expand...

:D

Doubles down with a tu quoque! Fantastic.

Oh well.... I'll be waiting for the shillaries to, you know, offer a non-******** reason for withholding her Goldman Sachs transcripts. It'll be a while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom