Hillary Clinton

[Willie71]

To simplify, swansont wants you to show the evidence you have that leads you to believe she knowingly sent classified materials.

I understand the question. It's answered by asking oneself if you believe she was so incompetent she didn't know what was classified or not because the only person who can answer that question is Clinton. I don't believe she was that incompetent. Can I do a brain scan or read her mind? No, and neither can anyone else. Comey said they could not prove intent. She did send classified information, which is not in dispute. Does Clinton have motivation to lie, even though it makes her look incompetent? Of course she does.

 

I choose not to accept such an unlikely excuse.

[swansont]

I understand the question. It's answered by asking oneself if you believe she was so incompetent she didn't know what was classified or not because the only person who can answer that question is Clinton. I don't believe she was that incompetent. Can I do a brain scan or read her mind? No, and neither can anyone else. Comey said they could not prove intent. She did send classified information, which is not in dispute. Does Clinton have motivation to lie, even though it makes her look incompetent? Of course she does.

 

I choose not to accept such an unlikely excuse.

 

 

 

I, on he other hand, do think it's trivial to not know what's classified and what's not. Some things are pretty obvious. Others are decidedly not. Unfortunately for this discussion, I can't go into any further detail. However declassified documents do exist, and there's a lot of information in them that will make you wonder why they were classified in the first place.

 

And here we see the underlying issue. You observe she has motivation to lie, so you assume she's lying. The same kind of assumption that appears elsewhere: she's guilty, so interpret everything through that bias. That's how witch hunts work.

[MigL]

So what assumptions do you make about D. Trump, who hasn't released his tax returns ?

Given that he paid no federal taxes in the years when he had to disclose them to the Gaming Commission, and that he boasted last night that 'he's too smart to pay taxes', is it just your bias making you assume that he pays very little or no taxes ?

 

Or can you draw some conclusions from innuendo ?

[Ten oz]

Oliver was quite kind to Clinton, basically suggesting thigs are less bad than they appear on the issues where there are real problems. This is a stretching the truth a big to do damage control, to try to give Clinton a bit better advantage. He also outright dismissed the e-mail scandal and Benghazi, correctly so, although Clinton's inept lying to pretend she had no idea what as going on hurts her credibility and perception of honesty. Very few people believe there was no wrongdoing by the Clintons, and insisting it's all a smear hurts progressives, as it makes progressives look like conservatives, removing the moral high ground. I think it's a big mistake to try to minimize more than what has already been conceded, especially when more leaks could be coming, possibly confirming much greater potential conflicts of interest or corruption. It's too risky. As O,over and numerous others have said, using the line "she's not as bad as trump" isn't very solid ground.

The Clintons has done many things I don't like. The Iraq war vote from then Senator Clinton for example or the Presidents bold face lying to the American people about people. That said the issues Oliver covered were the partisan attack ones that are mostly all about nothing.

 

What a fair position is between polarizing is viewed as between arguments and most people want to be fair. Climate change has been made into a partisan left vs right issue. As a result many people when talking about climate change will say they aren't sure what to think because that is the current polite answer to have. To fully acknowledge climate change too clearly affirm a specific political position and makes one seem less reasonable. The balance, the middle ground, is to not be sure. Same thing with evolution. Ask a room full of polite company if evolution is real and many will simply say they do not know. That is the non-polarizing polite center of the road response. Of course there is nothing center of the road about it. Those who attack climate change and evolution only truly seek to create doubt. So when people acknowledge doubt believing they are being fair to both sides they are actually just perpetuating propaganda.

 

The right has successfully done this with Hillary Clinton. One must acknowledge that all the scandals surrounding her are alarming or be viewed as a Clinton apologist. The fair position is to concede that emailgate was an example of poor judge and that the Clinton Foundation is troubling or one simply not a reasonable person. In my opinion both are merely examples of paristan hit jobs. They went after the server years ago in hopes of gaining access to her private emails and finding something embarrassing exploit. As for the Foundation I don't even understand what she is accused of doing to be honest. The Foundations financials are public. We know it is a real charity helping real people. The Clintons do not keep the money. So at the very worst the "pay to play" would be the Clintons doing favors in trade for money to help child get hiv medication. Where is the nefarious part about that?

[iNow]

is it just your bias making you assume that he pays very little or no taxes ?

 

Or can you draw some conclusions from innuendo ?

This particular line of attack would be much more effective IMO if swansonts primary (or, LBH here... sole) reason for being against Trump was his refusal to release his tax returns. That's not the case, so it unfortunately seems you're primary intent with this response is to do little more than inject a personal barb and suggest a hypocrisy which isn't there.

[swansont]

So what assumptions do you make about D. Trump, who hasn't released his tax returns ?

Given that he paid no federal taxes in the years when he had to disclose them to the Gaming Commission, and that he boasted last night that 'he's too smart to pay taxes', is it just your bias making you assume that he pays very little or no taxes ?

 

Or can you draw some conclusions from innuendo ?

 

 

 

He admitted it, and there are records out there (he needed to disclose certain information for various business ventures) that he has paid not taxes in some years. No innuendo is needed. Now, if he had claimed to pay taxes and I had made the excuse that he has incentive to lie, that would be the equivalent position.

[Ten oz]

So what assumptions do you make about D. Trump, who hasn't released his tax returns ?

Given that he paid no federal taxes in the years when he had to disclose them to the Gaming Commission, and that he boasted last night that 'he's too smart to pay taxes', is it just your bias making you assume that he pays very little or no taxes ?

 

Or can you draw some conclusions from innuendo ?

By law the IRS cannot comment on a individuals tax returns. The IRS cannot confirm or deny that Trump's taxes are even being audited. They have already issued a statement saying an audit wouldn't prevent an individual from releasing their taxes. I think there is chance that Trump is lying about being audited. Trump's tax returns would expose many possible lies: he doesn't have the wealth he claims, he isn't successfully as he claims, he owes billions in debt to China and Russia, he has been lying about the audit, he doesn't pay taxes do to write offs of his losses, and etc.

 

We will probably never know. I don't think he will release them at this point.So close to the election having journalist digging through his returns could only hurt him.

[swansont]

This particular line of attack would be much more effective IMO if swansonts primary (or, LBH here... sole) reason for being against Trump was his refusal to release his tax returns. That's not the case, so it unfortunately seems you're primary intent with this response is to do little more than inject a personal barb and suggest a hypocrisy which isn't there.

 

It's also true that releasing tax returns is expected of candidates; Trump is the only outlier in the past 40 years.

 

The reality is that politicians have a lot of complicated dealings, and in any complex situations, there are going to be errors made it happens. People are human. There doesn't need to be nefarious intent attached to them (as with the adage never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence). If you investigate any complex situation, you are going to find things that don't quite add up when viewed from the perspective of hindsight and more complete knowledge. If you scrutinize anyone you will find odd situations and unrelated coincidences. So using perfection as the metric is an unfair standard to use.

 

Not that women in general are unused to being held to a different standard. I saw a number of tweets commenting on how often Hillary was interrupted, and how that's pretty standard fare, especially for women in male-dominated fields.

By law the IRS cannot comment on a individuals tax returns. The IRS cannot confirm or deny that Trump's taxes are even being audited. They have already issued a statement saying an audit wouldn't prevent an individual from releasing their taxes. I think there is chance that Trump is lying about being audited. Trump's tax returns would expose many possible lies: he doesn't have the wealth he claims, he isn't successfully as he claims, he owes billions in debt to China and Russia, he has been lying about the audit, he doesn't pay taxes do to write offs of his losses, and etc.

 

We will probably never know. I don't think he will release them at this point.So close to the election having journalist digging through his returns could only hurt him.

 

 

It occurred to me that not releasing the returns is being interpreted as him hiding something, especially since he's promised to do it like 20 times. But what I haven't seen is anyone suggest that Trump is a criminal simply for being audited. That would be the equivalent of e.g. Benghazi and Whitewater. Intense investigations with no findings sufficient for action, and yet the assumption of guilt. (and repeated investigation, because of the assumption of guilt)

[MigL]

You're right iNow, it was a 'jab', but not directed specifically at Swansont, just his line of reasoning.

We're all perfectly ready to accept and believe all sorts of wrongdoing on D. Trump's part, stemming from the fact that he won't release his tax records ( H. Clinton mentioned those conclusions that may be drawn last night and Ten oz has summarized ).

But this doesn't belong in a thread about H. Clinton ( something I've railed against previously ).

For that, I extend my apologies, Swansont.

[Ten oz]

.

It occurred to me that not releasing the returns is being interpreted as him hiding something, especially since he's promised to do it like 20 times. But what I haven't seen is anyone suggest that Trump is a criminal simply for being audited. That would be the equivalent of e.g. Benghazi and Whitewater. Intense investigations with no findings sufficient for action, and yet the assumption of guilt. (and repeated investigation, because of the assumption of guilt)

Clinton is accussed of being a liar in her association with failures to be 100% forthright about her involvement or action surrounding policy. Trump has made events up just to lie about them. He claimed the NFL sent him a letter complaining about the date selected for the first debate. The NFL released a statement saying that wasn't true. Trump claimed he was shown a video of a cash transation between the Obama admin and Iran. He later admitted it wasn't true. Trump claimed seeing crowds of muslims celebrating on rooftops after 9/11. That never happened. Trump has a proven history on not merely failing to tell the truth in association with issues he is challanged on but he has a history of actually just coming forward (unprompted) with things he has made up.

 

It makes the issue surrounding his taxes even more troubling. Trump has proven that he will lie just to lie. He will make things up just to lie about. Is he even being audited? He says he is but the man lies. Is there something criminal about lying; no. There is no law that prevents Trump, a candidate for President, from lying.

[DrmDoc]

So what assumptions do you make about D. Trump, who hasn't released his tax returns ?

Given that he paid no federal taxes in the years when he had to disclose them to the Gaming Commission, and that he boasted last night that 'he's too smart to pay taxes', is it just your bias making you assume that he pays very little or no taxes ?

 

Or can you draw some conclusions from innuendo ?

 

Didn't you say this thread isn't about Mr. Trump? By the way, he as much admitted on several occasions that he was "smart" for using our tax laws to not pay his fair share.

 

PN: I now see you've apologized for reversing your stance on Trump posts. I see no need...he is the elephant in the room.

Edited September 27, 2016 by DrmDoc

[swansont]

You're right iNow, it was a 'jab', but not directed specifically at Swansont, just his line of reasoning.

We're all perfectly ready to accept and believe all sorts of wrongdoing on D. Trump's part, stemming from the fact that he won't release his tax records ( H.

 

 

Who is "we"? Where have I implied "all sorts of wrongdoing"? I gave an example of why my line of reasoning is not equivalent to your rebuttal.

 

It's technically possible that the excuse he (or his campaign) once gave — that people would contort the information in order to attack him, even though there's no wrongdoing — is true. But funny that it's the same line of reasoning used for Hillary not wanting to release personal emails. She's vilified for that.

 

That Trump pays no taxes need not be due to wrongdoing to be fodder for legitimate discussion. It points to a flawed tax system when somebody who makes a lot of money gets away without paying taxes. It points to hypocrisy when he talks of other entities not paying their fair share.

[Phi for All]

That Trump pays no taxes need not be due to wrongdoing to be fodder for legitimate discussion. It points to a flawed tax system when somebody who makes a lot of money gets away without paying taxes. It points to hypocrisy when he talks of other entities not paying their fair share.

 

It's not evidence, but one could make a reasoned prediction based on past actions that Trump would consider himself smart if he changed the system to favor himself even more while he controls the Executive branch. Hillary, OTOH, is talking about raising taxes on her own bracket.

[Willie71]

I, on he other hand, do think it's trivial to not know what's classified and what's not. Some things are pretty obvious. Others are decidedly not. Unfortunately for this discussion, I can't go into any further detail. However declassified documents do exist, and there's a lot of information in them that will make you wonder why they were classified in the first place.

 

And here we see the underlying issue. You observe she has motivation to lie, so you assume she's lying. The same kind of assumption that appears elsewhere: she's guilty, so interpret everything through that bias. That's how witch hunts work.

This is just apologetics.

 

I was a Clinton supporter a few years back. I thought the criticisms were just smears. I lost the ability to support her the same way I lost the ability to hold on to the religion I was raised with. I couldn't believe the apologetics I was lying to myself with. I dismissed the e-mail scandal until a few months ago, when it became pretty clear she lied through her teeth. The server itself is almost a non issue. The lying about it is an issue. She was caught red handed in several lies about the e-mails. She expects people to be stupid, and that is insulting.

It's not evidence, but one could make a reasoned prediction based on past actions that Trump would consider himself smart if he changed the system to favor himself even more while he controls the Executive branch. Hillary, OTOH, is talking about raising taxes on her own bracket.

This is one of the areas I'm conflicted about. Clinton says she plans to raise taxes, but that is a contradiction to third way democratic principles. Do we believe her, or is this just false election promises to get elected? Same with TPP. It was the "gold standard" until it became a major issue in the primaries, then she is against it, while her donors expect it to go through.

 

 

You're right iNow, it was a 'jab', but not directed specifically at Swansont, just his line of reasoning.

We're all perfectly ready to accept and believe all sorts of wrongdoing on D. Trump's part, stemming from the fact that he won't release his tax records ( H. Clinton mentioned those conclusions that may be drawn last night and Ten oz has summarized ).

But this doesn't belong in a thread about H. Clinton ( something I've railed against previously ).

For that, I extend my apologies, Swansont.

On the same line of reasoning, who still believes that Trump has 10 billion dollars? No proof, but there is plenty of evidence pointing in the direction that he lied through his teeth. If we had to wait for proof on everything before we draw conclusions, we would be paralyzed. We should also have the ability to change our conclusions when we get new information.

 

 

Who is "we"? Where have I implied "all sorts of wrongdoing"? I gave an example of why my line of reasoning is not equivalent to your rebuttal.

 

It's technically possible that the excuse he (or his campaign) once gave — that people would contort the information in order to attack him, even though there's no wrongdoing — is true. But funny that it's the same line of reasoning used for Hillary not wanting to release personal emails. She's vilified for that.

 

That Trump pays no taxes need not be due to wrongdoing to be fodder for legitimate discussion. It points to a flawed tax system when somebody who makes a lot of money gets away without paying taxes. It points to hypocrisy when he talks of other entities not paying their fair share.

Trump not releasing his taxes likely has more to do with his claims regarding his net worth and foreign dealings than it does with the tax issue itself.

[swansont]

This is just apologetics.

 

I was a Clinton supporter a few years back. I thought the criticisms were just smears. I lost the ability to support her the same way I lost the ability to hold on to the religion I was raised with. I couldn't believe the apologetics I was lying to myself with. I dismissed the e-mail scandal until a few months ago, when it became pretty clear she lied through her teeth. The server itself is almost a non issue. The lying about it is an issue. She was caught red handed in several lies about the e-mails. She expects people to be stupid, and that is insulting.

What, specifically, were the lies?

[Willie71]

What, specifically, were the lies?

The lies are not in dispute by anyone but you as far as I can tell.

[Delta1212]

The lies are not in dispute by anyone but you as far as I can tell.

Then they should be easy to list for the sake of the discussion?

[MigL]

The last time I heard a good come-back for " Who is 'we' ( sucka') ? " was from my avatar...

" Mr. Smith, Mr. Wesson and me "

Unfortunately that doesn't apply in this case.

 

But I gotta ask Willie, who do you support now ?

[swansont]

The lies are not in dispute by anyone but you as far as I can tell.

I didn't ask that, and I didn't say I disputed them. How can I? You didn't list them. I asked what, specifically, were the lies? I want to know what statements you are referring to.

 

Maybe if you actually answer questions and stop with the straw men. That would be a great help.

[Airbrush]

Anyone know how true Trump's claims about Hillary ruining the lives of women who had affairs with Bill? He hinted at the debate that he refrained from getting very nasty by telling very nasty tales, but will probably be more nasty in the next debates. Did Hillary ruin the lives of those women?

[DrmDoc]

I, on he other hand, do think it's trivial to not know what's classified and what's not. Some things are pretty obvious. Others are decidedly not. Unfortunately for this discussion, I can't go into any further detail. However declassified documents do exist, and there's a lot of information in them that will make you wonder why they were classified in the first place.

 

And here we see the underlying issue. You observe she has motivation to lie, so you assume she's lying. The same kind of assumption that appears elsewhere: she's guilty, so interpret everything through that bias. That's how witch hunts work.

 

 

This is just apologetics..

 

Welcome, swansont, to the club of reasoned responses to insubstantial evidence and blatantly uneven standards...otherwise called the club of "apologetics."

Then they should be easy to list for the sake of the discussion?

 

Careful, Delta1212, lest you also become a member of our hallowed club.

[Willie71]

The last time I heard a good come-back for " Who is 'we' ( sucka') ? " was from my avatar...

" Mr. Smith, Mr. Wesson and me "

Unfortunately that doesn't apply in this case.

 

But I gotta ask Willie, who do you support now ?

If I had to vote in this election, I would probably vote Stein. I wish the candidate was Warren, Sanders, or even Biden, but it isn't.

I didn't ask that, and I didn't say I disputed them. How can I? You didn't list them. I asked what, specifically, were the lies? I want to know what statements you are referring to.Maybe if you actually answer questions and stop with the straw men. That would be a great help.

Ok, I'll play along. The claims that she didn't send classified e-mails, that she had permission to use the personal server, and that she turned over all work related e-mails. She claimed she had no knowledge of wiping servers "like with a rag?" She said it was to use only one device, and she used several.

 

I hesitate to answer as your line of questioning feels disingenuous, like those climate change deniers who ask for evidence of climate change. I think anyone well informed on this issue knows very well what Clinton lied about in regards to the e-mails, so pretending not to know what the lies are about doesn't fit with what you present.

Anyone know how true Trump's claims about Hillary ruining the lives of women who had affairs with Bill? He hinted at the debate that he refrained from getting very nasty by telling very nasty tales, but will probably be more nasty in the next debates. Did Hillary ruin the lives of those women?

There is contradictory evidence on this. We'll probably never know what is real and what is a smear.

[Ten oz]

If I had to vote in this election, I would probably vote Stein. I wish the candidate was Warren, Sanders, or even Biden, but it isn't.

 

Ok, I'll play along. The claims that she didn't send classified e-mails, that she had permission to use the personal server, and that she turned over all work related e-mails. She claimed she had no knowledge of wiping servers "like with a rag?" She said it was to use only one device, and she used several.

 

I think you are wading into a grey area here. Not liking her explanations or portions being of them being inaccurate doesn't necessarily prove her a liar. At least not if deception is part of how you define a lie. The FBI found that she had not intentionally mishandled classified documents. None of your examples are things anypone can prove she purposefully did.

[Tampitump]

"someone on the left" is just as subject to predetermined conclusions, denying the facts as anybody else.

yep

[swansont]

Ok, I'll play along. The claims that she didn't send classified e-mails, that she had permission to use the personal server, and that she turned over all work related e-mails. She claimed she had no knowledge of wiping servers "like with a rag?" She said it was to use only one device, and she used several.

We already discussed whether she knowingly sent classified emails. No proof beyond reasonable doubt, but you have certainty.

 

She could not possibly have thought that all emails were turned over, if she told people on her staff to do it, and they said they did. Sure, that couldn't happen. Do you think she did the grunt work herself?

 

Wiping the servers - sounds like the answer my mom would give. How are you so certain that she had knowledge of how to do anything with an email server?

 

One device could mean more than one, total, or more than one at a time. Guess which interpretation Comey used?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-james-comey-email-servers_us_577d35cbe4b0a629c1ab7bdb

 

I hesitate to answer as your line of questioning feels disingenuous, like those climate change deniers who ask for evidence of climate change. I think anyone well informed on this issue knows very well what Clinton lied about in regards to the e-mails, so pretending not to know what the lies are about doesn't fit with what you present.

 

Yeah, not so much.