(10-22-2016 02:34 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Do I really have to explain why an accusation that Hillary will act inappropriately a "second" time requires at least some evidence that she acted inappropriately a first time?

But there is at least some evidence. We know things happened. They happened under circumstances that make it more likely than not that Hillary and Bill both either knew or certainly should have known. That's not conclusive evidence, but it is clearly some evidence.

Quote:Let's see if we can generalize what just happened here:

Let's try to be accurate with our generalizations.

Quote:

• Random story about Bill Clinton's staffers pulling pranks/acting stupidly;
• Unsupported conclusion that Hillary was personally involved;
• Implication that Hillary will repeat the behavior in the future;
• Implied negative judgment of Hillary.
  

Can you spot the error?

I can spot a number of errors in your characterization.
Not some random story. It was widely reported and accepted as factual.
Hillary doesn't need to be personally involved. Knew or should have known is sufficient. And I'd argue objectively should have known even if not subjectively known.
Whether Hillary might repeat it, if staffers might repeat it, then that is sufficient.
Negative judgement of someone who would tolerate this behavior by subordinates is entirely justified and reasonable.

Since when are leaders excused for responsibility for actions of subordinates?
OK, say everybody involved was a subordinate of Bill, not Hillary. How does that suggest that it is a problem that will not repeat itself? How many of Bill's white house staff are apt to show up as Hillary's staffers?

Let me be clear. I think Hillary will probably win, and I think we will probably be better off with Hillary than Trump, and almost certainly better with Hillary than Bernie of Liz Warren or Biden. That doesn't mean she's not a crook. It just means that crooks are better than idiots.

And to be clear, Hillary did have her own White House staff when her husband was president

(10-22-2016 03:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-22-2016 02:34 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Do I really have to explain why an accusation that Hillary will act inappropriately a "second" time requires at least some evidence that she acted inappropriately a first time?

But there is at least some evidence. We know things happened. They happened under circumstances that make it more likely than not that Hillary and Bill both either knew or certainly should have known. That's not conclusive evidence, but it is clearly some evidence.

Quote:Let's see if we can generalize what just happened here:

Let's try to be accurate with our generalizations.

Quote:

• Random story about Bill Clinton's staffers pulling pranks/acting stupidly;
• Unsupported conclusion that Hillary was personally involved;
• Implication that Hillary will repeat the behavior in the future;
• Implied negative judgment of Hillary.
  

Can you spot the error?

I can spot a number of errors in your characterization.
Not some random story. It was widely reported and accepted as factual.
Hillary doesn't need to be personally involved. Knew or should have known is sufficient. And I'd argue objectively should have known even if not subjectively known.
Whether Hillary might repeat it, if staffers might repeat it, then that is sufficient.
Negative judgement of someone who would tolerate this behavior by subordinates is entirely justified and reasonable.

Since when are leaders excused for responsibility for actions of subordinates?
OK, say everybody involved was a subordinate of Bill, not Hillary. How does that suggest that it is a problem that will not repeat itself? How many of Bill's white house staff are apt to show up as Hillary's staffers?

Let me be clear. I think Hillary will probably win, and I think we will probably be better off with Hillary than Trump, and almost certainly better with Hillary than Bernie of Liz Warren or Biden. That doesn't mean she's not a crook. It just means that crooks are better than idiots.

Ok, I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about the linked story to which OO was responding when he made his comment. Nowhere in that story is anything about 1) the staffers being Hillary's, 2) Hillary knowing anything about it (or being in a position where she "should have known" anything about it). Absent either of those premises, the conclusion cannot follow.

To quote Will Ferrell, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

(10-22-2016 05:46 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Ok, I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about the linked story to which OO was responding when he made his comment. Nowhere in that story is anything about 1) the staffers being Hillary's, 2) Hillary knowing anything about it (or being in a position where she "should have known" anything about it). Absent either of those premises, the conclusion cannot follow.
To quote Will Ferrell, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

That linked story is precisely what I'm talking about.

Didn't say the staffers were Hillary's. That doesn't mean she didn't know or shouldn't have known what was going on. My guess is that she probably did, you would probably have a different guess. That would have to be explored further. I'd say you start criminal proceedings against some of the staffers and they would sing pretty quickly, but of course that didn't happen and the statute has surely run by now. Do you really expect me to believe that Bill and Hill were as clueless as Captain Renault about what was going on around them? I'm sorry, but I don't. And there is clearly enough evidence there to justify further questioning. But that didn't happen, for whatever reasons.

The distinction between Bill's and Hillary's staffers is irrelevant to a discussion of what might happen. I'm guessing a bunch of Bill's staffers will end up on Hillary's staff, and they know they did it once and got away with it.

Don't go playing stupid on me.

(10-22-2016 02:34 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Let's see if we can generalize what just happened here:

• Random story about Bill Clinton's staffers pulling pranks/acting stupidly;
• Unsupported conclusion that Hillary was personally involved;
• Implication that Hillary will repeat the behavior in the future;
• Implied negative judgment of Hillary.
  

Can you spot the error?

Here is the line from my link: Remember the infantile hijinks of the Clinton staff as they exited the White House?

It doesn't say BILL Clinton's staffers: it says Clinton staff.

I think you have zero evidence she was not involved or at least had no knowledge of it. But perhaps she was clueless about what was going on around her.

Maybe the Clinton staff will repeat the behavior in the future. Maybe not. That's why I said "I wonder..."

Google gives dozens of stories about the hi9jinks/practicaljokes/vandalism/whatever and the "theft" that was resolved with the return of some items and payment (from a dead broke couple) for others. Hardly a random story.

(10-19-2016 09:27 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2016 12:59 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Yes, Trump can go off on non-substantive tangents. However, he has been going out just about every day as of late and making substantive policy speeches. The mainstream media tend not to report much on this, as they seem more interested in what Trump might have said or done ten or twenty years ago rather than what he is saying or doing today, but it is happening. When Clinton makes one of her infrequent campaign appearances, her speeches tend to be variations on what an awful person Trump is and how it's time America elected a female president. That's not substantive.

Substantive policy discussion would certainly be a change from what Trump has been doing throughout this election cycle. I haven't seen any evidence of that sort of change.

Here’s a complete speech from Trump from just last week. I see one, maybe two substantive policy statements in about 5,000 words of speech:

http://time.com/4531872/donald-trump-sex...rs-attack/

Other than noting that the linked speech still contained more substantive policy points than a typical Clinton speech, one might look at the speech he gave Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, which contains more substantive content than anything Clinton has said in total since perhaps the Democratic national convention.

(10-21-2016 05:45 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  As I've said before, the press's behavior is understandable to an extent. He is an unqualified candidate, and once he secured the nomination the press was eager to prove that. That's part of their job. Per leaked emails, the DNC was more than happy to hold off on going after him until after he was the nominee. The Republicans set this fall (referring to both the season and Trump's destruction) up on a tee for them.

One point of clarification: the mainstream media's behavior is not because Trump's unqualified to be president (although that begs the question of just what presidential qualifications are outside of the ones specified in the Constitution, which Trump does meet). The media's behavior is because Trump is running as a Republican. The WikiLeaks information you allude to shows us that it would have done this to anyone the Republicans nominated; it just would have found different things with which to condemn the nominee. The qualifications issue is simply a stalking horse for the media to take the actions it was going to take anyway no matter who the nominee was - a situation much more worrisome to our nation than anything a President Trump might do or say.

Quote:I wonder how many people wish Joe Biden had run right now?

Not me - he's had nothing useful to say since Neil Kinnock passed on....

(10-22-2016 06:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-22-2016 02:34 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Let's see if we can generalize what just happened here:

• Random story about Bill Clinton's staffers pulling pranks/acting stupidly;
• Unsupported conclusion that Hillary was personally involved;
• Implication that Hillary will repeat the behavior in the future;
• Implied negative judgment of Hillary.
  

Can you spot the error?

Here is the line from my link: Remember the infantile hijinks of the Clinton staff as they exited the White House?
It doesn't say BILL Clinton's staffers: it says Clinton staff.
I think you have zero evidence she was not involved or at least had no knowledge of it. But perhaps she was clueless about what was going on around her.
Maybe the Clinton staff will repeat the behavior in the future. Maybe not. That's why I said "I wonder..."
Google gives dozens of stories about the hi9jinks/practicaljokes/vandalism/whatever and the "theft" that was resolved with the return of some items and payment (from a dead broke couple) for others. Hardly a random story.

Hillary is supposedly so wonderfully qualified because she spent all those years as first lady being intimately involved in everything that was going on, but she knew nothing about this? Yeah, right, sure.

She's Forrest Gump.

(10-25-2016 01:43 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Other than noting that the linked speech still contained more substantive policy points than a typical Clinton speech,...

That's demonstrably untrue. In fact, the opposite is true.

I'll stretch and count Trump as having made four "substantive policy points" in the previously-linked speech ( http://time.com/4532181/donald-trump-nor...ranscript/ ). Taking a random Hillary speech from the same week ( http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/...state.html ), she doubled Trump's number.

(10-25-2016 01:43 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  one might look at the speech he gave Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, which contains more substantive content than anything Clinton has said in total since perhaps the Democratic national convention.

This comment is both misleading and non-responsive.

Your claim had been that Trump "has been going out just about every day as of late and making substantive policy speeches", while Hillary's speeches are not substantive. Rather than point to any of the number of speeches Trump had made over the time period you referenced, you instead bring up a speech that he made _after_ you made your claim -- a speech touted by his campaign as "groundbreaking" and "game-changing", presenting his "revolutionary 'Contract with the American Voter'". That is, a speech not representative of his typical speeches as of late.

Trump tweeting that Texas voting machines are rigged:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...8792974336

:sigh:

I'll grant him that lines have been long. I think they said early voting in Travis County was up 140%...

(10-27-2016 01:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump tweeting that Texas voting machines are rigged:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...8792974336

:sigh:

I'll grant him that lines have been long. I think they said early voting in Travis County was up 140%...

I don't think long lines is the problem.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/2016-pres...user-error

(10-27-2016 02:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 01:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump tweeting that Texas voting machines are rigged:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...8792974336

:sigh:

I'll grant him that lines have been long. I think they said early voting in Travis County was up 140%...

I don't think long lines is the problem.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/2016-pres...user-error

Does voting for Gary Johnson turn it into a vote for Jill Stein? Inquiring minds want to know...

(10-27-2016 05:56 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 02:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 01:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Trump tweeting that Texas voting machines are rigged:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...8792974336

:sigh:

I'll grant him that lines have been long. I think they said early voting in Travis County was up 140%...

I don't think long lines is the problem.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/2016-pres...user-error

Does voting for Gary Johnson turn it into a vote for Jill Stein? Inquiring minds want to know...

No, it becomes three votes for Hillary and one for Cruz.

For those who like statistics and bell curves, a new national Poll of 50,000 voters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaOoFH8H...e=youtu.be

Just Breaking: FBI re-opens Hillary Investigation as New emails surface, showing she lied:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...2S299?il=0

(10-28-2016 12:33 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just Breaking: FBI re-opens Hillary Investigation as New emails surface, showing she lied:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...2S299?il=0

Interesting - The article I see at that link doesn't mention anything about anybody lying.

(10-28-2016 01:10 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 12:33 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just Breaking: FBI re-opens Hillary Investigation as New emails surface, showing she lied:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...2S299?il=0

Interesting - The article is see at that link doesn't mention anything about anybody lying.

Yes, this could be a whole lot of nothing:
----
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote in the letter released on Friday. He provided no further details about the nature of the emails or the other case.
----

Now if it turns out these are completely new emails with clearly classified info and she intentionally kept them from the FBI, she could be in a lot of trouble. Hillary haters of course assume that to be the case. But so far, there's no evidence of that. But clearly good for Trump, bad for Clinton and more generally the Dem attempts to take the Senate.

(10-28-2016 01:31 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 01:10 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 12:33 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just Breaking: FBI re-opens Hillary Investigation as New emails surface, showing she lied:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...2S299?il=0

Interesting - The article is see at that link doesn't mention anything about anybody lying.

Yes, this could be a whole lot of nothing:
----
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote in the letter released on Friday. He provided no further details about the nature of the emails or the other case.
----

Now if it turns out these are completely new emails with clearly classified info and she intentionally kept them from the FBI, she could be in a lot of trouble. Hillary haters of course assume that to be the case. But so far, there's no evidence of that. But clearly good for Trump, bad for Clinton and more generally the Dem attempts to take the Senate.

If it's a whole lot of nothing, then why would the FBI publicly re-open the case against Hillary Clinton (not against anyone else) so close to the election, after they went to historic and hypocritical lengths to shield and protect her in July? I agree that since they're on her side, they will do everything they can to try to to make this go away...for a donation to the Clinton Foundation, perhaps? It will not be easy to endure a Trump presidency, but Clinton is clearly only qualified for one thing: An Orange Jail Pantsuit.

(10-28-2016 01:40 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 01:31 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 01:10 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 12:33 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Just Breaking: FBI re-opens Hillary Investigation as New emails surface, showing she lied:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...2S299?il=0

Interesting - The article is see at that link doesn't mention anything about anybody lying.

Yes, this could be a whole lot of nothing:
----
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote in the letter released on Friday. He provided no further details about the nature of the emails or the other case.
----

Now if it turns out these are completely new emails with clearly classified info and she intentionally kept them from the FBI, she could be in a lot of trouble. Hillary haters of course assume that to be the case. But so far, there's no evidence of that. But clearly good for Trump, bad for Clinton and more generally the Dem attempts to take the Senate.

If it's a whole lot of nothing, then why would the FBI publicly re-open the case against Hillary Clinton (not against anyone else) so close to the election, after they went to historic and hypocritical lengths to shield and protect her in July? I agree that since they're on her side, they will do everything they can to try to to make this go away...for a donation to the Clinton Foundation, perhaps? It will not be easy to endure a Trump presidency, but Clinton is clearly only qualified for one thing: An Orange Jail Pantsuit.

Due diligence? If they *didn't* look into them they would be negligent and your hyperventilating would be justified.

I could be wrong - maybe there is a bombshell in there. But if you forced me to bet money, I'd say it's something that will just confirm everyone's pre-existing opinions, no matter what they may be.

from reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...2S299?il=0

Quote:Paul Ryan, the House of Representative Speaker and the most senior elected Republican in Congress, said Clinton should not get classified briefings until the investigation was over.

"Yet again, Hillary Clinton has nobody but herself to blame," he said in a statement. "She was entrusted with some of our nation's most important secrets, and she betrayed that trust by carelessly mishandling highly classified information."

U.S. stock prices fell along with U.S. Treasury yields at midsession on Friday after the FBI news.

The U.S. dollar slipped against major currencies such as the euro and the yen, while the Mexican peso fell to an 11-day low.

Also worth pointing out that the FBI is not re-opening the case as of yet. That was Chaffetz' term and not Comey's...