Hillary won more votes for President

JC29856

I try to paste what I read as facts, I'll go thru and re read my pastes to see how often I pastes unsubstantiated opinion. I think readers can discern fact from opinion regardless of the messenger.
I give those on this forum enough intellectual credit to know that all or a portion of a $750,000 speech fee has nothing to do with whatever Bill Clinton said on that podium and everything to do with what he says in private to his wife and Sec of State.

JC29856

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

I don't think any pastie claimed that Clinton approved sales to Israel because of donations to the foundation.
Ignoring the fact that I didn't paste conclusions... I said I trust that the PJ ATM forum intelligentsia can take the sum total of the facts and quickly and easily draw their own conclusions without lazily accepting the drawn conclusions of the winged publication.

dignin

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

I'm sure we can all agree that the system is fucked when the possibility of impropriety like this can exist. This is assuming that Bill is still closely tied to the foundation.

But maybe I should stay out of it because I don't know very much about it.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.

JC29856

Below.

Interesting...can't link thou. Discussed the hacked Hillary emails and compares to release emails. Insight on the missing emails.

JC29856

http://paper.li/OpManning/1325555530?edition_id=8457c4f0-e72c-11e5-9ebb-0cc47a0d1609

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.

Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?

1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.

2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.

3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

I don't think any pastie claimed that Clinton approved sales to Israel because of donations to the foundation.
Ignoring the fact that I didn't paste conclusions... I said I trust that the PJ ATM forum intelligentsia can take the sum total of the facts and quickly and easily draw their own conclusions without lazily accepting the drawn conclusions of the winged publication.

Yes but you're posting paragraphs from editorials and poorly researched reports that draw these very conclusions. I think if you link to these, it's natural to think you agree with them, since you aren't posting opposing points.

And for the record, I don't love Hillary. I voted for Obama. But I also like a good argument and suspicious of most publications on both sides. I can barely read HuffPo anymore because the quality has tanked in the last two years, based on horribly constructed arguments. Others like National Review have always been shit bags. Ironically one of the better sites today is the American Conservative Magazine. I don't usually agree with it, but the articles are well constructed and comments are thoughtful. A lot of fellow progressives hang out there because the quality of the discourse.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.

Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?

1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.

2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.

3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.

I think the conflict of interest is on Clinton's side. I actually don't think that anyone who is running for President should be allowed to have connections to a foundation that collects donations. They should be legally obligated to cut all ties with any organization that would allow people to donate money to anything other than the campaign itself.

JimmyV

Um...I understand maybe bending the truth a bit when speaking at someone's funeral but HOLY SHIT this is a whopper of a statement.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/708363242737766401

PJ_Soul

JimmyV said:

Um...I understand maybe bending the truth a bit when speaking at someone's funeral but HOLY SHIT this is a whopper of a statement.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/708363242737766401

I was actually under that same impression if we're talking the political discussion. Obviously is was the gay community, particularly in NYC and then San Fran, that actually forced action initially and built the cause enough for the Reagans to make it an issue politically, but after that point, I would agree that the Reagans did that.... Not that they had much of a choice of course. I never considered it some great, wonderful thing they did. They were simply fulfilling what I saw as a basic responsibility, and actually, they should have done it sooner than they did, and then done a lot more, faster......

mrussel1

JimmyV said:

Um...I understand maybe bending the truth a bit when speaking at someone's funeral but HOLY SHIT this is a whopper of a statement.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/708363242737766401

...about how not to handle a health crisis.

She was being magnanimous. One first lady to another. .

JimmyV

This is not an issue I would go to when looking to praise the Reagans.

PJ_Soul

JimmyV said:

This is not an issue I would go to when looking to praise the Reagans.

Me neither. Mostly because the entire handling of HIV/AIDS, along with gay rights, is a festering boil on the face of the US government even now, let alone back in the 80s and 90s. Bringing up the early days of the government's role during the rise of the AIDS epidemic just reminds people of that.

JimmyV

This has to be a speed record for an apology relating to comments made at a funeral. Speaks to how questionable they were.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/708403247795539968

mrussel1

Yes. .. quick damage control

PJfanwillneverleave1

I have always stated that her husbands infidelity will always be brought up. But now she uses her faith and bible stories to get her through it. Religious people are nutzo.
I saw the video on the news a few days ago reference the article below and waited awhile to post because I wanted to see the fallout from her black church sermon.
god I hate god stuff
can not one person stand up and say "enough with this religious shit already"!
From this article http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-black-churches-20160306-story.html Clinton, who rose to speak later, said she appreciated Vaughn’s reference to a difficult time.

“What has always guided me and supported me has been my faith, has been my belief in the saving graces and the salvation that faith brings," said Clinton, a life-long Methodist. "And in those difficult times in my life I have often been struck by a particular passage from Scripture and interpretation or analysis of Scripture."

She told the story of the prodigal son, played in this incarnation by the former president of the United States.

The prodigal son in the Bible, she said, had "been out there having a pretty good time committing every sin that you could list."

"When someone has disappointed you, has often disappointed themselves, it is human nature to say you’re not wanted, we know what you’ve been doing.... Go sleep in the bed you made," she said. "But this isn’t what the father did in this parable."

Who Princess

PJ_Soul said:

JimmyV said:

Um...I understand maybe bending the truth a bit when speaking at someone's funeral but HOLY SHIT this is a whopper of a statement.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/708363242737766401

I was actually under that same impression if we're talking the political discussion. Obviously is was the gay community, particularly in NYC and then San Fran, that actually forced action initially and built the cause enough for the Reagans to make it an issue politically, but after that point, I would agree that the Reagans did that.... Not that they had much of a choice of course. I never considered it some great, wonderful thing they did. They were simply fulfilling what I saw as a basic responsibility, and actually, they should have done it sooner than they did, and then done a lot more, faster......

I would give the Reagans ZERO credit for making HIV/AIDS an issue. Reagan didn't even mention it publicly until 4 years after the epidemic was identified by the CDC and didn't make a speech about it for another 2 years. He also suggested that kids with HIV not be allowed to attend school despite assurance from the CDC that they posed no risk to other children. On a personal level, they refused to assist their friend Rock Hudson when he disclosed that he had AIDS.

Thousands of people were infected and died because of the refusal to acknowledge an enormous public health threat. We are still living with the consequences of that indifference.