Hillary faints @ ground zero?

[ivwshane]

You have completely rewritten what happened in your memory. No one said Hillary Clinton herself came up with the birther theory. One of her supporters did, the campaign considered then rejected the idea, but it still got out into the wild. This information is in the public record and isn't disputed.

https://twitter.com/MoElleithee/status/776808154621444096?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

And unlike McCain there is no contemporaneous record of Hillary Clinton rejecting the birther claim. You leftists are supposed to be great at the whole "nuance" thing, why is it that you're having so much trouble with nuance in this instance?

So when trump said, "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it", that means he wasn't saying Hillary started it?

You appear to be stuck on stupid again.

 

[glenn1]

So when trump said, "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it", that means he wasn't saying Hillary started it?

You appear to be stuck on stupid again.

How about we just agree on a shared reality here. Do you dispute that the commonly accepted and documented birthplace of the 'birther' thing was a Hillary Clinton supporter? Which then got redistributed by one of her staffers who was subsequently fired? Let's just work on that part first since it's in the historical record then we'll deal with what Trump said. Just want to ensure you and others in the thread are operating in the reality-based universe.

 

[fskimospy]

So when trump said, "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it", that means he wasn't saying Hillary started it?

You appear to be stuck on stupid again.

I mean he's literally on the record that you can read this very second saying "The birther movement was started by Hillary Clinton".

We truly live in some bizarro world now. It's like people have become so numbed by Trump's endless parade of lies that the figure he must be telling the truth now and then. He isn't.

 

[ivwshane]

How about we just agree on a shared reality here. Do you dispute that the commonly accepted and documented birthplace of the 'birther' thing was a Hillary Clinton supporter? Which then got redistributed by one of her staffers who was subsequently fired? Let's just work on that part first since it's in the historical record then we'll deal with what Trump said. Just want to ensure you and others in the thread are operating in the reality-based universe.

I wasn't aware of the email being redistributed let alone being made public. Do you have a source for this claim? Preferably one that shows the email was made public by Hillary or her campaign before anyone else to up the birther movement?

 

[fskimospy]

How about we just agree on a shared reality here. Do you dispute that the commonly accepted and documented birthplace of the 'birther' thing was a Hillary Clinton supporter? Which then got redistributed by one of her staffers who was subsequently fired? Let's just work on that part first since it's in the historical record then we'll deal with what Trump said. Just want to ensure you and others in the thread are operating in the reality-based universe.

Yes it appears to have originated (or at least been popularized by) a Hillary Clinton supporter. Neither she nor her campaign ever promoted it in any way however, which is the whole point.

So long as we are operating in the reality-based universe can I assume you admit that you were wrong about what conservatives are claiming?

 

[realibrad]

Your position on the matter is irrelevant. When you are trying to redefine a word to suit your narrative you are buckshatting. When a conversation cannot be had because the definition of words cannot be agreed upon, you are buckshatting. When you derail threads with tedious irrelevant points, you are buckshatting.

Except I am not misusing the word. Someone said this...

"I am not denying that racism exists. I question if it is as systemic as it once was, and also believe that as our society continues to become more diverse, it now comes in many shapes and sizes and exhibited by different cultures in other ways."

Agent's response was this...

"It looks less superficially so due to the overton window and general stigma against public displays of racism, but its prominence is rather obvious when the clear white nationalist candidate of choice is not too far from winning the presidency. As you mention, just take a look at the demographics of the people voting for and against him."

He is saying that people are less overt with their racism, but its apparent that racism is still there as exampled by Trump's popularity. I jump in and say that his popularity might be due to other factors. A Trump voter could be a non racist, and still vote Trump for their hatred of Hillary. He shifted the argument from the original point where someone was talking about systemic racism, to saying something else.

So when I point that out, Agent responds with this...

"No, by pointing out society is generally more demographically diverse than it used to be, he's clearly implying there simply aren't as many racists for it be as systemic. But judging by the demographics of this election, it's pretty obvious all the older white males are voting for the white nationalist candidate."

Now, this is where I question if he understands what systemic racism is. It is possible to have a system run by people that 100% are not racist, and the system still be biased and racist. It would be systemic racism even though none of the people are racist. Its also equally possible to have 100% of the people running the system be racist and the system to not be racist and thus not have systemic racism. His post seems to me to imply that he might think that he is using systemic to mean prevalent which it does not, but often misused as being synonymous.

He then seems to be on the right track when he says this...

"Systemic X is an emergent property of systems with a lot of aggregate X. "

That is to say that if you have systems being built and run by racists, that those racists are likely to make or modify the system to fit their views. Totally logical. So I ask him what system(s) are racist.

He then responds in this post questioning my understanding and giving a hypothetical example of what he means. The summary of that post is to say that if a large group of people who are racist are in charge of job interviews, they will not pick people of the race they are part of. That is an example of prolific and or widespread racism, but is not an example of systemic. The reason for that is because there is not defined rules and or regulations that discriminate other than the inherent racism of the interviewer. The only way you can claim it to be a system is if you claim Society as the system. In his very next post (887) he says exactly that.

By saying Society is the system, then literally everything done by people in a society becomes systemic. Because of his previous point that people are not overtly racist because of social pressures, then all of society is racist and it cannot be directly observed. And I am the one being pedantic.

 

[glenn1]

Yes it appears to have originated (or at least been popularized by) a Hillary Clinton supporter. Neither she nor her campaign ever promoted it in any way however, which is the whole point.

So long as we are operating in the reality-based universe can I assume you admit that you were wrong about what conservatives are claiming?

What conservative and what were they saying? If you mean Trump I never claimed he was correct about Hillary herself being involved and laid out what you basically just agreed to. The farthest I went with the Hillary connection is faulting her for not strongly rejecting the whole birther thing at the time. If you're specific about what some other unspecified conservative said I'll address it but it's probably safe to say that 99% of what has been said on the birther topic is crap with some tiny element of irrelevant truth contained within to make it sound plausible enough to not be rejected out of hand.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes it appears to have originated (or at least been popularized by) a Hillary Clinton supporter. Neither she nor her campaign ever promoted it in any way however, which is the whole point.

So long as we are operating in the reality-based universe can I assume you admit that you were wrong about what conservatives are claiming?

Per Snopes, the earliest public mention of Birtherism was March 1, 2008 in.... wait for it... Free Republic-

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-started-birther-movement/

 

[realibrad]

Yes it appears to have originated (or at least been popularized by) a Hillary Clinton supporter. Neither she nor her campaign ever promoted it in any way however, which is the whole point.

So long as we are operating in the reality-based universe can I assume you admit that you were wrong about what conservatives are claiming?

Here is the gray area. A person working for Hillary did something which was probably unknown to the campaign, but was meant 100% to help her. If we argue that she cannot be responsible for people's actions in an attempt to support her, then you should be logically consistent. That would mean people should responsible for their own actions, and not the actions of others. The opposite is that people should be held responsible for others actions. That would imply that Hillary should be responsible for her campaign. I would bet good money that those on the right would say they are for the former and those on the left the latter. Yet, if you were to talk about trump and his campaign manager hurting that woman from breitbart, you would get a complete reversal.

 

[fskimospy]

What conservative and what were they saying? If you mean Trump I never claimed he was correct about Hillary herself being involved and laid out what you basically just agreed to. The farthest I went with the Hillary connection is faulting her for not strongly rejecting the whole birther thing at the time. If you're specific about what some other unspecified conservative said I'll address it but it's probably safe to say that 99% of what has been said on the birther topic is crap with some tiny element of irrelevant truth contained within to make it sound plausible enough to not be rejected out of hand.

You said this:

No one said Hillary Clinton herself came up with the birther theory.

To which I showed you this:

That's someone claiming she not only was involved but originated it. Who do you mean by 'no one'?

 

[fskimospy]

Here is the gray area. A person working for Hillary did something which was probably unknown to the campaign, but was meant 100% to help her. If we argue that she cannot be responsible for people's actions in an attempt to support her, then you should be logically consistent. That would mean people should responsible for their own actions, and not the actions of others. The opposite is that people should be held responsible for others actions. That would imply that Hillary should be responsible for her campaign. I would bet good money that those on the right would say they are for the former and those on the left the latter. Yet, if you were to talk about trump and his campaign manager hurting that woman from breitbart, you would get a complete reversal.

That's not a grey area at all. If someone working for you does something you don't know about and don't condone and you then fire them over it of course it shouldn't be viewed as you being the source of those actions, etc. On the other hand if you not only continue to employ that person but affirmatively defend their actions it should be.

Easy peasy.

 

[ivwshane]

What conservative and what were they saying? If you mean Trump I never claimed he was correct about Hillary herself being involved and laid out what you basically just agreed to. The farthest I went with the Hillary connection is faulting her for not strongly rejecting the whole birther thing at the time. If you're specific about what some other unspecified conservative said I'll address it but it's probably safe to say that 99% of what has been said on the birther topic is crap with some tiny element of irrelevant truth contained within to make it sound plausible enough to not be rejected out of hand.

This is what you said:

You have completely rewritten what happened in your memory. No one said Hillary Clinton herself came up with the birther theory.

I then provide you the exact words trump used in which he said the exact opposite of what you claimed happened.

So it appears to be you who is rewriting what happened in your memory and now you are trying to rewrite what you said in this thread.

Like I said, you appear to be stuck on stupid.

You can admit you were wrong and we can move on.

 

[agent00f]

This is your style. Don't show where I was wrong or made a mistake, simply say I was wrong. You provide a definition that I agree is a definition, but I believe it supports me. I explain why I think this, and explain why I think you are wrong. The definition of the term was not in question, it was your use in context of the persons comment to you. I think you believe systemic means prolific which it does not. You can have widespread racism and it not be systemic.

You said that I gave you nothing that contains the word. but I literally linked sources and then quoted them in my previous posts. If there is any doubt, it can be found in post 894 and 896. Not only do I give multiple definitions, but I also give context as to why I think you were wrong and I was right. I have no doubt that you do not care, but I care about the dishonesty of your accusation.

Again, you are using systemic racism in a way that appears to mean prolific, and that is incorrect. As exampled by my previous posts, you can see why I believe this. You wont address the arguments, you will simply discredit the person.

Christ, you literally searched for the term, even argue about it, yet can't be bother to read any of substantial literature on the very subject. Or you read and can't make heads or tails of it, which would hardly be surprising, but in any case it's not my job here to spoon feed some extremely recalcitrant unteachable. For example:

Here is the distraction again. Bring up a way to discredit the person, and not the argument. An argument should be valid or invalid on its own. I will say that I am currently putting myself through college. The reason I am so late is that I came from a very poor family and have had to pay for everything on my own. I am not sure what you mean by "far". If you mean getting a graduate vs a masters then I do not see myself getting either currently. If you mean having high scores, then I do have those. Not sure of the relevancy of any of this though.

The iraq thing abundantly demonstrates you simply don't know how to compare numbers. How the hell does one study "discredit" another when its findings significantly overlap? The commentary by the other study's author which you thought "discredited" the lancet literally had the lancet's guy's response next to it showing the exact source of the relatively minor disagreement. I literally mocked you directly for this at the time, and evidently you still haven't figured either how to find that response or understand the 3 or 4 key number comparisons in it to any appreciable degree. Yet here you are bragging about the rank ignorance.

 

[glenn1]

This is what you said:



I then provide you the exact words trump used in which he said the exact opposite of what you claimed happened.

So it appears to be you who is rewriting what happened in your memory and now you are trying to rewrite what you said in this thread.

Like I said, you appear to be stuck on stupid.

You can admit you were wrong and we can move on.

Clinton was not one who first created the concept of the birther movement and Trump is wrong to imply so. On the bigger point about whether her campaign bore primary accountability for spreading birtherism (which was kinda my point) the answer is also no since as we all seem to agree (?) the key driver seems to be a disgruntled and perhaps slightly crazy person who just happened to support Clinton and worked for her campaign.

 

[ivwshane]

Clinton was not one who first created the concept of the birther movement and Trump is wrong to imply so. On the bigger point about whether her campaign bore primary accountability for spreading birtherism (which was kinda my point) the answer is also no since as we all seem to agree (?) the key driver seems to be a disgruntled and perhaps slightly crazy person who just happened to support Clinton and worked for her campaign.

I'm guessing this is as close as we will get to you admitting you were wrong. I'll take it.

Moving on!

 

[realibrad]

That's not a grey area at all. If someone working for you does something you don't know about and don't condone and you then fire them over it of course it shouldn't be viewed as you being the source of those actions, etc. On the other hand if you not only continue to employ that person but affirmatively defend their actions it should be.

Easy peasy.

Lol, you have a point there with my example. But I think you see the problem. Many would say she is responsible (I don't) simply because the person was working for her and did it for her. It would not matter to those people if she knew, the fact it was done by someone working for her makes her responsible. That is a view shared by both sides.

 

[realibrad]

Christ, you literally searched for the term, even argue about it, yet can't be bother to read any of substantial literature on the very subject. Or you read and can't make heads or tails of it, which would hardly be surprising, but in any case it's not my job here to spoon feed some extremely recalcitrant unteachable. For example:

We are talking about the use of a term. Again, if you believe that having racists in a system will likely cause that system to reflect the people running it, thats logical. What happened was that someone questioned if the systems were as racist as they were before, not the people. He clearly said that people are still racist, he just questions if the systems are as racist as they were before. That is what started it.

Then, by my understanding of your comments, started to question if you understood him questioning systems, and not the racism of people. For this part, we are trying to debate the interpretation and use of systemic racism. Any paper is going to use systemic the same way I am. Systemic means the system has inherent racism, regardless of the individual views of the operators.

The iraq thing abundantly demonstrates you simply don't know how to compare numbers. How the hell does one study "discredit" another when its findings significantly overlap?

Because the methodology in the first study cannot be verified and thus the numbers cannot be verified. If you have a study, and you dont give out the logic and data you use, then nobody should believe it. The foundation of science is that you should be able to replicate and get the same outcomes. That should be pretty obvious.

Your claim was that X amount of people died because of US forces. The number you gave came from only one source that was discredited. What else is there to say?

The commentary by the other study's author which you thought "discredited" the lancet literally had the lancet's guy's response next to it showing the exact source of the relatively minor disagreement. I literally mocked you directly for this at the time, and evidently you still haven't figured either how to find that response or understand the 3 or 4 key number comparisons in it to any appreciable degree. Yet here you are bragging about the rank ignorance.

No. The New England Journal of Medicine did a far larger study and found far less deaths than your Lancet study. The NEJM study found less deaths by a factor of 4. That is huge. So you have a bunch of researchers question their numbers. You also have AAPOR question the data and the ASA backing them up. Even if you dont think the AAPOR is meaningful then you should at least be able to say that the ASA backing them is important.

Again, I have facts, and all you have done is try to discredit me instead of arguments and data.

If anyone wants to look at the data, here is the NEJM's own research.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0707782#t=article

 

[Roflmouth]

You have completely rewritten what happened in your memory. No one said Hillary Clinton herself came up with the birther theory. One of her supporters did, the campaign considered then rejected the idea, but it still got out into the wild. This information is in the public record and isn't disputed.

https://twitter.com/MoElleithee/status/776808154621444096?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

And unlike McCain there is no contemporaneous record of Hillary Clinton rejecting the birther claim. You leftists are supposed to be great at the whole "nuance" thing, why is it that you're having so much trouble with nuance in this instance?

Go ahead and ignore the Sidney Blumenthal in the room.

 

[glenn1]

Lol, you have a point there with my example. But I think you see the problem. Many would say she is responsible (I don't) simply because the person was working for her and did it for her. It would not matter to those people if she knew, the fact it was done by someone working for her makes her responsible. That is a view shared by both sides.

That sentiment depends on who is doing the alleged wrong. Democrats seem to fully embrace holding leadership responsible when it's Warren jawboning a Wells Fargo exec, less so when it's a Democratic politician where someone working for them did wrong. Consistency never was the strong suit of some.

 

[realibrad]

That sentiment depends on who is doing the alleged wrong. Democrats seem to fully embrace holding leadership responsible when it's Warren jawboning a Wells Fargo exec, less so when it's a Democratic politician where someone working for them did wrong. Consistency never was the strong suit of some.

Which is why people following political parties is dumb. Republicans were all over the left when they would question Bush in a time of war, but when the tables were flipped, holy shit did they double down on Obama. Our parties do not stand for anything other than their own self interests.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol, you have a point there with my example. But I think you see the problem. Many would say she is responsible (I don't) simply because the person was working for her and did it for her. It would not matter to those people if she knew, the fact it was done by someone working for her makes her responsible. That is a view shared by both sides.

She is responsible which is why the staffer was let go. I know people tend to think of the Clinton's like super villains but I can assure you she doesn't have a time machine to go back in time to either not let the person on her staff or fire her before she sent such an email. So one would conclude the responsible thing to do to someone who doesn't adhere to your standards would be to let them go.

I guess being responsible means something different to you and Glenn but that's because I don't subscribe to your alt dictionary.

 

[ivwshane]

That sentiment depends on who is doing the alleged wrong. Democrats seem to fully embrace holding leadership responsible when it's Warren jawboning a Wells Fargo exec, less so when it's a Democratic politician where someone working for them did wrong. Consistency never was the strong suit of some.

Did Clinton profit from the actions of those below her that did this? Did she let it continue and turn a blind eye to it?

Equivalency not found.

 

[fskimospy]

Lol, you have a point there with my example. But I think you see the problem. Many would say she is responsible (I don't) simply because the person was working for her and did it for her. It would not matter to those people if she knew, the fact it was done by someone working for her makes her responsible. That is a view shared by both sides.

You're of course right that this happens frequently, but I imagine this is almost entirely the product of people who know better but don't care.

I mean there's a vast continuum of responsibility from someone you dont know and don't defend, to people you've deliberately recruited but don't defend to people you do defend, to actions you take yourself.

I don't think there's really any one place where someone becomes responsible, but on the scale of responsibility 'person I don't know who I fired' is pretty incredibly low. Especially compared to the man who actively and strenuously pushed it for years until he decided to lie about it.

I guess it's a victory for Trump in a way that this is even being discussed as I'm sure he would take anything that distracts from his racism.

 

[fskimospy]

That sentiment depends on who is doing the alleged wrong. Democrats seem to fully embrace holding leadership responsible when it's Warren jawboning a Wells Fargo exec, less so when it's a Democratic politician where someone working for them did wrong. Consistency never was the strong suit of some.

Are you seriously trying to compare the actions of one staffer over a short period of time with the actions of thousands of staff engaging in literally millions of counts of fraud over several years?

Come on.

 

[realibrad]

You're of course right that this happens frequently, but I imagine this is almost entirely the product of people who know better but don't care.

I mean there's a vast continuum of responsibility from someone you dont know and don't defend, to people you've deliberately recruited but don't defend to people you do defend, to actions you take yourself.

I don't think there's really any one place where someone becomes responsible, but on the scale of responsibility 'person I don't know who I fired' is pretty incredibly low. Especially compared to the man who actively and strenuously pushed it for years until he decided to lie about it.

I guess it's a victory for Trump in a way that this is even being discussed as I'm sure he would take anything that distracts from his racism.

The main problem is her perceived lack of credibility. The fact that she has been in politics this long means these types of things happen. When you get enough things that have happened that cant be proven you did something and or did not do something it becomes fodder for the opposition. We will never be able to prove that she did not know about this, but we also will never be able to 100% show she did either. Because of that, people can always believe what they want to believe about these things. Normally its two politicians running, but not this time. So instead of both sides having political baggage, only one side has it. The other side has different baggage, but not political, so it appears different to some.