Wikileaks releases Podesta's emails

[Starbuck1975]

Which is odd because Obama is guilty of the very same issues you have with Hillary.

Obama speaks from a position of authority, character and conviction, and defeated Clinton using some of the same criticisms I have of her.

 

[agent00f]

I don't deny I am an idealist. I tend to hold people running for or serving as President to a higher standard. You will find numerous threads where I am idealistically critical of Clinton and both Bush administrations. You will be hard pressed to find similar criticism from me directed at Obama or Reagan or Carter.

It's rather evident Obama is no worse of an opportunist who tells progressives one thing when he acts the very definition of centrist. Just because he'll met you halfway doesn't mean he's not selling someone else out.

Thanks counselor, but I am not on trial.

Policies you say. Which would you like to discuss? This electioj year is all gutter tabloid nonsense.

He is right that all those are GOP talking points. Just because they paid for the PR staff to be on CNN or whatever doesn't make it something else.

 

[ivwshane]

Thanks counselor, but I am not on trial.

Policies you say. Which would you like to discuss? This electioj year is all gutter tabloid nonsense.

It sure is and its been propagated by people like you. You aren't on trial but that doesn't mean you aren't guilty of contributing to the gutter tabloid nonsense.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's rather evident Obama is no worse of an opportunist who tells progressives one thing when he acts the very definition of centrist. Just because he'll met you halfway doesn't mean he's not selling someone else out.



He is right that all those are GOP talking points. Just because they paid for the PR staff to be on CNN or whatever doesn't make it something else.

No. The sensionalized BS around these quotes are GOP talking points, which is why I don't care for CNN anymore because it's devolved into a media channel instead of a news channel, although I do like Anderson Cooper.

I used to enjoy the McLaughlin Group because he did a good job of balancing the partisan pundits.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It sure is and its been propagated by people like you. You aren't on trial but that doesn't mean you aren't guilty of contributing to the gutter tabloid nonsense.

If I am not on trial than I can't be guilty. Make your case counselor.

People who propagate tabloid nonsense typically don't honestly recognize or concede it as such, which I have repeatedly. You and I probably get our news from similar sources. It must blow your mind that someone is capable of deriving a different informed decision from it.

 

[MongGrel]

Do you guys have like a special bat signal or something? Can I have one?

It's just the consequences of your actions.

If you repeatedly say things that make little sense, expect it.

The vast majority of GOP nonsense posted here is probably below tabloid, at least they find an acorn now and then. Breitbart, etc, is usually outright BS.

You rarely "debate" much of anything.

 

[ivwshane]

If I am not on trial than I can't be guilty. Make your case counselor.

People who propagate tabloid nonsense typically don't honestly recognize or concede it as such, which I have repeatedly. You and I probably get our news from similar sources. It must blow your mind that someone is capable of deriving a different informed decision from it.

I made my case and now you've resorted to buckshatting.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's just the consequences of your actions.

If you repeatedly say things that make little sense, expect it.

This is a liberal leaning forum. I expect there to be more people with opinions that deviate from my worldview. I expect it actually. Even enjoy it at times, except of course when people are condescending or rude or dismiss me of being part of some vast conspiracy.

No, I want to know how you guys manage to literally pile on within seconds of one another if someone even hints at parroting a GOP talking point. Do you have a special signal.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I made my case and now you've resorted to buckshatting.

You haven't made a case you stated an opinion. Buckshatting isnt a real word.

 

[MongGrel]

This is a liberal leaning forum. I expect there to be more people with opinions that deviate from my worldview. I expect it actually. Even enjoy it at times, except of course when people are condescending or rude or dismiss me of being part of some vast conspiracy.

No, I want to know how you guys manage to literally pile on within seconds of one another if someone even hints at parroting a GOP talking point. Do you have a special signal.

NM, not bothering.

 

[ivwshane]

Obama speaks from a position of authority, character and conviction, and defeated Clinton using some of the same criticisms I have of her.

Lol! Of course he does because you say so, right? But if you hold him up to the same standards you hold up to Hillary then the president who said voters will fall back on their religion and cling to their guns, or who said he has evolved on gay marriage or who said if you like your doctor you can keep them, he certainly wouldn't meet your standards any longer.


The fact that you think Obama criticisms of Hillary validate your own criticisms don't validate the criticisms fyi. You however might call that group think

 

[agent00f]

No. The sensionalized BS around these quotes are GOP talking points, which is why I don't care for CNN anymore because it's devolved into a media channel instead of a news channel, although I do like Anderson Cooper.

I used to enjoy the McLaughlin Group because he did a good job of balancing the partisan pundits.

Those aren't really quotes but rather GOP PR selective interpretations of what's quoted. CNN puts on every PR staffer they can find not unlike fox or many other new sources, and it's pretty obvious which talking points you find convincing. That's rather the point of them good money for professionals to propagate a certain interpretation.

You'll need to find the original emails in their entirety for "quotes", and generally for whatever reason original documents tend to agree with the american liberal interpretation these days far more of the time. I and others have talked about that reason on numerous occasion, which has to do with modern reality drifting away from tradition at an increasingly rapid pace.

You are just a troll and you know it in reality.

Hit new posts at the top is what I normally do then read the latest from what anyone posts personally.

Buckshatting is a real word if you have been paying attention on these forums for any length of time.

Just for the record I don't think starbuck is anything like a troll or even buckshatting, but he is loyal though.

 

[ivwshane]

You haven't made a case you stated an opinion. Buckshatting isnt a real word.

Opinion based on fact. Buckshatting isn't a real word but it's a great descriptor of what you are doing now instead of addressing the points I made. Btw, starbuck1975 isn't a real word either. See I can bring up irrelevant information as well.

I await your next buckshit.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You are just a troll and you know it in reality.

Hit new posts at the top is what I normally do then read the latest from what anyone posts personally.

Buckshatting is a real word if you have been paying attention on these forums for any length of time.

So what does buckshatting mean

 

[nickqt]

It's pretty sad that some people will defend what is in these emails no matter what. Some of the things said and done are despicable. And without a doubt if these were about Trump and his crew the very same people would be all over it. Such hypocrisy on these boards are normal though.

And then dipshit mcnumbfuck runs away to his safe space to cower like the typical Conservative Coward.

Keep on keepin' on, hoss.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Those aren't really quotes but rather GOP PR selective interpretations of what's quoted. CNN puts on every PR staffer they can find not unlike fox or many other new sources, and it's pretty obvious which talking points you find convincing. That's rather the point of them good money for professionals to propagate a certain interpretation.

You'll need to find the original emails in their entirety for "quotes", and generally for whatever reason original documents tend to agree with the american liberal interpretation these days far more of the time. I and others have talked about that reason on numerous occasion, which has to do with modern reality drifting away from tradition at an increasingly rapid pace.



Just for the record I don't think starbuck is anything like a troll or even buckshatting, but he is loyal though.

Now we are getting somewhere. This is an honest question. At which point does a story become credible to you? Obviously if right leaning media outlets carry these GOP talking point, they are paid professionals carrying a specific message under the guise of honest debate.

But what happens when Rolling Stone, or the Atlantic, or Slate, or the NYT start covering the same story. When the liberal interpretation as you call it is simply a less emotional and more balanced version of the GOP talking points. Does it then become credible?

 

[ivwshane]

So what does buckshatting mean

I was about to explain it to you but then you decided to discuss some off topic point about what makes a story credible.

Buckshat successfully shat!

 

[Starbuck1975]

Lol! Of course he does because you say so, right? But if you hold him up to the same standards you hold up to Hillary then the president who said voters will fall back on their religion and cling to their guns, or who said he has evolved on gay marriage or who said if you like your doctor you can keep them, he certainly wouldn't meet your standards any longer.


The fact that you think Obama criticisms of Hillary validate your own criticisms don't validate the criticisms fyi. You however might call that group think

It does actually. Obama took legitimate criticisms and coupled that with a well designed campaign and superior ground game. Sanders had similarly legitimate criticisms but lacked the campaign apparatus to expand on what was initially a protest campaign, and backed off because he is a rationale person and realized that his movement stood to lose more under a Trump presidency.

 

[agent00f]

Now we are getting somewhere. This is an honest question. At which point does a story become credible to you? Obviously if right leaning media outlets carry these GOP talking point, they are paid professionals carrying a specific message under the guise of honest debate.

But what happens when Rolling Stone, or the Atlantic, or Slate, or the NYT start covering the same story. When the liberal interpretation as you call it is simply a less emotional and more balanced version of the GOP talking points. Does it then become credible?

Personally I prefer to reference the original material in context before passing judgment. But I think in fairness you'll find your own interpretation above isn't quite the NYT's own imo rather bland assessments, eg: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/wikileaks-hack-hillary-clinton-emails.html

In practice everyone else can see your bias towards the conservative viewpoint, which is generally these days not terribly based in fact for the reason mentioned. I realize having a bunch of people reply with essentially the same comment to you isn't ideal, but also realize you do invite it onto yourself by toeing the GOP line.

FWIW, I've been banned from rather liberal forums for doing what I do, but to liberals.

 

[ivwshane]

Personally I prefer to reference the original material in context before passing judgment. But I think in fairness you'll find your own interpretation above isn't quite the NYT's own imo rather bland assessments, eg: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/wikileaks-hack-hillary-clinton-emails.html

Maybe he's using NPR's interpretation of the emails or is it the rolling stones?

Lol

 

[Starbuck1975]

Personally I prefer to reference the original material in context before passing judgment. But I think in fairness you'll find your own interpretation above isn't quite the NYT's own imo rather bland assessments, eg: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/wikileaks-hack-hillary-clinton-emails.html

I like the first article you linked, read it already and find it actually aligns quite nicely with my interpretation. I especially like the line about Clinton misreading the electorate and struggling to define a rationale for her candidacy, which I think are valid criticisms. That is like designing a product first and then figuring out how to take it to market.

Obama read the electorate and had a rationale.

Sanders read the electorate and had a rationale.

Trump arguably read the electorate and has a rationale but its not rational.

Clinton...

 

[Starbuck1975]

Maybe he's using NPR's interpretation of the emails or is it the rolling stones?

Lol

I will comment on the rolling stones interpretation after their new album comes out. I just buckshat on you.

 

[ivwshane]

I will comment on the rolling stones interpretation after their new album comes out. I just buckshat on you.

You did indeed! Its a clear indication that you've known what you've been doing all along.

 

[agent00f]

I like the first article you linked, read it already and find it actually aligns quite nicely with my interpretation. I especially like the line about Clinton misreading the electorate and struggling to define a rationale for her candidacy, which I think are valid criticisms. That is like designing a product first and then figuring out how to take it to market.

Obama read the electorate and had a rationale.

Sanders read the electorate and had a rationale.

Trump arguably read the electorate and has a rationale but its not rational.

Clinton...

Again I think that's your take on their article, which is far more leveled than selective. I previously linked a longer post I wrote on how "honesty" works and would recommend reading it again. Centrists by design promise some of everything to all people. Obama did this, but as mentioned it's understandable why you aren't angry about it. He said one thing to progressives, and another to the general electorate, carefully crafting the message so it's not too obvious. So why your flip flop on Clinton doing the same? I suspect it's because Obama has far more charisma to pull it off.

Sander is different in that he is rather more the idealist; it just so happens that the time for his ideal had come, and will again in the future the way the country and human civilization in general is headed.

Btw I edited the post you replied to.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Personally I prefer to reference the original material in context before passing judgment. But I think in fairness you'll find your own interpretation above isn't quite the NYT's own imo rather bland assessments, eg: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/politics/wikileaks-hack-hillary-clinton-emails.html

In practice everyone else can see your bias towards the conservative viewpoint, which is generally these days not terribly based in fact for the reason mentioned. I realize having a bunch of people reply with essentially the same comment to you isn't ideal, but also realize you do invite it onto yourself by toeing the GOP line.

FWIW, I've been banned from rather liberal forums for doing what I do, but to liberals.

From my side, you are confusing conservative with GOP. I am a somewhere in the South Park conservative to libertarian spectrum Don't deny it and have an obvious bias. I abandoned the GOP after W's first term, although I flirted with McCain until he chose Palin as his running mate.

I also accept it will draw a response. Some, like you, do so respectfully and engage in a thoughtful manner. Others, not so much.