Re: Trump to Win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

Like your candidate, you're a master of persuasion. I don't respect your comment for it's value or insight but I do respect how deftly you shut down debate and at the same time blamed your opponent. Brilliantly played.

Isn't that interesting, because I have absolutely no respect for you at all SF. Not your character, intellect, rhetorical abilities, or anything else I might infer from our interactions. And I do hope we have fewer of them in the days ahead.

[jk]

Re: Trump to Win?

1. see my post #15 re the word "conspiracy."
2. your reply to my disbelief in such a broad conspiracy was to hit me with an ad hominem and criticize my use of that word. i note you didn't reply to the substance of what i said. you still haven't.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

Jk, you can't possibly think as highly of yourself as your questions imply. Then again, there's something about medical school that convinces its graduates that they are qualified to have an opinion on nearly everything under the sun.

We've gone back and forth a few years now. Do you really think I don't accept the legal concept of conspiracy? Or am I sensitive to the use of "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative.

PS: I have to confess, I'm not clever enough to come up with SCAM all by myself after all the food and drink. Credit goes to my buddy Dr. Lance deHaven Smith at FSU. If you are interested in what I think about conspiracy and theories and states crimes, check him out.

Me, I'm checking out now for a little siesta. Oldsters like Woodsman and Hillz need our afternoon lie down.

[jk]

Re: Trump to Win?

once more an ad hominem and no response to the substance of questioning the practicality of such a scheme or conspiracy, as it is called. i use the word as a useful english word, with no pejorative intent. you judge others by your own behavior, and assumed i was making an ad hominem criticism when i used that word. you really don't want to deal with the subject matter it seems.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to Win?

Isn't that interesting, because I have absolutely no respect for you at all SF. Not your character, intellect, rhetorical abilities, or anything else I might infer from our interactions. And I do hope we have fewer of them in the days ahead.

Yup, there's definitely zero respect and no common ground. Trump's wall won't get built but it is an excellent metaphor for his partisans.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to Win?

once more an ad hominem and no response to the substance of questioning the practicality of such a scheme or conspiracy, as it is called. i use the word as a useful english word, with no pejorative intent. you judge others by your own behavior, and assumed i was making an ad hominem criticism when i used that word. you really don't want to deal with the subject matter it seems.

Wow: "- lots of small snips, brief excerpts from presumably longer statement, to produce a desired effect in the viewer, but may grossly misrepresent because of a lack of context. "

You didn't just use the word. In fact you decided to exploit your opponent's re-frame "The magic word" to pull it out of context to snip and clip. Clever Aikido but not unnoticed.

The word "conspiracy" was used in a skeptical and dismissive context : "... if so, quite a conspiracy!" . So it was not just a word. Now I'd understand if you had been lost at sea and just walked out of a cat house, not knowing conspiracy in the context of skepticism is a virtual epithet "conspiracy the theory". In fact you might want to make a special effort to avoid the context if you were at all sincere. All this while arguing in a contrarian venue at itulip. Neither does one walk up to a sad sap at a funeral with "who died?". Really now you are acting like you are innocent of spit balling while holding a straw.

Anyway the state of Texas opened an investigation. So they think its quite a something. Voting is rather decentralized. Lot of precincts out there.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

once more an ad hominem and no response to the substance of questioning the practicality of such a scheme or conspiracy, as it is called. i use the word as a useful english word, with no pejorative intent. you judge others by your own behavior, and assumed i was making an ad hominem criticism when i used that word. you really don't want to deal with the subject matter it seems.

I feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for your wife/partner, Jk. I only get it in print. The poor soul that has to suffer you in real life, well I hope they know there is a place in Heaven waiting.

Lookie here, conspirators talking about a conspiracy to rig the election. Don't they know that's like almost impossible and takes multiple states and stuff?

Of course, he doesn't know that he's being recorded, so maybe he's just trying to impress the ladies or something and is just talking our his backside.

And here they can't quite bring themselves to use the word, preferring the less loaded word "coordination," but I bet there was some conspiracizing somewhere or another.

...But newly disclosed hacked campaign documents published by WikiLeaks and a hacker who calls himself Guccifer 2.0 reveal in stark terms how Hillary Clinton’s staffers made Super PACs an integral part of her presidential campaign.

Consider:

In a July 2015 memo addressed to Clinton herself, her campaign laid out plans for working with the Democratic National Committee and Correct the Record, a Super PAC. Correct the Record was created by David Brock, a longtime Clinton ally and the founder of Media Matters for America. One section of the memo instructed: “Work with CTR and DNC to publicize specific GOP candidate vulnerabilities.”

In October 2015, several Clinton staffers strategized over ways to attack author Ed Klein for attributing an apparently fake quote to former President Bill Clinton in his book. “I’m sure Brock and team would love to go at him. Nick, want me to put you in touch with them?” Clinton campaign communications staffer Christina Reynolds, wrote, referring to Clinton press secretary Nick Merrill. “I can reach out to David,” volunteered Karen Finney, another Clinton staffer on the email chain.

A month later, Reynolds emailed a list of agenda items for an upcoming campaign meeting. High on the list: determining how to frame Bernie Sanders, and whether attacks on Republicans “should go through HRC, surrogates, DNC, CTR,” another reference to Correct the Record.

In December 2015, a fundraiser for multiple pro-Clinton Super PACs emailed John Podesta, the campaign’s chairman, with a suggested seating chart for an event with Super PAC donors. “John, Below is the seating chart for this evening and attached is a best of hits for both Correct the Record and American Bridge on the Presidential,” Mary Pat Bonner, the fundraiser, wrote. Campaign finance records show four donors on Bonner’s list have given $725,000 to American Bridge 21st Century, which conducts opposition research against Republicans. One donor on the list has contributed $125,000 to Correct the Record. Bonner included a document highlighting the work done by Correct the Record. The paper asserts the group may “coordinate directly and strategically with the Hillary campaign.”

In another email that month, Bonner requested Podesta speak to an adviser to Jim Simons, a hedge fund manager who was considering donating to Correct the Record. “He told me he is intending to call you on Monday to discuss the importance of CTR and their donation,” Bonner wrote. “He is interested in the fact that CTR is a coordinated PAC that does not do any paid communication.” (Simons has not donated to CTR.)

In February 2016, Dennis Cheng, the lead fundraiser for the Clinton campaign, emailed other staffers to recommend that Podesta call certain donors to Priorities USA Action, the largest pro-Clinton Super PAC, to thank them for their six- and seven-figure donations. Cheng flagged three donor names, telling a colleague they were “very important Priorities USA calls that ideally John can make.”

In a separate email, Guy Cecil, an official from Priorities USA, apologizes to Podesta for sending him to the wrong address for a meeting. Podesta noted it had been raining and quipped, “Priorities owes me a pair of shoes.”

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/...-coordination/

[jk]

Re: Trump to Win?

i'm tired of your insults, woodsman, so i'll end it. i have been courteous and have never insulted you or made derogatory remarks about you. i have tried to keep discussion to substantive matters. you, otoh, don't seem to be able to disagree about something without "going low." actually you don't disagree, you just insult most of the time. so that's it, i'll put you on ignore.

[jk]

Re: Trump to Win?

Wow: "- lots of small snips, brief excerpts from presumably longer statement, to produce a desired effect in the viewer, but may grossly misrepresent because of a lack of context. "

You didn't just use the word. In fact you decided to exploit your opponent's re-frame "The magic word" to pull it out of context to snip and clip. Clever Aikido but not unnoticed.

The word "conspiracy" was used in a skeptical and dismissive context : "... if so, quite a conspiracy!" . So it was not just a word. Now I'd understand if you had been lost at sea and just walked out of a cat house, not knowing conspiracy in the context of skepticism is a virtual epithet "conspiracy the theory". In fact you might want to make a special effort to avoid the context if you were at all sincere. All this while arguing in a contrarian venue at itulip. Neither does one walk up to a sad sap at a funeral with "who died?". Really now you are acting like you are innocent of spit balling while holding a straw.

Anyway the state of Texas opened an investigation. So they think its quite a something. Voting is rather decentralized. Lot of precincts out there.

got a better phrase i could have used instead of "a broad conspiracy"?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

Oh, whatever shall I do without the pleasures of yours and SF's gaslighting?

But is it really Woodsman you're annoyed at? Or is the fact that your "quantum" approach to argument - where "a" and "not a" are the same thing, unless you require them not be - was called out again? I guess we'll never know.

La vérité peut blesser, peut faire du mal.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to Win?

Eternal Newbie haz headache.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to Win?

i'm tired of your insults, woodsman, so i'll end it. i have been courteous and have never insulted you or made derogatory remarks about you. i have tried to keep discussion to substantive matters. you, otoh, don't seem to be able to disagree about something without "going low." actually you don't disagree, you just insult most of the time. so that's it, i'll put you on ignore.

There is no there, there. Like Obama in his first term you have assumed you're dealing with, at a minimum, sentient humans when you are dealing with the last vestiges of lizard brained white racism. As white guy privilege finally begins to die off in the US they are going to fight even harder to keep it.

Happy to discuss issues with you on your thread behind the paywall but I'll also check out of this thread.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to Win?

The internet is like pick up basketball.
A game blossoms in the most unlikely neighborhood.
You are lucky to get in early, and for a while it is too good to believe.
Then carloads of people start driving further and further to get in,
and in the end, it's just a bunch of assholes getting in fights,
and then you go by years later and there are no nets on the hoops and its deserted.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

The internet is like pick up basketball....

I hear the Washington Generals are starting up a new team. Y'all should try out.

[vt]

Re: Trump to Win?

ELECTIONS
Dem Operative Who Oversaw Trump Rally Agitators Visited White House 342 Times


PETER HASSON
Reporter, Associate Editor

11:38 PM 10/18/20

A key operative in a Democratic scheme to send agitators to cause unrest at

Donald Trump’s rallies

has visited the White White House records show.

Robert Creamer, who acted as a middle man between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and “protesters” who tried — and succeeded — to provoke violence at Trump rallies met with President Obama 47 times, according to White House records. Creamer’s last visit was in June 2016.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/ex...#ixzz4NXerkEdD