The Black MN comments seemed to move to a new topic, so I dragged them over here.
"There is a rhetorical tactic out there to the effect of why aren't you making a different argument from the one you are. It's a form of reverse straw man I suppose. You see it when people who talk about issue X, are criticized for not talking about issue why. It's a question that can be asked, I suppose, but it's one where the real answer is usually not very interesting, having to do with things like internal strategizing and allocation of resources. What is generally pretty clear is that while issue X may or may not be a valid issue, it's validity isn't dependent on the validity or lack thereof of issue Y. Indeed, the attempt to shift the discussion to issue why is sort of an implicit admission that the person who wants to deflect the discussion because of his weakness on issue X." --Hiram
"As it happens I just saw an example of this on Morning Joe. Hillary was asked to release the text of her speeches to Wall Street which obviously she should and she immediately tried to shift the issue to Sanders refusal to provide complete income tax returns. Bernie should do that of course, but that was an implicit admission of her own position. This is particularly true since the argument bounces back in that she is trying to impose a standard that's totally justifiable and fair on Bernie that she is not willing to meet herself." --Hiram
"An interesting point and line of reasoning, Hiram. I have noted it often in these and other discussions, particular with those of a more liberal persuasion. If one raises a good, logical and direct point, the liberal response is very often the non-sequitur or the tu quoque, neither of which addresses the issue at hand. In this case, it is, one assumes since we would call BLM the "liberal" side of this debate, that it is conservatives raising the ancillary question of black-on-black violence as the REASON for the police presence and the tiny few but unfortunate cases of blacks (a soupcon of them innocent) being shot by police.
In this case, though, I think the logical position is that there must be some balance to the argument made by the BLM people. The are outraged and driven to massive demonstrations by something like .06% of the violence against black people, while doing absolutely nothing about the rest, which is increasing as a result of their actions. It seems the ultimate in irresponsibility. " Jerry
"about Hillary's speeches- has any other candidate in any other election cycle been asked to release transcripts of speeches or, as I believe, this is a new expectation just for Hillary.
otoh, releasing several years of tax returns has been a standard expectation for many years.
I agree with Hillary, why should she be held to a new standard? I bet there would be nothing too radical or different from her public positions on issues in those speeches." Laurie
"Laurie, I'll agree with you except to note that "new standards" is nothing new for Democrats running for office. The object is to make the opponent look bad for doing, or not doing, something that doesn't sound unreasonable but that is difficult for them at least politically, and easy for you. It's unfair, in some sense.
In this case, though, Hillary is making her own mess. First, she takes $250,000 from Verizon for a speech, then joins the strikers and denounces them. There's some hypocrisy somewhere and of course Bernie points it out. " Jerry
10 comments:
I think the logical position is that there must be some balance to the argument made by the BLM people.
I think balance is ok, but it's not up to an advocate to provide it. Our practice should be to make our own arguments, not to rework the arguments of others in an attempt to weaken them. I think myself that BLM only addresses part of the problem with policing, but that doesn't make their arguments about it any less compelling.
--Hiram
I agree with Hillary, why should she be held to a new standard? I bet there would be nothing too radical or different from her public positions on issues in those speeches." Laurie
I have no problem with holding any candidate to any standard, new or old. It's your vote they are asking for and you can put any standard on how you decide to give or withhold it that you want. In this case, Hillary doesn't have to provide the text of her speeches, just as you have the right to vote for someone else because she didn't.
Here is something I wrote elsewhere:
"How does Sanders' failure to release full tax returns justify Clinton's refusal to release the texts of her speeches to Wall Street? Why is Mrs. Clinton seeking to impose a standard on the Sanders campaign that she is clearly unwilling to impose on herself? The problem isn't that the Sanders and the Clinton campaigns are keeping information from each other. Rather the problem is both campaigns are keeping information from the voters whose votes they are seeking."
--Hiram
FYI, I added just added one more comment from Jerry to the bottom of the post.
CNN Debate Coverage
CNN Fact Check
"In this case, though, Hillary is making her own mess. First, she takes $250,000 from Verizon for a speech, then joins the strikers and denounces them. There's some hypocrisy somewhere and of course Bernie points it out."
Like Sanders, I too have questions about Hillary's judgment. Some of these speaking fees are excessive suggesting that they are really bribes in disguise. That she didn't see that is simply inexplicable to me. There are other problematic areas as well. I don't understand why she allowed her husband to found his own charity, and once he did so, I don't understand why she didn't impose an absolute wall between his activities and hers. It's the sort of mistake, one expects an experienced politician not to make. Oh well.
--Hiram
MP Debate SC Litmus Test
Everyone Knows Why Hillary Clinton Won't Release Her Goldman Sachs Speeches
My views are similar to Drum's, though not nearly as fully thought out, including an excerpt of a made up speech of the type of things she likely said.
Interesting piece, though I think she should cough them up... If not her opponents can keep using it very effectively.
I think it's another tempest in a teapot dome, myself. I have far bigger problems with H than with this minor kerfuffle. But in line with those other concerns, I must say that the "appearance of impropriety" is certainly there. I do not know ANYBODY that would be worth $250,000 for a single speech, and it sounds as if there is some question as to whether she actually delivered a speech of any kind.
I suppose we may as well enjoy this sideshow, while the Trumpster is running around claiming that the system for selection of national delegates that Colorado adopted in 1912 is somehow "rigged" against him.
I am amazed that the Liberals who are against "bought politicians" are still voting for her.
I am amazed that the Liberals who are against "bought politicians" are still voting for her.
There is no question we would prefer someone else, and that helps to explain why Bernie is running well. But ultimately Hillary is the only choice we have.
--Hiram
Post a Comment