re: Confessions from a Hillary Shill

[vorgan24]

Decided to split this off from it to prevent it from getting buried on the topic, but boy does that link have some good stuff in it.

Like, a admission - From one of SFP's Mods - that the 'confession' is - more then likely - to be completely bogus.

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

I'm going to single this out, because it's somewhat important...

[img][/img]

And of course, lets not forget this prime example of sexism...

[img][/img]

So, a question to Sanders supporters... Is this REALLY the kind of stuff you want to jump behind, to push as fact, and to support?

[RiverLover]

1. Authenticity.

Hillary & apparently her supporters can't recognize what they themselves are missing?

But the reddit account of a Hillary shill rings true. Read it again. It's authentic.

[vorgan24]

3. From one of SFP's own mods...

[img][/img]

No proof. At all.

But still, lets say that the confession is authentic - Can you provide proof that it is? Because without that, it's just a baseless claim.

He is willing to admit that baseless claims shouldn't be pushed as fact.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Prove the allegations are true and I will donate $100.00 to DU and verify the donation.

Acceptable proof will be the identity of the person who made the offer and the person who accepted it.

Thank you in advance.

[RiverLover]

7. I don't blame whoever wrote it for staying anonymous. Hill camp is vicious!

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3rncq9/confession_of_hillary_shill_from/

Read it again. Its authentic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Prove the allegations are true and I will donate $100.00 to DU and verify the donation.

Acceptable proof will be the identity of the person who made the offer and the person who accepted it.

Thank you in advance.

[vorgan24]

9. I've re-read that topic a few times...

Still seeing one of SFP's mods admitting that the claim is likely bogus.

Got anything to counter that?

[dreamnightwind]

12. Zero proof is not the same as likely bogus

Did they say likely bogus? I didn't see it. If not, you would do well to not try to influence by rephrasing.

Re the comment you picked out by a Reddit supporter about dumb broads, it was correct substantively saying how unfortunate it is that so many women seem to be supporting plumbing over policy (many fine women on DU though are rising above that kind of thinking), but congratulations, you found a highly offensive and sexist post expressing that sentiment, an excellent way to discredit the correct observation behind it. Two can play at this game (plenty of highly offensive remarks by HRC supporters), but I won't go there, we're better than that.

[vorgan24]

14. Unproven claims are false, which is a synonym for bogus.

If you can find something that proves the claim, then I will appoligize for my wording.

I'll be waiting.

[dreamnightwind]

15. No, they are merely unproven. Twisty words is all you got.

[vorgan24]

16. Ok, I was incorrect in that definition.

But still, my questions are valid - Should people really be pushing this as truth?

Actually, the fact that you jumped me over 'likely bogus' and ignored RL and 'Authentic' pretty much answers my question.

[dreamnightwind]

20. Yes you were incorrect

thank you for admitting it. I would have let it pass but you also used it downthread, not just in the OP, attempting to establish it as stipulated fact. Many unproven claims do turn out to be true.

I have no idea what RL is, where it is referenced, nor do I see you saying anything about authentic, if you want to pursue this please clarify, hardly seems worth the time.

I am not pushing the alleged "shill confessional". It feels to me like what I have experienced from many Hillary supporters, so the claim is not far-fetched at all, if this claim is false it is likely that a legitimate claim could be written by an actual Hillary shill, since those tactics are undeniable. However, this particular claim is unverified (not bogus, that would require proof of the negative), so I am not pushing it, just correcting misleading language on your part.

[mcar]

2. K&R

Good question!

[frazzled]

5. Was "shrill" a typo or a Freudian slip?

I'd correct that in your header. It's shill, not shrill. Yikes!

[vorgan24]

10. Typo, I always mispell (and now that I think about it, mispronounce) that word.

[DanTex]

6. It's hilarious that so many Bernie fans here believe that this is legit.

It's the internet, folks. Anyone can write whatever they want on it.

Of course, this is the same group that believes that self-selecting online polls represent "the people" and that major unions are all bought off by Hillary's henchmen and that the Benghazi hearings were actually a secret plot to boost Hillary's poll numbers and that pundits are being ordered by their bosses to write pro-Clinton columns....

So I guess this is just par for the course.

[riversedge]

11. k and R

[Spazito]

13. I wondered when that crapload of codswallop would be removed...

it made the BernieForPresident group look ridiculous as well as those who chose to spread it, imo. The simple fact it was under 'conspiracy' should have raised big red flags right away.

Thanks for the info.

[Le Taz Hot]

17. And not unexpectedly,

each and every Hillary supporter completely missed the point of the thread -- and they continue to do so as can be evidenced by this very thread.

As it turns out, my OP has proven to be much more entertaining than even I expected.

[bigtree]

18. whatever the point

...the obviously bogus account, recced over 166 times now, reflects on ALL questionable threads about candidates here.

Funny how you posted it without qualification, and now you want to be seen as sage for posting it. Echoing the crap here is as insidious as the posting at Reditt.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Lots of ridiculous threads linking to questionable sources in this forum,

also without qualification, and they usually get lots of recs. That thread wasn't any different from what's posted here hourly by the same people, over and over, from the Hillary camp. It just so happens that the reddit post reflected memes we've seen here innumerable times, day in and day out -- charges of misogyny, racism, ad nauseum. What was amusing was watching those who are most guilty of posting some of the most stomach-turning threads getting all kinds of indignant when the same slop is handed to back them. Petty? Probably. But it's something I reserve the right to indulge in on rare occasion.

[stevenleser]

19. You hammered home a point alright, but I doubt it's the one you intended.

You reinforced the point from the very beginning of Sanders candidacy that he is just not that compelling of a candidate. And we know that for sure because his supporters can't support him because they think he is so good. They have to define him in terms of an offset of Hillary Clinton.

In doing so they will run with the most ridiculous internet and right wing rumors and smears against her. And there are certainly exceptions. There were 3 or 4 Sanders supporters here trying to stand against the Avalanche four months ago that had defined BLM as a Hillary front organization. There were Sanders supporters who were for the email investigation and suggested it would amount to something. Etc.

So yes, you hammered home a point with your endorsement of a Reddit borne rumor that the Sanders supporter who managed that Reddit found so unbelievable he had to delete it. And it's the same point we have seen from day one.