General Discussion

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)

25. The article in the OP details them

Mon May 18, 2015, 12:44 PM

May 2015

First, look at the source. As I pointed out in my thread about the Gish Gallop some anti-HRC'ers engage in, many of their screeds originate with right wing BS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026643800

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NYT: The Right Baits Democrats to Help Take Down Hillary [View all] nolabear May 2015 OP

Aw Geez,you think. Wellstone ruled May 2015 #1

Just supporting what's long been understood. nolabear May 2015 #11

But, Wellstone ruled May 2015 #49

Strawman fallacy AgingAmerican May 2015 #2

It's not a strawman. You can disagree that this explains what you and other DUers have been doing stevenleser May 2015 #5

It's a strawman AgingAmerican May 2015 #6

Let's count the problems with your contention, because there are many stevenleser May 2015 #7

Another fallacy AgingAmerican May 2015 #50

Not ad hominem at all. It's all directed at your statements stevenleser May 2015 #56

You! You! AgingAmerican May 2015 #60

Yep, because I am talking about statements made by you. I get that you don't understand the stevenleser May 2015 #62

Now you are petty bickering AgingAmerican May 2015 #63

If it makes you feel better to think that, by all means. Folks can read this thread and stevenleser May 2015 #65

The article is nonsense AgingAmerican May 2015 #66

The article has links to things that actually occurred. It's firmly grounded in fact. stevenleser May 2015 #68

The premise of the article is nonsense AgingAmerican May 2015 #70

That is automatically proved wrong by links to the actual tweets and other things that occurred. stevenleser May 2015 #76

'Links' and 'Tweets' AgingAmerican May 2015 #79

The article is partially about Tweets, so yes, a link to the Tweets in question is pretty important. stevenleser May 2015 #80

More ad hominem AgingAmerican May 2015 #82

More suggestions of logical fallacies when you don't understand what those fallacies mean. nt stevenleser May 2015 #86

Someone is protesting w-a-y too much, using playground rules and name calling Sheepshank May 2015 #71

Why don't you take a stab at it AgingAmerican May 2015 #73

Yep, I have no idea. It's silly. The article is exquisitely sourced. Claiming it is nonsense is just stevenleser May 2015 #75

This is the sort of thing AgingAmerican May 2015 #77

First, I Am not "you guys" and we've never met. But it's no Straw Man. nolabear May 2015 #13

Who are "you guys"? hrmjustin May 2015 #32

A small cadre of Hillary supporters AgingAmerican May 2015 #67

Don't worry about his response to you. He refuses to acknowledge the sourced facts in the article. stevenleser May 2015 #69

The article is nonsense AgingAmerican May 2015 #72

Sorry but the article is not junk. hrmjustin May 2015 #74

OMG, look at posts 79 and 80 above. He never read it. stevenleser May 2015 #81

More ad hominem AgingAmerican May 2015 #85

Again, you don't understand what the ad-hominem fallacy means. nt stevenleser May 2015 #87

Have you ever served on mirt or as a moderator here? hrmjustin May 2015 #88

I could care less what RW trolls do AgingAmerican May 2015 #90

Ok but some of us do care and we are making that known. hrmjustin May 2015 #91

Using them to attack Sanders supporters is fallacious AgingAmerican May 2015 #92

I am not using it to attack Sanders supporters. hrmjustin May 2015 #93

The person you jumped in to defend is AgingAmerican May 2015 #94

This is about wRning social media thatvthere sre trolls about. hrmjustin May 2015 #95

No, I'm not, and neither is the OP. nt stevenleser May 2015 #98

It means responding to someone by going after them personally AgingAmerican May 2015 #89

It means attacking the person instead of that person's statements. I attacked your statements. nt stevenleser May 2015 #99

I think the total they are spending is over Two Billion between all RW candidates randys1 May 2015 #83

It is just a story from the times. hrmjustin May 2015 #31

Uhm... kenfrequed May 2015 #3

It's not supporting other candidates that is the problem.... MaggieD May 2015 #9

OK. kenfrequed May 2015 #12

Never claimed. nolabear May 2015 #15

Nor were these "right wing talking points" clarified kenfrequed May 2015 #21

If they are planted by the right.... MaggieD May 2015 #22

so... kenfrequed May 2015 #24

The article in the OP details them MaggieD May 2015 #25

Yes, some of those articles were problematic kenfrequed May 2015 #28

So you didn't read it MaggieD May 2015 #29

Right... a few things. kenfrequed May 2015 #35

You should have read it.... MaggieD May 2015 #36

Really? kenfrequed May 2015 #38

No they aren't MaggieD May 2015 #42

And... kenfrequed May 2015 #44

you won't get anywhere with that one. Phlem May 2015 #51

I've noticed that. 840high May 2015 #58

The irony of that thread is amusing. Capt. Obvious May 2015 #37

In what way? kenfrequed May 2015 #39

The OP using a Gish Gallop Capt. Obvious May 2015 #40

True. kenfrequed May 2015 #41

Actually I'm RESPONDING MaggieD May 2015 #43

So... kenfrequed May 2015 #45

No, I am talking about the link in my previous post MaggieD May 2015 #47

That makes sense Capt. Obvious May 2015 #46

Actually, it doesn't kenfrequed May 2015 #48

The kneejerk responses to this are bizarre. It shows the futility of attempting to have stevenleser May 2015 #14

Thanks. The defensiveness and extrapolation are disheartening. nolabear May 2015 #18

No, the intention is to advocate being careful whose stuff we follow and repost. nolabear May 2015 #10

Establishment, overpaid media outlets complaining that liberals closeupready May 2015 #4

Like I've been saying MaggieD May 2015 #8

+1 Historic NY May 2015 #30

The bait lands all over DU. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #16

It's nice the NYT finally decides to write about r/w astroturfing. Cerridwen May 2015 #17

I know. Inch by inch, I suppose. nolabear May 2015 #19

The Right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary... SidDithers May 2015 #20

Exactly (nt) MaggieD May 2015 #23

+1 uponit7771 May 2015 #27

I am fringe left? Trajan May 2015 #55

Supporting a candidate is very different from denigrating their rival, in my area negative attacks Bluenorthwest May 2015 #97

Most the anti Hillary on left base forums are FUD, winger-ish memes with winger-ish retorts uponit7771 May 2015 #26

with McConnell praising Obama as the lone crusader on the TPP and Dem Senators working MisterP May 2015 #33

lol the responses are predictable but if you said that there were hrmjustin May 2015 #34

Isn't this thread also a response to those efforts? Trajan May 2015 #52

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Phlem May 2015 #54

What the hell are you talking about? nolabear May 2015 #59

I'll cut and paste my response LWolf May 2015 #53

Great. Not you then. Thanks. nolabear May 2015 #57

It's fascinating how many DUers thought this NY Times article was about them. stevenleser May 2015 #61

And it creates a kind of blindness and vulnerability. nolabear May 2015 #96

Hillary does a fine job on her own creating disenfranchisement. n/t Exilednight May 2015 #64

So if someone on the right points out a hughee99 May 2015 #78

The GOP is really worried about Hillary Clinton Gothmog May 2015 #84

totally lol'ing at the numerous arguments on this thread against the op article Sheepshank May 2015 #100

Meanwhile, President Obama has two years left. tridim May 2015 #101