5 ms·

In 30 years of public life, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to back up that claim. These people you know are sadly misinformed.

Bartweiss 10y ago
I think the point is that in context, that doesn't matter. If everyone believed that, Hillary would be polling at 70%. Starting an argument from "this is ok because we're right and they're wrong" means that you have to expect the other side to use the exact same argument. I'd rather not see us go down the road of firing people for supporting popular candidates, if only because everyone can do it.
hellbanner 10y ago
So Clinton Cash is 0% truth then? https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296 https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Busi...
rfrank 10y ago
"hasn't been a single shred." http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf
- zimpenfish 10y ago
  Worth pointing out that GAI was co-founded by a STEPHEN K. BANNON which, coincidentally, is the same STEPHEN K. BANNON that runs Breitbart and is currently the campaign chairman for DONALD J. TRUMP. Possibly not the most unbiased of sources, I think.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    Do you have an actual comment on the content of the report, or just low level FUD about its source? This comment is actually pretty hilarious given the fact that Teneo Holdings, mentioned in the report, was founded by ex Bill Clinton staffers, and had Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as 2 of it's original 3 advisors. Huma Abedin is presently on the Teneo payroll. If those sorts of ties between people are problematic to you, then you must ABSOLUTELY HATE the Clintons, because the same type of arrangement is how literally everyone close to them got there.
  - anExcitedBeast 10y ago
    Every political research product is funded by someone with an agenda. GAI, Brookings, Cato, Heritage, take your pick. Funding should always be considered, but is not cause to discount otherwise valid methodologies and findings.
beachstartup 10y ago
> hasn't been single shred of evidence to back up that claim saying stuff like this doesn't help your cause. it really, really doesn't.
psyc 10y ago
I think you must mean Unassailable Proof. There's certainly plenty of Bayesian evidence.

Bartweiss 10y ago

I think the point is that in context, that doesn't matter. If everyone believed that, Hillary would be polling at 70%. Starting an argument from "this is ok because we're right and they're wrong" means that you have to expect the other side to use the exact same argument. I'd rather not see us go down the road of firing people for supporting popular candidates, if only because everyone can do it.

hellbanner 10y ago

So Clinton Cash is 0% truth then? https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296 https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Busi...

rfrank 10y ago

"hasn't been a single shred." http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf

zimpenfish 10y ago
Worth pointing out that GAI was co-founded by a STEPHEN K. BANNON which, coincidentally, is the same STEPHEN K. BANNON that runs Breitbart and is currently the campaign chairman for DONALD J. TRUMP. Possibly not the most unbiased of sources, I think.
- rfrank 10y ago
  Do you have an actual comment on the content of the report, or just low level FUD about its source? This comment is actually pretty hilarious given the fact that Teneo Holdings, mentioned in the report, was founded by ex Bill Clinton staffers, and had Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as 2 of it's original 3 advisors. Huma Abedin is presently on the Teneo payroll. If those sorts of ties between people are problematic to you, then you must ABSOLUTELY HATE the Clintons, because the same type of arrangement is how literally everyone close to them got there.
- anExcitedBeast 10y ago
  Every political research product is funded by someone with an agenda. GAI, Brookings, Cato, Heritage, take your pick. Funding should always be considered, but is not cause to discount otherwise valid methodologies and findings.

beachstartup 10y ago

> hasn't been single shred of evidence to back up that claim saying stuff like this doesn't help your cause. it really, really doesn't.

psyc 10y ago

I think you must mean Unassailable Proof. There's certainly plenty of Bayesian evidence.