Fair warning: The newest Hillary meme is...

[Fearless]

The newest Hillary MSM meme is to lie blatantly and then to back it up with non sequitur examples, data, or rebuttals and logical leaps of faith trying to confuse the audience and derail public discussion.

This can be seen throughout the media currently, particularly in several dozen very poor quality editorials.

Keep an eye out for these "sources".

Look for the logical leaps.

----------------------------------------

Here's how it works:


Step one: State a lie.

Step two: Back it up with facts that don't actually support your lie.

Step three: Back up your back up with real facts that back up the facts actually presented in step two.

Result: Ideally people believe your lie because they believe the facts that bolster the non sequitur facts posited in step two.

----------------------------------------

The logical leap in the argument is that if the facts in step two are true and the facts in step three are real, the lie in step one must be real. The problem is that the facts don't actually relate to the lie at all.


In summary, the newest meme is basically just make shit up and defend it with non sequitur facts.


EDIT TO ADD THE EXAMPLES I POSTED DOWN THREAD (and any new ones I find):


These kinds of OP/ED's...

This harumphing that pundit statements—ones that are offered and packaged as opinions—aren’t “objective” is eerily reminiscent of right wing conspiracy theories about the supposed mainstream media. For conservatives, it’s easier to believe that the media is out to get them than to accept that perhaps it’s that their worldview is nutty and that the larger public, including the media, knows it. The paranoia and accusations are an obvious attempt to deflect this reality and to convince themselves that it’s not that they’re crazy, but that the world is out to get them. Remember the “unskewing the polls” paranoids of 2012 who believed that Mitt Romney was secretly leading in the polls, but that the mainstream media was covering that up? Yeah, it’s not a good look.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/bernie_sanders_truthers_step_down_theres_no_conspiracy_to_hide_that_he_won_the_debate/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

It was an impressive performance. Yet the debate also surfaced one of Ms. Clinton’s vulnerabilities: the possibility that Mr. Sanders and the leftward drift of the Democratic Party will drag her away from pragmatism — and from general-election voters. Her challenge is to continue defending her approach to progressivism instead of watering it down with more concessions to loud activists in the Democratic base.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-must-resist-the-lure-of-the-left/2015/10/14/6494f9b2-729c-11e5-8d93-0af317ed58c9_story.html

More surprisingly—and perhaps more importantly—she also drew first blood on Bernie Sanders, who was put on the defensive early when CNN moderator Anderson Cooper pressed him to explain the biggest blemish on his otherwise progressive resume: His 2005 vote to shield gun makers and dealers from lawsuits. With Sanders struggling, Cooper turned to Clinton to ask if her rival is “tough enough on guns.” Hillary, who earlier this month cleverly made repealing that same law a centerpiece of her gun reform proposal, didn’t hesitate. “No,” she said, “not at all.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/13/hillary_clinton_won_the_cnn_debate_with_a_surprising_performance.html

Her performance Tuesday night at the first Democratic debate was so spectacular as to erase all doubt: Weakened as she may be, there is still fire in that belly, and she will not quietly shift to the side to make room for someone else — not Bernie Sanders, and not Joe Biden should he ever stop this annoying dillydallying and decide to run.

And I don’t consider her performance spectacular simply because of what she did — although she demonstrated a remarkable assuredness and dexterity — but also because of what the others didn’t do.

It seemed as if Clinton was the only candidate on that stage that came to play … and to win.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/bernie_sanders_truthers_step_down_theres_no_conspiracy_to_hide_that_he_won_the_debate/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

[still_one]

1. are you calling out Hillary supporters as liars? Because that is how it reads

[whatchamacallit]

20. Lol... Calling out Bernie supporters as white supremacists and truthers is peachy tho...

[still_one]

67. So who are you accusing of that? It isn't me

[whatchamacallit]

80. Please

Last edited Thu Oct 15, 2015, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

You're going to try to deny months of OPs and posts by Hillary supporters, painting Sanders supporters en mass (regardless of actual ethnicity) as white supremacists? The truther pejorative was used today in a post you popped off in.

[still_one]

84. I only speak for myself, no one else

[whatchamacallit]

87. Yes, but if you're going to protest broad brushing

don't protest, ignore, or support it selectively.

[George II]

89. Who here has called out Bernie supporters as "white supremacists and truthers"?

That's a pretty bold accusation, I hope you have something to confirm that.

[Fearless]

35. There's that logical leap I was talking about

I said that some people are lying. I did not call them liars. There is a difference. Lying is an individual act, being a liar is a personality trait. I said that Op/Ed writers in the MSM are lying.

[still_one]

69. That is why I asked for clarification. Thanks

[Fearless]

71. No problem!

[Android3.14]

56. Hey, thanks for the example that proves the OP's point

besides, why would you want to defend and/or support someone who voted for the Iraq War, helped craft the TPP, and refuses to break up banks that are too big to fail?

[still_one]

73. I was asking a specific question, and the OP answered. I never said what my position was or was not

in regard to what you brought up, and have never stated who I was voting for, so if you want to discuss those other issues you will have to do it with someone else

[Android3.14]

86. Suuuure

[Fairgo]

63. Now do step 2!

I want to see how this works.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Yep, accusatory non sequiturs are very much in vogue now w/ Hillary shills. -nt-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=684900

[Skinner]

3. This OP is divisive. (EDITED)

EDIT: This was posted in response to an earlier version of this OP.

[Capt. Obvious]

4. Yup

[HERVEPA]

5. Oh, primaries are divisive. surprise. Surprise.

[Skinner]

6. But posts don't have to smear supporters of other candidates.

This OP has no substance whatsoever. It's just a broad-brush of Hillary supporters as liars.

[HooptieWagon]

10. Like this, for example?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=683058

[Skinner]

11. Yes, like this.

Posts don't have to smear smear supporters of other candidates.

[Divernan]

14. The OP refers to editorials, not supporters on DU or elsewhere.

[Skinner]

17. It's been edited. Here's what it used to say:

The newest Hillary supporters meme is to lie blatantly and then to back it up with non sequitur examples, data, or rebuttals and logical leaps of faith trying to confuse the audience and derail public discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&info=1&address=1251685146

[Fearless]

26. It was edited to clarify I was speaking about media.

As I stated in the original OP "This can be seen throughout the media currently"

[Skinner]

31. Thanks.

I have edited my earlier post to make clear I was responding to your first version.

[Fearless]

34. No worries.

And while I have you as a captive audience... I did want to thank the Admins for the very smooth functionality DU provided during the debate...

As we all know there've been issues in the past, and I'm happy to say that I saw none whatsoever on my end.

Thanks again.

[restorefreedom]

29. i read it as campaign meme

rather then from her supporters. If the "lie" comes from the campaign, and her supporters repeat it, especially if they don't realize it's a lie, then that's not casting any aspersions on her supporters necessarily.

as unpleasant as it is to see people refer to the candidates as liars, we all know that some candidates and their surrogates lie in political campaigns, and I think that's fair game.

[workinclasszero]

27. True but here on the Bernie Underground

they will let that pass I bet.

[riversedge]

57. see # 17 the OP edited

his OP (Skinner post)

[cpompilo]

82. OP appears to me to address MSM pundits. Are you saying that MSM pundits are Hillary supporters?

I'm confused. Please explain.

[Capt. Obvious]

8. People don't have to be assholes about it

[Fearless]

19. Then people should stick with the facts as you had said yourself

Many times over the past six months.

These kinds of OP/ED's...

This harumphing that pundit statements—ones that are offered and packaged as opinions—aren’t “objective” is eerily reminiscent of right wing conspiracy theories about the supposed mainstream media. For conservatives, it’s easier to believe that the media is out to get them than to accept that perhaps it’s that their worldview is nutty and that the larger public, including the media, knows it. The paranoia and accusations are an obvious attempt to deflect this reality and to convince themselves that it’s not that they’re crazy, but that the world is out to get them. Remember the “unskewing the polls” paranoids of 2012 who believed that Mitt Romney was secretly leading in the polls, but that the mainstream media was covering that up? Yeah, it’s not a good look.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/bernie_sanders_truthers_step_down_theres_no_conspiracy_to_hide_that_he_won_the_debate/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

It was an impressive performance. Yet the debate also surfaced one of Ms. Clinton’s vulnerabilities: the possibility that Mr. Sanders and the leftward drift of the Democratic Party will drag her away from pragmatism — and from general-election voters. Her challenge is to continue defending her approach to progressivism instead of watering it down with more concessions to loud activists in the Democratic base.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-must-resist-the-lure-of-the-left/2015/10/14/6494f9b2-729c-11e5-8d93-0af317ed58c9_story.html

More surprisingly—and perhaps more importantly—she also drew first blood on Bernie Sanders, who was put on the defensive early when CNN moderator Anderson Cooper pressed him to explain the biggest blemish on his otherwise progressive resume: His 2005 vote to shield gun makers and dealers from lawsuits. With Sanders struggling, Cooper turned to Clinton to ask if her rival is “tough enough on guns.” Hillary, who earlier this month cleverly made repealing that same law a centerpiece of her gun reform proposal, didn’t hesitate. “No,” she said, “not at all.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/13/hillary_clinton_won_the_cnn_debate_with_a_surprising_performance.html


They are dishonest.

It's not divisive to shine a light on dishonesty.

[onehandle]

22. It's your pool.

Get out the chlorine.

[Doctor_J]

24. Probably, but if all the divisive posts were deleted, GDP would be cut in half

or so

[Democrat_Since_Birth]

36. Please help...

I am getting this message:

Your account has had too many failed attempts at logging in. Please contact the DU Administrators.


I am DemocratSinceBirth, no spaces. You have my e-mail.

I can not start a thread in "Ask The Administrators' because I don't have the requisite amount of posts and my e-mails have not been responded to, probably because the [e-mail] gets a lot of traffic.

I miss my handle with 60,000 posts, a lot.

Thank you in advance.

DSB
Brian

P.S. I don't even think I had that many failed log ins??? Is someone trying to hack my account?

[herding cats]

40. MIRT can get your post to the admins attention.

I'm sorry you're having problems, just hang tight.

[Democrat_Since_Birth]

43. Please help...

I am sure the Administrator gets a lot of extraneous information.

I just want to log in under the ID I have said since July of 2003.

[herding cats]

47. I sent it up to the admin in MIRT already.

Hopefully they'll see it soon and be able to help you fix the problems.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. That was a most unpleasant experience.

I want to thank everybody who helped me from the body of my heart.

[herding cats]

85. I'm just glad you're all fixed now.

[Capt. Obvious]

42. I thought I was logged out for a second

[ColesCountyDem]

46. Admins have been made aware of your difficulty, DSB.

[Democrat_Since_Birth]

52. What a strange message

"Your account has had too many failed attempts at logging in. Please contact the DU Administrators."

They should have secret questions like the bank.


THANK YOU SO MUCH

[ColesCountyDem]

53. One of my teammates on MIRT sent them a message on your behalf.

You're most welcome! I think any of us would be incredibly frustrated.

[greatauntoftriplets]

59. Good to know that it's you.

I sent it upstairs to Admin to sort out.

[ismnotwasm]

75. Wow

I'm so sorry--this is like an SOS from limbo!

[greatauntoftriplets]

50. In MIRT, we've sent this up to Admin to straighten out.

Thanks for letting us know this is you.

[Fearless]

54. Just PM Skinner.

[Democrat_Since_Birth]

77. He is taking care of it, TY

But it's another Catch 22

You can't send PMs until you get 50 posts!!!

You can't start a thread in 'Ask The Admin' until you get 10 posts.

You send an e-mail to the Admin and it gets lost among all the other less urgent e-mails.

This was all I could think of.

[greatauntoftriplets]

79. Skinner says he's fixing the problem.

You should be back as your real self soon.

[Cosmic Kitten]

58. Did you register at the "other" site?

You prolly got phished

[Democrat_Since_Birth]

66. Discussionist ? No...

The only other sites I frequent and post at are sports oriented sites.

Doesn't "phished" mean asked for info?

I just couldn't log in and got this message:

Your account has had too many failed attempts at logging in. Please contact the DU Administrators.

[Cosmic Kitten]

70. no, the new "other site" the supportes one.

It looks very dodgy.
Definitely, has the makings
of a honey pot exploit to gather
IP and MAC addys, followed by DOXing
and phishing.

You can never be too careful

[Democrat_Since_Birth]

72. Nope, not there...

But how could registering at one site make it easier to get hacked at another site.

I am not particularly internet savvy.

[Cosmic Kitten]

74. Cookies etc

[ismnotwasm]

76. DU has lot of cookies--so does a lot of places on the Internet

In fact to access you have to have "cookies enabled" Which is why all users should clean their internet data regularly--I clear my iPad--which is my device of choice--and reset it every day.

[jeff47]

83. By sharing credentials.

Let's say you use the same email and password on "site A" and "site 2".

"Site 2" gets hacked, and the hackers get all emails and passwords. They then use that to log into your account on "site A", because it's the same email and password.

What should you do?

-Have a unique password for your bank. Don't use that password anywhere else on the Internet. Make it at least 10 characters of gibberish*. Go ahead and write it down - it's really unlikely someone will physically break into your house and steal that piece of paper. NEVER log into your bank from a link in an email. Always go there manually from a new browser window.

-Have a unique password for your primary email account, using the rules above. Like your bank, don't use it anywhere else on the Internet. Because getting into your email lets the "bad guys" click "forgot password" on every other web site to get in to every other web site as you.

-If your bank or email offers "two-factor authentication", use it.**

-Make a strong password for sites that are "important" to you, but not as critical as the ones above. Say, Amazon.com, because they have your credit card and address. Go ahead and reuse it at a few sites.

-Make another strong password for every other site. Go ahead and reuse it all over the place. Because getting "hacked out" of unimportant sites isn't very critical.

Some people use password managers as an alternative, so every site has a unique, strong password. These are a pain in the ass to keep secure unless you always use the same computer to log in to everything.

*How to make gibberish: one option is to just put random letters together. It's decent enough. Another option is to open to a random page in a book, and use the first letter from every line on that page. Add numbers and punctuation, but do not add them to the end of the password - that's where everyone usually adds them. Putting them in a random place in the middle of the password is much stronger.

**Two factor authentication: Typically, this is set up where you log in to the web site, and the web site sends a text message to your phone with a one-time code. This means no one can get in without getting your username, password and your phone....or at least get in through the normal login path.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. If nothing else, Hillary is a creative campaigner. K&R

[JoePhilly]

9. Were you high when you wrote this?

It is your OP that is fact free.

[davidpdx]

90. Good idea, why do you go around and accuse people of being on drugs

I'm sure that makes you lots of friends.

[JaneyVee]

12. Can you give an example?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Fearless]

21. See my reply to Skinner.

[Faux pas]

13. Oh Yeah!

[NCTraveler]

15. They have been using that style to go after her for decades.

Nothing new.

[global1]

16. So Essentially They Are Employing The Same Strategy That The Repugs Use...

Well what is the saying? Oh yes - "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

[Doctor_J]

18. Example?

[Fearless]

23. Please see my reply to Skinner above.

[Andy823]

25. Interesting

"In summary, the newest meme is basically just make shit up and defend it with non sequitur facts."

Sounds like exactly what the Obama haters have been doing for years here on DU. Make up shit and the refuse to provide links to back them up. Of course a lot of those who hated Obama now have targeted Hillary.

If you could proved some links to your claim I would be nice.

[Fearless]

28. Please see my response above to Skinner

And to clarify, as it was a point of confusion... I am speaking about journalists Op/Ed's not members of DU.

[Sunlei]

30. You divide the D party with your OP

[Cosmic Kitten]

33. It's the 99% vs the 1%

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

39. Ops can't divide it's the actions by the players that divides all the op does is

Present the facts as to what is going down.

[Sunlei]

88. Some media,& paid media,(started with fox) is an arm of the republican party. They intend to divide

the D party. By using OPs that present Mrs. Clinton as the liar (as the OPs example) plays right into republican hands. This OP divides the D PARTY and it should not be in discussion primary.

IMO it is sickening, anyone loyal to the PARTY would ever be so disrespectful, "so bridge burning" to ANY of our candidates.

[Cosmic Kitten]

32. Hillary employs a similar tactic as seen in the debate

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, though, with all due respect, the question is really about political expediency. Just in July, New Hampshire, you told the crowd you'd, quote, "take a back seat to no one when it comes to progressive values."

Last month in Ohio, you said you plead guilty to, quote, "being kind of moderate and center." Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?

CLINTON: No. I think that, like most people that I know, I have a range of views, but they are rooted in my values and my experience. And I don't take a back seat to anyone when it comes to progressive experience and progressive commitment.

You know, when I left law school, my first job was with the Children's Defense Fund, and for all the years since, I have been focused on how we're going to un-stack the deck, and how we're gonna make it possible for more people to have the experience I had.

You know, to be able to come from a grandfather who was a factory worker, a father who was a small business person, and now asking the people of America to elect me president.

" Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?

And I don't take a back seat
to anyone when it comes to
progressive experience and
progressive commitment.

Unless she wants to work with republicans

CLEARLY she DOES change her
political identity based on who
she's talking to. And they cheered her!!!

She was disingenuous saying NO
she does not change based on her audience.

Then she conflated her no by invoking
"children" and "opportunity" with progressiveness.

Followed by a reference to her blue collar conservative
factory worker father.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

37. If it came from her mouth then by definition it is a LIE.

Just like all the other republicans spewing lies and fear HRC has not yet started with the hate but it's coming next.

[Fearless]

41. That may be slightly excessive.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

45. How so, it's the way I see things from where I am sitting

I don't see her as any different then any moderate republican that is why I don't and will not support her

If others see her differently that is fine everyone will see her differently.

[Fearless]

48. I agree with Hillary on perhaps 80% of our mutal points of view.

The problem is that I believe her solutions do not go far enough to solve the problems we agree exist.

For instance in the debate...

She said she went and told Wall St. to "cut it out"

Whereas Bernie wants strict guidelines and punishments for those who don't follow the rules AND wants to break up the big banks and other monopolies.


Both Bernie and Hillary (and I) agree that there is a problem.

However, I side with Bernie on what the solution must be.

[cosmicone]

38. Clinton camp must be ignoring me

I never got that memo ... I'll need to call them and ask them to keep me up-to-date on all the memes.

[Fearless]

51. Logical leap

I did not say the Clinton Camp is coordinating random Op/Ed writers.

I'm saying that there is a trend amongst some writers of dishonesty in the fashion I've described in the OP.

[riversedge]

61. only a Sanders supporter would put out such crap!

[Lil Missy]

44. IT's a conspiracy. n/t

[Fearless]

49. It's not a conspiracy.

[hrmjustin]

55. We are in your mind.

[Cosmic Kitten]

64. That would explain why so many seem out of their own

[stevenleser]

60. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but...

... it's a conspiracy.

[Fearless]

62. Actually you'll note that prior to you posting here I already addressed this

With another poster (who otherwise agreed with me), that it is certainly not a conspiracy.

Thanks though!

[whatchamacallit]

65. Leser Reports, You Decide

[HooptieWagon]

68. And we shovel.

[ismnotwasm]

78. Right?

Plus one that makes no sense to me whatsoever.