Eew.
I haven’t read so much mind-boggling propaganda since the height of the Bush II years. You remember those days?
The fire-hose has been jammed open. I always thought that the Republicans were the masters of this technique, but I can see that our tribe has learned a trick or two.
So for instance, a criticism of the failures of American foreign policy in the Middle East (which I’m sure most reasonable people can agree has been a disaster) gets warped into “blaming Hillary for the rise of ISIS”. Wait a minute. Does she or does she not support the policies that have led to the rise of ISIS? Because I think Jeff Weaver was talking about those policies being the cause of the rise of ISIS, not Hillary herself being the cause. But naturally, that’s a subtle distinction.
Likewise with the continued beating of the “not qualified” drum. This has now become an “ad hominem” attack against Hillary. Claire, I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means.
“Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”
The point being that it actually IS the “character, motive, or other attribute” of Clinton which is being called into question. Does a person who takes the bulk of her campaign financing from special interests actually qualify to represent the majority of people- the actual people whose votes she is soliciting? I think it’s a fair question, not a logical fallacy. But as we have learned from the Republicans, words mean whatever those who use them want them to mean.
The drum beats continue. Apparently, if you so much as question the qualifications of one woman to do a specific job, you are guilty of destroying the hopes and dreams of all women. Well that’s going to cut back on our need for any more debates!
We have a story about a child who lost her mother in a shooting, and we learn that Bernie Sanders just doesn’t care! He’s “callus” for finding that there’s really no legal basis for holding auto makers accountable for deaths caused by drunk driving. Or something similar.
Then a famous economist plays the purity card. As if asking us to make a decision as important as this one by considering the past record of the candidate, was somehow requiring that candidate to pass a purity test. But it’s OK! She’s apologized for her past failures of judgement.
I think you get the idea. This has become a campaign, like many, many others, less about substance and more about tone. At least as far as one side is concerned.