This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yeah that's some old detail, the point there was the Clintons were eschewing FBI interviews for WH personnel.First, 'straight arrows' is
Second, Baird was sponsoring the people she hired for citizenship and paying them as well as giving them room and board.
Did Hillary or her staff use a blackberry or any other wireless device while inside her secured suite?
- I'm sure this is nothing, weird left field comment considering he's just about done. Sad to say, as in my opinion Sanders has demonstrated that the people really do want ethical government and decent, honest officials (or as close as we can get).
Of course they do, no one would dispute that. I would love to see a poll where even 1% would say they want unethical and dishonest officials.
You don't believe she's dishonest, you just think she says things she doesn't really think or feel when it helps her politically?
I don't talk about her in the same breath as Mother Teresa.
This. We form blind spots when we're winning. And I have problems with Bernie's politics, but largely because I lean further right than the Democrats here. But if I were left leaning, I would be far less willing to dismiss Bernie's politics as they are precedented in several European countries with some of the highest scores on contentment, health and well being. Perplexes me how some are willing to accept a schemer who admits her job is to preserve the status quo because it's more realistic than change, over somone sincerely bent on enacting changes in line with Democratic Party principles. But no, let the likes of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz block with a machine gun while Hillary tries to pick up her own fumbles while making her way down an empty field. That's progress. So... Change depends on voters taking a stand for what they believe in and insisting on that. So thanks for not doing that. You. Are. The. Problem.I don't talk about her in the same breath as Mother Teresa.
All politicians that I have heard in my lifetime (with the possible exception of Bernie) say things that they don't 100% believe in and/or think will help them politically as it is the pragmatic and expedient thing to do. If Bill Clinton had not signed DOMA, he would not have been reelected IMO. I am certain Obama was in favor of gay marriage but at the time he first ran in 2008, that would have been a deal breaker and would have cost him the election. So, I don't believe Hillary is completely honest, but then I don't think most politicians are.
I see. And still you don't consider her dishonest?I don't talk about her in the same breath as Mother Teresa.
All politicians that I have heard in my lifetime (with the possible exception of Bernie) say things that they don't 100% believe in and/or think will help them politically as it is the pragmatic and expedient thing to do. If Bill Clinton had not signed DOMA, he would not have been reelected IMO. I am certain Obama was in favor of gay marriage but at the time he first ran in 2008, that would have been a deal breaker and would have cost him the election. So, I don't believe Hillary is completely honest, but then I don't think most politicians are.
What I believe in is preserving progressive programs such as Obamacare and having Democratic nominated SCOTUS nominees. That wouldn't happen if Bernie is nominated and loses the general election (in fact it might take decades to undo the damage that would result from a Republican president). This is not the year to take a stand and cut off your nose to spite your face (which is was the consequence of the Nader voters in 2000).
No, not overall. I basically think that most of her policy positions represent what she really believes. Although we seem to get into parsing words here. Not being George Washington honest, would be considered dishonest if you want to be technical.
I consider that a description of a dishonest person. So, yeah, I guess we just fundamentally disgree on this.
I feel like he's conflating two different types of lies. There are lies that a candidate has to tell if they want to be elected. Usually those lies have to do with personal views like religion. The lies that the anti-Hillary camp is talking about are not those lies. I do not believe her policy positions are set in stone on anything. She'll just say what she feels like will give her the best chance of winning. She has changed positions so many times it is impossible to know where she'll end up on a certain issue until the time comes for her to make a decision. What we do know is that if she is elected she's not going to do anything to truly piss off the financial powers as that would hinder her chance at reelection. That is the main difference between her and Bernie. She tries to give the appearance of not being bought when all evidence suggests she is. We know Bernie isn't. The "fighting for us" signs truly make me gag. We know she isn't fighting for us.
A rather absurd comparison. If you honestly can't see any quantitative and qualitative difference as far as the veracity of statements made, it is really pointless to discuss anything with you as you are disregarding what not only should be obvious (Thousands of Muslims on rooftops in NJ cheering the Twin Towers falling) but is also verified by fact checkers of their statements. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/in-presidential-race-a-steady-diet-of-political-whoppers/ (Interestingly, Bernie was about the same as Hillary, 28% versus 29% statements rated mostly or entirely false).Mr. Ham said:
How many of Bernie's were "entirely" versus Clinton?A rather absurd comparison. If you honestly can't see any quantitative and qualitative difference as far as the veracity of statements made, it is really pointless to discuss anything with you as you are disregarding what not only should be obvious (Thousands of Muslims on rooftops in NJ cheering the Twin Towers falling) but is also verified by fact checkers of their statements. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/in-presidential-race-a-steady-diet-of-political-whoppers/ (Interestingly, Bernie was about the same as Hillary, 28% versus 29% statements rated mostly or entirely false).
Politifact lumps the two (mostly false and false) together, so they don't see much difference and from another graph (didn't take when I tried to post it) it looks fairly close, Clinton slightly higher in both categories.
AAABatteries said:
Some of this stuff is qualitative and garbage in / garbage out.A rather absurd comparison. If you honestly can't see any quantitative and qualitative difference as far as the veracity of statements made, it is really pointless to discuss anything with you as you are disregarding what not only should be obvious (Thousands of Muslims on rooftops in NJ cheering the Twin Towers falling) but is also verified by fact checkers of their statements. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/in-presidential-race-a-steady-diet-of-political-whoppers/ (Interestingly, Bernie was about the same as Hillary, 28% versus 29% statements rated mostly or entirely false).
- Uh, ok, we can debate this all day long.
- False, Lie. A lying lie that only a liar would tell and then she lied when asked if she lying.
- Uhm, that's not a lie? I haven't peaked, who're we talking here, Rand Paul?
This was 2008. PF states that was lie then. (.... yet actually looking at the PF report I don't think it was. In fact it was a great statement by Obama and totally foreseeable - I could be mistaken but we have sent a ton of drones into Pakistan haven't we? Not to mention one very important special forces incursion into one of its major cities for a very important target?)
Sanders quote was not included in the study of candidates statements, nor was Hillary's (which like Brian Williams, actually may not have been an intentional falsehood or embellishment, which was the opinion of those who have specialize in looking at human memory and memory retention - studies have shown that people can misremember situations and events depending on a variety of factors including being in a perceived stressful situation (and it is ridiculous to believe that someone would lie about something like that when it could be so easily disproved by witnesses (in that case a cadre of reporters).
Ok I don't want to get into that one particular statement by Hillary (at least not in this post).
I see. So these are, for everyone involved, generally not lies, they are statements that are dubiously or not factually correct. Many of these are just "she/he was wrong."
The point is entirely lost on you.A rather absurd comparison. If you honestly can't see any quantitative and qualitative difference as far as the veracity of statements made, it is really pointless to discuss anything with you as you are disregarding what not only should be obvious (Thousands of Muslims on rooftops in NJ cheering the Twin Towers falling) but is also verified by fact checkers of their statements. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/in-presidential-race-a-steady-diet-of-political-whoppers/ (Interestingly, Bernie was about the same as Hillary, 28% versus 29% statements rated mostly or entirely false).
This.
As a moderate democrat, I can say the story with Hillary doesn't start or end with the republicans. She is a recidivist liar, and there is no telling what she actually believes in. She will bend to whichever way the winds of financial and political paybacks are blowing in the moment. That has been her political legacy and the best predictor of the future. I will vote for her only to nix Trump. But, I cannot in good conscience actively support someone as morally and ethically bankrupt as Hillary Clinton.
I'm fairly certain tim and Squis see Hillary's shortcomings. They're just far more realistic than those who believe electing Bernie will suddenly change the way American gov't functions.
It's been well chronicled from Whitewater to her emails. She has a long, illustrious career of putting herself above all laws and ethics. Again, she is a better option than Trump, and she will get my vote because there are times when forced to choose between two awful people, one is worse than others. But, she is a terrible person and an equally awful candidate/campaigner. And, she will likely lose to Trump because she doesn't have the political chops of her husband. Bernie would beat him, but she's the anointed one, so this is what we all have to live with.
Of course we do. I was aware of Hillary's shortcomings to the point that in 2008 I supported Obama months before the California primary. But as you noted we are realists. I admit, Hillary is a flawed candidate, but Bernie is more flawed (due that pesky Socialist thing and his age) while Trump would be an unmitigated disaster for this country. Bottom line Obamacare and SCOTUS are the most important issues to me and I have no doubt Hillary will preserve Obamacare and nominate justices like Sotomayor and Kagan, not another Scalia.
She is flawed. She is just too gooood for us.
Perhaps you should wake up then. I've said a bunch of times that Hillary is much closer to my worldview ideologically than Sanders is, but I'd still much prefer Sanders as President because Hillary is so disgracefully awful as a person. In other words, we understand what you're saying with regards to policy issues, so why don't you listen when we tell you why we dislike her so much?
Good posting, but it's been explained over and over ad nauseam in here yet guys like TGunz still like to play stupid like this is the first time it's EVER been brought up. I think he knows very well she is a liar and morally bankrupt, but just can't admit it because he's tied his horse to her.
Meh, Bill and Obama will gives speeches at the convention for her and none of that will matter.
I do listen, but it still startles me. Especially from a thoughtful person like yourself, because, IMO, you've bought into several false narratives in forming your opinion. And some of them have been obviously false.
And you're saying that the narratives driven by Hillary's camp on a daily and weekly basis are..,. Truthful?
