Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[squistion]

You're kidding, right?  There is specific, concrete evidence that Bill pardoned people in exchange for cash payments to Hillary's family members.

No - there is no "specific concrete evidence" there was a quid pro quo involved as a condition of the pardons.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Pro tip: If you're going to accuse people of lacking any real substance for their positions, it's probably best not to lead with a substance-less conjecture immediately prior to that.

You're not a pro. 

 

[Guest]

All of this "Hillary is soooo dishonest" is usually a dog whistle for "I don't like the idea of a woman in power/as president."  There's never any real substance to the accusations, so it's a pretty easy conclusion to draw.  

Absurd.  Show me a man who made over 10 million in a single year, mostly from investment banks just prior to entering a well oiled machine rigged to make her the presumptive nominee.  Show me a man who set up a private server and ran 2,000 classified emails through it, just to avoid transparency laws.

I'd gladly vote for a woman.  I may vote for this woman.  But the nose holding is warranted, before you get into the legacy of deceit and fact she got caught (along that trail) doing precisely what got Brian Williams fired for not being trusted enough to be a credible journalist.

This person is a horrible representative of Democracy.

 

[Aerial Assault]

I'm quite certain that Bernie supporters would back an Elizabeth Warren candidacy with equal enthusiasm, perhaps even more because she is a woman.

I hope so.  And I wasn't referring to true Sanders supporters anyway, but the Conway types who just can't get past Clinton's doggone honesty issue (otherwise they'd surely surely vote for her).   See, e.g., Scott Brown's attacks on Warren's honesty and integrity. 

 

[Aerial Assault]

Absurd.  Show me a man who made over 10 million in a single year, mostly from investment banks just prior to entering a well oiled machine rigged to make her the presumptive nominee.  Show me a man who set up a private server and ran 2,000 classified emails through it, just to avoid transparency laws.

I'd gladly vote for a woman.  I may vote for this woman.  But the nose holding is warranted, before you get into the legacy of deceit and fact she got caught (along that trail) doing precisely what got Brian Williams fired for not being trusted enough to be a credible journalist.

This person is a horrible representative of Democracy.

Oh, get real.  You're not even being coherent, ham. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Interesting question Cobalt. I honestly believe it's a combination of several factors: 

1. She and her husband have been shady. No point in denying that. I don't think they're especially corrupt or wicked, but during their careers they've often played on the edges of what is legal or ethical. 

2. Hillary is secretive and suspicious of outsiders- probably the most secretive and suspicious major politician we've had since Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, this is not all her fault; it's the result of decades of intense scrutiny and attacks (I'll get to that shortly.) But it lends itself to mistakes (the private server is a prime example) and conspiracy theories. 

3. When Bill ran in 1992, Hillary presented herself as not just another First Lady but as a partner. As a strong woman, and up to that point probably the most visible of the new kind of liberated feminist that the 1960s gave us, she immediately became an anathema to social conservatives. She even more than her husband became enemy #1 and stayed that way until the rise of Barack Obama. 

4. Now we combine the first 3 points: because of point #3 some right wing opportunists began to sell rumors and half-truths about the Clintons- they made a ton of money selling these to conservative groups eager to believe in the worst sort of accusations. Because of the Clintons' shadiness, and because of Hillary's secrecy, there was a lot of material for these guys to peddle: Whitewater, the Travel Office, Vince Foster, the FBI files, etc. Conservatives ate it up, but the rest of the nation barely paid attention. Until...

5. Bill got caught lying about Monica Lewinsky. This lie caused many of the other accusations against the Clintons to be more plausible, this time not just for the conservative base, but also for moderate Republicans and some independents. Most Democrats, however, didn't buy into it until...

6. 2008 and a desperate Bill and Hillary, losing to Barack Obama, made unfortunate comments and had surrogates attempt to smear him. This caused many Democrats to finally accept what Republicans had believed about the Clintons for years: that they were untrustworthy politicos interested in their own advancement. 

That's a brief summary. Since 2008, 3 new scandals have emerged: Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and the emails. The details of these are less important than the fact that the public at large now has an ingrained view of Hillary as dishonest and corrupt, one that she will struggle to conquer. Since, as I have pointed out, I don't believe her to be particularly dishonest or corrupt, I think she can conquer this perception, but it won't be easy especially  given her suspicion and secrecy which I already mentioned. Added to that, we are living in an anti-establishment period in which connections to corporations are in themselves seen as corruption. 

This all seems pretty logical to me. The one part that feels more like wishful thinking is that she "can conquer the perception [that she's dishonest]."  I mean, I suppose she can. But, given how entrenched the perception is, as you pointed out, and given her relatively poor skills in connecting on an emotional level with the average voter, I see this as optimistic, at best. And that's what concerns me, especially facing the prospect of President Trump. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You're not a pro. 

True enough, though that's also substance-less.

To see why people like me roll their eyes at the "You don't like Hillary because you don't like strong women" argument, try replacing "Hillary Clinton" with "Sarah Palin" and see if you still find the form of that argument convincing.  I'll bet you can easily come up with all sorts of really great, concrete arguments for opposing Sarah Palin, none of which contain even the faintest whiff of sexism.  Now, is it really that hard to believe that someone who starts with different priors that you might come up with similarly non-sexist reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton?  

 

[Guest]

Oh, get real.  You're not even being coherent, ham. 

How so?

Point 1 = documented 

Point 2 = FBI investigation ongoing for a year at great expense and with 100ish agents.  Hillary herself admits it's not politically motivated.

Point 3 = Bosnia story she told several times about being under sniper danger and rushed to armored vehicle.  Completely debunked as she stayed on the tarmac meeting multiple groups of children.  

What's incoherent? 

 

[Zegras11]

True enough, though that's also substance-less.

To see why people like me roll their eyes at the "You don't like Hillary because you don't like strong women" argument, try replacing "Hillary Clinton" with "Sarah Palin" and see if you still find the form of that argument convincing.  I'll bet you can easily come up with all sorts of really great, concrete arguments for opposing Sarah Palin, none of which contain even the faintest whiff of sexism.  Now, is it really that hard to believe that someone who starts with different priors that you might come up with similarly non-sexist reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton?  

 

[jon_mx]

Oh, get real.  You're not even being coherent, ham. 

Oh come on. It is one of his most coherent posts.  Except for the part where he might actually vote for her.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How so?

Point 2 = FBI investigation ongoing for a year at great expense and with 100ish agents.  Hillary herself admits it's not politically motivated.

How is this different than the IRS investigation?  How did that turn out?  What makes this different?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Not everyone, but 90% of the public, yes.

Again, could "taking the black vote for granted" by democratic politicians be considered dishonest?

 

[Aerial Assault]

True enough, though that's also substance-less.

To see why people like me roll their eyes at the "You don't like Hillary because you don't like strong women" argument, try replacing "Hillary Clinton" with "Sarah Palin" and see if you still find the form of that argument convincing.  I'll bet you can easily come up with all sorts of really great, concrete arguments for opposing Sarah Palin, none of which contain even the faintest whiff of sexism.  Now, is it really that hard to believe that someone who starts with different priors that you might come up with similarly non-sexist reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton?  

Wait, you're comparing Clinton and Palin?  There's a lot more evidence that Palin is an unqualified crank than that Clinton is dishonest - and Palin's been around for a lot less time.  It's those times when no one can quite put their finger on why Hillary is "dishonest" that get me a touch confused.  

 

[humpback]

God I can't stand Hillary.  But damn, the stakes are way to high here.  Love that Bernie brings to the limelight some really essential and structural issues that we as a nation face.

However, I can't imagine the potential backward slide we as a society could actually take, especially in the face of these issues of income inequality and a system which forces good companies to keep their money in tax shelters and allows bad companies to essential pillage the earth. 

More important to me, is the risk of at best stalling if not erasing our huge gains in achieving the true dream of our nation's founders - equality and freedom for all. Not for whites, or straights or theists - ALL.

And since so many of my fellow american seem to not have to backbone to truly embrace what freedom really means, and what it necessitates (including accepting the rights of OTHERS to have every freedom that you do... no more, no less) #### it, I'm 100% behind Hillary and getting the right Justices to lay the groundwork for LITERALLY the rest of my life.

Can't #### this up, even if it means I have to live with this carpet bagging hag as President.

Yeah, NY is once again looking like a real nail-biter.  No shame in voting for someone you can't stand because, you know, imagine how terrible things would be if you didn't!  

 

[Willie Neslon]

I don't think it's a big mystery what happened yesterday.  Bernie didn't "play ball". He decided at the outset that this wasn't politics as usual. He was going to keep the campaign positive and let his positions on the issues speak for themselves.  He was given directions on how he could secure more of the black vote (as seen in the picture below), a meeting by all accounts did not go well.  Bernie decided he didn't want to spend his supporters hard earned money stuffing personal coffers to gain influence.  Once again he chose the high ground.  On the other side you have a candidate who operates directly from the politics as usual playbook. Play ball?  Grease some influential hands for a larger percentage of the minority vote?  No problem at all. Just tell me if the pastor's safe deposit box numbers have changed since the most recent drops. In the singing voice of Dionne Warwick..that's what superPACs are for...keep smiling, keep shining...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Wait, you're comparing Clinton and Palin?  There's a lot more evidence that Palin is an unqualified crank than that Clinton is dishonest - and Palin's been around for a lot less time.  It's those times when no one can quite put their finger on why Hillary is "dishonest" that get me a touch confused.  

I've never met anyone who thought that Hillary Clinton was dishonest and simultaneously unable to come up with fewer than half a dozen data points to support that thesis.  Maybe you and I run in different circles.  I'm going mainly on what I see from posters in this forum.

(Also, any differences between Clinton and Palin are irrelevant for the sake of your argument -- a person can certainly oppose either or both of them for legitimate non-sexist reasons).

 

[bud29]

I just can't see how people don't like her. Must be because she's a strong woman.

 

[Aerial Assault]

I've never met anyone who thought that Hillary Clinton was dishonest and simultaneously unable to come up with fewer than half a dozen data points to support that thesis.  Maybe you and I run in different circles.  I'm going mainly on what I see from posters in this forum.

(Also, any differences between Clinton and Palin are irrelevant for the sake of your argument -- a person can certainly oppose either or both of them for legitimate non-sexist reasons).

No, it's not irrelevant when you just invited the comparison!  Geez.  

Would love to hear the half a dozen data points.  

 

[RCon]

You're kidding, right?  There is specific, concrete evidence that Bill pardoned people in exchange for cash payments to Hillary's family members.

No - there is no "specific concrete evidence" there was a quid pro quo involved as a condition of the pardons.

That you can't even admit this one is truly indicative of your predisposition.

 

[hagmania]

I don't think it's a big mystery what happened yesterday.  Bernie didn't "play ball". He decided at the outset that this wasn't politics as usual. He was going to keep the campaign positive and let his positions on the issues speak for themselves.  He was given directions on how he could secure more of the black vote (as seen in the picture below), a meeting by all accounts did not go well.  Bernie decided he didn't want to spend his supporters hard earned money stuffing personal coffers to gain influence.  Once again he chose the high ground.  On the other side you have a candidate who operates directly from the politics as usual playbook. Play ball?  Grease some influential hands for a larger percentage of the minority vote?  No problem at all. Just tell me if the pastor's safe deposit box numbers have changed since the most recent drops. In the singing voice of Dionne Warwick..that's what superPACs are for...keep smiling, keep shining...

This is a ridiculous post. Bernie did so poorly because he does not have the history nor the present time to spend working with this fiercely loyal demographic. He has no inroads - he's a 75 year old white Senator with a Brooklyn accent. It would take years to make impressions like Hillary has. And @Bottomfeeder Sports I don't know if you're directing your "taking votes for granted" point at Bernie, but he didn't take them for granted - he has been trying to sit down and have conversations, listening to what he can do to better serve these communities.

 

[Koya]

Yeah, NY is once again looking like a real nail-biter.  No shame in voting for someone you can't stand because, you know, FEAR!  

Well, since this is not a place for much nuance, the reality is I won't likely vote Hill anyway. Nor did I vote for Obama last go around.

That said, I am not looking to spread fear, but I certainly feel it.  You want to ridicule that? Have you been paying attention to the disgusting level of conversation on the campaign trail?

So call me fearful and call me out for voting out that fear of losing freedoms, liberties and watching equality be literally torn at by selfish and small minded fools.  Im done pulling punches nor will I sit idly by while people actively push to deny freedom and equality to others.  It's a pathetic and selfish stance, too often rooted in lack of understanding of the damn issues in the first place. 

The result is a group of candidates that would put someone in the most important influential position within our government who might set our nation backward without regard to providing real freedom for all, not just the slowly dying white dominated groupthink members and wannabes.

#### yeah I'm afraid.  And anyone who believes in our founding principles should be afraid as well.  Freedom without vigilance will not long be. 

 

[squistion]

No, it's not irrelevant when you just invited the comparison!  Geez.  

Would love to hear the half a dozen data points.  

It is a good thing that Ivan teaches philosophy instead of logic.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

99% sure Willie is an alias and he's trolling you.

 

[hagmania]

99% sure Willie is an alias and he's trolling you.

If so then  

 

[squistion]

That you can't even admit this one is truly indicative of your predisposition.

Admit that Bill pardoned people in exchange for cash payouts?  

Rather difficult to admit when there is no actual proof - but that is just me.

 

[John Bender]

I don't want to quote cobalt and Tims long chain but to answer the questions.... 

I'm a less passionate follower but still very up to date on issues, world news and politics and I've said this before but:

I think it's ridiculously naive for anyone (supporter or not) to think she has no knowledge or hand in many of these drummed up "scandals". If you're here stating, I recognize she has problems and might be involved with a few "below the table" dealings and even a bit of a dishonest person, but I want her as my president anyway, that's the way I feel. 

She's a lifelong politician, most of them have similar histories, pasts, are motivated by power and probably the biggest liars one could ever know. 

I get it but, look at the field. Bernie would be a complete disaster for me personally, so while I like him, he's not for me. I thought Rubio seemed the most normal candidate in the early goings, but his social outlook and Bible thumping is a huge turn off for me. 

I want someone as close to Obama as possible. Scandals, lying sucks but I'd like to be 4 years from now where we are today. It's been a good 8 years imo and I'd like to see it continue. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... And @Bottomfeeder Sports I don't know if you're directing your "taking votes for granted" point at Bernie, but he didn't take them for granted - he has been trying to sit down and have conversations, listening to what he can do to better serve these communities.

No I'm not!  However, learning about Bernie's history and actions in the past few weeks should not be expected to compare to the goodwill that the Clintons have built up over the past three decades.  At least for those old enough to remember the "before" and "after" the Clintons arrived on the scene.  And the fact that I might not be able to relate to this does not mean that I should be ignorant of ts existence.  And being honest enough to accept that this sentiment exists should be enough to understand how Hillary could be conceived as more honest than just about any other candidate.  That is if one is honest!

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Willie Neslon is real to me, dammit.

 

[hagmania]

Willie Neslon is real to me, dammit.

Not that he isn't an alias, but by god that was a convincing troll.

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't want to quote cobalt and Tims long chain but to answer the questions.... 

I'm a less passionate follower but still very up to date on issues, world news and politics and I've said this before but:

I think it's ridiculously naive for anyone (supporter or not) to think she has no knowledge or hand in many of these drummed up "scandals". If you're here stating, I recognize she has problems and might be involved with a few "below the table" dealings and even a bit of a dishonest person, but I want her as my president anyway, that's the way I feel. 

She's a lifelong politician, most of them have similar histories, pasts, are motivated by power and probably the biggest liars one could ever know. 

I get it but, look at the field. Bernie would be a complete disaster for me personally, so while I like him, he's not for me. I thought Rubio seemed the most normal candidate in the early goings, but his social outlook and Bible thumping is a huge turn off for me. 

I want someone as close to Obama as possible. Scandals, lying sucks but I'd like to be 4 years from now where we are today. It's been a good 8 years imo and I'd like to see it continue. 

All fair, honest, thoughtful points.  

I think the upshot that concerns me most with Hillary isn't so much that her policies will be all wonky and sideways due to financial links/paybacks (they probably will) or that she grates me the wrong way (which she does) or that she is a liability against Trump (which she is).  What concerns me most is that Bill and Hillary are recidivist liars, seemingly always playing on the fringes of doing something stupid and getting caught and that much of this revolves especially, as Tim pointed out, in the cover-up of a salvageable infraction.  Bill lying under oath made his affair with Lewinsky much worse.  Hillary's initial response to Benghazi was absurd on its face and could have been managed just fine had they not floated the initial random insurgents meme.  And, of course, the email scandal is more about the reasons for setting up the server and then deleting half the emails.  They play the edges, make stupid errors in trying to cover it up and lie, and this has bitten them many times already...say what you want about the process, but Bill got impeached for chrissakes. My worry is this pattern of behavior makes Hillary a long shot to win this election AND, if she somehow makes it through, what scandal will follow and how much (and for how long) will the collateral damage affect the part and the country.

I don't trust her to use good judgment.  Not so much in policy-making, but in how she conducts the business of being president of the United States.  In short, I see her as dangerous to the party and country.

 

[John Bender]

All fair, honest, thoughtful points.  

I think the upshot that concerns me most with Hillary isn't so much that her policies will be all wonky and sideways due to financial links/paybacks (they probably will) or that she grates me the wrong way (which she does) or that she is a liability against Trump (which she is).  What concerns me most is that Bill and Hillary are recidivist liars, seemingly always playing on the fringes of doing something stupid and getting caught and that much of this revolves especially, as Tim pointed out, in the cover-up of a salvageable infraction.  Bill lying under oath made his affair with Lewinsky much worse.  Hillary's initial response to Benghazi was absurd on its face and could have been managed just fine had they not floated the initial random insurgents meme.  And, of course, the email scandal is more about the reasons for setting up the server and then deleting half the emails.  They play the edges, make stupid errors in trying to cover it up and lie, and this has bitten them many times already...say what you want about the process, but Bill got impeached for chrissakes. My worry is this pattern of behavior makes Hillary a long shot to win this election AND, if she somehow makes it through, what scandal will follow and how much (and for how long) will the collateral damage affect the part and the country.

I don't trust her to use good judgment.  Not so much in policy-making, but in how she conducts the business of being president of the United States.  In short, I see her as dangerous to the party and country.

Completely understand mang.

Ill go so far as to say, Hillary is almost certainly a chronic liar and a crap person, but it's politics and Im going to look beyond that and go for the candidate who is best for me. She is, and I've looked at all of them. I didn't think Obama was, I voted against him, and now I wish he could run for 8 more years. So she could be prove me wrong too and I'll be the first to admit. She is one shady ### politician, but the good far outweighs the bad for me. 

 

[Willie Neslon]

This is a ridiculous post. Bernie did so poorly because he does not have the history nor the present time to spend working with this fiercely loyal demographic. He has no inroads - he's a 75 year old white Senator with a Brooklyn accent. It would take years to make impressions like Hillary has.@Bottomfeeder Sports

And he refused to "play ball". This isn't some far out theory.

 

[Willie Neslon]

99% sure Willie is an alias and he's trolling you.

This is how politics work. It's naive to say her poll numbers swelled in that state only because of the years worth of impressions she's made.  Give me a break. 

 

[Willie Neslon]

The was an excellent book a few years back titled Politics in the Pews.  Gives some insight into the Obama victory.  Funny, in trying to remember the title and searching I came across this:

"Politics in the Pews probes the internal dynamics of political decision making within the Black church." - William E. Nelson, Jr., Research Professor, Department of African American Studies, Ohio State University

Had to do a double take.

 

[humpback]

Well, since this is not a place for much nuance, the reality is I won't likely vote Hill anyway. Nor did I vote for Obama last go around.

That said, I am not looking to spread fear, but I certainly feel it.  You want to ridicule that? Have you been paying attention to the disgusting level of conversation on the campaign trail?

So call me fearful and call me out for voting out that fear of losing freedoms, liberties and watching equality be literally torn at by selfish and small minded fools.  Im done pulling punches nor will I sit idly by while people actively push to deny freedom and equality to others.  It's a pathetic and selfish stance, too often rooted in lack of understanding of the damn issues in the first place. 

The result is a group of candidates that would put someone in the most important influential position within our government who might set our nation backward without regard to providing real freedom for all, not just the slowly dying white dominated groupthink members and wannabes.

#### yeah I'm afraid.  And anyone who believes in our founding principles should be afraid as well.  Freedom without vigilance will not long be. 

Last night you wrote "I'm 100% behind Hillary", and now you claim you won't likely vote for her?

As far as liberties, you wrote "Oh, she is so ####### wrong on Liberty, but I digress."

So please, spare me the "nuance" bull####.  You're voting for someone who you admit doesn't support the things you claim to hold dearly.  Have some damn pride.

 

[tommyGunZ]

1 hour ago, bud29 said:

I just can't see how people don't like her. Must be because she's a strong woman.

This is a a perfect example of the problem.  I watched the first 3 minutes of this video, and there isn't a single "lie" there.  

Changing positions due to new evidence, time, differing constituencies, etc. isn't a "lie", it's called having a ####### brain.  Everyone on this board has evolved on some issue over the past 10-15 years. That doesn't mean that every single one of us is a "LIAR!!!!!".

Now I'll grant you that Hillary is at time politically expedient. Make no mistake, she does the political calculus and she's been in politics long enough to know that each and every statement, vote, speech, etc. will be scrutinized so she's become a master at parsing and nuance. But let's be honest, much of that has to do with the nature of the job. 

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Trump Fav/Unfav +36.1/-57.6, net -21.5

Clinton Fav/Unfav +40.1/-53.7, net -13.6

Republicans on the verge of nominating the one candidate more disliked than Clinton.

 

[tommyGunZ]

As a Hillary supporter, I'll say that the one lie that I think can't be explained away is the stuff about being under fire when she landed in Bosnia. That clearly didn't happen, and she deserves criticism for embellishing that story.  I don't think it's a deadly sin, but it certainly plays into the "dishonest narrative", and it's a fair criticism. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

Last night you wrote "I'm 100% behind Hillary", and now you claim you won't likely vote for her?

As far as liberties, you wrote "Oh, she is so ####### wrong on Liberty, but I digress."

So please, spare me the "nuance" bull####.  You're voting for someone who you admit doesn't support the things you claim to hold dearly.  Have some damn pride.

Koya's all of the place right now.  Great guy, but politically he's an emotional basketcase. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

cobalt, I typed up a treatise in response to your excellent post, but accidentally hit the "back" button, and lost the entire 5-6 paragraphs.  I'm going to go ride bikes with my daughter now, but I'll get back to you on that post later today.  

 

[jon_mx]

Trump Fav/Unfav +36.1/-57.6, net -21.5

Clinton Fav/Unfav +40.1/-53.7, net -13.6

Republicans on the verge of nominating the one candidate more disliked than Clinton.

This may be the first presidential election where the majority of voters are voting for a candidate which they find personally revolting.  

 

[Willie Neslon]

Changing positions due to new evidence, time, differing constituencies, etc. isn't a "lie", it's called having a ####### brain. 

She doesn't change positions because of new evidence, she changes positions when it's politically expedient to do so. She has absolutely zero political courage. This is obvious to everyone except the few that have their heads in the sand when it comes to all things Hillary.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

No, it's not irrelevant when you just invited the comparison!  Geez.

Would love to hear the half a dozen data points.    

I didn't invite the comparison.  You did.

You led off with the "You people don't support Hillary because you can't handle a strong woman" card.  When you run that argument, you are inviting -- begging really -- for somebody to substitute some other woman that you don't support in place of Hillary and ask you to defend that argument.  Sarah Palin works great, because the correlation coefficient between "likes Hillary" and "likes Palin" is very close to -1.  

Obviously, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are very different.  Specifically, from your point of view Hillary is good and Palin is bad.  If I said to you "You don't like Sarah Palin because you're not comfortable around strong women," you would  probably literally laugh out loud.  You certainly wouldn't accept my argument, because you know full well that you have all sorts of non-sexist reasons for disliking Sarah Palin.  And I know that too.

Which is why, with just a small sprinkling of charity and intellectual imagination, you should have no problem seeing why some of us who dislike Hillary also do so for non-sexist reasons.  A different way to put it is that if you don't see that -- if you really truly believe that the only way that somebody might have a problem with Clinton's honesty is if they're secretly sexist at heart -- you're just not ready to discuss this is in an intelligent manner.  

As to the half dozen data points, you should just follow the thread.  We've spent literally hundreds of pages discussing various instances of Hillary's (alleged) dishonesty.  Just drop the "sexism" thing.

 

[cobalt_27]

This is a a perfect example of the problem.  I watched the first 3 minutes of this video, and there isn't a single "lie" there.  

Changing positions due to new evidence, time, differing constituencies, etc. isn't a "lie", it's called having a ####### brain.  Everyone on this board has evolved on some issue over the past 10-15 years. That doesn't mean that every single one of us is a "LIAR!!!!!".

Now I'll grant you that Hillary is at time politically expedient. Make no mistake, she does the political calculus and she's been in politics long enough to know that each and every statement, vote, speech, etc. will be scrutinized so she's become a master at parsing and nuance. But let's be honest, much of that has to do with the nature of the job. 

Has she even acknowledged that her views have changed based on new information?  All I've ever heard her say is she's been "consistent," which is patently false (e.g., gay marriage). If she would just say she changed her mind and here's why that would be fine.  But, that's not what she does.  

 

[cobalt_27]

cobalt, I typed up a treatise in response to your excellent post, but accidentally hit the "back" button, and lost the entire 5-6 paragraphs.  I'm going to go ride bikes with my daughter now, but I'll get back to you on that post later today.  

Been there!  Hate it.  Look forward to your thoughts.

 

[Smack Tripper]

As a Hillary supporter, I'll say that the one lie that I think can't be explained away is the stuff about being under fire when she landed in Bosnia. That clearly didn't happen, and she deserves criticism for embellishing that story.  I don't think it's a deadly sin, but it certainly plays into the "dishonest narrative", and it's a fair criticism. 

She also has said that she always 100 percent supported gay rights(paraphrasing) and if you watched more than 3 minutes of that video you might see otherwise. 

 

[squistion]

99% sure Willie is an alias and he's trolling you.

And not even a good alias. If you insist on using an alias, at least you should keep track of what you said so that you don't contradict yourself and look foolish when confronted with prior inconsistent statements or positions.

In the 2012 presidential election thread, for months Willie told us he was an independent and undecided on who to vote for. This was met with a great deal of skepticism as his other stated positions seemed to lean way right, particularly his enthusiastic patronage of his local Chick-Fil-A to support their (the owner's) stand against gay marriage. Yes, some independent voters have views like this, but it raised eyebrows here at the time.

Anyway, after months of deliberation (and a couple of podcasts with his friends discussing who they should vote for) he announced on this forum he was voting for Romney. Sadly he forgot that and embarrassed himself by stating recently that he voted for Obama. Now maybe in real life he cast his ballot for Obama, but his Willie Neslon moniker stated for the record a Romney vote.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I would argue that her saying I've never been influenced Wall Street line was pretty conclusively shown to be a lie based on the chronology elizabeth warren put forth in that clip a few weeks back. 

 

[RCon]

cobalt, I typed up a treatise in response to your excellent post, but accidentally hit the "back" button, and lost the entire 5-6 paragraphs.  I'm going to go ride bikes with my daughter now, but I'll get back to you on that post later today.  

Regardless of political affiliation, I think we can all agree it sucks when that happens.

 

[Willie Neslon]

And not even a good alias. If you insist on using an alias, at least you should keep track of what you said so that you don't contradict yourself and look foolish when confronted with prior inconsistent statements or positions.

In the 2012 presidential election thread, for months Willie told us he was an independent and undecided on who to vote for. This was met with a great deal of skepticism as his other stated positions seemed to lean way right, particularly his enthusiastic patronage of his local Chick-Fil-A to support their (the owner's) stand against gay marriage. Yes, some independent voters have views like this, but it raised eyebrows here at the time.

Anyway, after months of deliberation (and a couple of podcasts with his friends discussing who they should vote for) he announced on this forum he was voting for Romney. Sadly he forgot that and embarrassed himself by stating recently that he voted for Obama. Now maybe in real life he cast his ballot for Obama, but his Willie Neslon moniker stated for the record a Romney vote.

I agree with others when they say this is creepy.  You've misstated some and left out a bunch of things I stated at that time as well. I have no idea where you stood in 2012 because I never noticed you until a few weeks ago when you began with the personal stuff. 

Why is it with some people on this website that when you have a different position than they do, instead of sticking with the discussion, they take it to a personal level? I've never gotten personal with anyone here.  Leave me alone.