Hillary Clinton

[Arete]

Well she is a liar, so don't believe her. It's that simple.

 

As previously shown, when fact checked, she makes no more false statements than comparable politicians, and far less than her direct competitor. If this isn't simply character assassination, what makes her less trustworthy than other politicians? The available empirical data doesn't seem to support your assertion.

[Phi for All]

What kind of fairy land is this Republicans bubble? Don't vote for liars, people who make themselves rich are crooks, people who get sick shouldn't be president....

 

It's beyond bizarre. It's like Don Rickles telling you "Hey, be nice!" Or like Martin Shkreli saying, "Jesus Christ, those Epipens are expensive!"

[DrmDoc]

I'm just impressed by her money making abilities, particularly since she said "dead broke" after getting out of the white house.

 

Apparently she has qualities a lot of people value and her opponent isn't the only person who potentially brings "remarkable acumen in business" to the presidency.

Edited September 13, 2016 by DrmDoc

[iNow]

Hillary's lies are contagious. They only harm her.

 

If they're contagious, then by definition they harm others.

[Endy0816]

You have to undergo testing for a proper diagnosis. I had it before and didn't realize anything more serious was going on until I went to reach for reserves of strength and came up empty. Sneaks up on you when you are likely to be already stressed physically and/or mentally.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Endy0816

[swansont]

It's called a lie by omission.

 

 

 

How is it omission when the diagnosis happened 4 days after she said it was allergies? That's the topic of your earlier post.

[Arete]

How is it omission when the diagnosis happened 4 days after she said it was allergies? That's the topic of your earlier post.

 

It's also precisely how secondary pneumonia usually works - you have an initial insult (e.g. viral cold, influenza, allergies, etc) which causes inflammation and discharge from the alveoli. Opportunistic bacteria/viruses colonize the weakened tissue, resulting in pneumonic infection.

 

An initial diagnosis of allergies/cold, followed by little rest and recuperation results in secondary infection is not only plausible, but likely.

[MigL]

The thing is everyone EXPECTS D. Trump to lie.

We EXPECTED better of H. Clinton.

 

She keeps on getting cought in these little lies.

That bozo D. Trump shouldn't be able to win this election.

But H. Clinton is doing her best to lose it.

 

I, for one don't want a clown running the country next door.

Smarten up, Hillary !

[swansont]

The thing is everyone EXPECTS D. Trump to lie.

We EXPECTED better of H. Clinton.

 

 

 

Why do you expect better of one candidate than the other? Shouldn't they be held to the same standard?

[Phi for All]

Why do you expect better of one candidate than the other? Shouldn't they be held to the same standard?

 

Someone with cartoon skills should draw up the two candidates on the Scales of Justice, where a yuge pile of facts on Trump's behavior equals all the airy, unsubstantiated claims on Clinton's side.

[iNow]

Someone with cartoon skills should draw up the two candidates on the Scales of Justice, where a yuge pile of facts on Trump's behavior equals all the airy, unsubstantiated claims on Clinton's side.

Kinda like at time point 4:17 of this Full Frontal with Sam Bee video posted day before yesterday?

 

[MigL]

Really Swansont ?

You hold D. Trump to the same level of honesty as other people ?

How many people has he screwed over while making billions ( is he going to be like his buddy V. Putin, the richest man in the world )?

How many times has he gone 'bankrupt' to avoid his debts ( you can't do that with a country )?

 

H. Clinton's faults pale in comparison.

But a lot of this crap is coming to light two months before the election.

D.Trump, on the other hand, made a lot of extremely controversial statements early in the election to get large media face time, and having gained the exposure he needed, has now calmed down and seems almost normal.

 

Instead of being on the defensive all the time, and trying to cover things up, why not just admit to things ( which are going to come out anyway ) and compare her 'faults' to the faults of D.Trump ?

You know there is NO comparison !

[DrmDoc]

Although Swansont can answer for himself, Hillary and Trump are both politicians competing for the same job and should be held to the same standard. Qualification for that job shouldn't be any easier or more difficult for either applicant because we expect more of less of the other. What we should expect of both candidates is an essential measure of discipline, temperament, judgement, and leadership, which I believe we all want from our President.

[tar]

DrmDoc,

 

While I completely agree in principle, it is important to remember in looking at the past actions of the two, that the one has been in public life and the other in private. Things done in the name of the people, hold the doer, in terms of public trust, to a higher standard. Trump is expected to cause his competition to lose. Hilary is expected to cause the American people to win.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

Although Swansont can answer for himself, Hillary and Trump are both politicians competing for the same job and should be held to the same standard. Qualification for that job shouldn't be any easier or more difficult for either applicant because we expect more of less of the other. What we should expect of both candidates is an essential measure of discipline, temperament, judgement, and leadership, which I believe we all want from our President.

I think it depends on the context of how your expectations are framed.

 

I hold everyone vying for my vote to the same standard, but I don't think Donald Trump's message is aimed at me. He's not interested in courting someone with my views, and I'm not interested in voting for someone with his. I therefore hold Hillary to a higher standard than I do Trump, because I don't intend to vote for him and his bad behavior is no longer likely to affect my opinion of him or my likelihood of voting for him, both of which are already exceedingly low.

 

It's not that I'm lowering the bar for Trump by not holding him to the same standard. It's that he has already lost the right to having a bar at all. There is nothing there for him to clear.

 

I expect better behavior from the candidate that I am voting for than the candidate that I am not because that better behavior is the very reason I am voting for that candidate.

[tar]

and the American people include drug companies, Iranians, day traders, corporations, bankers, Wall Street execs, insurance companies, Republicans and a whole basket of deplorables. Xenophobes, Islamaphobes, Homophobes, Rascists, drug addicts, criminals, rapists, drug gangs, pedafiles, cheats, liars, bullies and ever other thing you might wish to call someone that is not as pure as you are

Selling access and buying access are two different offenses.

[swansont]

Really Swansont ?

You hold D. Trump to the same level of honesty as other people ?

How many people has he screwed over while making billions ( is he going to be like his buddy V. Putin, the richest man in the world )?

How many times has he gone 'bankrupt' to avoid his debts ( you can't do that with a country )?

 

H. Clinton's faults pale in comparison.

But a lot of this crap is coming to light two months before the election.

D.Trump, on the other hand, made a lot of extremely controversial statements early in the election to get large media face time, and having gained the exposure he needed, has now calmed down and seems almost normal.

 

Instead of being on the defensive all the time, and trying to cover things up, why not just admit to things ( which are going to come out anyway ) and compare her 'faults' to the faults of D.Trump ?

You know there is NO comparison !

 

Holding someone to the same standard is not the same thing as saying they measure up to the standard. Trump falls well short. But Trump does not get a pass because we know he's a blowhard, or that "everyone expects D Trump to lie". That makes it sound like you're excusing his behavior. A "boys will be boys" sort of double standard.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "a lot of this crap is coming to light two months before the election" The email nonsense has been known for a long time. Some of the criticisms date back to when Bill was president. So whatever transgressions you think you identify have happened over decades. Most of Trump's have been over the last year or so. The density of them is alarming.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

He did disqualify himself as one who unites and as one to stand for the country in the eyes of the world, and alienate entire swaths of people at an alarming rate. Muslims, Mexicans, Women, Republican Elites, the press, judges, billionaires, "my African American"s, disabled, prisoners of war, etc. Yet every time we thought he had crossed the line and said that "two Corinthian" line, that would reveal him as a fake and a blowhard and as unpresidential, his numbers would go up, instead of down, as everyone expected. Some other current is running through the country, the anti-establishment elite, current that fueled Sanders supporters, and made it so Bush lost in Florida to Trump. In this light, 40 years of government service is not a qualification, it is disqualifying. In this light, where 85 billion a month in quantitative easing has increased the gap between rich and middle class, where the inner cities are afire with drug gangs and killings because of the flow of drugs from Mexico, and Europe is afire with Islamaphobia and terrorist strikes, having Obama say you are the most qualified to carry on his agenda, is not necessarily a qualification received well by a population that sees threats they have never seen, see police murdered in the street, see their health insurance expense doubled, and have been unable to find a job in the new economy.

 

Being steady and status quo, is evidently not the only virtue the electorate is looking for. And calling the people that are looking for a change 50% deplorable, just pushes them further from wanting to see her in the White House.

 

On occasion I wonder if maybe Trump can get Mexico to pay for the wall. When he says things, people change their tune. Like maybe we don't have to be enemies with the Russians, and it wouldn't be such a bad thing if we had better relations.

 

The U.S. will still be the U.S. with either of them president. We will still work it out. We will still be great, still be tolerant, still be the bastion of law and order, human rights, and freedom in the world. Nobody, or at least not many of either's supporters are going to move to Canada or Mexico if the other wins.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 14, 2016 by tar

[DrmDoc]

DrmDoc,

 

While I completely agree in principle, it is important to remember in looking at the past actions of the two, that the one has been in public life and the other in private. Things done in the name of the people, hold the doer, in terms of public trust, to a higher standard. Trump is expected to cause his competition to lose. Hilary is expected to cause the American people to win.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

I think it depends on the context of how your expectations are framed.

 

I hold everyone vying for my vote to the same standard, but I don't think Donald Trump's message is aimed at me. He's not interested in courting someone with my views, and I'm not interested in voting for someone with his. I therefore hold Hillary to a higher standard than I do Trump, because I don't intend to vote for him and his bad behavior is no longer likely to affect my opinion of him or my likelihood of voting for him, both of which are already exceedingly low.

 

It's not that I'm lowering the bar for Trump by not holding him to the same standard. It's that he has already lost the right to having a bar at all. There is nothing there for him to clear.

 

I expect better behavior from the candidate that I am voting for than the candidate that I am not because that better behavior is the very reason I am voting for that candidate.

 

In my view, there's the job and the people vying for that job. The people vying for POTUS are politicians, which is a class of individuals who seldom satisfy my expectations. Like Used Car salesmen, I don't believe what the say or promise without checking under the hood and reading the fine print. With politicians, my way of checking under the hood is looking at past acts and what they suggest about the quality of a candidate. The job of POTUS is about what a candidate will do and not what he or she says. I think the best indication of what a candidate will do as POTUS is what the candidate has done on behalf of our nation or common folk in general.

[tar]

DrmDoc,

 

Good point again. By those metrics Trump is a devil, Hilary is an angel.

 

But Trump says he is going to use his cleverness and acumen as a negotiator, now, for the benefit of the Nation. He says he is not owned by any special interests and just wants to pay back all the benefits he has received from living in such a great country, by using his talents of persuasion and ability to get great projects done, to the advantage of America.

 

Whereas Hilary's help has gotten the common people to exactly where they have fallen over the last years. Maybe it is Racist to push for birth control in an African American community, for instance. Maybe it is not so good to give people a fish, and better to teach people to fish, as the old new testament line goes. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Dependence on Government will never be as efficient as dependence on yourself, where every link in the chain is strong and self suffient. So what Hilary has done for the masses, might not have been a favor.

 

Depends on one's politics, who will be better for the country. That is why we hold elections.

 

Usually we do it with respect for the other side. This year, the other side of the isle is being painted as deplorable. A deplorable condition indeed.

 

Regards, TAR

better if we embrace the other side and link arms like one tribe

[Delta1212]

DrmDoc,

 

Good point again. By those metrics Trump is a devil, Hilary is an angel.

 

But Trump says he is going to use his cleverness and acumen as a negotiator, now, for the benefit of the Nation. He says he is not owned by any special interests and just wants to pay back all the benefits he has received from living in such a great country, by using his talents of persuasion and ability to get great projects done, to the advantage of America.

 

Whereas Hilary's help has gotten the common people to exactly where they have fallen over the last years. Maybe it is Racist to push for birth control in an African American community, for instance. Maybe it is not so good to give people a fish, and better to teach people to fish, as the old new testament line goes. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Dependence on Government will never be as efficient as dependence on yourself, where every link in the chain is strong and self suffient. So what Hilary has done for the masses, might not have been a favor.

 

Depends on one's politics, who will be better for the country. That is why we hold elections.

 

Usually we do it with respect for the other side. This year, the other side of the isle is being painted as deplorable. A deplorable condition indeed.

 

Regards, TAR

On the other hand, McCain stopped and public ally corrected a supporter who called Obama a secret Muslim during a 2008 campaign stop, and then went on to compliment him as a family man.

 

That's not reflective of the way Trump is interacting with his own supporters, and pretending that "the other side of the aisle" isn't behaving differently in this election than in the past in the name of being respectful to your opponent does nothing but help normalize the expression of those views.

 

There has been open discussion of white supremacist views in mainstream media outlets this year to a degree that I have never seen before within my lifetime.

 

Pointing this out does not, and should not, open you up to criticism that you are being less respectful towards your opposition than has traditionally been the case. This is not traditionally how campaigns go down in this country, at least not within the last decade or two.

[DrmDoc]

DrmDoc,

 

Good point again. By those metrics Trump is a devil, Hilary is an angel.

 

But Trump says he is going to use his cleverness and acumen as a negotiator, now, for the benefit of the Nation. He says he is not owned by any special interests and just wants to pay back all the benefits he has received from living in such a great country, by using his talents of persuasion and ability to get great projects done, to the advantage of America.

 

Whereas Hilary's help has gotten the common people to exactly where they have fallen over the last years. Maybe it is Racist to push for birth control in an African American community, for instance. Maybe it is not so good to give people a fish, and better to teach people to fish, as the old new testament line goes. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Dependence on Government will never be as efficient as dependence on yourself, where every link in the chain is strong and self suffient. So what Hilary has done for the masses, might not have been a favor.

 

Depends on one's politics, who will be better for the country. That is why we hold elections.

 

Usually we do it with respect for the other side. This year, the other side of the isle is being painted as deplorable. A deplorable condition indeed.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Although I believe Trump when he says he's not owned by special interests, I also believe that he does have strong undeclared allegiances to such groups given his past commentary and business acts. Given his past, the most powerful interests appear to have been his own. I'm not one who naively believe in what a politician claims he or she will do; however, to your point, Trump's Republican nomination is clearly convincing evidence of his persuasiveness. Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats generally do support programs that serve our citizenry who are in need. Starting with FDR's administration, some of those programs have become integral to our economy and the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens. We help and support our own, which I believe is fair and proper for a wealthy nation such as ours.

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

Granted. But as an old white male, I take offense at being called KKK, if I have misgivings about Hilary. Granted Trump should speak out against David Duke, but so should Hilary Speak out against Black Lives Matter, when cars are set on fire, stores burned and looted and police attacked.

 

Regards, TAR

[ydoaPs]

SwansonT,

 

He did disqualify himself as one who unites and as one to stand for the country in the eyes of the world, and alienate entire swaths of people at an alarming rate.

Considering that they're back in the state of a statistical tie with Hillary continuing her pattern of trending downward, wouldn't that imply that she alienates "entire swaths of people" at an even higher rate?

I think the best indication of what a candidate will do as POTUS is what the candidate has done on behalf of our nation or common folk in general.

Like her history of putting profits over the safety of people and their environment by pushing fracking on the US and the world? Like her history of being anti-LGBTQ+? Like her history of destroying black communities by supporting and advocating for "welfare reform", by being sponsored by private prisons, and by enthusiastically advocating for continuing the war on drugs? Like her using superPACs and sharing tax havens with Donald Trump? If we're going by deeds rather than words, then Hillary is an awful choice. After all, just look at her foreign policy experience that she's so proud of.

 

On the other hand, McCain stopped and public ally corrected a supporter who called Obama a secret Muslim during a 2008 campaign stop, and then went on to compliment him as a family man.

In contrast, during that primary season, the Clinton campaign was in full on race baiting mode. They fueled the aforementioned conspiracy by disseminating photos of Obama in African garb. Unlike McCain, who flat denied birtherism calling it ridiculous, Clinton did *wink wink nudge nudge* "I don't know".

[tar]

The Obama coalition included a few more blacks and a few more Latinos and several more young people, than Clinton has behind her. It is somewhat pandering toward the black community to not speak out against looting and burning and shooting police. For the sake of the black community, it would be better if they were not painted as the victim of white racism, and instead encouraged to stay in school, start businesses, work to improve the community and start a family. Things not encouraged by the Democrats, who would rather have a voting block that voted for them every time, because they promise to take care of the poor, and victimized. (with the tax money of the rich and successful, by the way). Sure we should take care of our weak. But we should not suppose that you are weak because you are black or latino. That is especially racist.