Hillary Clinton

[Willie71]

I think you are wading into a grey area here. Not liking her explanations or portions being of them being inaccurate doesn't necessarily prove her a liar. At least not if deception is part of how you define a lie. The FBI found that she had not intentionally mishandled classified documents. None of your examples are things anypone can prove she purposefully did.

Yes, it's grey area. We don't give republicans a pass on things like this, and we shouldn't be inconsistent when it comes to "our" side. Maybe Clinton is that incompetent, which is the other plausible explanation. As I said, I don't think she is that incompetent.

We already discussed whether she knowingly sent classified emails. No proof beyond reasonable doubt, but you have certainty.

She could not possibly have thought that all emails were turned over, if she told people on her staff to do it, and they said they did. Sure, that couldn't happen. Do you think she did the grunt work herself?

Wiping the servers - sounds like the answer my mom would give. How are you so certain that she had knowledge of how to do anything with an email server?

One device could mean more than one, total, or more than one at a time. Guess which interpretation Comey used?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-james-comey-email-servers_us_577d35cbe4b0a629c1ab7bdb

 

Yeah, not so much.

She was in charge, was she not? Blaming underlings isn't an acceptible excuse. If you expect me to believe someone with the political savvy you guys claim Clinton to have, and for the most part I agree that she is politically savvy, is that unaware of what happened, you are mistaken. We expect people in positions of power to have some level of competence, especially once they get to the level of Secretary of State. Maybe she wasn't competent to be Secretary of State, and is therefore not competent to be president.

 

Wiping the servers. She as trying to deny knowledge of destroying evidence.

[Ten oz]

Yes, it's grey area. We don't give republicans a pass on things like this, and we shouldn't be inconsistent when it comes to "our" side. Maybe Clinton is that incompetent, which is the other plausible explanation. As I said, I don't think she is that incompetent.

 

 

Nothing inconsistent. I have given 3 examples in this thread of Trump lying and in all 3 examples the lies were purposeful. He claimed the NFL sent him a letter complaining about the debate date. They did not. He made it up. He knew as he said it that it wasn't true. Just like when Trump claimed he was shown a video by U.S. intelligence showing a cash transaction with Iran. It never happened. He just made it up. Same goes for the Muslims he claimed to have seen on rooftops after 9/11. Those are bold face lies. I do not call Trump a liar over things that cannot be proven.

[iNow]

Competence isn't the core point I see here, but instead on how the term "liar" is getting defined.

 

Some are suggesting that this term "liar" requires knowledge and intent to be demonstrated. Others are suggesting that anyone who said something later determined to be untrue is by default a "liar."

 

Result? We keep talking past each other and ignore the context of the conversation, namely politics. For some reason some people are obstinately ignoring the fact that essentially all politicians lie in some form or fashion.

 

It's for that reason that some suggest it seems as if the bar for Clinton is being placed arbitrarily high and the standard being applied to her disappointingly double.

[swansont]

Competence isn't the core point I see here, but instead on how the term "liar" is getting defined.

 

Some are suggesting that this term "liar" requires knowledge and intent to be demonstrated. Others are suggesting that anyone who said something later determined to be untrue is by default a "liar."

 

Result? We keep talking past each other and ignore the context of the conversation, namely politics. For some reason some people are obstinately ignoring the fact that essentially all politicians lie in some form or fashion.

 

It's for that reason that some suggest it seems as if the bar for Clinton is being placed arbitrarily high and the standard being applied to her disappointingly double.

Spot on. One can be mistaken without being a liar.

[Phi for All]

Anyone know how true Trump's claims about Hillary ruining the lives of women who had affairs with Bill? He hinted at the debate that he refrained from getting very nasty by telling very nasty tales, but will probably be more nasty in the next debates. Did Hillary ruin the lives of those women?

 

Perfect example of witchhunting. When there are reams of evidence showing exact shady, bigoted, morally bankrupt events on Trump's part, people attacking Clinton are satisfied with hints, probablys, and claims with no evidence. Are we being sponsored by the National Enquirer?

[Willie71]

Competence isn't the core point I see here, but instead on how the term "liar" is getting defined.

Some are suggesting that this term "liar" requires knowledge and intent to be demonstrated. Others are suggesting that anyone who said something later determined to be untrue is by default a "liar."

Result? We keep talking past each other and ignore the context of the conversation, namely politics. For some reason some people are obstinately ignoring the fact that essentially all politicians lie in some form or fashion.

It's for that reason that some suggest it seems as if the bar for Clinton is being placed arbitrarily high and the standard being applied to her disappointingly double.

Clinton lies 13% of the time. Trump is 80% iirc. Definitely not an equal metric. Sanders and Warren come across as much more trustworthy.

 

 

Maybe Bush II and Cheney didn't lie about WMDs either. Maybe they really believed they were there.

[swansont]

Clinton lies 13% of the time. Trump is 80% iirc. Definitely not an equal metric. Sanders and Warren come across as much more trustworthy.

"Comes across as" is perception, though, so this isn't a proper comparison.

 

This is from March. Clinton is tied with Sanders for true + mostly true (51%) and leads slightly in half-true.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/15/presidential-scorecards-so-far-march-15-2016/

 

I can't find the graphic I've seen that has all of them on it. But IIRC it also doesn't fit the "much more trustworthy" narrative, if one is to assert that the determination is based on such data.

[iNow]

I can't find the graphic I've seen that has all of them on it. But IIRC it also doesn't fit the "much more trustworthy" narrative

Indeed. Perhaps not the exact one you had in mind, but from March and illustrates point being made:

 

[Willie71]

I agree it's an optics thing, a perception. It is related to electability and the negativity rating. Whether it's real or not, it is a hurdle for the democrats. If Warren was the nominee, we wouldn't be discussing this issue at all.

[iNow]

She's not, though. If wishes were fishes and whatnot...

[Airbrush]

My advice to Hillary for the next debate is whenever she can pivot to blurt out "...high levels of narcissism can manifest themselves in a pathological form as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), whereby the patient overestimates his or her abilities and has an excessive need for admiration and affirmation."

 

 

Then when Trump brings up how she destroyed women's lives, just say something like:

 

What are the symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

• Fantasizing about power
• Believing you are special
• Being easily hurt
• Fantasizing about success
• Believing others are jealous of you
• Being jealous of others
• Taking advantage of others
• Setting unrealistic goals
• Failing to recognize other people's emotions
• Fragile self-esteem

Edited October 1, 2016 by Airbrush

[waitforufo]

Hillary in her own words.

 

https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/hillary-clinton-on-occupying-center-right

 

https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/hillary-clinton-audio

 

Bernie lovers should enjoy both.

[Ten oz]

Hillary in her own words.

 

https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/hillary-clinton-on-occupying-center-right

 

https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/hillary-clinton-audio

 

Bernie lovers should enjoy both.

Considering that the comments were made in private and not meant for public comsumption they aren't that bad in my opinion. She says they should be understood and their concerns addressed. I am sure the basement comment with annoy some but there really isn't much there.

[DrmDoc]

Hillary in her own words.

 

https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/hillary-clinton-on-occupying-center-right

 

https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/hillary-clinton-audio

 

Bernie lovers should enjoy both.

 

I understand that Hillary may not be saying the things that supporters of Bernie want to hear and she knows it. Hillary did say in one clips that she didn't want to make promises she might not be able to keep and was, deservedly, applauded for that. Regardless, Bernie supporters should appreciate Hillary's frankness and understand that she remains their only hope for enacting the policies they favor.

[Raider5678]

Speaking of false accusations:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php

Yes. Brilliant, tattle on the hit lady. What could go wrong? Oh wait, it's made up.

[MigL]

Yup, all made up just like those damned e-mails.

Oh, wait...

A little over a week to go in this election, and a Weiner gets tossed into the FBI's lap.

 

I bet you thought it couldn't get any more embarrassing and offensive.

Edited October 29, 2016 by MigL

[swansont]

What we know is that the emails are not from Clinton and the FBI has not re-opened the probe. We don't know if any of these emails are new, i.e. not already recovered from the server.

[imatfaal]

Can we agree that all those who feel this is a big deal should also call for ALL past and present holders of Administrative positions should come to SCOTUS and swear/affirm that they have never used private email servers for Govt business? And that any punishment for Clinton (as SofS) would be of a lower level to that of a POTUS or VPOTUS who did the same thing?

[iNow]

We can barely agree that 2+2=4 in this post factual my-opinion-is-just-as-good-as-your-facts world in which we now exist so I'm not terribly optimistic about that, imatfaal.

[imatfaal]

We can barely agree that 2+2=4 in this post factual my-opinion-is-just-as-good-as-your-facts world in which we now exist so I'm not terribly optimistic about that, imatfaal.

 

I hate the phrase post-factual world; it is so correct and so depressing all in one frightful package.

 

I was maybe being a little idealistic. Perhaps just a few journalists asking those who are baying for blood "Senator, can you just confirm that you never held any confidential emails on a private server before we carry on..." -- that's not gonna happen either is it?

 

At one point, before this story broke, fiverthirtyeight was giving Clinton a 20pct chance of winning Texas - which would just be so funny. So iNow, as the man on the spot, I guess you can now confirm that's another thing that just ain't gonna pan out.

[Ten oz]

 

I hate the phrase post-factual world; it is so correct and so depressing all in one frightful package.

 

I was maybe being a little idealistic. Perhaps just a few journalists asking those who are baying for blood "Senator, can you just confirm that you never held any confidential emails on a private server before we carry on..." -- that's not gonna happen either is it?

 

At one point, before this story broke, fiverthirtyeight was giving Clinton a 20pct chance of winning Texas - which would just be so funny. So iNow, as the man on the spot, I guess you can now confirm that's another thing that just ain't gonna pan out.

Texas is a blue state waiting to happen. Blacks are 12.5% and Latinos are 38% of Texas. That is 50% of the state and both demos have a very high propensity for voting Democrat. It may not be this election but Texas will turn blue in one of the next couple national elections.

[iNow]

At one point, before this story broke, fiverthirtyeight was giving Clinton a 20pct chance of winning Texas - which would just be so funny. So iNow, as the man on the spot, I guess you can now confirm that's another thing that just ain't gonna pan out.

My wife and I did our part to help with that yesterday. It will IMO depend on how strongly the Hispanic vote turns up or if too many choose simply to stay home as spectators.

Texas is a blue state waiting to happen. Blacks are 12.5% and Latinos are 38% of Texas. That is 50% of the state and both demos have a very high propensity for voting Democrat. It may not be this election but Texas will turn blue in one of the next couple national elections.

For president, we're very much a purple state (depending on turnout). For local office and state legislature, however, it's still deep red and not likely to change anytime soon.

I hate the phrase post-factual world; it is so correct and so depressing all in one frightful package.

I feel your pain, share your disdain, and hope beyond hope for a groundswell of the sane.

[Endy0816]

My wife and I did our part to help with that yesterday. It will IMO depend on how strongly the Hispanic vote turns up or if too many choose simply to stay home as spectators.

 

For president, we're very much a purple state (depending on turnout). For local office and state legislature, however, it's still deep red and not likely to change anytime soon.

 

I feel your pain, share your disdain, and hope beyond hope for a groundswell of the sane.

 

Yeah, I'm wondering how things will go here in Florida. Have a number of Latino friends, Democrat and Republican, who are planning on voting Hillary. Rubio may lose as well. Lost a ton of respect for his hardliner stance on normalizing relations with Cuba and flopping fish support for Trump.

[Delta1212]

 

Yeah, I'm wondering how things will go here in Florida. Have a number of Latino friends, Democrat and Republican, who are planning on voting Hillary. Rubio may lose as well. Lost a ton of respect for his hardliner stance on normalizing relations with Cuba and flopping fish support for Trump.

Rubio has been ahead in all the polls, pretty much by the same amount Clinton has been nationally.

 

 

The Dem GOTV effort is liable to be stronger than the GOP one this year, and Senate polling is certainly a little spottier for individual seats than the national polling for President is, but Rubio's is not a seat I'm expecting to flip. Certainly he doesn't have an insurmountable lead and anything is possible, but in spite of everything the data is still pointing in the other direction, so it would be mildly surprising to me if he lost.

 

Not shocking, mind, but still surprising.

[Endy0816]

Rubio has been ahead in all the polls, pretty much by the same amount Clinton has been nationally.

 

 

The Dem GOTV effort is liable to be stronger than the GOP one this year, and Senate polling is certainly a little spottier for individual seats than the national polling for President is, but Rubio's is not a seat I'm expecting to flip. Certainly he doesn't have an insurmountable lead and anything is possible, but in spite of everything the data is still pointing in the other direction, so it would be mildly surprising to me if he lost.

 

Not shocking, mind, but still surprising.

 

Yeah, may be just wishful thinking. Feel he's set back the near term chances for a Latino President, along with normalization(and a local economic boost). Maybe we'll see something come election day proper.