Did Hillary Clinton have any Chance at Winning?

[Revoltingest]

Okay, but here is the thing. If a candidate is a liar and a cheat who constantly shows himself to be racist, bigoted and just a despicable person.... isn't it dishonest reporting to treat him as anything but a scumbag?

The dishonesty is two fold....
1) To report in a non-objective fashion because one dislikes him.
2) To fabricate quotes to enhance the attitude in #1.
(Reminds me of Al Gore's "I invented the internet.".
Another modified quote for enhanced effect.)

Whatever he says, they could just report exactly that, either by
transcript in print, or actual recording (in context).

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

One could also say that she was the more crooked of the two.
He had his party fighting against him. While she had her party
cheating on her behalf, eg, feeding her debate questions, axing
Bernie in the back.

Most amusing. Why would they cater to the old scoundrel, Slanders? He wasn't a democrat, and he had spent his previous years trash-talking the democratic party. (pretty much is single "accomplishment" to date, in fact...)

One thing the DNC should never have permitted, was letting that commie run as a pretend 'democrat'.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Those aren't lies. In fact, ...

You seriously need to google "fact". It does not seem to mean what you think it means...

 

[Revoltingest]

Most amusing. Why would they cater to the old scoundrel, Slanders? He wasn't a democrat, and he had spent his previous years trash-talking the democratic party. (pretty much is single "accomplishment" to date, in fact...)

One thing the DNC should never have permitted, was letting that commie run as a pretend 'democrat'.

I think a party can cater to its preferred candidate, but to do so
with such skulduggery is risky because of animosity if caught.
Bernie just deserved a fairer shot. He could'a become Prez.

 

[Underhill]

I agree that there was no need to juice up his
quotes to make them appear even worse.
But people will do what people will do.
And altering quotes is really dishonest.

It's a bad idea, no doubt about it. But I would have to see how it was reported. If someone is paraphrasing that is one thing, especially if it's accurate to the spirit of his statement. If they are claiming it as a direct quote, it's another and unquestionably dishonest.

 

[Underhill]

The dishonesty is two fold....
1) To report in a non-objective fashion because one dislikes him.
2) To fabricate quotes to enhance the attitude in #1.
(Reminds me of Al Gore's "I invented the internet.".
Another modified quote for enhanced effect.)

Whatever he says, they could just report exactly that, either by
transcript in print, or actual recording (in context).

The problem with Gore wasn't most news outlets, it was politicians and their talking points.

And it is awfully hard to be non objective when the candidate is this bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a bad idea, no doubt about it. But I would have to see how it was reported. If someone is paraphrasing that is one thing, especially if it's accurate to the spirit of his statement. If they are claiming it as a direct quote, it's another and unquestionably dishonest.

The problem with paraphrasing is that one person's inference will differ from others'.
And this is what I'd say happened, particularly with NPR. For them to not recognize
the wrongfulness of changing a quote to enhance their personal inferences...that's
just unprofessional. if they feel the need to editorialize, then provide the exact quote,
& then comment upon it. That's not always fair either, but it's honest.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem with Gore wasn't most news outlets, it was politicians and their talking points.

And it is awfully hard to be non objective when the candidate is this bad.

I didn't think Gore was all that bad...just not all that great.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

This is the only part I mildly disagree with.
Trump is a disaster on the level of Carter. ProLife as I am, I could still be convinced that a murder or two that headed that off would have been OK.
Tom

What the.....wut?
You have your pros & cons @columbus , but what exactly was wrong with Carter that even remotely comes close to the pathologically lying, sexist, racist, anti-middle class war-monger that is our current president?
Seriously.

 

[Underhill]

I didn't think Gore was all that bad...just not all that great.

I wasn't referring to Gore as being 'this bad'. I was referring to Trump...

Phrased that poorly.

 

[Underhill]

What the.....wut?
You have your pros & cons @columbus , but what exactly was wrong with Carter that even remotely comes close to the pathologically lying, sexist, racist, anti-middle class war-monger that is our current president?
Seriously.

I agree with you. Carter was nowhere near this level of incompetence. In fact, I think Carter is one of the most underrated presidents in recent history. Compared to Trump he is looking pretty dang good right now.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't referring to Gore as being 'this bad'. I was referring to Trump...

Phrased that poorly.

I thought that was the likely possibility.
But I preferred responding to the less likely one.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You seriously need to google "fact". It does not seem to mean what you think it means...

Said he who provided no facts, evidence, speculation or even a rational thought. But then given the his posts he puts up with an erroneous second part to his signature, which I'm sure does not mean what he think it means. Just tying this whole factual thing up in a bow for you. But I spec' you'll trample these pearls as well.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think a party can cater to its preferred candidate, but to do so
with such skulduggery is risky because of animosity if caught.
Bernie just deserved a fairer shot. He could'a become Prez.

I'm far from convinced there was any... ahem.... "skulduggery". This was one of the many lies old commie Sanders repeated.

The rules for all state primaries were long since published, and none were secret.

That was just one of many reasons why Sanders is unfit to lead: He seems incapable of looking ahead beyond the weekend. Look at his impromptu and expensive trip to Italy, to be rebuffed by the pope.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Said he who provided no facts, evidence, speculation or even a rational thought. But then given the his posts he puts up with an erroneous second part to his signature, which I'm sure does not mean what he think it means. Just tying this whole factual thing up in a bow for you. But I spec' you'll trample these pearls as well.

Right back atcha-- you have zero reason to believe the GOP LIES about Clinton, but you do. You posted several PURE LIES without a single link to back them up.

How about that? As for "rational thought"? That's rather an anathema for you conservatives, isn't it?

We all know that reality has a nice Liberal bias, and that cons are allergic to actual facts. Wasn't it one of your guys denying global climate change just the other day, while sporting a nice bonus check from the petro industry? Yes... yes it was... coincidence?

As for your ... ahem.... "pearls"... is THAT what we are calling it now? When I was growing up, we called it "fertilizer"....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I agree with you. Carter was nowhere near this level of incompetence. In fact, I think Carter is one of the most underrated presidents in recent history. Compared to Trump he is looking pretty dang good right now.

I still like and respect Carter the Man. Alas, as President, he suffered too much from Trusting Those He Should Never Have Trusted.

He also had a wee tendency to micromanage, which stretched him too thin.

Someone once quipped, that Carter was a better Ex-President than he was a President, pointing to the many Diplomatic Peace events he successfully brokered.

He was one of the most intelligent, though-- you do *not* get into the Navy Nuclear Program unless you are/were the top 1% of the top 1% or so.

Alas, to quote Star Wars? "You are too trusting". That can be said of Carter and the sycophants that flocked to his presidency.

But yes-- for all of that? Carter was Legendary. A Genius, even, when compared to the trumpIncompetent.

In slightly more than a year, the trumpEm has already gone down as the Worst President in the last 100 years, and likely he'll garner the Ultimate Prize of Worst Ever.

Especially once he's either impeached, or as I think will happen, he'll have a most convenient "health problem" and step down voluntarily (just ahead of the lynch mob...)

I think the GOP will attempt to spin it thusly... they really cannot afford to do otherwise, so low is the American People's opinion of them so far.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm far from convinced there was any... ahem.... "skulduggery". This was one of the many lies old commie Sanders repeated.

The rules for all state primaries were long since published, and none were secret.

That was just one of many reasons why Sanders is unfit to lead: He seems incapable of looking ahead beyond the weekend. Look at his impromptu and expensive trip to Italy, to be rebuffed by the pope.

Even Elizabeth Warren & Donna Brazile agree about primaries being rigged.
They'd be in a position to know.
Analysis | Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile both now agree the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

As for your ... ahem.... "pearls"... is THAT what we are calling it now? When I was growing up, we called it "fertilizer"....

That explains a whole lot. And the reason I don't bother with sources is because the close-minded will ignore them or fake news 'em one way or another anyway. I post most of my responses here for the lurkers or others who actually do research and don't need to be spoon fed. They're the ones who can tell pearls from dingle-berries--which I actually believe most leftists can do as well, they're just master suppressors. Re: the rigged Democrat primaries which Revoltingest brought up.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That explains a whole lot. And the reason I don't bother with sources is because the close-minded will ignore them or fake news 'em one way or another anyway. I post most of my responses here for the lurkers or others who actually do research and don't need to be spoon fed. They're the ones who can tell pearls from dingle-berries--which I actually believe most leftists can do as well, they're just master suppressors. Re: the rigged Democrat primaries which Revoltingest brought up.

Well, yes-- Fox Snews is fake, and I bet you don't have any other "sources", so sure!

As for the lurkers? I'm sure they can see through your dingle-berries quite well enough. I know *I* did.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Even Elizabeth Warren & Donna Brazile agree about primaries being rigged.
They'd be in a position to know.
Analysis | Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile both now agree the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged

LOL! The "news" you cited, includes this disclaimer:

"Update: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who comes from the Sanders wing of the party, just told CNN in response to Brazile's op-ed that the she believes the 2016 Democratic primary was "rigged." "

So we can dismiss anything she may or may not have had to say about it, as biased.

I also note that nobody seems to have any actual facts in support of this silly claim.