Hillary Clinton is Far More Honest Than the Propagandists are Telling You

[Revoltingest]

And I would rate this as "Pants on Bias!"

Me arse is not "bi".
But thank you for checking me out!

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'll often argue a point which might appear to support something I dislike.

In our little microcosm, you are the EOA: Equal Opportunity Annoyer. @The Voice of Reason used to fill that philosophical niche with more panache, but I haven't seen him on since I've been back. Great guy and his incite as well as insight have been missed by me. If he only had a brain he would be dangerous.

 

[Revoltingest]

In our little microcosm, you are the EOA: Equal Opportunity Annoyer. @The Voice of Reason used to fill that philosophical niche with more panache, but I haven't seen him on since I've been back. Great guy and his incite as well as insight have been missed by me.

I could've been "The Voice Of Annoyance", but that just didn't have the right ring to it.
You need guys like us.
To pick a side, & then become a dedicated apologist looks small & boring.
You can have that.
I'd rather be all over the map, both attacking & defending the controversial.

 

[Underhill]

What is obvious to a Clinton fan won't be the same as what's obvious to a Trumpeter.
They both have major credibility problems for me.
But even more important, they've major differences in agendas for the country.

Politifact should be suspect, given that they are owned by a pro-Hillary newspaper.
But note that I've also said that their reasoning & evidence are worth reviewing.
I've read their pieces many times....but not with blind faith that they're without bias.

Sure, and I couldn't care less about a bias, if they are factually accurate to the best of their ability.

What drives me mad is people who continually spout Trump nonsense on these forums claiming that Politifact is inaccurate. It makes the pot calling the kettle black look good.

Politifact at least make an attempt at offering logic and reason in their conclusions, which is more than can be said for most news outlets out there.

I'll often argue a point which might appear to support something I dislike.
Example....
I've defended Obama's foreign policy at times.
This does not mean that I like Obama or his foreign policy.
But there are individual acts which I'll defend against criticism, eg, not overtly attacking Iran.

People too easily leap to belief that I've taken an opposing side,
when I've merely stated something which their side doesn't like.

Yeah, we have all done that. (well, many of us)

But you just stated yesterday that you think Trump lies more than Clinton. The exact same conclusion Politifact came to. And choose to argue their bias is a factor. I would accept they are biased (as are the 300 million Americans with over a 60IQ). That does not make their conclusion wrong. If that were the case anything said by anyone would have to be immediately dismissed as biased and unreliable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, and I couldn't care less about a bias, if they are factually accurate to the best of their ability.

What drives me mad is people who continually spout Trump nonsense on these forums claiming that Politifact is inaccurate. It makes the pot calling the kettle black look good.

Politifact at least make an attempt at offering logic and reason in their conclusions, which is more than can be said for most news outlets out there.

Alas, things on RF are more annoying than usual.
But the election will be over soon.
Then we can get back to arguing about Jesus' shoe size.

Yeah, we have all done that. (well, many of us)
But you just stated yesterday that you think Trump lies more than Clinton.

Did I say that?
I recall finding him less trustworthy.
(Which means I trust her to pursue worse policies.)

I would accept they are biased (as are the 300 million Americans with over a 60IQ). .

Thank you for including me....barely.

Honesty & dishonesty are tough things to measure.
Do we look only at public statements?
Or do we include actions which involve corruption, a different kind of dishonesty?
Hillary might win accolades for greater honesty in the public arena, but this might simply
signal greater skill & experience at avoiding getting one's teat caught in the wringer.
In non-public acts, we also see problematic behavior.
We know Trump has stiffed contractors.
We know Hilda & Bill engaged in pay to play.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/grifters-in-chief-1477610771
Which is worse?
It's hard to say.

 

[idav]

Lying to the FBI is a serious crime.

You'll have to refresh my memory, I do no recall.

 

[Underhill]

Alas, things on RF are more annoying than usual.
But the election will be over soon.
Then we can get back to arguing about Jesus' shoe size.

Did I say that?
I recall finding him less trustworthy.
(Which means I trust her to pursue worse policies.)

Thank you for including me....barely.

Honesty & dishonesty are tough things to measure.
Do we look only at public statements?
Or do we include actions which involve corruption, a different kind of dishonesty?
Hillary might win accolades for greater honesty in the public arena, but this might simply
signal greater skill & experience at avoiding getting one's teat caught in the wringer.
In non-public acts, we also see problematic behavior.
We know Trump has stiffed contractors.
We know Hilda & Bill engaged in pay to play.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/grifters-in-chief-1477610771
Which is worse?

Thank you for making my point. You post something true about Trump. We have dozens of reports of him not paying many different contractors. Then post something that is debatable about Clinton and post a link to an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal as a source.

Yet another example of your double standard.

It's hard to say.

One is a proven track record of screwing people. The other is a loose tie between her having meetings and donations to a charity that does not benefit her directly. There is zero evidence that it ever influenced policy. At most, she sat down with people who donated to a charity.

I don't think it's hard to say at all. Hell, I think what Clinton may have done should be public policy. CEO wants to sit down with a house member, mandatory 100k donation to a non religious charity. A senate member? 250k. The president... a cool 5 million.

Better a charity than a political war chest.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank you for making my point. You post something true about Trump. We have dozens of reports of him not paying many different contractors. Then post something that is debatable about Clinton and post a link to an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal as a source.
Yet another example of your double standard.

It is now a "double standard" to criticize both?
Sometimes a guy just cannot win.
Must I only dis Donald & praise Hillary to win your approval?
Ain't gonna happen.

One is a proven track record of screwing people. The other is a loose tie between her having meetings and donations to a charity that does not benefit her directly. There is zero evidence that it ever influenced policy. At most, she sat down with people who donated to a charity.
I don't think it's hard to say at all. Hell, I think what Clinton may have done should be public policy. CEO wants to sit down with a house member, mandatory 100k donation to a non religious charity. A senate member? 250k. The president... a cool 5 million.
Better a charity than a political war chest.

It would be wise to not be too strongly invested in one candidate over the other.

 

[Underhill]

It is now a "double standard" to criticize both?
Sometimes a guy just cannot win.
Must I only dis Donald & praise Hillary to win your approval?
Ain't gonna happen.

I don't care who you dis. The double standard is comparing a known fact with a unsubstantiated claim.

It would be wise to not be too strongly invested in one candidate over the other.

I haven't invested a dime in either.

 

[Revoltingest]

I haven't invested a dime in either.

Hah!
I can see your "I <heart> Hillary" tattoo from here.

I'm not surprised by that theme.
But a tramp stamp?
Ew.

I'd show you my "Gary Johnson For Grand Poobah" tattoo, but it's too cold to roll up me sleeve.

 

[Underhill]

Hah!
I can see your "I <heart> Hillary" tattoo from here.

I'm not surprised by that theme.
But a tramp stamp?
Ew.

I'd show you my "Gary Johnson For Grand Poobah" tattoo, but it's too cold to roll up me sleeve.

Nah, I thought about it, but it's hard to find the real estate for an "I like Hillary Clinton better than the blowhard the other side has given us" tattoo.

 

[Lighthouse]

Look at this list and tell me that. I scanned the entire list and found 2, out of many dozens, that fit your description in the least (and upon reading those, they make valid points). Sorry but again, you are just wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

I looked at the list, and found that a majority fit that description.
I suppose we just have 2 different minds with different perceptions. Ah well.

 

[Underhill]

I looked at the list, and found that a majority fit that description.
I suppose we just have 2 different minds with different perceptions. Ah well.

I don't see how you reach that conclusion. It's easy to look up numbers when he makes claims about "the worst ever". It's easy to look up quotes when he claims, "I never said this" or "my opponent thinks". These types of issues encompass at least half the list.

The difference is you want his quotes to be true. But they just aren't. There isn't a single pants on fire item on the list that is out and out wrong. Two that could be debatable (and may just meet a lower grade of half truth or something).

 

[Acim]

Who cares what people's opinions are.

Like everybody.

The law is the law. If the FBI were corrupt then they wouldn't have recommended looking into the Clinton Foundation. However even in that case it would be ridiculous to go after the Clinton foundation over a debunked Tweet gone viral. That's how silly the whole thing has gotten and blown out of proportion.

That's your opinion. And thanks for sharing it.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't see how you reach that conclusion. It's easy to look up numbers when he makes claims about "the worst ever". It's easy to look up quotes when he claims, "I never said this" or "my opponent thinks". These types of issues encompass at least half the list.

The difference is you want his quotes to be true. But they just aren't. There isn't a single pants on fire item on the list that is out and out wrong. Two that could be debatable (and may just meet a lower grade of half truth or something).

The difference is, I don't care if they're true or false. (You're being a pants on fire.) I'll say the same thing for anyone on that list, and omniscience and omnipresence is needed to make determinations on many of them.
Again, our perceptions are different. Ah well.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You'll have to refresh my memory, I do no recall.

Here ya go:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

 

[Scuba Pete]

The difference is, I don't care if they're true or false.

No argument with me on this amazing revelation.

 

[Underhill]

The difference is, I don't care if they're true or false. (You're being a pants on fire.) I'll say the same thing for anyone on that list, and omniscience and omnipresence is needed to make determinations on many of them.

No, some research is required. That is all. Even the ones which are questionable are only questionable in that we have a partial data set (polling or a study of some kind). This doesn't make them wrong. It means they are probably right and Donald probably wrong.

Again, our perceptions are different. Ah well.

I would say our values are different. Truth doesn't matter to you. You can't be bothered to look up facts (or present them when we've asked for them). It makes sense for someone who supports Trump.

 

[Acim]

Translation: You can't do it and you're not honest enough to admit it. This is just bluster designed to hide that fact.

And yet, in this post and a couple posts after you wrote this, you wrote a post in response to a post where I DID DO IT, and utilized your deceit to show why it is not worth the effort to further do it.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not accepting your biased nonsense and have the temerity to point it out.

I don't feel unfortunate, but you keep going with that temerity.

Lying to the FBI is a serious crime.

Said no Clinton. Ever.

Why only "half true"? Clinton's facts were spot on unless you have proof otherwise.

I explained why. You have to back up Clinton's assertions as fact. Unlike PolitiFact.

Rubio's claims (Illegal Polish workers got a million dollar settlement) was only half true. The judgement was for $325,000 and they apparently settled lower, but we don't know how much. They gave us four links and multiple quotes to demonstrate why they gave it a "true".

They gave it a true - is their bias. Their conclusion states it is questionable how involved Trump was, so do the links, and in those links Trump is seen contending it, so it is bias to then conclude he did use them.

Such as? What do you think they didn't cover that they should have?

There's a whole lot. If I go look at statements from say transcripts of the debate and looking for things that are said by Hillary that aren't her opinion, I can find at least one thing (likely more) from my review of debate #2. Such as where Hillary said "he never apologizes for anything to anyone."

PolitiFact has a 'factcheck on debate #2' but this assertion by Clinton didn't come up. Yet, within 48 hours before that debate Trump did apologize for the lewd comments when he said, "Anyone who knows me knows these words don't reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize."

So, I rate this Clinton assertion as between false and pants on fire. And let the record show that PolitiFact to this day has not brought this statement by Hillary to their truth-o-meter.

 

[Lighthouse]

No, some research is required. That is all. Even the ones which are questionable are only questionable in that we have a partial data set (polling or a study of some kind). This doesn't make them wrong. It means they are probably right and Donald probably wrong.



I would say our values are different. Truth doesn't matter to you. You can't be bothered to look up facts (or present them when we've asked for them). It makes sense for someone who supports Trump.

I'm not all knowing and all seeing to see all crimes being performed, caught and uncaught to be in a position to claim to know. If you are, that's great.