Hillary Clinton is Fundamentally Honest...

[Underhill]

You guys are making my point. If there were anything substantial in all these psuedo-accusations the press and Hillary would be plastering this all over the tube.

They have. But Trumps methodology makes it irrelevant. The guy doesn't react like a politician. My company screwed someone? 'yeah, so what' and on he goes with the next crazy speech.

It's a case of people becoming numb. Trump has done so much crazy stuff people just don't see it anymore. It's become background noise.

 

[Underhill]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Considering how many of the most powerful Republicans in DC and the rest of the country loathe Trump, he might find that this Russian thing has a lot more legs than the evidence does.
Tom

It could make any talk about socialism difficult.

Donald in a debate, "My opponent is a socialist!"

Clinton, "Well at least I'm not in bed with the Russians!"

 

[BSM1]

They have. But Trumps methodology makes it irrelevant. The guy doesn't react like a politician. My company screwed someone? 'yeah, so what' and on he goes with the next crazy speech.

It's a case of people becoming numb. Trump has done so much crazy stuff people just don't see it anymore. It's become background noise.

It could make any talk about socialism difficult.

Donald in a debate, "My opponent is a socialist!"

Clinton, "Well at least I'm not in bed with the Russians!"

Whatever helps you get through the night, I guess...

 

[Acim]

As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump, who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).

The left-leaning Politifact, cited numerous times in DNC leaks finds Clinton to be the best truth-teller of them all? With their selectively biased truth-o-meter?

Wow, imagine that.

 

[Karl R]

I'm not sure which is worse.
But I've never seen Trump perform.
Is it possible he's just affecting a persona, ie, acting a role rather than lying or being deluded?

Donald Trump (or his persona) is whipping up religious intolerance and xenophobia. He has gathered a sizable voting block who has bought into his rhetoric. One week ago, he flat out told an interviewer that the U.S. wouldn't necessarily fulfill it's treaty obligations to NATO countries if Russia attacked.

Donald Trump interview quote:
"I think I am, actually humble. I think I'm much more humble than you would understand."

A lot of what Donald Trump says sounds like it could have come straight out of Stephen Colbert's mouth (when Colbert was in his satirical character). But I don't think that's a viable course of action for a world leader. Al-Shabaab put an excerpt of Donald Trump in one of their recruiting videos, as "proof" that America is racist and anti-Muslim.

Donald Trump's supporters are convinced that Trump means what he says. Our allies believe that Trump means what he says. Our enemies believe that Trump means what he says. If Trump is elected, do you think he can jump out from behind the curtain and say, "Surprise! I was just kidding about all that stuff."

And even if he did, do you think it would seem credible?

 

[Revoltingest]

Donald Trump (or his persona) is whipping up religious intolerance and xenophobia. He has gathered a sizable voting block who has bought into his rhetoric. One week ago, he flat out told an interviewer that the U.S. wouldn't necessarily fulfill it's treaty obligations to NATO countries if Russia attacked.

Donald Trump interview quote:
"I think I am, actually humble. I think I'm much more humble than you would understand."

A lot of what Donald Trump says sounds like it could have come straight out of Stephen Colbert's mouth (when Colbert was in his satirical character). But I don't think that's a viable course of action for a world leader. Al-Shabaab put an excerpt of Donald Trump in one of their recruiting videos, as "proof" that America is racist and anti-Muslim.

Donald Trump's supporters are convinced that Trump means what he says. Our allies believe that Trump means what he says. Our enemies believe that Trump means what he says. If Trump is elected, do you think he can jump out from behind the curtain and say, "Surprise! I was just kidding about all that stuff."

And even if he did, do you think it would seem credible?

I've heard the criticisms, & looked into'm.
I've compared him with HIlda.
I still prefer him cuz I think he'll be better for the economy & for avoiding war.
In many areas where he & I disagree, I don't see him effecting change for the worse, eg, abortion rights.

 

[Sees]

First few minutes are enough

 

[Underhill]

I've heard the criticisms, & looked into'm.
I've compared him with HIlda.
I still prefer him cuz I think he'll be better for the economy & for avoiding war.
In many areas where he & I disagree, I don't see him effecting change for the worse, eg, abortion rights.

I think just the opposite is true. There is an extremely high probability that whomever is elected with be selecting supreme court justices. It would only take one, maybe two to shift the balance of the court on that issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think just the opposite is true. There is an extremely high probability that whomever is elected with be selecting supreme court justices. It would only take one, maybe two to shift the balance of the court on that issue.

I see both Trump & Hilda as a big risk regarding justice nomination.
Neither is a big civil libertarian or a fan of constitutional originalism.

 

[esmith]

OK, if one would define fundamentally honest as never been convicted I'll go along with your premise.

 

[Underhill]

I see both Trump & Hilda as a big risk regarding justice nomination.
Neither is a big civil libertarian or a fan of constitutional originalism.

That may be. But what negative impact is a Clinton appointment likely to have?

Trump, we can make a pretty fair guess he would pick another Thomas if he had his way. That could be devastating for women, the LGBT community, not to mention election policy.

 

[Revoltingest]

That may be. But what negative impact is a Clinton appointment likely to have?

She concerns me in several related areas.....
- Expanding government's power over us, as individuals & as aggregations (eg, business)
- Enabling crony capitalism (eg, Kelo v City of New London)
- Continuing the process of amending the Constitution by fiat.

Trump, we can make a pretty fair guess he would pick another Thomas if he had his way. That could be devastating for women, the LGBT community, not to mention election policy.

Thomas & I have some differences, but I'd say he's a good justice.
And there is the advice & consent of the Senate.

 

[Underhill]

She concerns me in several related areas.....
- Expanding government's power over us, as individuals & as aggregations (eg, business)
- Enabling crony capitalism (eg, Kelo v City of New London)
- Continuing the process of amending the Constitution by fiat.

What do you base these fears on?

Thomas & I have some differences, but I'd say he's a good justice.
And there is the advice & consent of the Senate.

Good in what sense? He shows up and does his job. But surely you can't agree with some of his decisions.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you base these fears on?

Her record in office.

Good in what sense? He shows up and does his job. But surely you can't agree with some of his decisions.

I do disagree with him regularly.
But then, this is true of most other justices.
I don't see a significant risk that Donald will appoint worse justices than will Hilda.

 

[Karl R]

I still prefer him cuz I think he'll be better for the economy & for avoiding war.

Are you familiar with the "Open Letter on Trump from GOP National Security Leaders" written / signed by 121 GOP foreign policy experts, which said:

• "His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence."
• "His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world."
• "He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation."
• "His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs."

Those are just the statements that most directly tie to this thread. These aren't comments from the people who are in Hillary's corner. These comments are from people who, under any normal circumstances, would be opposing her.

Hillary Clinton isn't exactly exemplary on these issues. I think she's dishonest. I think she's far more hawkish than Obama. I don't think she'll do anything special for the economy. But according to the people who actually seem to have a clue in any of these areas, Trump is far worse.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you familiar with the "Open Letter on Trump from GOP National Security Leaders" written / signed by 121 GOP foreign policy experts, which said:

• "His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence."
• "His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world."
• "He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation."
• "His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs."

Those are just the statements that most directly tie to this thread. These aren't comments from the people who are in Hillary's corner. These comments are from people who, under any normal circumstances, would be opposing her.

Hillary Clinton isn't exactly exemplary on these issues. I think she's dishonest. I think she's far more hawkish than Obama. I don't think she'll do anything special for the economy. But according to the people who actually seem to have a clue in any of these areas, Trump is far worse.

As you point out, both candidates have their risks regarding war.
But Hillary is a known hawk by her record, & also by her campaign rhetoric, eg, "obliterate Iran".
I'll gamble on the unknown who's an isolationist, rather than vote for the war monger.

 

[Sunstone]

A private sector record doesn't say much about politics though.

I agree a private sector record, no matter how good, says almost nothing about how well a person can run a nation. But I think it's common sense that a businessman with an extensive record of shady dealings, such as Trump, is not likely to abruptly turn into a man of sterling character and high integrity upon winning the White House. If Trump is a scoundrel (and much evidence there is that he is a scoundrel) in business, then it's a safe bet he'll be a scoundrel in office. But I understand why fools bet otherwise. After all, they're fools. How else could they bet?

 

[Underhill]

A private sector record doesn't say much about politics though.

It may not say much about his politics but it tells us a great deal about his methodology and his effectiveness.

 

[Karl R]

But Hillary is a known hawk by her record, & also by her campaign rhetoric, eg, "obliterate Iran".
I'll gamble on the unknown who's an isolationist, rather than vote for the war monger.

Campaign rhetoric?

Donald Trump quote (from a November 2015 speech):
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me... I would bomb the **** out of them. I would just bomb those suckers. That's right. I would blow up the pipes, I would blow up the refine..., I would blow up every inch."

Compared to....

Hillary Clinton quote (from an April 2008 speech ... long before the Iran nuclear deal negotiations began):
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.

Clinton was talking about retaliation against a nuclear strike two presidential campaigns ago. The geopolitical situation has changed a bit since then.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree a private sector record, no matter how good, says almost nothing about how well a person can run a nation. But I think it's common sense that a businessman with an extensive record of shady dealings, such as Trump, is not likely to abruptly turn into a man of sterling character and high integrity upon winning the White House. If Trump is a scoundrel (and much evidence there is that he is a scoundrel) in business, then it's a safe bet he'll be a scoundrel in office. But I understand why fools bet otherwise. After all, they're fools. How else could they bet?

I don't disagree with this risk.
Our difference is that based upon Hilda's actual record, I see greater risk of war, corruption & economic malaise.
Bernie would'a been better, but he's out.
Johnson would be better but he's a loser (albeit my kind of loser).