Ever wonder why you don't see very many Trump bumper stickers ?
Because no one wants to get their car fucked up or shot at by Hillary supporters. Â
Â
Come to the southeast, you will feel better though strangely it looks like Clinton is actually going to win Georgia and South Carolina too which is positively cray, cray. As hard core as the Trump supporters are the opposition is overwhelming. I just lament the wasted money and tire of the delusion of a Republic, the players are pretty much irrelevant pawns to me and am aware that we the people have already lost, but must keep fighting for the future.
A lot of RPers in these forums forget that Republicans demonized and disrespected Bill Clinton in his time as much as they do the same things to Hillary today. Bill was known as "Slick Willie" and condemned for triangulating his opinion to maximize support for policies from the right and left. Lazy8's post of 8/10/16 @ 9:51pm reminded me of the GOP's treatment of Bill by mentioning Christopher Hitchens' book "No One Left to Lie To", published in '99 and updated in '00.
Hitchens was not initially a conservative but moved considerably to the right over time and was the book apparently was a scathing critique of Clinton. One thumbnail review of the book states that it claims Clinton unleashed attacks on training camps for Islamic terrorists and a pharmaceutical factory (suspected by the CIA of making nerve gas) in an attempt to distract the public for Monica Lewinsky scandal. (This notion was popularized by the movie "Wag the Dog", which came out a month before the Lewinsky story broke). Actually, Clinton was acting on intelligence and trying to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda.
Republicans have had a field day with Hillary Clinton since '92, partly because Bill's cheating suggested that Hillary was just as cold and rigid as the Republicans claimed. Hillary is not a natural politician and apparently dislikes the press, which will return the favor in its articles when it feels that politicians are arrogant (Al Gore found that out in 2000). The Republicans have turned Hillary into the stereotype of a cold career-oriented woman: a ball-breaker, more man than woman, a policy-fixated shrew, a joyless calculating Lady Macbeth with an inability to behave naturally or be truthful...She hasn't learned how to publicly laugh that kind of stuff off.
But hey, the Democrats do the same sort of thing to the Republican candidates.
Part of the problem, I think, is that this election was a hangover from the idealistic optimism that Obama brought forth in '08. Things didn't turn out as wonderfully as Obama had promised and many people were angry that the economic recovery hadn't included them. There's a lot of cynicism about our parties and politics right now, and even the best candidates for both sides would have faced a lot of skepticism and reservation. The two establishment candidates—Jeb and Hillary—were stiff, out of touch with populist anger, and tied to the past. Once you say "Jesus, Jeb/Hillary sucks!", it becomes a lot easier to say "Wow, Trump/Bernie tells it like it is!"
I see Trump as the anti-Obama. Instead of "Yes we can" it's now "I alone can help you". A desire to include more people in politics and a desire to reach across the aisle turns into a call to keep people out of the country and take back a white-ruled America, with Trump acting as king. It's actually a blessing that this guy is so unhinged and bad at campaigning, because someone like Cruz might actually beat Clinton.
Good post. Cruz might have beat Clinton, yes, and I still think he'd do more damage than Trump. With Trump, it won't be long before he's sandboxed and we just drift along for 4 years. With Cruz (or Pence, once a President Trump gets bored and quits) would have a Congress more willing to go along with them. And they don't like me. Trump doesn't care about me, that's bad. Cruz and Pence do care about me in a bad way, so that's even worse.
It's pathetic that our discussion about Presidential candidates is boiling down to which is more disliked. Why is that happening? Because the GOP wants to intentionally steer the discussion away from who is most qualified. If he were a good candidate, that's what they'd talk about. Instead, their only rejoinder is "Hillary sux, amirite?"
A lot of RPers in these forums forget that Republicans demonized and disrespected Bill Clinton in his time as much as they do the same things to Hillary today. Bill was known as "Slick Willie" and condemned for triangulating his opinion to maximize support for policies from the right and left. Lazy8's post of 8/10/16 @ 9:51pm reminded me of the GOP's treatment of Bill by mentioning Christopher Hitchens' book "No One Left to Lie To", published in '99 and updated in '00.
Hitchens was not initially a conservative but moved considerably to the right over time and was the book apparently was a scathing critique of Clinton. One thumbnail review of the book states that it claims Clinton unleashed attacks on training camps for Islamic terrorists and a pharmaceutical factory (suspected by the CIA of making nerve gas) in an attempt to distract the public for Monica Lewinsky scandal. (This notion was popularized by the movie "Wag the Dog", which came out a month before the Lewinsky story broke). Actually, Clinton was acting on intelligence and trying to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda.
Republicans have had a field day with Hillary Clinton since '92, partly because Bill's cheating suggested that Hillary was just as cold and rigid as the Republicans claimed. Hillary is not a natural politician and apparently dislikes the press, which will return the favor in its articles when it feels that politicians are arrogant (Al Gore found that out in 2000). The Republicans have turned Hillary into the stereotype of a cold career-oriented woman: a ball-breaker, more man than woman, a policy-fixated shrew, a joyless calculating Lady Macbeth with an inability to behave naturally or be truthful...She hasn't learned how to publicly laugh that kind of stuff off.
But hey, the Democrats do the same sort of thing to the Republican candidates.
Part of the problem, I think, is that this election was a hangover from the idealistic optimism that Obama brought forth in '08. Things didn't turn out as wonderfully as Obama had promised and many people were angry that the economic recovery hadn't included them. There's a lot of cynicism about our parties and politics right now, and even the best candidates for both sides would have faced a lot of skepticism and reservation. The two establishment candidates—Jeb and Hillary—were stiff, out of touch with populist anger, and tied to the past. Once you say "Jesus, Jeb/Hillary sucks!", it becomes a lot easier to say "Wow, Trump/Bernie tells it like it is!"
I see Trump as the anti-Obama. Instead of "Yes we can" it's now "I alone can help you". A desire to include more people in politics and a desire to reach across the aisle turns into a call to keep people out of the country and take back a white-ruled America, with Trump acting as king. It's actually a blessing that this guy is so unhinged and bad at campaigning, because someone like Cruz might actually beat Clinton.
No, but I'm beginning to wonder about you, Trumpster. Are you trying to keep pace with your hero's crazy statements? I think you might just get there!
It's pathetic that our discussion about Presidential candidates is boiling down to which is more disliked. Why is that happening? Because the GOP wants to intentionally steer the discussion away from who is most qualified. If he were a good candidate, that's what they'd talk about. Instead, their only rejoinder is "Hillary sux, amirite?"
Ever wonder why you don't see very many Trump bumper stickers ?
Because no one wants to get their car fucked up or shot at by Hillary supporters.
LOL for days. You're delusional. I'm up here in northwestern Pennsylvania and I've seen more Trump signs and confederate flags than I've seen in the goddamn southern state I live in.
Maybe I should feel fortunate that nobody's shot at the back window of my car, you know, the one with the Hillary sticker on it.
Ever wonder why you don't see very many Trump bumper stickers ?
Because no one wants to get their car fucked up or shot at by Hillary supporters.
IKR? I want nothing more than to go all Rambo on somebody's vehicle. (PS not exactly a hillary supporter but jeezus fucking christ, trump?)
Also, like the bleeding heart liberal douchebag that I am, I believe in the rule of law, and decency. Unlike several filmed Trump supporters. Chew on that.
Ever wonder why you don't see very many Trump bumper stickers ?
Because no one wants to get their car fucked up or shot at by Hillary supporters.
I don't care about the savage, hate filled Hillary people.My car is a POS but it only has 60K miles on it.It's beaten body will be on the road long after mine is gone,and may my bumper sticker never fade.Go ahead and take out your self loathing vengeance on America Libs.Beat a car for CAIR.
Trying to blame Hillary, so as to distract from Trump's galloping inappropriateness, went from interesting to pathetic a long time ago. Granted, we might not want Hillary, but that's no reason to even consider Trump. If you're really, sincerely, wanting to vote NeverHillary and also don't want to ruin America (are you a radical Muslim, in league with Obama?) then you think Johnson or Stein.
"Hillary is straight-up lying. She knows the truth and does not want you to go there. That there are a lot of people who are willing to pretend they believe her, willing to dissemble and shade the truth and obfuscate and help spew octopus ink in the water to cover for her and, yes, straight-up lie as well makes it not one whit better."
Lazy8, you seem to equate Trump and Clinton as two awful evils. Maybe your reading of Hillary's sins is deeper than mine. As you see it, Hillary is lying about what exactly? If it's a matter of whether there were highly classified emails on her server, I can't be bothered to muster up a fart about that. If she and/or her staff used the State Department connections to further the interests of the Clinton Foundation, I'm sorry but that doesn't rock my world. I don't really care about the killing she made in cattle futures before Chelsea was born. Or Whitewater.
I get really irritated at her attempts to keep trying to spin the email server controversy. Admit it was a dumb thing to do and move on. Announce a set of standards for behavior and transparency that you and your staff will adhere to and stick to those standards. Earn the trust of Americans.
Clinton didn't swindle honest people out of their money or hard-earned wages, though. Trump has done so, time and again. Trump doesn't just prevaricate or split hairs like Hillary does—Trump contradicts himself on major positions so many times and to such a significant degree each time that you don't know whether he's lying or suffering from split personality disorder.
Clinton's lies aren't going to get people killed. Trump's lies will.
I was never going to vote for Trump, but when he invited Putin in so many words to hack into the servers of Clinton or the State Department I stopped even trying to understand why anyone would still support this man. That Trump would invite RUSSIA to meddle in our elections is inexcusable. I would not muster a drop of spit for this man if he were on fire.
So no, I don't think Trump and Clinton are two different poisons with the same degree of deadliness. Clinton is a very bright woman with a lot of baggage and occasionally flawed judgment. Trump is a mentally ill bigoted narcissist who has no idea of how unprepared he is or how much damage he's already done to his own party and to his country. He is a cancer-like symbol of the worst parts of America.
One good op-ed piece I read recently suggested that people get involved with local and state politics to effect change. I agree. If you agree with Bernie Sanders' goals, you have to start at the grassroots level and keep building support over many years. The failings of Trump and Clinton should move us to force our political parties to present better candidates.
Trump and Clinton are awful for different reasons, but both awful. They don't have to be equal, don't have to be equivalent to be beneath my threshold of acceptable. Neither has earned my vote, and I owe it to neither. I don't need to put them in order of awfulness and frankly don't care; unacceptable is all I need.
We've had decades to see what the characters of these two are. Those decades have revealed them both to be composed of naked ambition and little else. I think we are both on the same page about Trump's failings. I could catalog Hillary;s misdeeds but it's already late and I don''t have all night. If you'd like to get a glimpse of Hillary Clinton's character flaws I recommend Christopher Hitchens' No One Left to Lie To. it focuses more on her husband's presidency but has a lot to say about her as first lady, White House powerbroker, and senator.
On many issues that matter to me she has been a weathervane, changing her positions (can't really say if she has opinions) with the polls. She has been repeatedly propped up into offices she wasn't qualified for or particularly good at, groomed for her roles by an oligarchy she pretends to oppose while sucking up to it to build money and influence.
Again, you don't need to convince me that Trump is awful—you need to convince me the Hillary isn't just not awful but worthy of the responsibility she is seeking. And Putin doesn't need Trump's invitation to hack her emails; if he hasn't read all of them already then a whole mess of spies must be shoveling muck in Siberia as punishment. The email scandal is only the latest of many many examples of her putting her own ambition ahead of the country's interests.
I agree that local politics is a great place to start. I don't agree with pretty much any of Bernie Sanders goals or prescriptions; believe it or not there are people with principles who aren't leftists. And we really need to ask ourselves how it got to this point, how it got so bad that these two self-obsessed oligarchs are the best our two incumbent parties could do. It says a lot about the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of both but I think the public bears most of the blame for that.
Our obsession with celebrity over substance, identity politics, and short attention spans are a good part of it. Again it's late and I've had a long day. If you actually want to discuss this that would make a good topic for another day. If you just want to plug for your candidate...give it a rest. I've heard it. Got one I actually like and won't be ashamed to vote for.
Fair enough. Let's discuss this another day. I respect your views and am glad you've found a candidate you like. I think you go way too far with your claims that Clinton wasn't qualified to be Senator or Sec. of State and that she's put "her own ambition ahead of the country's interests" but again, that's for another day.
After reading this bit, though
And we really need to ask ourselves how it got to this point, how it got so bad that these two self-obsessed oligarchs are the best our two incumbent parties could do. It says a lot about the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of both but I think the public bears most of the blame for that
I have to ask you to look back at other presidential candidates and at presidents. Clinton is within the norm for such a group. Is she morally worse and more self-obsessed than Dick Nixon? More careless than Reagan and Dubya? More arrogant than Hoover? More ruthless and calculating than Johnson and FDR (trying to pack the Supreme Court takes epic balls.)? Presidents in terms of character aren't exactly inoffensive nondescripts. Hillary Clinton may look like Lady Macbeth to you, but not to me.
Trump is quite a different duck from Clinton. He is a product of our times and a badge of shame for our country. He is proof that many Americans are dangerously uninformed about the world and that our national politics have abandoned those people and others. When Americans get fed up with the candidates that their political parties force on them (Jeb and Hillary), they revolt against any sort of reason...and wind up with Trump. Trump is the drunk trust fund kid who hijacked Open Mike night in a one-bar town during a blizzard.
When you want to talk about how much blame the public bears for the "intellectual and moral bankruptcy" of our parties, the main thrust of any worthwhile and relevant discussion has to focus on Trump.
"Hillary is straight-up lying. She knows the truth and does not want you to go there. That there are a lot of people who are willing to pretend they believe her, willing to dissemble and shade the truth and obfuscate and help spew octopus ink in the water to cover for her and, yes, straight-up lie as well makes it not one whit better."
Lazy8, you seem to equate Trump and Clinton as two awful evils. Maybe your reading of Hillary's sins is deeper than mine. As you see it, Hillary is lying about what exactly? If it's a matter of whether there were highly classified emails on her server, I can't be bothered to muster up a fart about that. If she and/or her staff used the State Department connections to further the interests of the Clinton Foundation, I'm sorry but that doesn't rock my world. I don't really care about the killing she made in cattle futures before Chelsea was born. Or Whitewater.
I get really irritated at her attempts to keep trying to spin the email server controversy. Admit it was a dumb thing to do and move on. Announce a set of standards for behavior and transparency that you and your staff will adhere to and stick to those standards. Earn the trust of Americans.
Clinton didn't swindle honest people out of their money or hard-earned wages, though. Trump has done so, time and again. Trump doesn't just prevaricate or split hairs like Hillary does—Trump contradicts himself on major positions so many times and to such a significant degree each time that you don't know whether he's lying or suffering from split personality disorder.
Clinton's lies aren't going to get people killed. Trump's lies will.
I was never going to vote for Trump, but when he invited Putin in so many words to hack into the servers of Clinton or the State Department I stopped even trying to understand why anyone would still support this man. That Trump would invite RUSSIA to meddle in our elections is inexcusable. I would not muster a drop of spit for this man if he were on fire.
So no, I don't think Trump and Clinton are two different poisons with the same degree of deadliness. Clinton is a very bright woman with a lot of baggage and occasionally flawed judgment. Trump is a mentally ill bigoted narcissist who has no idea of how unprepared he is or how much damage he's already done to his own party and to his country. He is a cancer-like symbol of the worst parts of America.
One good op-ed piece I read recently suggested that people get involved with local and state politics to effect change. I agree. If you agree with Bernie Sanders' goals, you have to start at the grassroots level and keep building support over many years. The failings of Trump and Clinton should move us to force our political parties to present better candidates.
Trump and Clinton are awful for different reasons, but both awful. They don't have to be equal, don't have to be equivalent to be beneath my threshold of acceptable. Neither has earned my vote, and I owe it to neither. I don't need to put them in order of awfulness and frankly don't care; unacceptable is all I need.
We've had decades to see what the characters of these two are. Those decades have revealed them both to be composed of naked ambition and little else. I think we are both on the same page about Trump's failings. I could catalog Hillary;s misdeeds but it's already late and I don''t have all night. If you'd like to get a glimpse of Hillary Clinton's character flaws I recommend Christopher Hitchens' No One Left to Lie To. it focuses more on her husband's presidency but has a lot to say about her as first lady, White House powerbroker, and senator.
On many issues that matter to me she has been a weathervane, changing her positions (can't really say if she has opinions) with the polls. She has been repeatedly propped up into offices she wasn't qualified for or particularly good at, groomed for her roles by an oligarchy she pretends to oppose while sucking up to it to build money and influence.
Again, you don't need to convince me that Trump is awful—you need to convince me the Hillary isn't just not awful but worthy of the responsibility she is seeking. And Putin doesn't need Trump's invitation to hack her emails; if he hasn't read all of them already then a whole mess of spies must be shoveling muck in Siberia as punishment. The email scandal is only the latest of many many examples of her putting her own ambition ahead of the country's interests.
I agree that local politics is a great place to start. I don't agree with pretty much any of Bernie Sanders goals or prescriptions; believe it or not there are people with principles who aren't leftists. And we really need to ask ourselves how it got to this point, how it got so bad that these two self-obsessed oligarchs are the best our two incumbent parties could do. It says a lot about the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of both but I think the public bears most of the blame for that.
Our obsession with celebrity over substance, identity politics, and short attention spans are a good part of it. Again it's late and I've had a long day. If you actually want to discuss this that would make a good topic for another day. If you just want to plug for your candidate...give it a rest. I've heard it. Got one I actually like and won't be ashamed to vote for.
I support Hillary Clinton but my God she is pathetically bad at splitting hairs, prevaricating and yes lying.
For some reason, lawyers think it's OK to misinterpret communications with other people. For instance, if you asked Joe (a lawyer) if he'd seen Jane, Joe would think it perfectly OK to say "no"—even though he'd heard (but not seen) Jane in the next room only moments ago. Most of us would understand that you were trying to find Jane and didn't care whether Joe's knowledge of Jane's whereabouts came from his eyes or ears. And yes, you'd have a right to be annoyed with Joe if you found out that Joe was splitting hairs about Jane's whereabouts. This is one reason why people don't like lawyers.
Hillary has that tendency to prevaricate. Apparently she thinks that she can thread a definitional needle or re-phrase a statement to her advantage without pissing people off. Notice her attempt to re-phrase FBI Director Comey's statement as excerpted above. Unfortunately, she's inept at this kind of thing and many Americans have been so conditioned to the right-wing's demonization of Hillary that many instances of her prevarications get turned into "Hillary lies again."
Is she the most honest politician? No. But the last paragraph in that Jacob Sullum excerpt that you posted—the one that I've boldfaced—puts things in proper perspective. Hillary is a shifty politician. Trump is a pathological liar and a narcissist with delusions of grandeur.
If I ask you which way to the post office and you send me down the wrong street unintentionally you're mistaken.
If you walked right past it on your way to meet me then send me down the wrong street you're inattentive as well as mistaken.
If you deny there is such a thing as a post office, never was one, but vote for you and you'll build such a post office you're just making shit up because you haven't got a clue where the post office is and you want to look like you have some kind of answer.
If you send me down the wrong street on purpose because you really don't want me to go to the post office, then when you're caught have your staff scramble to find out if there's a place that sells fence posts somewhere and claim that's what you thought I meant and you just got confused, even tho the fence post store is right next to the post office then you're a liar.
Both of the latter two are dishonest. Which is worse?
You know Trump is talking out his ass; maybe he believes it when he says it and maybe he doesn't but if he's fooling you it's because you want to be fooled.
Hillary is straight-up lying. She knows the truth and does not want you to go there. That there are a lot of people who are willing to pretend they believe her, willing to dissemble and shade the truth and obfuscate and help spew octopus ink in the water to cover for her and, yes, straight-up lie as well makes it not one whit better.
To me it's a meaningless difference. Strychnine or cyanide? Boiled to death or torn apart by dogs? Stalin or Pol Pot? Pick one! You have to! Do it for the children!
I will not let one of these cretins hold me hostage to the other.
So am I to understand that the gist is that both are "cut from the same cloth" and on par in terms of how bad they are? If so, then it's you who has been fooled. There is only one candidate whose accumulated actions and rhetoric is causing serious erosion of support from their own party if not outright support for the opposition candidate.
It's fine to dislike both candidates but you can't paint them with the same brush.
I support Hillary Clinton but my God she is pathetically bad at splitting hairs, prevaricating and yes lying.
For some reason, lawyers think it's OK to misinterpret communications with other people. For instance, if you asked Joe (a lawyer) if he'd seen Jane, Joe would think it perfectly OK to say "no"—even though he'd heard (but not seen) Jane in the next room only moments ago. Most of us would understand that you were trying to find Jane and didn't care whether Joe's knowledge of Jane's whereabouts came from his eyes or ears. And yes, you'd have a right to be annoyed with Joe if you found out that Joe was splitting hairs about Jane's whereabouts. This is one reason why people don't like lawyers.
Hillary has that tendency to prevaricate. Apparently she thinks that she can thread a definitional needle or re-phrase a statement to her advantage without pissing people off. Notice her attempt to re-phrase FBI Director Comey's statement as excerpted above. Unfortunately, she's inept at this kind of thing and many Americans have been so conditioned to the right-wing's demonization of Hillary that many instances of her prevarications get turned into "Hillary lies again."
Is she the most honest politician? No. But the last paragraph in that Jacob Sullum excerpt that you posted—the one that I've boldfaced—puts things in proper perspective. Hillary is a shifty politician. Trump is a pathological liar and a narcissist with delusions of grandeur.
If I ask you which way to the post office and you send me down the wrong street unintentionally you're mistaken.
If you walked right past it on your way to meet me then send me down the wrong street you're inattentive as well as mistaken.
If you deny there is such a thing as a post office, never was one, but vote for you and you'll build such a post office you're just making shit up because you haven't got a clue where the post office is and you want to look like you have some kind of answer.
If you send me down the wrong street on purpose because you really don't want me to go to the post office, then when you're caught have your staff scramble to find out if there's a place that sells fence posts somewhere and claim that's what you thought I meant and you just got confused, even tho the fence post store is right next to the post office then you're a liar.
Both of the latter two are dishonest. Which is worse?
You know Trump is talking out his ass; maybe he believes it when he says it and maybe he doesn't but if he's fooling you it's because you want to be fooled.
Hillary is straight-up lying. She knows the truth and does not want you to go there. That there are a lot of people who are willing to pretend they believe her, willing to dissemble and shade the truth and obfuscate and help spew octopus ink in the water to cover for her and, yes, straight-up lie as well makes it not one whit better.
To me it's a meaningless difference. Strychnine or cyanide? Boiled to death or torn apart by dogs? Stalin or Pol Pot? Pick one! You have to! Do it for the children!
I will not let one of these cretins hold me hostage to the other.
"Hillary is straight-up lying. She knows the truth and does not want you to go there. That there are a lot of people who are willing to pretend they believe her, willing to dissemble and shade the truth and obfuscate and help spew octopus ink in the water to cover for her and, yes, straight-up lie as well makes it not one whit better."
Lazy8, you seem to equate Trump and Clinton as two awful evils. Maybe your reading of Hillary's sins is deeper than mine. As you see it, Hillary is lying about what exactly? If it's a matter of whether there were highly classified emails on her server, I can't be bothered to muster up a fart about that. If she and/or her staff used the State Department connections to further the interests of the Clinton Foundation, I'm sorry but that doesn't rock my world. I don't really care about the killing she made in cattle futures before Chelsea was born. Or Whitewater.
I get really irritated at her attempts to keep trying to spin the email server controversy. Admit it was a dumb thing to do and move on. Announce a set of standards for behavior and transparency that you and your staff will adhere to and stick to those standards. Earn the trust of Americans.
Clinton didn't swindle honest people out of their money or hard-earned wages, though. Trump has done so, time and again. Trump doesn't just prevaricate or split hairs like Hillary does—Trump contradicts himself on major positions so many times and to such a significant degree each time that you don't know whether he's lying or suffering from split personality disorder.
Clinton's lies aren't going to get people killed. Trump's lies will.
I was never going to vote for Trump, but when he invited Putin in so many words to hack into the servers of Clinton or the State Department I stopped even trying to understand why anyone would still support this man. That Trump would invite RUSSIA to meddle in our elections is inexcusable. I would not muster a drop of spit for this man if he were on fire.
So no, I don't think Trump and Clinton are two different poisons with the same degree of deadliness. Clinton is a very bright woman with a lot of baggage and occasionally flawed judgment. Trump is a mentally ill bigoted narcissist who has no idea of how unprepared he is or how much damage he's already done to his own party and to his country. He is a cancer-like symbol of the worst parts of America.
One good op-ed piece I read recently suggested that people get involved with local and state politics to effect change. I agree. If you agree with Bernie Sanders' goals, you have to start at the grassroots level and keep building support over many years. The failings of Trump and Clinton should move us to force our political parties to present better candidates.
I support Hillary Clinton but my God she is pathetically bad at splitting hairs, prevaricating and yes lying.
For some reason, lawyers think it's OK to misinterpret communications with other people. For instance, if you asked Joe (a lawyer) if he'd seen Jane, Joe would think it perfectly OK to say "no"—even though he'd heard (but not seen) Jane in the next room only moments ago. Most of us would understand that you were trying to find Jane and didn't care whether Joe's knowledge of Jane's whereabouts came from his eyes or ears. And yes, you'd have a right to be annoyed with Joe if you found out that Joe was splitting hairs about Jane's whereabouts. This is one reason why people don't like lawyers.
Hillary has that tendency to prevaricate. Apparently she thinks that she can thread a definitional needle or re-phrase a statement to her advantage without pissing people off. Notice her attempt to re-phrase FBI Director Comey's statement as excerpted above. Unfortunately, she's inept at this kind of thing and many Americans have been so conditioned to the right-wing's demonization of Hillary that many instances of her prevarications get turned into "Hillary lies again."
Is she the most honest politician? No. But the last paragraph in that Jacob Sullum excerpt that you posted—the one that I've boldfaced—puts things in proper perspective. Hillary is a shifty politician. Trump is a pathological liar and a narcissist with delusions of grandeur.
If I ask you which way to the post office and you send me down the wrong street unintentionally you're mistaken.
If you walked right past it on your way to meet me then send me down the wrong street you're inattentive as well as mistaken.
If you deny there is such a thing as a post office, never was one, but vote for you and you'll build such a post office you're just making shit up because you haven't got a clue where the post office is and you want to look like you have some kind of answer.
If you send me down the wrong street on purpose because you really don't want me to go to the post office, then when you're caught have your staff scramble to find out if there's a place that sells fence posts somewhere and claim that's what you thought I meant and you just got confused, even tho the fence post store is right next to the post office then you're a liar.
Both of the latter two are dishonest. Which is worse?
You know Trump is talking out his ass; maybe he believes it when he says it and maybe he doesn't but if he's fooling you it's because you want to be fooled.
Hillary is straight-up lying. She knows the truth and does not want you to go there. That there are a lot of people who are willing to pretend they believe her, willing to dissemble and shade the truth and obfuscate and help spew octopus ink in the water to cover for her and, yes, straight-up lie as well makes it not one whit better.
To me it's a meaningless difference. Strychnine or cyanide? Boiled to death or torn apart by dogs? Stalin or Pol Pot? Pick one! You have to! Do it for the children!
I will not let one of these cretins hold me hostage to the other.
This fall Americans will decide what sort of liar they want as their president. Do they want a tiresome, hairsplitting, lawyerly liar, or a bold, flamboyant, spontaneous liar—the sort of liar who could keep surprising us even after years in office?
Last week Hillary Clinton gave us a preview of what life would be like with the first kind of prevaricator in chief. It was not fun.
In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Clinton doubled down on the devious defenses she has been offering since March 2015, when The New York Timesrevealed her use of an unsecured private email server as secretary of state. Last year, you may recall, she said there was no classified material in her electronic correspondence, or at least none that was classified at the time, or at least none that was marked as classified.
An FBI investigation found none of those statements was true. Yet when Wallace pointed that out, Clinton said FBI Director James Comey had in fact confirmed "my answers were truthful."
Given another chance to correct the record last Friday, Clinton repeated the same fallacious argument that earned her Four Pinocchios from Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler: Because she was not charged with lying to the FBI about her State Department emails, everything she told the public must have been true, even though it demonstrably was not. But Clinton also said she "may have short-circuited" her answer and suggested that "Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other."
To recap: After the email story broke, Clinton repeatedly offered assurances that turned out to be false. Then she said the FBI had validated those statements, which was also false. Then she falsely insisted her claim about the FBI was true, even while implying that it resulted from a misunderstanding—which also was not true, as anyone who watches the video or reads the transcript can see.
Untangling Clinton's lies is as tedious and unrewarding as untangling that unused mass of twine at the bottom of the tool drawer. When Donald Trump lies, by contrast, you really know you've been misled, and you have to be impressed by the sheer audacity of his mendacity.
I support Hillary Clinton but my God she is pathetically bad at splitting hairs, prevaricating and yes lying.
For some reason, lawyers think it's OK to misinterpret communications with other people. For instance, if you asked Joe (a lawyer) if he'd seen Jane, Joe would think it perfectly OK to say "no"—even though he'd heard (but not seen) Jane in the next room only moments ago. Most of us would understand that you were trying to find Jane and didn't care whether Joe's knowledge of Jane's whereabouts came from his eyes or ears. And yes, you'd have a right to be annoyed with Joe if you found out that Joe was splitting hairs about Jane's whereabouts. This is one reason why people don't like lawyers.
Hillary has that tendency to prevaricate. Apparently she thinks that she can thread a definitional needle or re-phrase a statement to her advantage without pissing people off. Notice her attempt to re-phrase FBI Director Comey's statement as excerpted above. Unfortunately, she's inept at this kind of thing and many Americans have been so conditioned to the right-wing's demonization of Hillary that many instances of her prevarications get turned into "Hillary lies again."
Is she the most honest politician? No. But the last paragraph in that Jacob Sullum excerpt that you posted—the one that I've boldfaced—puts things in proper perspective. Hillary is a shifty politician. Trump is a pathological liar and a narcissist with delusions of grandeur.
This fall Americans will decide what sort of liar they want as their president. Do they want a tiresome, hairsplitting, lawyerly liar, or a bold, flamboyant, spontaneous liar—the sort of liar who could keep surprising us even after years in office?
Last week Hillary Clinton gave us a preview of what life would be like with the first kind of prevaricator in chief. It was not fun.
In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Clinton doubled down on the devious defenses she has been offering since March 2015, when The New York Timesrevealed her use of an unsecured private email server as secretary of state. Last year, you may recall, she said there was no classified material in her electronic correspondence, or at least none that was classified at the time, or at least none that was marked as classified.
An FBI investigation found none of those statements was true. Yet when Wallace pointed that out, Clinton said FBI Director James Comey had in fact confirmed "my answers were truthful."
Given another chance to correct the record last Friday, Clinton repeated the same fallacious argument that earned her Four Pinocchios from Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler: Because she was not charged with lying to the FBI about her State Department emails, everything she told the public must have been true, even though it demonstrably was not. But Clinton also said she "may have short-circuited" her answer and suggested that "Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other."
To recap: After the email story broke, Clinton repeatedly offered assurances that turned out to be false. Then she said the FBI had validated those statements, which was also false. Then she falsely insisted her claim about the FBI was true, even while implying that it resulted from a misunderstanding—which also was not true, as anyone who watches the video or reads the transcript can see.
Untangling Clinton's lies is as tedious and unrewarding as untangling that unused mass of twine at the bottom of the tool drawer. When Donald Trump lies, by contrast, you really know you've been misled, and you have to be impressed by the sheer audacity of his mendacity.
