Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Trakar]

I'm not talking about selected examples/samples. I'm talking about the whole picture. For example, this chart has been cited. Both Clintons are higher on the truthful statements chart than Sanders. And the article cited, If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears, is extensively detailed covering false accusation after false accusation...

What makes you believe that these sources and their evaluations are objective, and compelling with regard to these issues?

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm not talking about selected examples/samples. I'm talking about the whole picture. For example, this chart has been cited. Both Clintons are higher on the truthful statements chart than Sanders. And the article cited, If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears, is extensively detailed covering false accusation after false accusation.

What is it about Clinton except all those false accusations that makes her so evil? It's ludicrous!

lolz, how many times are you going to post the *********** nonsense

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What makes you believe that these sources and their evaluations are objective, and compelling with regard to these issues?

Because I've been a political activist and Progressive liberal through all of the accusations and smear campaigns against both Clintons. And I've followed them closely.

Clinton is vilified based on the constant negative attacks on her character and when you look at the actual facts the vilification is not supported by the evidence. Is she perfect no. Does she deserve all the worst ever, most corrupt, most dishonest accusations thrown at her? Absolutely not.

 

[Travis]

We've been through this before and you tended to handwave it away by agreeing with her positions (just because it seems like a good idea to you doesn't mean that it isn't a traditionally conservative/rightward direction from typical progressive positions and constructs).

It might be worth considering that the conservatives of the forum tend to think I am part of the far left.

So which do you want to talk about:

International trade treaties

Let's talk about this.Why are international trade treaties "conservative"?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

In 2000 we got Bush. In 2009 we moved left with Obama. Hillary is to the left of Obama.

But don't let facts get in the way of your narrative. Support Bernie, split the democrat vote and see what a real slide right looks like. Trump for President!

How does that "split the vote"? There's still going to be one Democratic nominee, no matter what.

Almost all of the Bernie supporters will vote for Hilary in November for one reason: Trump.
If it was another Mainstream GOP candidate like McCain or Romney I could see them sitting this one out, but sheer fear of what Trump would do as President will bring the Bernities to the polls in November.

I'm not seeing this. Where's the evidence?

In fact, I have heard a lot of Sanders supporters say that they will vote for Trump if Sanders doesn't win. Why? Because they're sick and tired of establishment candidates, and, although their logic may be flawed, I can't blame them. Now I don't know how many Sanders supporters would switch to Trump, but it is a non-zero number.

Hmm, I'm in my mid 40s, I've seen plenty of both Hillary and Bill, and I can't fathom the hatred for them either.

Do you remember the Defense of Marriage Act?
How about the WTO riots? "Battle in Seattle"?

 

[The Big Dog]

Because I've been a political activist and Progressive liberal through all of the accusations and smear campaigns against both Clintons. And I've followed them closely.

Clinton is vilified based on the constant negative attacks on her character and when you look at the actual facts the vilification is not supported by the evidence. Is she perfect no. Does she deserve all the worst ever, most corrupt, most dishonest accusations thrown at her? Absolutely not.

Clinton is vilified because she is the most dishonest racist candidate the Democrats have put up in the last 40 years.

what did she say to goldman sachs ? A "progressive liberal" would demand an answer

But you have followed them closely.

Yeah right.....

 

[BobTheCoward]

Clinton is vilified because she is the most dishonest racist candidate the Democrats have put up in the last 40 years.

what did she say to goldman sachs ? A "progressive liberal" would demand an answer

But you have followed them closely.

Yeah right.....

I will stick to reviewing the policy papers her campaign puts out. Her speeches are meaningless.

 

[Maya22]

You guys don't realize that the age divide is 47 and up-irrational hatred, 46 and younger, not.

I'm 47, almost 48, and I have no hatred for the Clinton's. Suspicion yes, hatred no.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Clinton is vilified because she is the most dishonest racist candidate the Democrats have put up in the last 40 years.

what did she say to goldman sachs ? A "progressive liberal" would demand an answer

But you have followed them closely.

Yeah right.....

And yet when fact checked, as noted earlier, this simply isn't true, in fact she's on a par with Bernie and ahead of her husband based on Mostly true and True based facts. Only 28% can back False or mostly false, the same as Bernie who has been fact check just a third of the times she has been.

The claim of her being so dishonest comes from the GOP, whose own candidates ironically fair a whole lot worse on their facts being checked.

 

[applecorped]

The claim of her being so dishonest comes from the GOP, whose own candidates ironically fair a whole lot worse on their facts being checked.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Check for yourself....

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

c.f Bernie

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

Clinton actually has a higher "True" rate, 25% to 15% and a higher "Mostly True" 26% to 22% as well as her Mostly False and False being lower than Bernie.

compare with the GOP candidates too...

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/marco-rubio/

You can believe in your own fantasy world if you like, but the facts won't change, and those are that when she has been fact checked she has been proven to be more likely to be right or mostly right and less likely to be wrong than any of the other current major candidates.

 

[wareyin]

I'm 47, almost 48, and I have no hatred for the Clinton's. Suspicion yes, hatred no.

Ok, the divide is 47 years, 300 days and up!

Honestly, I think the divide rests in how much a person watches FOX news/listens to conservative talk radio, vs how much they get their facts from actual news sources.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ok, the divide is 47 years, 300 days and up!

Honestly, I think the divide rests in how much a person watches FOX news/listens to conservative talk radio, vs how much they get their facts from actual news sources.

I think that a lot of it is rumour and mud slinging. Take the honesty thing. There are a lot of so called skeptics here that blindly say that she's a huge lair, worse than any other Democratic candidate for... well ever, yet the facts are that when fact checked she has been telling at least a half truth 72% of the time. 51% what she was checked on was true, or mostly true. For someone who is supposed to be lying all the time, when called on it, she certainly seems to be telling the truth a lot.

The funny thing, when we look at Trump, he is 78% wrong or telling a porky when he has been called on it, and in fact whereas Clinton has only been caught out Pants on Fire lying 1% of the time, Donald has only been caught telling the Truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth exactly the same percentage 1%.

 

[wareyin]

And right now, the candidate that is supposed to be done according to this thread is dominating the delegate counts. Counting superdelegates (as one should) Clinton has 1121 to Sanders' 479. Not counting those unpledged delegates, Clinton has a well over 200 delegate lead with 663-457. Next up, Maine, which Sanders will probably narrowly win, then Michigan and Mississippi, which Clinton should win big in. I think it's quite likely that we'll be going into the March 15th primaries with Clinton up by 275 pledged delegates or so.

 

[The Big Dog]

And yet when fact checked, as noted earlier, this simply isn't true, in fact she's on a par with Bernie and ahead of her husband based on Mostly true and True based facts. Only 28% can back False or mostly false, the same as Bernie who has been fact check just a third of the times she has been.

The claim of her being so dishonest comes from the GOP, whose own candidates ironically fair a whole lot worse on their facts being checked.

She's in for the long con.

Again, if one does not care what she told Goldman Sachs, or what was in the tens of thousands of emails she fraudulently destroyed or the like, talking about "fact check" is silly.

She refuses to talk to the press except in prearranged sit down with friendly reporters, that should tell you everything you need to know.

She'll tell you what she thinks you ought to know, and nothing else.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

She's in for the long con.

Again, if one does not care what she told Goldman Sachs, or what was in the tens of thousands of emails she fraudulently destroyed or the like, talking about "fact check" is silly.

She refuses to talk to the press except in prearranged sit down with friendly reporters, that should tell you everything you need to know.

She'll tell you what she thinks you ought to know, and nothing else.

So instead of arguing with the facts PhantomWolf brings up, you just continue to sling **** at Clinton in hopes that something will stick. Good luck.

 

[Trakar]

What makes you believe that these sources and their evaluations are objective, and compelling with regard to these issues?

Because I've been a political activist and Progressive liberal through all of the accusations and smear campaigns against both Clintons. And I've followed them closely.

Clinton is vilified based on the constant negative attacks on her character and when you look at the actual facts the vilification is not supported by the evidence. Is she perfect no. Does she deserve all the worst ever, most corrupt, most dishonest accusations thrown at her? Absolutely not.

So you seem to be saying that, trust, objectivity, and compelling weight is determined by how much a source agrees with your opinion. I find that a peculiar method of measuring of objectivity.

 

[varwoche]

And yet when fact checked, as noted earlier, this simply isn't true, in fact she's on a par with Bernie and ahead of her husband based on Mostly true and True based facts. Only 28% can back False or mostly false, the same as Bernie who has been fact check just a third of the times she has been.

The claim of her being so dishonest comes from the GOP, whose own candidates ironically fair a whole lot worse on their facts being checked.

PW, when you introduce facts into the equation, you ask far too much of our esteemed colleague, who, if an emoticon is considered one byte, averages ~ 1.5 bytes per post.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

She's in for the long con.

Exactly. The only reason she tells the truth sometimes is to con you into believing that she isn't a liar!

Again, if one does not care what she told Goldman Sachs, or what was in the tens of thousands of emails

Yeah, I bet she also kicks puppies when no one is watching...

But you knew that already of course, since you have some super-secret knowledge about Hillary that no one else does. Or is it just a gut feeling, and you don't actually have any facts to support it?

 

[varwoche]

Exactly. The only reason she tells the truth sometimes is to con you into believing that she isn't a liar!

She's deviously telling the truth!?! Priceless.

What a perfect, concise, and highly amusing example of damned if you do, damned if you don't.