"I Just Can't Trust Her."

[BStrong]

I can't imagine trusting a career politician. It's the nature of the job to be slimy liars. Therefore if one only votes for the trustworthy one will never vote at all. Trust is not a criterion for deciding whomph to vote at.

That must be why I'm not voting for either one, or damn near anyone even locally at this point - I wouldn't trust Clinton or Trump to water my lawn.

I'll vote on local/state ballot issues, and that's about as far as I can go nowadays.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Agreed. I can't find a single instance where her opponent has clearly answered a question of any importance. In one interview he took three different positions on minimum wage without even realizing it. And yet she is seen as dishonest?

Of course, no on thinks Trump is remotely sane so they don't expect him to be consistent in even one speech. They accept that what he says is only an expression of his passionate belief at the time and has no bearing of past or future equally passionate beliefs.

Next you are going to say that large campaign contributions to prosecutors currently investigating him is problematic.

 

[pgwenthold]

Interesting that Clinton can't be trusted, and this is a bad thing, but with Trump, supporters are counting on the fact that he doesn't actually mean what he says and they trust him to NOT do what he says. He is so untrustworthy that they can trust him to not do what he says he will do.

 

[Modified]

I don't think it has anything to do with actions or the content of speech. Clinton has a tone and manner of speaking that strikes most people as insincere. Her smile also seems very forced. Those are things she could have "fixed" years ago with appropriate coaching. "Folksy" is not really necessary, just a relaxed tone instead of that shouty fake-enthusiasm thing she does.

 

[plague311]

I quite agree that Hillary has been the subject of a remarkable number of investigations. This is definitely part of the reason that she seems so secretive and defensive.

But I also think that she has a history of a lack of transparency. I don't think that's necessarily a sign of dishonesty. She could have very good reasons, for instance, for developing her health care reform proposal behind closed doors. I was just listing examples in which she was secretive to explain why others do not trust her.

By and large, I don't find her particularly untrustworthy as candidates go, and I find it odd that anyone would think that Trump is more trustworthy.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't think it has anything to do with actions or the content of speech. Clinton has a tone and manner of speaking that strikes most people as insincere. Her smile also seems very forced. Those are things she could have "fixed" years ago with appropriate coaching. "Folksy" is not really necessary, just a relaxed tone instead of that shouty fake-enthusiasm thing she does.

That captures pretty well my gut reaction to her.

 

[applecorped]

Well, what do you expect? There are so many things people believe that are not factual but go way beyond politics. You can get the public to believe almost anything if it's repeated enough. Ask these people "why" they don't trust her 7 to 8 out of 10 could not tell you why and the ones that could would probably offer a false story they were led to be true.

The Republicans with their propaganda machine of talk radio, Fox News etc have been pumping out half truths and nonsense innuendo always describing the Clinton's as dishonest. For a very long time almost 70 percent of Americans falsely believed that Iraq was involved in the 911 terror attacks. Why? Because it was alluded to nonstop.

Straight out of Goebbels playbook.

Mmmmmm..... only 4 posts to Godwin

 

[acbytesla]

That captures pretty well my gut reaction to her.

The weird thing is that is not the impression people get in person if they spend any time around her. She has taught herself to be so guarded with the press, that nothing feels genuine.

 

[timhau]

Just what do they think Hillary is going to do? Secretly sell the country to the Russians?

For what, the permits and financing to build a 60-story Clinton Tower in Moscow?

 

[Dr. Keith]

The weird thing is that is not the impression people get in person if they spend any time around her. She has taught herself to be so guarded with the press, that nothing feels genuine.

Yeah, it is the one success in all the years of GOP hounding.

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, it is the one success in all the years of GOP hounding.

Funny how that works.

 

[Upchurch]

He is so untrustworthy that they can trust him to not do what he says he will do.

He'll only not do the bad things he says he'll do. He'll totally do the good things he says he'll do. Trust him.

 

[Stacko]

He'll only not do the bad things he says he'll do. He'll totally do the good things he says he'll do. Trust him.

It's like betting on 00 on a roulette wheel.

 

[acbytesla]

He'll only not do the bad things he says he'll do. He'll totally do the good things he says he'll do. Trust him.

Yea, and the check is in the mail and I promise sweetie, I'll pull out.

 

[cullennz]

NPR, as with every election cycle, makes it a point to do "man in the street" interviews with convention-goers, prospective voters, etc.

One of the common complaints of those who are having problems with Clinton is that above statemen, "I just can't trust her." or "I think she'd decietful." or something like that.

What strikes me is that none of these people take this further. (and admittedly, the interviewers don't press...)

Just what do they think Hillary is going to do? Secretly sell the country to the Russians? Do the naughty in the Oval Office to spite Bill?

There's a very long list of presidential candidates on both sides who fudged or outright ignored their campaign promises, often due to recalcitrant congressional resistance. But I don't think anyone thinks of such failures as "deceit".

I do

 

[Bob001]

It really isn't. One of the principles of politics 101 is to put your opponent on the defensive. Get them to spend their time discussing something negative. They may have a perfectly solid answer but you managed to change the discussion as well as getting more news cycles about something negative.

The only way to stay on message is the non-answer and pivot to what you want to discuss. Hillary is no rookie to the game. She's not going to take the bait.

That might work if in fact you give a non-answer: "Ah, nobody really cares about that. What people tell me they're most worried about is health care, and I have a plan to make sure everybody can get to a doctor...." The problem with Hillary is that she has a penchant for making statements of fact that turn out to be untrue, like her convoluted justifications for the email business ("All my predecessors did it," "It was approved," "It was only for my convenience," etc.). The non-answer strategy requires actually giving a non-answer.

 

[Kestrel]

I don't think it has anything to do with actions or the content of speech. Clinton has a tone and manner of speaking that strikes most people as insincere. Her smile also seems very forced. Those are things she could have "fixed" years ago with appropriate coaching. "Folksy" is not really necessary, just a relaxed tone instead of that shouty fake-enthusiasm thing she does.

I run into a lot of people that believe they can detect a liar or character flaws by subtitle clues in facial expressions. According to science it is pure bunk.

A more likely explanation is that the decades of smears have had their intended effect.

 

[acbytesla]

That might work if in fact you give a non-answer: "Ah, nobody really cares about that. What people tell me they're most worried about is health care, and I have a plan to make sure everybody can get to a doctor...." The problem with Hillary is that she has a penchant for making statements of fact that turn out to be untrue, like her convoluted justifications for the email business ("All my predecessors did it," "It was approved," "It was only for my convenience," etc.). The non-answer strategy requires actually giving a non-answer.

It might still work Bob if the press quits asking the questions. People can have the attention span of a gnat.

 

[Kestrel]

I think the job REQUIRES constant compromise. An understanding that it is all about the greater good. This is why the ultra pure liberals like the Green party and Bernie's Bros annoy me to no end. There "all or nothing"principled stance which 99.999 percent of the time results in not only not moving the needle forward, but actually backwards.

They get to go to the great beyond proud that they never wavered, never compromised and yet never accomplished a damn thing.

They're like virgins, sanctimonious in their virtue, proud that they never succumbed to the pleasures of the flesh. And I'm just left shaking my head thinking "how bloody sad".

Some of my friends are really angry that Bernie didn't win and are directing that hate at Hillary. I hope that by Election Day they will calm down and figure out that Hillary is still a far better choice than Trump and voting Green will just help Trump win. Just like the Florida liberals who thought that Al Gore wasn't pure enough on the environment so they voted for Green Party candidate Nader.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Some of my friends are really angry that Bernie didn't win and are directing that hate at Hillary.

I hope that in time the human race will mature, and with the enlightenment of wisdom realize that you can hate a whole bunch of people and things, to different degrees, simultaneously. Only when we have considered, sensible malice can we have true and lasting harmony.