"I Just Can't Trust Her."

acbytesla said:
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".
Click to expand...

Hey, some of us have no choice in the matter. :(

But it actually sort of works the other way in that sometimes people get caught up in an ephemeral notion. In the same way the town virgin can't have sex just because it is known that no one has sex with said person people seem to have decided to not trust Hillary just because other people talk about how she isn't trustworthy.

It is a sort of corollary to the whole Kardashian thing where they are famous just because other people talk about them being famous.
 
Travis said:
Hey, some of us have no choice in the matter. :(
Click to expand...
You gotta work at it my friend...:thumbsup:

Travis said:
But it actually sort of works the other way in that sometimes people get caught up in an ephemeral notion. In the same way the town virgin can't have sex just because it is known that no one has sex with said person people seem to have decided to not trust Hillary just because other people talk about how she isn't trustworthy.
Click to expand...
Now I see where your problem lies. Didn't anyone teach you that inside every good girl was a bad girl wanting to get out?:D
 
Bikewer said:
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".
Click to expand...

Oh come on, she was referred to as a congenital liar two decades ago.

People do not trust her because she is a liar, often, avid and always taking advantage.

How silly. People do not trust her because she lies and has a sneering contempt for transparency.
 
16.5 said:
Oh come on, she was referred to as a congenital liar two decades ago.
Click to expand...
Who did that? The Republican spin machine? Or some disgruntled donor who was upset that she took their money and then voted against their issue?
16.5 said:
People do not trust her because she is a liar, often, avid and always taking advantage.

How silly. People do not trust her because she lies and has a sneering contempt for transparency.
Click to expand...

BS.

WOW!!! News alert!!!! A hard core conservative calls Hillary Clinton a liar!


How shocking!. :jaw-dropp:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
"I Just Can't Trust Her."

Amazing isn't it, how easy it is to manipulate people's thoughts with slogans.
 
Kestrel said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I think that is exactly the problem. She has a tone and mannerisms when speaking publicly that set off peoples "fake" radar. Fake enthusiasm is especially hard to pull off, and she goes for that frequently. She comes off much better in interviews, but there is still sometimes something unsettling there. Also I think she has a face like mine, where a natural smile would be almost close-mouthed, and someone at some point convinced her that it would be better to force it to show more teeth.
 
Modified said:
No, I think that is exactly the problem. She has a tone and mannerisms when speaking publicly that set off peoples "fake" radar. Fake enthusiasm is especially hard to pull off, and she goes for that frequently. She comes off much better in interviews, but there is still sometimes something unsettling there. Also I think she has a face like mine, where a natural smile would be almost close-mouthed, and someone at some point convinced her that it would be better to force it to show more teeth.
Click to expand...

It is better to not smile at all than to fake smile if your fake smile isn't good enough to engage the eyes. People can tell a smile is fake if the mouth moves but the muscles around the eyes don't. (Example: Paula Deen's corpse-rictus, see every photo ever of Paula Deen.)

That doesn't mean someone who fakes smiles is necessarily a fake person, they're just not good at presenting emotions they don't feel. Which may be rather nicer than people who are skilled at faking emotion, I think.
 
Psychopaths are good at faking smiles. Empathetic people have a much harder time.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Travis said:
Psychopaths are good at faking smiles. Empathetic people have a much harder time.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I deleted my paragraph of instructions on how to fake a sincere-looking smile.
Click to expand...
Your smile looks sincere to me. I am, of course, judging by your avatar.

Whether people would trust a candidate with that face is another matter. Polls tell us some people are willing to vote for just about any hominid of their party.
 
The issue really is that her positions are not based on any bedrock principles other than what is politically palatable at any point in time. For example, in 2002, Chris Mathews asked Hillary. "Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?" She responded, "No." But in 2013 she came out in support of gay marriage. Okay, you might say, she just changed her mind on the subject. But when Terry Gross pressed her, she insisted (absurdly) that she had been consistent on the issue. She wouldn't admit that she changed her mind, and she wouldn't admit that she supported gay marriage all along but just couldn't say so for political reasons. Well, it has to be one or the other.
 
Brainster said:
The issue really is that her positions are not based on any bedrock principles other than what is politically palatable at any point in time. For example, in 2002, Chris Mathews asked Hillary. "Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?" She responded, "No." But in 2013 she came out in support of gay marriage. Okay, you might say, she just changed her mind on the subject. But when Terry Gross pressed her, she insisted (absurdly) that she had been consistent on the issue. She wouldn't admit that she changed her mind, and she wouldn't admit that she supported gay marriage all along but just couldn't say so for political reasons. Well, it has to be one or the other.
Click to expand...

well, she said that marriage was a "sacred" bond between a man and a woman.

Then a few years later, she is "gay marriage, yay!"

What happened to the things she thought were "sacred"? Political expediency of course.

She has no principles at all.
 
11 years is a few? Also, other than to gay people and religious fundamentalists, how is gay marriage a bedrock principle one way or the other?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom