Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

[Tony Stark]

I haven't decided yet. I'm not in a swing state, so chances are high that I'll do a write-in protest vote.

But if you were in a swing state you would vote for him even though he is clearly way more dishonest than Hillary?

 

[Fudbucker]

But she already has that reputation, and it hasn't stopped her yet. So why should she stop now? Obviously, she should stop lying in the sense that it's the right thing to do, but just as obviously she doesn't care. If she can get what she wants while lying (and it's worked up to now), then the incentives you mention aren't going to change her behavior.

She hasn't needed opposition support in her political career. That changes when you're President and don't have control of Congress.

 

[wareyin]

I haven't decided yet. I'm not in a swing state, so chances are high that I'll do a write-in protest vote.

ETA: and will this latest Hillary lie prevent you from voting for her?

I didn't think I was in a swing state, either, but Georgia is now a toss up.

And since the latest "lie" is the difference between "truthful" and "not lying", it doesn't seem like much to me.

 

[Tony Stark]

ETA: and will this latest Hillary lie prevent you from voting for her?

Anyone who cares about honesty would vote for Hillary over the piece of garbage your party nominated. She is way more honest than him.

 

[Ziggurat]

She hasn't needed opposition support in her political career. That changes when you're President and don't have control of Congress.

If voters don't care if she lies, then Congress won't either. And from the responses here, it's clear that the people who support her don't care if she lies. The people who do care about her lies are already opposed to her, and her telling the truth now (for the first time) would probably not win back any support from them.

So the unfortunate truth is that if she ever paid any price for her lies, it's now a sunk cost. She will not pay anything for continuing to lie. And so she will. Even for those who think she is the lesser evil in this election, this should be troubling. But for most of them, it isn't, which is why we're in this mess in the first place.

 

[Tony Stark]

If voters don't care if she lies, then Congress won't either. And from the responses here, it's clear that the people who support her don't care if she lies. The people who do care about her lies are already opposed to her, and her telling the truth now (for the first time) would probably not win back any support from them.

So the unfortunate truth is that if she ever paid any price for her lies, it's now a sunk cost. She will not pay anything for continuing to lie. And so she will. Even for those who think she is the lesser evil in this election, this should be troubling. But for most of them, it isn't, which is why we're in this mess in the first place.

Says someone who would prefer that the most dishonest candidate ever win rather than her.

Spare us your fake outrage.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG... i choose to treat cormely's remarks on the legal basis because that is the basis that can be least twisted by confirmation biases and politics. When you put the issue in context to what youre required to do in a jury pool... opinions about what they think and your opinion of the accused's character are irrelevant. Any verdict is decided on EVIDENCE. Not opinion.

The FBI COULD HAVE chosen to indict her as many in this thread contend she should be. However whether she would be judged guilty on the evidence is another matter to which his legaleze remark makes enough sense if youre going to make a case that Clinton didnt do anything wrong.

An indictment would serve no purpose unless there was a solid case against her regardless.

I see enough evidence that she did violate certain statutes. But ive usually maintained that to be a job qualification issue that voters have to decide on over a criminal one which the FBI would have to meet a higher criteria on

You don't get it, workplace violations are almost never criminal. But it's not my problem that you choose to ignore that key point.

 

[Ziggurat]

Says someone who would prefer that the most dishonest candidate ever win rather than her.

Spare us your fake outrage.

Strangely absent is any argument that anything I said is wrong. You have not contested she lied (but that would be impossible to pull off). You have not contested that she will not pay any price for her lies. And you have not contested that she will continue to lie.

All you can really do is try to pull a tu quoque. You can't argue I'm wrong, because I'm not. And you know it. How galling that must be.

 

[Steve]

Of course. She's never paid any serious price for lying in the past, so why stop now? And she won't stop lying if she's elected either, because her election would prove that lying is a successful strategy. People don't usually stop doing what works for them.

No directed at you, Ziggurat, but your post got me thinking - US voters appear to have a choice between a republican liar, or a democrat liar, or a candidate that has no chance to win and may or may not be a liar. And yet there is post after post and thread after thread based on calling one or the other of your candidates a liar. Why do any of you bother? You are going to end up with a liar anyway, so maybe you should change to "discussing" other aspects of the candidates.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hillary Clinton did not lie to FBI investigators during their probe into her use of a private server as secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.

"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.

Just like everything else, two sides of the coin. If you find no evidence Clinton was lying, it's not completely illogical to interpret that to mean you were found to be truthful.

The nitpick is more typical contrived reasons to be outraged and call Clinton a liar.

 

[Ziggurat]

No directed at you, Ziggurat, but your post got me thinking - US voters appear to have a choice between a republican liar, or a democrat liar, or a candidate that has no chance to win and may or may not be a liar. And yet there is post after post and thread after thread based on calling one or the other of your candidates a liar. Why do any of you bother? You are going to end up with a liar anyway, so maybe you should change to "discussing" other aspects of the candidates.

It's depressing, but you very well may be right. Honesty just doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Ziggurat]

The nitpick is more typical contrived reasons to be outraged and call Clinton a liar.

Hillary claimed that Comey said her public statements were the truth. But Comey said nothing of the sort. Comey said Hillary didn't lie to the FBI, but he also said that her public statements were false. The public doesn't know what she said to the FBI, we only know what she said publicly, and those were lies.

But lies don't matter, so talking about them is indeed just a nitpick.

 

[Tony Stark]

Strangely absent is any argument that anything I said is wrong. You have not contested she lied (but that would be impossible to pull off). You have not contested that she will not pay any price for her lies. And you have not contested that she will continue to lie.

All you can really do is try to pull a tu quoque. You can't argue I'm wrong, because I'm not. And you know it. How galling that must be.

Yeah, she has lied. Everybody lies.

But you Republicans only care when it is a Democrat. When it is a way more dishonest Republican, you couldn't care less.

You people are a joke. Your hypocrisy is extreme and obvious. Spare us your fake outrage. I simply do not believe you give a **** about honestly except as an excuse to bash Democrats. You pretending that you do only further convinces me of your dishonesty.

 

[wareyin]

Hillary claimed that Comey said her public statements were the truth. But Comey said nothing of the sort. Comey said Hillary didn't lie to the FBI, but he also said that her public statements were false. The public doesn't know what she said to the FBI, we only know what she said publicly, and those were lies.

But lies don't matter, so talking about them is indeed just a nitpick.

Well, as long as the difference between "truthful" and "didn't lie" earns 4 pinocchios, then so should your claim that says "the truth" rather than the correct "truthful". So, does this make you a liar? Or does this expose your claim for the nit-picking it obviously is?

 

[Tony Stark]

It's depressing, but you very well may be right. Honesty just doesn't matter anymore.

Certainly not to you Republicans. The piece of garbage you people want to be President is way, way more dishonest than Hillary Clinton. And you people couldn't care less though you laughably pretend to be outraged by her. Pathetic.

 

[Tony Stark]

Hillary claimed that Comey said her public statements were the truth. But Comey said nothing of the sort. Comey said Hillary didn't lie to the FBI, but he also said that her public statements were false. The public doesn't know what she said to the FBI, we only know what she said publicly, and those were lies.

But lies don't matter, so talking about them is indeed just a nitpick.

False does not necessarily mean lies.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, as long as the difference between "truthful" and "didn't lie" earns 4 pinocchios

That isn't what earned 4 pinocchios. Again, Comey said she didn't lie to the FBI. He never said she didn't lie to the public. He never said she was "truthful" to the public either. So either YOU are lying, or you just don't understand the difference between her public statements and her statements to the FBI.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Hillary claimed that Comey said her public statements were the truth. But Comey said nothing of the sort. Comey said Hillary didn't lie to the FBI, but he also said that her public statements were false. The public doesn't know what she said to the FBI, we only know what she said publicly, and those were lies.

But lies don't matter, so talking about them is indeed just a nitpick.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked Comey at the July 7 congressional hearing, "Did she lie to the public?"

Comey responded, "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer."

 

[Ziggurat]

False does not necessarily mean lies.

Sure. Maybe her head injury made her believe all that completely false stuff she said.

Hey, let's make this clueless imbecile the commander-in-chief! She may be a drooling moron, but she's an honest drooling moron!

 

[Tony Stark]

That isn't what earned 4 pinocchios. Again, Comey said she didn't lie to the FBI. He never said she didn't lie to the public. He never said she was "truthful" to the public either. So either YOU are lying, or you just don't understand the difference between her public statements and her statements to the FBI.

She explained that what she meant was that Comey said that didn't lie to the FBI. And since she told the FBI the same thing that she did the public, that means she didn't lie to the public.

Is this true? I dunno. Of course, neither do you.