"I Just Can't Trust Her."

[Bikewer]

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".

 

[Upchurch]

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?

Clinton has been the subject of 25-ish years of mud-slinging, that largely proved to be false. People tend to remember the accusations and never follow up on by learning what actually happened. Or, they choose to not to learn what actually happen.



Obligatory Disclaimer: Yes, not all of the mud-slinging was false, but a lot of it was.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

She's an absolute master of the political non-answer. It keeps her from saying anything that may prove damaging if taken out of context (see: baseless mudslinging), but people do pick up on the tone. It lends a vague sense of deceit to everything she says. The opposite of truthiness.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In addition to, or perhaps because of the above - she's not a particularly charismatic speaker.
She's not someone you want to have a beer with.
She's not folksy.
I think many people have a hard time looking beyond those things, and it makes them feel uneasy about her.

 

[acbytesla]

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".

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.

 

[phiwum]

Hillary's health care reform was criticized for its secrecy. She refused to release Whitewater documents that the President was okay releasing (according to David Gergen the other day). She similarly was reluctant to release emails in the recent scandal and the motivation for a private server appears to be one of secrecy. And she refuses to discuss her talks with Goldman Sachs.

I think she's a decent candidate and I won't hesitate to vote for her -- especially considering the alternative. But Clinton does give the impression of a distinct lack of transparency time and again, and I can understand why people don't trust her. The private email server frankly bothers me considerably.

Back to the OP's question: I can't imagine that any of these issues should bother anyone nearly as much as the prospect of a Trump presidency.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

She's not folksy.

If she were to ever say the word out loud, I'd bet you could hear the air quotes. "Folksy."

 

[BobTheCoward]

Hillary's health care reform was criticized for its secrecy. She refused to release Whitewater documents that the President was okay releasing (according to David Gergen the other day). She similarly was reluctant to release emails in the recent scandal and the motivation for a private server appears to be one of secrecy. And she refuses to discuss her talks with Goldman Sachs.

I think she's a decent candidate and I won't hesitate to vote for her -- especially considering the alternative. But Clinton does give the impression of a distinct lack of transparency time and again, and I can understand why people don't trust her. The private email server frankly bothers me considerably.

Back to the OP's question: I can't imagine that any of these issues should bother anyone nearly as much as the prospect of a Trump presidency.

But trust and transparency are a limited relationship. Trust often involves counting on people where you don't know the details.

 

[Crossbow]

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 really do not like these pieces either, but I suppose that they provide a good break in-between all of the various experts that are used to describe the good points and the bad points of the canididate in question.

Also, the show is 'All Things Considered' so one can say that NPR is just trying to live up to its name.

 

[acbytesla]

She's an absolute master of the political non-answer. It keeps her from saying anything that may prove damaging if taken out of context (see: baseless mudslinging), but people do pick up on the tone. It lends a vague sense of deceit to everything she says. The opposite of truthiness.

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.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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.

It's absolutely the best strategy, but people still recognize the deflection. Someone who constantly deflects and never gives a straight answer to any question comes off as deceitful, even if they aren't trying to be.

 

[plague311]

Hillary's health care reform was criticized for its secrecy. She refused to release Whitewater documents that the President was okay releasing (according to David Gergen the other day). She similarly was reluctant to release emails in the recent scandal and the motivation for a private server appears to be one of secrecy. And she refuses to discuss her talks with Goldman Sachs.

I think she's a decent candidate and I won't hesitate to vote for her -- especially considering the alternative. But Clinton does give the impression of a distinct lack of transparency time and again, and I can understand why people don't trust her. The private email server frankly bothers me considerably.

Back to the OP's question: I can't imagine that any of these issues should bother anyone nearly as much as the prospect of a Trump presidency.

It's just strange to me, and I'm not implying this against you, your statement just fit what I was saying, that only Clinton is held to this standard. That goes for both her personal life, and her political life. There aren't many candidates that have had their lives followed, picked apart, and investigated as much as the Clinton have. Part of this is of their own doing (The couple running for President a total of 3 times), and some of their political rivals. You've found a few things that she's kept to herself, and frankly we disagree about the server. Given it was on par with previous SoS's (using personal, or non government email), I really don't find it to be the bomb shell others do. Obviously she wasn't working overly hard to skirt policy if she held on the emails. She could have avoided the whole damn thing, deleted every email in it's entirety and claim the same thing the previous SoS did. They didn't have any to turn over, and neither did Bush. It would have lasted a week in the news and been gone after. She didn't, she preserved (what turned out to be all of) her emails. You can now find them in searchable format online anytime you'd like. If that's not transparent, what is?

TL; DR: While I think Hillary isn't the best candidate, I think she's done pretty well given the circumstances.

ETA: In contrast, outside of the size of his hands, what do we even know about Trump? He won't even release his *********** taxes.

 

[acbytesla]

It's absolutely the best strategy, but people still recognize the deflection. Someone who constantly deflects and never gives a straight answer to any question comes off as deceitful, even if they aren't trying to be.

It's a fine line, but you're insane if you believe that answering the questions is the answer. (sorry, couldn't resist) 9 times out of 10 it just prompts followup question after followup question and then that is the ball game. The only time you ever address the question is if the story doesn't peter out.

There are certain tenets of this game, but it's as much alchemy as it is chemistry.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It's just strange to me, and I'm not implying this against you, your statement just fit what I was saying, that only Clinton is held to this standard.

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?

 

[phiwum]

It's just strange to me, and I'm not implying this against you, your statement just fit what I was saying, that only Clinton is held to this standard. That goes for both her personal life, and her political life. There aren't many candidates that have had their lives followed, picked apart, and investigated as much as the Clinton have. Part of this is of their own doing (The couple running for President a total of 3 times), and some of their political rivals. You've found a few things that she's kept to herself, and frankly we disagree about the server. Given it was on par with previous SoS's (using personal, or non government email), I really don't find it to be the bomb shell others do. Obviously she wasn't working overly hard to skirt policy if she held on the emails. She could have avoided the whole damn thing, deleted every email in it's entirety and claim the same thing the previous SoS did. They didn't have any to turn over, and neither did Bush. It would have lasted a week in the news and been gone after. She didn't, she preserved (what turned out to be all of) her emails. You can now find them in searchable format online anytime you'd like. If that's not transparent, what is?

TL; DR: While I think Hillary isn't the best candidate, I think she's done pretty well given the circumstances.

ETA: In contrast, outside of the size of his hands, what do we even know about Trump? He won't even release his *********** taxes.

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.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

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".

 

[TragicMonkey]

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".

I think you are conflating different things here. One can be honest without being inflexible, and compromise is not inherently dishonest.

 

[tyr_13]

I just got through with a dustup on Facebook with a friend of a friend.

He believes that the Clintons are rapists, who sold defense secrets to China, and took money from foreign governments for political favors.

His evidence is linking to accusations, breightbart repeating accusations, and what he claims is an interview with the director of the FBI on 4chan where he admits he didn't bring any charges because the entire US government is so corrupt it would pit the FBI against the US.

The extreme Clinton hate and Trump support relies almost entirely on the same traditional woo thinking we as skeptics devote a lot of time fighting against. It's almost all CT, gish gallop, and cognitive easing. Sure, some is the more regular tribal identity and other political forces, including policy disagreements. But that doesn't explain the more extreme sadly mainstream talking points.

Please note the important qualifiers I've used, that will in no way prevent straw manning.

 

[acbytesla]

I think you are conflating different things here. One can be honest without being inflexible, and compromise is not inherently dishonest.

Actually I'm not. I'm saying those things exactly. I supported Bernie, or more accurately the positions he was advancing. You think that I'm attached to the politician? I'm not. I might be if my livelihood was somehow related to that particular person, but that's not the case.

This is why I respect Bernie so much and would have lost it for him if he hadn't endorsed Hillary. You see, it was NEVER about him, but about us. About making our lives better not living for the narcissistic thrill of adoring fans.