"I Just Can't Trust Her."

[wareyin]

And being guilty of everything she was charged with might have made a difference, too.

Well, in a way your statement is true: Clinton has not been charged with anything, so she has been guilty of everything she has been charged with.

 

[wareyin]

I think being publicly chastised by the FBI director also had something to do with it.

Other than the few who pay attention to politics, nobody cared about that. The decades long smear campaign, though, has had time to seep into the public consciousness.

 

[Puppycow]

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.

There was a moment on Colbert last fall when she wouldn't even take a position on New York pizza vs. Chicago pizza. Are you really so guarded that you can't just give your honest opinion like a normal person for fear that someone will be offended if you say that New York pizza is better?

 

[The Big Dog]

There was a moment on Colbert last fall when she wouldn't even take a position on New York pizza vs. Chicago pizza. Are you really so guarded that you can't just give your honest opinion like a normal person for fear that someone will be offended if you say that New York pizza is better?

Well the pizza rats certainly prefer New York style.

 

[Bubba]

Hillary's Watergate investigation supervisor Democrat Jerry Zeifman doesnt trust her, (apparently).

“Hillary then removed all the Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,”Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding … as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

http://urbanmyths.com/urban-myths/p...y-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation/


http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact...hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

 

[Puppycow]

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.

That sounds a lot like the rest of the country to be honest. In the past most people were against gay marriage and now most people are for it.

ETA: In the past Trump said he was "very pro-choice", now he says he is pro-life. How principled is that?

 

[The Big Dog]

That sounds a lot like the rest of the country to be honest. In the past most people were against gay marriage and now most people are for it.

Huh, did the rest of the country call it a sacred bond, and their husband sign the defense of marriage act?

Protip: no.

Reember folks what Hillary considers sacred is based on which way the *********** wind is blowing.

 

[Kestrel]

There was a moment on Colbert last fall when she wouldn't even take a position on New York pizza vs. Chicago pizza. Are you really so guarded that you can't just give your honest opinion like a normal person for fear that someone will be offended if you say that New York pizza is better?

Any politician running for office in Iliinios is required to say Chigago style is better. One running in New York is required to say New York style is better. A politician running for national office knows that it is best to avoid answering any question tied to regional rivalries.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Any politician running for office in Iliinios is required to say Chigago style is better. One running in New York is required to say New York style is better. A politician running for national office knows that it is best to avoid answering any question tied to regional rivalries.

Hawaiian pizza!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

You do know all this crap has been rebutted again and again, right? Sanders was against gay marriage at the same time as well. Half the country changed their position on gay marriage too.

That is the most trivial of things compared to Trump who continues to lie, even today in is speech in Iowa, saying he was always against the Iraq war when the video has been played over and over him saying in an interview he supported the Iraq war.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think being publicly chastised by the FBI director also had something to do with it.

But not for lying, for making the same mistake lots of IT experts cringe every day about when employees don't know how to be secure with their emails.

 

[Puppycow]

You do know all this crap has been rebutted again and again, right? Sanders was against gay marriage at the same time as well. Half the country changed their position on gay marriage too.

That is the most trivial of things compared to Trump who continues to lie, even today in is speech in Iowa, saying he was always against the Iraq war when the video has been played over and over him saying in an interview he supported the Iraq war.

Above I mentioned Trump going from "very pro-Choice" to pro-Life when he decided to run as a Republican.

I agree though: half the country did come around on gay marriage. Once upon a time large majorities opposed interracial marriage too, but now only a very tiny lunatic fringe does. In 1958 only 4% approved of interracial marriage and it was actually illegal in 24 states. Hard to imagine how different times were. I was born in 1970 myself.

 

[Travis]

Huh, did the rest of the country call it a sacred bond, and their husband sign the defense of marriage act?

Protip: no.

Reember folks what Hillary considers sacred is based on which way the *********** wind is blowing.

1) Even if we accept that as true that doesn't make her untrustworthy. It actually means you would be able to know just what she will do. An untrustworthy person will directly tell you one thing while doing another.

2) Your premise is wrong because most people who changed their mind did once consider it a sacred bond then ruminated on it and eventually morphed their thinking.

3) Bill signed the DOMA because not signing it would have been useless. He wasn't big for doing symbolic but useless things.

 

[Kestrel]

Above I mentioned Trump going from "very pro-Choice" to pro-Life when he decided to run as a Republican.

I agree though: half the country did come around on gay marriage. Once upon a time large majorities opposed interracial marriage too, but now only a very tiny lunatic fringe does. In 1958 only 4% approved of interracial marriage and it was actually illegal in 24 states. Hard to imagine how different times were. I was born in 1970 myself.

It is easy to forget how much our nation has changed over the years. Obama was born years before the Supreme Court decision in Loving vs. Virginia invalidated state laws against interracial marriage. Hillary Clinton want to law school at a time when admitting women was still considered controversial.

 

[Bubba]

by Kestrel View Post
Any politician running for office in Iliinios is required to say Chigago style is better. One running in New York is required to say New York style is better. A politician running for national office knows that it is best to avoid answering any question tied to regional rivalries.

Hawaiian pizza!

Pineapple and ham ?


Didnt Hillary kinda lie to congress recently about her emails?

 

[The Big Dog]

1) Even if we accept that as true that doesn't make her untrustworthy. It actually means you would be able to know just what she will do. An untrustworthy person will directly tell you one thing while doing another.

So, we know what Hillary will do because she has no principles at all?

That is the most correct thing I have ever seen you say!

We know that Hillary will do, first last and always, what is good for Hillary.

 

[The Big Dog]

Pineapple and ham ?


Didnt Hillary kinda lie to congress recently about her emails?

They should put her statement at the UN about her emails in the Lying Hall of Fame.

 

[Shalamar]

So, we know what Hillary will do because she has no principles at all?

That is the most correct thing I have ever seen you say!

We know that Hillary will do, first last and always, what is good for Hillary.

Rule of So.

 

[The Big Dog]

Rule of So.

I learned on the iSkep that it was perfectly appropriate to Rule of So from now on.

We call it the Rule of Tony Stark.

 

[Shalamar]

I learned on the iSkep that it was perfectly appropriate to Rule of So from now on.

We call it the Rule of Tony Stark.

Ahh. Changing your mind, are we? Sounds familiar.

Pro-tip: You really should stick to your guns.

The Big Dog will let you know!