Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

... you definitely haven't been looking, then. Hillary may not exactly be perfect in all ways, flawless and inviolate, but as politicians go she's relatively tame as dishonesty goes. We've seen a lot worse in just the last couple decades.

[mainiac]

[Asshole mode]
Clintons "dishonesty" is the most perfect example of gullible voters I've ever seen.  Republican politicians and the media have spent decades going over her history with a fine tooth comb and what do they have to show for it?  A bunch of penny ante bullshit and vague innuendos.  If she was one tenth as dishonest as you think, they would have actually proven something by now and I dont mean some petty bureaucratic he-says-she-says crap.  That's what they say when an investigation comes up with bupkis.  Real political dishonesty is the people who get gullible sheep like you to pay attention to the front page news of "under investigation" and ignore the back page news of "didn't find anything."

There is a damn near perfect correlation between how cynical people think they are about politics and how willing they are to believe the most transparent bullshit.
[/Asshole mode]

[Urist McScoopbeard]

[Asshole mode]
Clintons "dishonesty" is the most perfect example of gullible voters I've ever seen.  Republican politicians and the media have spent decades going over her history with a fine tooth comb and what do they have to show for it?  A bunch of penny ante bullshit and vague innuendos.  If she was one tenth as dishonest as you think, they would have actually proven something by now and I dont mean some petty bureaucratic he-says-she-says crap.  That's what they say when an investigation comes up with bupkis.  Real political dishonesty is the people who get gullible sheep like you to pay attention to the front page news of "under investigation" and ignore the back page news of "didn't find anything."

There is a damn near perfect correlation between how cynical people think they are about politics and how willing they are to believe the most transparent bullshit.
[/Asshole mode]

+1, good sir.

[Bauglir]

See, that's the thing. I'm a pretty cynical guy about politics and I largely vote Democratic because at least it's better than Republican, but even I can't find anything particularly damning on Clinton.

>Silent on Wal-Mart's anti-union policies
>Potential conflict of interest with law firm she worked with that did state work
>Suspicious behavior in Whitewater controversy
>Voted for PATRIOT Act
>Renewed PATRIOT Act in 2005 after compromising on civil liberties issues
>Voted in favor of allowing Iraq invasion, did not oppose continued operations until 2007
>Introduced FEPA, which would have given ESRB game ratings the force of law
>Voted in favor of financial system bailout in 2008
>Didn't pay adequate attention to Benghazi security requests

All of these are manufactured controversies, flags that should have merited further investigation but aren't adequate for condemnation on their own, or voting choices that are still less bad than what the Republican field has to offer. And that's everything I found to even vaguely worry about. I was kind of hoping there was some stuff I hadn't found, because it'd make the attitude about her a lot more understandable. Because there are a lot of people who are profoundly uncomfortable with her as a candidate - I just don't understand why.

[Kazturkey]

See, that's the thing. I'm a pretty cynical guy about politics and I largely vote Democratic because at least it's better than Republican, but even I can't find anything particularly damning on Clinton.

>Silent on Wal-Mart's anti-union policies
>Potential conflict of interest with law firm she worked with that did state work
>Suspicious behavior in Whitewater controversy
>Voted for PATRIOT Act
>Renewed PATRIOT Act in 2005 after compromising on civil liberties issues
>Voted in favor of allowing Iraq invasion, did not oppose continued operations until 2007
>Introduced FEPA, which would have given ESRB game ratings the force of law
>Voted in favor of financial system bailout in 2008
>Didn't pay adequate attention to Benghazi security requests

All of these are manufactured controversies, flags that should have merited further investigation but aren't adequate for condemnation on their own, or voting choices that are still less bad than what the Republican field has to offer. And that's everything I found to even vaguely worry about. I was kind of hoping there was some stuff I hadn't found, because it'd make the attitude about her a lot more understandable. Because there are a lot of people who are profoundly uncomfortable with her as a candidate - I just don't understand why.

You may not consider these things or her willing participation in the expansion of the drone program worth condemning, but I do. I don't trust her, and I think a vote for Clinton is a vote for four more years of the same. To clarify an earlier statement, it's not her hawkery that bothers me so much as the way in which she has pursued said hawkery with poor intelligence and cultivated a culture of simply accepting collateral damage as inevitable. I can't speak for anyone else, as it seems that people exist who think the email thing is an actual problem, but that's my opinion on her.

[Frumple]

... honestly, I don't think too terribly many of the folks with any degree of awareness that are intent on voting for clinton really expect her to change much. It's just an issue of the (functionally only) other option (i.e. whoever ends up being the republican candidate) being one that would change things (or at least actively try to), and change them for the rather significant worse.

Dislike clinton as you please, but if you think anything on the GOP side of things (especially any of the ones that might actually win the primaries) isn't going to do the same things she does, except worse, and with few to any offsetting points of benefit, I have many bridges to sell you at very affordable rates.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A vote for Clinton is a vote for four more years of masking our pervasive societal problems.

[SirQuiamus]

Or maybe she is the most perfect stereotype of a dishonest politician I've seen...

*ahem*

Here are Billary's ratings from Politifact...

Clinton's statements by ruling
    True                38 (32%)
    Mostly True     23 (19%)
    Half True         25 (21%)
    Mostly False    20 (17%)
    False               11 (9%)
    Pants on Fire    2 (2%)

...and here are those of the rich and famous GOP frontrunner.

Trump's statements by ruling
    True                 0(0) [!!!!!!]
    Mostly True      2 (5%)
    Half True          6 (16%)
    Mostly False     4 (11%)
    False              18 (47%)
    Pants on Fire    8 (21%)

Billary is a far cry from anyone's ideal politician, but you'll get an internet cookie if you can find one GOP hopeful who has recently outdone her in truthfulness.

[Bauglir]

A vote for Clinton is a vote for four more years of masking our pervasive societal problems.

Sure, but a vote for a Republican is a vote for four years of praising our pervasive societal problems as gospel. There are surely ways in which I expect a Clinton administration to be bad, is the thing, but by the standards of presidents in living memory I would still expect it to do fairly well. By the standards of other Democratic potentials in this particular race, I don't know, because I haven't done that research, I suppose. In the strange event that Clinton experiences a meaningful challenge I suppose I'll take a look, but at best it'd be a change in my outlook from "Meh" to "Neat". Keeping in mind that my outlook on the Republican hopefuls right now is "It's like a couple of clown cars crashed on the interstate; it's so awful I want to look away, but so funny I can't."

EDIT: But let's not forget the independents.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Your attitude of blase Democrat support is more toxic than the Republicans having a shot. I've lived under Republican administration, it's about as tolerable as what Clinton brings to the table.

[penguinofhonor]

She's already noticeably different from any republican because she's not going to let congress repeal Obamacare.

[Kazturkey]

She's already noticeably different from any republican because she's not going to let congress repeal Obamacare.

I actually think that Obamacare was poorly planned, anyway, and substantial health reform is necessary before something like it will work without causing a premium hike that some people can't afford... I would in fact be in favor of repealing it and trying again with real reform that doesn't screw anyone but the insurance companies.

Edit: Quiamus, if you read some of the Trump quotes labelled false, if they were as generous with him as they are with Hillary they would be labelled as half-truths at worst, and at least one of his half-truths is a certain fact.

The statement about Libya selling most of their oil to China was true in 2012, recently Europe's been offering a better rate.

The Islamic state literally did reopen a hotel, he just got the location wrong, it's in Iraq, not Syria.:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-islamic-state-is-now-in-the-hotel-business-2015-5?IR=T

 "I have the number one show on NBC" is labelled as half true on the grounds that it's only in the previous week's ratings, not all season, but the statement is in the present tense and hence entirely true.

Having lived in Japan before, I can state that his quote about Chevrolets not being common there is at least "Mostly True" rather than "Mostly False" - I was in Tokyo and I saw zero U.S. made cars other than Fords, and even they weren't common.

[penguinofhonor]

Despite its flaws, it has helped a ton of people in my state. I don't want it repealed unless it's getting replaced immediately.

Also I feel like it would probably be a better idea to reform Obamacare than to repeal it and start over. Going back to square one might just get us in the same situation as pre-Obamacare, where people had to fight tooth and nail to get mediocre reform.

[Flying Dice]

Today's the day where the Kentucky Republican leadership is going to reject Rand Paul's attempt to circumvent state law and run for President and his current Senate seat at the same time. While two of his top subordinates are indicted for bribery. When he's got a strong populist Christian Democrat making a run for his Senate seat. It's so beautiful.

[Kazturkey]

Despite its flaws, it has helped a ton of people in my state. I don't want it repealed unless it's getting replaced immediately.

Also I feel like it would probably be a better idea to reform Obamacare than to repeal it and start over. Going back to square one might just get us in the same situation as pre-Obamacare, where people had to fight tooth and nail to get mediocre reform.

That's fair enough. I just don't think a half-socialized healthcare system makes any sense, either you need a fully socialized system or an entirely capitalistic one with some serious government intervention to prevent the hilarious premium hikes the assholes who work in insurance love performing.