Print

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

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Eh I've never been able to do that.Like I consider it kinda morally wrong of i flat out didn't listen to somebody becuase of their appearance or the way the way they sound.

[mainiac]

I don't see the sources where they confirmed each individual lie half truth mostly truth truth and falsity

Well there is this whole website you see...

Second of course Obama would have a higher count mainly becuase we've been tracking him for longer with these statistics Hillary has a definitely smaller sample size

Not sure what you are getting at there.  Increasing the sample size doesn't change the percentages.  And saying 262 statements isn't enough is... well interesting.  Did you evaluate more then 262 statements by Clinton before you decided she was dishonest?

Also, how about a comparison to a lot more politicians then Obama and Trump?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Basically I was saying we haven't watched Hilary for as long as we've watched Obama.
I honestly did not evaluate that many but if eel tempted to do so now and still feel if I feel she's untrustworthy as hell.Is this just campaign lies or things she's said during debates or is it all of the lies and things that we know about?

[Reelya]

There is a point there, that someone who was president for 8 years may be more constrained in what he can say than other people. But the premise of the conjecture is false: Obama has more True/Mostly True/Half True statements percentage-wise than anyone else - followed closely by H Clinton.

[mainiac]

Basically I was saying we haven't watched Hilary for as long as we've watched Obama.
I honestly did not evaluate that many but if eel tempted to do so now and still feel if I feel she's untrustworthy as hell.Is this just campaign lies or things she's said during debates or is it all of the lies and things that we know about?

We have been watching Clinton longer then Obama actually... she has been a national politician going back to 2000 while he has only been a national politician going back to 2004...

This is just a survay of politifact.  So it reflects the fact that Bernie Sanders lies a lot more then Clinton on the campaign trail and it reflects the fact that Bernie Sanders lies a lot more then Clinton in the debates.  So it reflects the fact that your candidate lie lie lie lie lie neener neener *rasberry* is dishonest in general.

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm intresting.

[Frumple]

There is a point there, that someone who was president for 8 years may be more constrained in what he can say than other people.

Maybe? It's not like clinton doesn't have a significantly longer and generally higher profile political career, though. That sort of constraint (to the extent it exists) isn't exactly exclusive to the position of POTUS.

Eh I've never been able to do that.Like I consider it kinda morally wrong of i flat out didn't listen to somebody becuase of their appearance or the way the way they sound.

... see again, what was written. You may have something of a moral burden to communicate or try to understand folks but that don't mean you're mandated to watch or listen to the buggers. Particularly if you know it's something that's going to influence how you interpret what they're saying (And I could see how it would in the case linked, as the guy looks like a jackass, and like or not that does predisposition folks in how they process stuff), seeking another medium to go about things is the more moral choice. You're trying to filter out identified bias factors, and there ain't no vice in that.

Is this just campaign lies or things she's said during debates or is it all of the lies and things that we know about?

Couldn't say. Can you actually point to particular lies that's causing you to feel this way? Or is it the whole "well, they say she's untrustworthy so she's untrustworthy" thing going on?

[Starver]

Note: this is one thing even my mom noted he lied on. Which puts her one step above mainiac on the "how far up your chosen candidates backside are you" ladder.

Is the imagery thus provoked perhaps opposite to the one you intended?

(Cue)

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Some of the untrustworthy stuff the fact she's mentioning climate change less and less and seems not to discuss some of the stuff she was discussing earlier as much seems to me like she's sweeping them under the rug.I don't hate Hilary but a bias agasint her is probably there due to all I've heard about her and it may not all be rational my dislike of her I will say though I would vote her definitely over trump any day.
Now I find it interesting that you even think someone could look like a jackass I've never really thought when I look at people that they look like something I might vaguely like or dislike their hairstyle or maybe think their hairstyle humorous like Trump's ((becuase i thought it was a wig the first time I saw it.))
But I've never really let someone's appearance at least consciously effect my opinion about someone really negatively.I try to see the best in people.

[Reelya]

Some of the untrustworthy stuff the fact she's mentioning climate change less and less and seems not to discuss some of the stuff she was discussing earlier as much seems to me like she's sweeping them under the rug

That's called ... making yourself electable. Large chunks of the likely Trump voters are climate-change skeptics. The pro-climate change people are already on board with the Democrats. In the final leg of an election campaign you broaden your base, you don't preach to the choir. Clinton needs to pull votes away from Trump, so she's being sensible about how much she emphasizes different messages.

Being 100% earnest all the time in politics, is, in D&D-speak "Lawful Stupid" not "Lawful Good". Sure you stuck to your guns and didn't waver in your message or reach out to people different to you. But then you lost the election to the unscrupulous guy.

[Sheb]

She did bring Climate change up during the debate.

[AbstractTraitorHero]

She did bring Climate change up during the debate.

Never said she didn't said she's been doing it less and less.

Some of the untrustworthy stuff the fact she's mentioning climate change less and less and seems not to discuss some of the stuff she was discussing earlier as much seems to me like she's sweeping them under the rug

That's called ... making yourself electable. Large chunks of the likely Trump voters are climate-change skeptics. The pro-climate change people are already on board with the Democrats. In the final leg of an election campaign you broaden your base, you don't preach to the choir.

That's not gonna really work anymore since they can easily tell Hilary would be flat out doing that and she still stands for climate change due to information being so available in this age that kinda thing I don't think will be very viable.

[Reelya]

You act like people are rational and 100% based on the correct information. But plenty of research shows how irrational and emotional people are, and easily mislead.

[mainiac]

Some of the untrustworthy stuff the fact she's mentioning climate change less and less

1) That's not really untrustworthy
2) She did mention it during the debate:

And I think it's important that we grip this and deal with it, both at home and abroad. And here's what we can do. We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That's a lot of jobs; that's a lot of new economic activity.

Yeah it's not a big mention but you have to keep in mind that half the debate was dealing with the outlandish circus that was Donald Duck.  I bet she probably only had like 20 minutes of talking about real priorities (and Donald probably only had 5).  And I think that is representative of the broader problem with this race in general.  She cant just completely ignore this stuff so it wastes a lot of time and keeps important issues from getting any time.

Being 100% earnest all the time in politics, is, in D&D-speak "Lawful Stupid" not "Lawful Good".

TBF Clinton is probably more of a "Chaotic Dr'zz't".

[Reelya]

Some of the untrustworthy stuff the fact she's mentioning climate change less and less and seems not to discuss some of the stuff she was discussing earlier as much seems to me like she's sweeping them under the rug.I don't hate Hilary but a bias agasint her is probably there due to all I've heard about her and it may not all be rational my dislike of her I will say though I would vote her definitely over trump any day.
Now I find it interesting that you even think someone could look like a jackass I've never really thought when I look at people that they look like something I might vaguely like or dislike their hairstyle or maybe think their hairstyle humorous like Trump's ((becuase i thought it was a wig the first time I saw it.))
But I've never really let someone's appearance at least consciously effect my opinion about someone really negatively.I try to see the best in people.

Probably the most famous example was the 1960 debate between Nixon and Kennedy. Nixon had been sick recently and didn't look well. Most people listening on the radio thought Nixon had won the debate. TV watchers heavily favoured Kennedy. The kicker was that by 1960, almost all people saw it on TV not radio. So you can see how you come across on TV can tip elections. The main mitigating factor is that TV coverage is more continuous today than 1960, so a single bad performance probably doesn't affect as much, but general appearance still does.