26 Sep 16
A recap of Clinton's emails which can be boiled down to "Not good, but not as bad as it looks", followed by a brief look into Trump's scandals.
Yes, Clinton is untrustworthy, but when compared with Trump (you have no other choice) and his scandals there is hardly any contest.
26 Sep 16
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt will be the less than honest, but experienced Hillary vs the trash talking, blustery, and equally dishonest Trump. We'll just have to see who the public dislikes more. Not a happy choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI
A recap of Clinton's emails which can be boiled down to "Not good, but not as bad as it looks", followed by a brief look into Trump's scandals.
Yes, Clinton is untrustworthy, but when compared with Trump (you have no other choice) and his scandals there is hardly any contest.
26 Sep 16
Originally posted by mchillI would never make the claim that Trump is "equally as dishonest" as Hillary.
It will be the less than honest, but experienced Hillary vs the trash talking, blustery, and equally dishonest Trump. We'll just have to see who the public dislikes more. Not a happy choice.
Trump has her beat by a huge country mile.
26 Sep 16
Originally posted by whodeyClinton: lied about being under "sniper fire," was clumsy with e-mails and then tried to weasel out of the non-scandal. There was also the scandal when Bill was governor of Arkansas, something-something-gate with real estate or something.
So Trump has lied by 5280 feet farther than Hillary?
Then what has Hillary lied about?
vs Trump: don't have enough room to put everything in a single RHP post, you know some of the juicy stories I bet. Just this week it was revealed that Trump claimed to have lied under oath during one of the primary debates, i.e. he said something during the debates that directly contradicts what he declared under oath.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDon't downplay Hilary's scandals. They involve plain and simple dishonesty and corruption.
Clinton: lied about being under "sniper fire," was clumsy with e-mails and then tried to weasel out of the non-scandal. There was also the scandal when Bill was governor of Arkansas, something-something-gate with real estate or something.
vs Trump: don't have enough room to put everything in a single RHP post, you know some of the juicy stories I bet ...[text shortened]... i.e. he said something during the debates that directly contradicts what he declared under oath.
Hilary wasn't just "clumsy" with email, she outright lied (during trial) in saying that the State Department told her "90-95 percent" of emails were retained. When she couldn't come up with a single name of someone who allegedly told her staff this, she then had to back-track and claim it was an assumption that the emails were somewhere in the department's system.
That's not a "non-scandal", especially compounded with other shady behavior, such as deleting 30,000 "personal" emails.
The scandal when Bill was governor was over illegally using his position to help Hilary's business. That's more serious than "something-something".
I don't understand why just because Trump is worse, people feel the need to downplay Hilary's dishonesty and corruption. Admitting that Hilary is horrible is in no way a point for Trump.
26 Sep 16
Originally posted by vivifyIt's because Trump is a lot worse. The election is not a choice between two bad options, it's a choice between a bad one and a choice so awful I have no good metaphor or simile for it.
I don't understand why just because Trump is worse, people feel the need to downplay Hilary's dishonesty and corruption.
Originally posted by vivifyYou posted that video before and totally failed to defend it. Its not that people are downplaying Hilary's dishonesty, its that you have a warped view of her supposed dishonesty.
I don't understand why just because Trump is worse, people feel the need to downplay Hilary's dishonesty and corruption. Admitting that Hilary is horrible is in no way a point for Trump.
[youtube 13 minutes of Hilary lying]-dY77j6uBHI[/youtube]
I am more than happy to admit she is dishonest when she is. I am less happy to call her dishonest when she isn't, and its a made up lie by republicans.
I don't like Hillary, don't think she never lies, and don't like the direction the US has taken in general and would prefer someone like Bernie. But that is no reason to make up lies about Hillary. If she is so terrible then you should have no problem using the truth against her. If anything the whole 'email scandal' convinced me that the republicans could not find one single piece of dirt on her.
So, although I don't like her politics, she seems to be a very robust politician. She will do what she says she will do an keep the US on a course probably slightly to the right of Obama.
Trump would either destroy the US, or your reasonably robust systems for protecting the country from stupid presidents will kick in and he will be unable to do anything much. But even that will be very very bad for the US. I doubt he would last the full term.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMy guess is that we don't know half the dirt on both candidates.
Clinton: lied about being under "sniper fire," was clumsy with e-mails and then tried to weasel out of the non-scandal. There was also the scandal when Bill was governor of Arkansas, something-something-gate with real estate or something.
vs Trump: don't have enough room to put everything in a single RHP post, you know some of the juicy stories I bet ...[text shortened]... i.e. he said something during the debates that directly contradicts what he declared under oath.
Both have "foundations" for "charity" they use for questionable activities, like Trump paying off a judge to avoid going to trial over Trump U. and Hillary cheating the people of Haiti through the Clinton Foundation by only picking corporations who paid large amounts of money into her foundation so that they could conduct business that benefited the most on Haiti verses being sent where they were needed the most. In addition, letting those same corporate entities over charge the American taxpayer for their services.
Seeing partisan shills defend one or the other shows just how clueless people really are, or perhaps how desperate they to get their way politically.
26 Sep 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't "fail to defend it", you failed to name any point the video wasn't correct about. You are still unable to explain why Hilary can't make someone from the State Department who have her that "95 percent" fugure, if she wasn't lying.
You posted that video before and totally failed to defend it.
Originally posted by vivifyWe've been all through this; the burden is on those claiming she lied when she made that factually accurate statement.
I didn't "fail to defend it", you failed to name any point the video wasn't correct about. You are still unable to explain why Hilary can't make someone from the State Department who have her that "95 percent" fugure, if she wasn't lying.
You haven't come close to meeting that burden.
EDIT: P. 8 from the thread you devoted to this Youtube:
You have no real evidence to support the claim that Hillary's staff didn't receive the information from the State Department. So you haven't even got to the "false" part of a lie (you claimed in the first post you had " clear instances of deliberate untruths" never mind the "deliberate" and "intention to deceive" parts. Again YOU are the one claiming Hillary is lying so the onus is on YOU to present evidence proving this claim and showing that what Hillary said was a lie. You can't and all the smoke and mirrors about who exactly from the State Department gave her staff the accurate information that 90-95% of her sent e-mails were on state.gov accounts is a red herring.
26 Sep 16
Originally posted by vivifyYou failed to defend it. You claimed she lied but could produce no substantial evidence that she did. Instead you started making the most ridiculous demands that demonstrated you didn't actually believe your own claims.
I didn't "fail to defend it", you failed to name any point the video wasn't correct about. You are still unable to explain why Hilary can't make someone from the State Department who have her that "95 percent" fugure, if she wasn't lying.
So, why did you desperately want to show that she lied when you really had no evidence that she did? A career politician and you can't find a single solid lie to catcher her on?
26 Sep 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadHilary failed to name who have her the"95" percent figure from the State Department like she claimed, and then changed her story to say the figure is an assumption.
You failed to defend it. You claimed she lied but could produce no substantial evidence that she did. Instead you started making the most ridiculous demands that demonstrated you didn't actually believe your own claims.
So, why did you desperately want to show that she lied when you really had no evidence that she did? A career politician and you can't find a single solid lie to catcher her on?
How is that not evidence that she lied?