The Relative Honesty of Clinton and Trump
Why am do I expect you to waste your time reading a post with such a silly title. Obviously, while opinions on Clinton’s honesty differ, everyone knows that Donald Trump is a pathological liar and a crook.
Oh Mr straw blog reader “everyone” eh ? Let’s ask Quinnipiac
“American likely voters say 53 – 42 percent that Trump is not honest. By a huge 66 – 29 percent margin, voters say Clinton is not honest.”
This is the same group of people among whom Clinton had a huge lead in voting intentions “In the battle of the unloved presidential candidates, Democrat Hillary Clinton tops the magical 50 percent mark among American likely voters, leading Republican Donald Trump 51 – 41 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today. ”
Arithmetic says there is someone who thinks Donald Trump is honest (already appalling) that Clinton is not honest, and, yet for other reasons (too numerous to count) plans to vote for Clinton.
This poll suggests that a whole lot of people think Clinton is less honest than Trump but should be president because she isn’t an ignorant, spoiled, thin skinned, intellectually lazy, irresponsible, reactionary, racist, selfish, incompetent ….
Sorry to run on, I meant to type “Who plan to vote for her anyway.”
On the other hand Politifact begs to differ .
For a bit more detail, go to Robert [non Wald] Mann at http://www.mormonpress.com/lying_liars_who_lie_2016_edition
Trump is rated by the Politifact Mann colaberation as the most dishonest and Clinton as second most honest after Obama. Now I know that Mormon’s are notoriously lefty, but the figure has been clipped and posted and tweeted and (I guess) facebooked by many people more prominent than I.
So why do the people polled by Quinnipiac seem to have such a different view ? Why don’t we look at the sober essay “You Failed Chumps” by Josh Marshall, who shows that there is the doublest of double standards here. Trying to understand he wrote
Many reporters and editors simply take it as a given that Trump’s a crook. So stories about Trump’s corruption amount to what journalists call dog bites man stories – not really news because it’s the norm and wholly expected. The second related point is that many reporters and editors at a basic level don’t take Trump seriously as a real candidate.
I’m absolutely sure he is right. Reporters and editors don’t bother proving Trump is dishonest, because they think to themselves “everyone knows Trump is a lying crook”. But not everyone knows that. What they mean is that anyone who doesn’t know that is so far beneath me that I can’t even see that far. Which is distasteful, but wouldn’t bother me so much if I were confident that the people whom they consider beneath their notice won’t elect Donald Trump (they could go over to the upshot to check if their dismissal of Trump as a candidate is based on solid data (and over at the NY Times they are much more sanguine than fivethiryeight or the f*king Daily Kos for Chrissakes.
Trump may be absurd, but he is not a joke (who else was laughed at but turned out to be important ?).
OK so why is the political press doing such a terrible job of reporting on the relative honesty of Clinton and Trump ? I speculate after the jump
1) As you saw if you clicked the link damnit, Marshall notes that part of the explanation of the colossal failure of the New York Times is that they hate Clintons. This is true of the political press more generally. I think there are various aspects to this mental pathology
a) They are Ahabs: They have tried and tried and failed and failed to harpoon a Clinton. Bill is their great white whale. Hillary will do in a pinch. Every time they claimed they had nailed him and he got away, they lost a bit of their credibility and their dignity. This is spectacularly true of the New York Times which had an excellent reputation way back in 1992 when they started hunting Clintons (kids believe me — it was considered a fine newspaper).
b) They know Hillary Clinton hates, despises and contemns them, that she thinks they are worthless parasites who have betrayed the honorable calling of journalism to be pathetic followers of Matt Drudge and David Bossie who also despise them and laugh at their servile gullibility …
Ran on again. Part of the problem is that Hillary Clinton might agree with me on some issues.
(explanations 2 and 3 are described above the jump)
To Marshalls 3 explanations I add some more.
4) Ballance (TM). Again two aspects of the pathology
a) editors feel they have a duty to be fair and balanced. When it is impossible to be both, because the facts have a clear liberal bias, they are fair and unbalanced. They consider equal treatment of Clinton and Trump to be equally many column inches to Clinton and Trump scandals and not to an equal standard for deciding if an allegation is worth investigating and reporting.
b) they fear the appearance of liberal bias. The tireless (and probably partly sincere) ref workers on the right still terrify MSM editors. Applying and equal standard to Clinton and Trump would expose them to the accusation of reporting that implies Clinton is a better candidate President.
c) Also it is boring. If it is entirely predictable that today’s paper will give another reason to vote for Clinton, why bother reading it ? Relatedly, political reporters need a horse race. If Clinton wins by 20 lengths they will spend months on page A24.
5) (my favorite) there is a Clinton vs the political press test of wills. Clinton didn’t hold a press conference for months, then she added insult to injury by holding a Black and Hispanic Journalists press conference. I am absolutely certain that some political reporters (and I suspect some editors) are trying to send her the message that she will regret not giving them that access to which they feel entitled.
Part of the reason I like explanation 5 is that it explains absolutely absurd articles casting aspersions on Hillary Clinton because Bill Clinton went to North Korea to save two journalists and diplomatic passports. This article by the contemptible Eric Lichtblau has earned the despicable Lichtblau the everlasting contempt of every decent person. Thus Lichtblau took one for the team. His willingness to sacrifice all dignity and credibility to send Clinton the message that she had better mollify the press will be appreciated by all mainstream political reporters. Exactly because his article is costly to him, it will be appreciated as a self sacrificing contribution to the Cause of access.
Consider the view, which seems universal among journalists, that Clinton is secretive. She has published detailed policy proposals reporting hard choices which must displease some. Political strategy would suggest strategic vagueness, that is promising all things to all people. As I have noted, the Clinton Foundation is the focus of many more pseudo scandal stories than Clinton speaking fees exactly because it is so transparent.
There is an odd choice of words in “The Clintons are secretive” as there is in “Donald Trump isn’t afraid to tell the truth”. In this context, “secretive” just doesn’t mean keeping lots of things secret. I think I know what reporters mean. I think they mean that the Clintons don’t tell them anything which they don’t tell the general public. A published policy program doesn’t show non “secretive”ness because, if it’s published there’s no point in knowing it and who has time to read it and who cares about policy.
The bread and butter of access journalists is information that only they have. If it is announced it is no big deal (no problem if polls show most people don’t know it, hell political journalists probably don’t know it). I think what political reporters mean when they say Hillary Clinton is secretive is that she doesn’t tell them anything she doesn’t tell the general public (and orders her staff to do the same). So secretiveness doesn’t mean not having secrets, it means not sharing the secrets with me me me.
Personally, I have no doubt that some reporters and some editors have decided to teach Clinton a lesson, that they have decided to make her life miserable until she gives them an exclusive inside scoop. I have even less doubt that many more sincerely believe they are fighting for openness and transparency and against paranoid secretiveness and that they will therefore make her life miserable until she gives them an exclusive inside scoop.
Let’s add in this.
For 25 years there has been a campaign to catch the Clintons at something. All of them have failed, but that does not mean that is where the money is.
“Taking down” a former President; Former First Lady; Senator; and Presidential Candidate is irresistible to journalists who only care about their career. Taking down Trump is child’s play, there is no Pulitzer Prize there.
I have seen these Clinton Foundation stories for quite awhile now. they are all just pure bs. But one thing I have never seen written about the Clinton Foundation is the simple fact that as a non-profit charity they have absolutely no requirement to publish their list of donors, yet they do so.
Can’t sell a dog bites man story. And certainly cannot win a Pulitzer Prize saying either.
Anyone who watched a presidential press conference knows that it is just a chance for political journalists to make it all about themselves. Wolf Blitzer, for example, would take the grandstand and seem to forget that President Clinton was in the room back in the 90s. It was embarrassing to watch.
Maybe the press corps was relevant back when reporters, even high ranking, well paid reporters, were still stand ins for ordinary Americans, but nowadays they are multi-millionaire primadonnas and celebrities in their own right.
Robert
interesting and entertaining, but you answered your question way up there in paragraph one or so?
“who is more honest, Hillary or the New York Times?”
but also, you hung your article on a failure to notice you were asking two questions, or at least different people.
Quinnipiac says “people say” Trump is more honest than Hillary.
Politifact says HIllary is more honest than Trump.
no contradiction there: people say what they hear. they hear, constantly, that Hillary is not honest so that’s what they say when asked.
i’m not sure how i would go about, as a reporter, saying “hillary is more honest than Trump, hillary is more honest than… etc.”
it’s not that there is no news there. there is no story there.
in any case, i agree with your analysis of “the press.” i don’t think i have read an honest (in the old fashioned journalistic sense) report … or heard one on NPR… in the last twenty years or so. no, make that fifty.
oh, and there is nothing surprising that people will say “hillary is not honest” and vote for her anyway. they say what they hear but they don’t connect any of there thoughts together in what you would consider a systematic or logical way.
but when they get into the voting booth, or write out their mail in ballot with god knows how watching over their shoulder they vote what amounts to the algebraic sum of their fears and feelings.
Trump may scare you (and me) but for some reasons “liberals” scare them more, even if that is not in their own “self interest.”
more or less.
You know, you have to temper the percentage of people who think she is dishonest with the simple fact that right now 50% of Rep voters think Obama is a muslim; the same amount think climate change is a hoax; and the same amount think evolution is a myth.
Take those imbeciles out of the mix and I am sure the numbers would drastically change.
On the Q poll on honesty. To me the interesting point is the contrast between assessment of honesty and voting intentions. If you took out the people who think Obama is muslim, Clinton’s lead in the head to head would be much greater than 10%.
Coberly — I don’t understand how you think I failed to notice that fact checkers and the general public are different. My point there was exactly ” people say what they hear. they hear, constantly, that Hillary is not honest so that’s what they say when asked.” Importantly they hear it not just from GOP operatives but also from the headlines and first paragraphs of news articles which go on to present evidence that she is honest.
My point was just that it isn’t true that everyone knows Clinton is more honest than Trump. I think editors and reporters are treating that as a universally known obvious fact, because they consider the general public to be beneath their notice and ignore their duty to inform the public.
RW,
True.
I would suggest that everyone who fails to understand the effect of the media, and the methods that have been common since Fox News came into being, spend a couple of hours watching Fox News.
One caveat.
Turn the sound off.
Just watch the scroll at the bottom of the screen. As reprehensible and as false as many of the audio is, the scroll is simply unbelievable.
And I believe the scroll is the primary information source for these people.
Robert
you are correct. i misread what you said.
but i’ll stand by my question: “is Hillary more dishonest than the NYTimes?
EMichael
yes, but those imbeciles vote.
but, Robert, those fact checkers have been wrong about the “looming Social Security disaster” every time they have felt called to comment on it. people repeat what they hear. even “fact checkers.”
I don’t believe this “Hillary is dishonest” meme existed, certainly not to any critical mass extent, when she left the Senate after having won re-election with 70% of the vote (among a public that would know her best). It is almost 100% a creation of the last eight years — probably with Benghazi as the opening shot no matter how thoroughly it has been discredited. That she would likely be the next Democratic candidate was plenty of motivation for the Republicans to launch a carefully-orchestrated campaign.
That AP and Politico would be in the tank with them was probably obvious.
Depending on the matter in question, dishonesty like larceny can be grand and petty.
For example voting for Iraq war was a grand dishonesty.
Ripping off Haitians was a petty dishonesty
Setting up and then lying that her “bathroom” server was for convenience and did not endanger the USA diplomatic communications for four years is somewhere in between.
From the other point of view dishonesty is a constellation of several more primitive traits like pathological lying(“Sniper fire”). So potentially there should be diagnostic checklist like The Hare Psychopathy Checklist.
It might make sense instead of measuring the level of dishonesty to measure the level of sociopathy:
1. Look for glib and superficial charm. A psychopath will also put on what professionals refer to as a ‘mask of sanity’ that is likable and pleasant. It is a thin veneer.
2. Look for a grandiose self perception. Psychopaths will often believe they are smarter or more powerful than they actually are.
3. Watch for a constant need for stimulation. Stillness, quiet and reflection are not things embraced by psychopaths. They need constant entertainment and activity.
4. Determine if there is pathological lying. A psychopath will tell all sorts of lies; little white lies as well as huge stories intended to mislead. Psychopaths are gifted or dull, high functioning or low performing like other people. An untalented psychopath may harm a few; a highly talented psychopath may lay waste to nations. The difference between the psychopath and others lies in their organic lack of conscience and empathy for others. The sociopath is trained to lack empathy and conscience. The psychopath is a natural.
5. Evaluate the level of manipulation. All psychopaths are identified as cunning and able to get people to do things they might not normally do. They can use guilt, force and other methods to manipulate.
6. Look for any feelings of guilt. An absence of any guilt or remorse is a sign of psychopathy. They will often blame the victim.
7. Consider the level of emotional response a person has. Psychopaths demonstrate shallow emotional reactions to deaths, injuries, trauma or other events that would otherwise cause a deeper response. Other people are satisfaction suppliers, nothing more.
8. Look for a lack of empathy. Psychopaths are callous and have no way of relating to others in non-exploitative ways. They may find a temporary kinship with other psychopaths and sociopaths that is strictly utilitarian and goal-oriented.
9. Psychopaths are often parasitic. They live off other people, emotionally, physically, and financially. Their modus operandi is domination and control. They will claim to be maligned or misunderstood to gain your sympathy.
10. Look for obsessive risk taking and lack of self-control. The Hare Checklist includes three behavior indicators; poor behavior control, sexual promiscuity, and behavioral problems.
11. Psychopaths have unrealistic goals or none at all for the long term. Either there are no goals at all, or they are unattainable and based on the exaggerated sense of one’s own accomplishments and abilities.
12. Psychopaths will often be shockingly impulsive or irresponsible. Their shamelessness knows no bounds. You will ask, what were they thinking? And the answer was, they weren’t because they did not care.
13. A psychopath will not genuinely accept personal responsibility. A psychopath will never admit to being wrong or owning up to mistakes and errors in judgment, except as part of a manipulative ploy. They will despise and denigrate their victims once they are done with them. If they have any regret it is that their source of satisfaction supply has ended and they must seek another.
14. Psychopaths lack long term personal relationships. If there have been many short term marriages, broken friendships, purely transactional relationships, the chances the person is a psychopath increase. Watch especially how they treat other people in weaker positions and even animals.
15. Psychopaths are often versatile in their criminality. Psychopaths are able to get away with a lot, and while they might sometimes get caught, the ability to be flexible and adaptable when committing crimes is indicative.
Cob,
Sadly, I know those imbeciles vote.
I am surprised they can find their way to the polls though.
Coberly: “Is Hillary more honest than the New York Times”
hmm I’d rate them as similar. False claims on matters of fact are occasional slips (Clinton claiming she was under fire in Bosnia, the New York Times claiming 2 inspectors general had requested criminal probes of Clinton).
Both are making a case, selecting and emphasizing facts in order to convince people.
The point is that candidates (& commentators) are expected to do this, but reporters aren’t.
I will accept that the NY Times reporting on Clinton is as fair and balanced as the Clinton campaign’s campaigning for Clinton.
I do not consider this a convincing defense of the New York Times
People ignore the indisputable fact that dishonesty and secretiveness are essential skills in high office. Imagine WWII, the Cold War, trade negotiations, and so on without them. Goodbye British Isles, if Churchill and his government hadn’t been superb liars.
The real question is, WHAT secrets? WHAT lies? WHAT broken promises? And most crucially, towards what goals?
Nations have enemies. But also, nations have a steady supply of clueless citizens. Education can make them less clueless, but not all of them and not quickly. Sometimes the most a leader can do in good faith is tell these people soothing lies and carry on quietly working for the common good.
“By their works ye shall know them.” If you look at the results of Clintons’ works, versus the results of Trump’s works, both documented over many decades, the results diverge so drastically that it is even harder to justify a Trump vote, and that’s saying a lot.
Oh, the Clintons screwed some things up, like the changes to the welfare system, but by comparison Trump is like a tornado — tall, strong, impressive, visible for miles, in all the papers, never ignored, and trailed by piles of kindling and stunned survivors standing in the wreckage.
Likbetz
So let’s see. You make a couple of absurd statements that are patently false, then follow that up with a cut and paste from wiki.
Nice discussion.
Robert
i hope you don’t think i was defending the NYT. I certainly didn’t think you were… except perhaps a bit more than they deserve. The “news” often tells the truth. How else could they get away with the lies.
As Noni says, this is part of the game of empire. Only I think it’s less innocent than she seems to. While Churchill was lying to save civilization he was also lying to promote his own and the Empire’s interests. They all do. I often think that all leaders of nations and corporations are willing to commit homicide and that may be why they get to be leaders. Of course many of their followers are willing to commit homicide too,
Whatever Trump’s personal characteristics may be, he is dangerous because he encourages the homicidal feelings of his followers, and there is no reason to expect him to stop after he gets elected.
EMichael
when i pointed out that they vote i was suggesting you find ways to not make them want to vote against you.
most of us know a lot less than we think we do.
My dear Dale, I don’t mind being accused of innocence, but I can’t claim credit for it this time. I think that the honesty and openness of people in high office by its nature cannot be proved overall, (though in given instances it can, of course.). This goes for all humans, of course.
With that in mind, our best bet as voters is to judge their strategies, their professed goals and their results over time. Campaign promises are of little value in these judgments, especially since everyone knows campaign promises are of little value.
But their track record — well, that at least is solid evidence.
Likbez
re petty and grand larceny
i like to say i have never objected to a little honest corruption in a politician. i expect it. it’s what politics is about.
but we have had a generation of politicians willing to sell out the country itself and do great harm to people as individuals as well as a nation.
your description of psychopaths was interesting and i suppose on the whole correct, but while you note that psychopaths can fake remorse you consider the lack of remorse a sign of psychopathology. this is a little dangerous as i have heard of judges.finding “lack of remorse” as a good reason for harsher sentences, if not for the original finding of guilt. i imagine a person who killed a psychopath who harmed someone he loved might honestly not show remorse. i also imagine a person who killed someone by accident might feel remorse without showing it.
it’s just not that easy to tell sometimes, and giving people a list of “signs” is an invitation for them to do stupid things with high confidence.
Noni is right… you have to look at what people do over a longish time… and of course even then it doesn’t matter if they were psychopaths of just “made mistakes.”
personally i think we all have predator genes and are not very smart, so the behavior will emerge under the “right” circumstances. a good reason to avoid leaders who encourage it.
not that leaders who don’t seem to be encouraging it don’t lead us down the primrose path of good intentions.
Cob,
You can’t fix stupid.
No way in the world you can have a conversation with people that believe those things to be facts.
The only thing never said by a Clinton is “no loco contendere”.
I am not sure about dishonest but Clinton pervasive ‘Humpty Dumpty’ speak is worthy of disrespect.
“Sex does not include sodomy”. “I did not know what those letters in the parens meant so I email on private non obtainable from FOIA server” “I do not recall being told how to do sensitive information”, even though ” “I am most qualified I don’t remember’……..
Almost every quote from a Clinton should be considered attorney-Perp.
See 18 USC 798, on the parens C and deeper critical/sensitive information issues with 44 USC Ch 31 for destroying federal records.
Sure they have no convictions that don’t mean anything Obama called off DoJ.
You do not have to be Musloim nor Kenyan to be crooked.
Ilsm,
thanks for verifying my comment to Cob.
Noni,
“By their works ye shall know them.”
Trumps bloody talk against Clinton’s bloody hands, idolatry of alliances that justify killing people with no declarations or debate and aspirations to regime change Putin.
Neocon is a family trait, look at AUMF and all the blood.
Obama’s peace prize is a joke!
.
eM
Read the laws, eh!
I won’t ask you to listen to my experience in dealing writ large and long with both federal records, yeah we in DoD could not pass an audit but the records are not destroyed, and sensitive critical information.
You can call me insane, that is all you got. As factual as calling me ignorant.
You’re doing humpty dumpty and Cheshire Cat along with your dear leader Queen of Hearts.
Ilsm.
Get an email(they are all over the place).
Show a violation of the law.
Or just stfu.
Stop the fallacies, Google logic fallacies. Telling me to prove my point which is your job to disprove. Your fallacy is “burden of proof fallacy”.
What the fbi redacted…… on TV was classified facts.
“I did not know drone strikes were classified”. She don’t remember being trained! She was on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services!!
Finding e-mails that were “misfiled” in the private server supposedly trashed.
You could say “no e-mails were disposed of improperly….”
You cannot, nor can anyone show who handled the filing system that lost federal records.
Hey I used to hang out with Airmen, ‘f’ bombs all day long! You could not the high professional standards of any of those Airmen!
EM,
You deserve a scolding from Anne over at EV for your language.
So, you got nothing.
You are the one making the claims, not me.
By the way, tell me why drone strikes are classified when the entire world knows about them.
This seems like a slight mis-statement to me:
“So secretiveness doesn’t mean not having secrets, it means not sharing the secrets with me me me.”
Didn’t you mean to say, “So secretiveness doesn’t mean having secrets, it means not sharing the secrets with me me me.”?
Provided I’m correct, sorry for the delay in pointing this out, but I just got here. Thanks for the good post.
Comment on a comment: “I often think that all leaders of nations and corporations are willing to commit homicide and that may be why they get to be leaders.”
I’ve had a few (two) leaders (managers) (on the unit level) who I thought were very decent people and a bit more ethical than myself, but in general I agree with you. At the General Manger level (when I left there were 16 of them in the Schenectady plant and about 4000 workers, versus three or four GM’s and 28,000 workers when I started) and above in GE they were mostly sociopaths – some natural, and some trained.
As they say in football, if you ain’t cheatin’ you ain’t tryin’ hard enough.
I also agree that it is something in our genetic makeup. On my optimistic days I think technology might save us – reliable lie-detectors, unbiased AI judges. I for one will welcome our AI overlords (open-sourced, that is).
Likbez,
HRC’s Iraq war vote was not “grand dishonesty,” it was a mistake made very publicly, one that she has since agreed was a mistake. Where is there a shred of dishonesty in that?
As for being a psychopathic liar, it would appear to me that your laundry list applies fully to Trump but barely at all to Hillary, although it looks like you think it applies to Hillary. Maybe it applies to you, since you somehow think that the publicly made Iraq war vote was “grand dishonesty” rather than an honest mistake (keep in mind that when it was made she and many others did not realize how badly the war would turn out, and also the vote had a condition that Bush was supposed to pursue all alternatives before going to war, which he failed to do).
Howvever, to Robert, why are you joining this silly gang of people trying to justify Hillary’s incredible stupid refusal to hold a press conference. Yeah, they will ask stupid questions and grandstand. So what? They are printing lying distorting crap stories anyway. So let them do their grandstanding and let them shut up about this silly press conference issue, which Trump is now harrumphing about. This should be a non-issue and can easily be made to go away by having a bloody press conference. What on earth is being gained by not having one? I see nothing, and I see plenty of losses. This is plain stupid.
So tired of arguing this one. The country was in a frenzy after 911 and easy to lead in any direction it needed to be lead to strike out at any perceived enemy whether legitimate or not. Yes it was a mistake for people who should have been saner in deciding a direction to take when all of the facts were not there.
Let me add a bit more on how stupid it is of HRC to not have a press conference. Apparently she and others think she is reasonably punishing them for their past bad behavior towards her. No, they are not suffereing, even if some of them feel personally frustrated or whatever. But they get to run phony exaggerated story after phony exaggerated story. They are not hurting as a group, but she is, especially as the Trump camgaign is now running with this and making it look like she has something to hide.
Note that when she sat down finally for that 11 hour interrogation by the Benghazi committee, painful as that may have been, she basically killed it as a serious issue. It has become a pathetic dog that does not bark anymore, despite occasional efforts by Fox News or House GOPs to drum it up again. If she held a press conference she could make similar short work of some of the silier garbage being published about her, but for some silly reason she does not do it.
This raises an unpleasant question: if somehow she is afraid of being able to handle uncomfortable questions from the press (and I think that is not it, she thinks she is punishing these naughty boys), then what makes her confident that she can handle the much worse that Trump is likely to throw at her in the upcoming debates? There is simply nothing good at all about this absurd refusal to hold a press conference,nothing.
Barkley:
I agree a press conference shutting these issue down is called for instead of ignoring them.
eM,
It certainly was too much effort for Hillary.
“tell me why drone strikes are classified when the entire world knows about them.”
If I did, I would use up my fingers typing, you would know more about safeguarding national security data than Hillary and her bandits who ran the server in Chappaqua.
Start by google and figure out who a “classification authority” is…… hint if you get that you are years ahead of Hillary.
Every second john coming out of OTS knows infinitely more about classified data than Clinton and you and does not have an army of ignorant apologists.
You use strawman again, but at least you did not throw out the usual ad hominem.
Barkley,
About waffling on Clinton’s AUMF vote:
“Where is there a shred of dishonesty in that?”
The mistake she made in 2003 she used in Libya, Syria etc.
The AUMF vote was her Goldwater Girl Bircher side, which is quite real.
Her actions capitalizing on her mistake are troubling.
Ilsm,
Again, you got nothing.
Meanwhile,
Trump’s National Security Chairman
http://www.progressivepunch.org/record.htm?member=300088&state=AL&district=ALII&topic=W3
http://www.progressivepunch.org/record.htm?member=300088&state=AL&district=ALII&topic=W4
Not one single vote in there is remotely close to what you consider your “single issue” position.
You think I am for Trump?
heh!
I heard something on the radio the other day that pertains to the issue of Trump v Clinton and the honesty of politicians of both stripes.
a high end economist, former director of something or other in the government was saying
(“) after the election Clinton will find some changes in TPP that bring it up to her high standards and it will become law
(“) the people voting for Trump are the same people who voted for Wiliam Jennings Bryan… people who couldn’t keep up with the changes brought by modernization… and it’s their own fault bor not educating themselves to be employable at decent wages in these new times.(“)
this is how the serious people look at things… i almost said look at us, but i don’t know if you are uneducated, or if i am a supporter of Trump. but “us” is in any case “not them.” not the successful because oh so well educated, and they did it because they are smarter than us… oops, smarter than the losers who vote for Trump.
now to tell the truth, i am probably better educated than that economist, but i never noticed that it made me any smarter, or happier with the career choices available to me, so in my heart i identify with the angry white men… though there are plenty of angry white and black men and women who will vote for the democrat because they think they will get a better deal from the dems… because the dems tell them so..
not so much different from those who think they will get a better deal from the repubs because the repubs tell them so
thing is, we… the angry white men and me…are despised by the people who pay us low wages and steal our homes and tell themselves it is our fault
and the there is not a dimes worth of difference between the dems and the republicans… oh, it was another racist who said that
but if by mistake you got invited to dinner at their house, you’d see what they think of us.
and just to say, though i say it myself, i am not a racist and if i could i would teach the angry white men that blacks and women are not the cause of their pain. but that would be like trying to teach liberals that the angry white men would vote for democrats if the democrats actually offered them anything besides calling them racists and sexists.
The plank in the eye of Clintonphiles is uneducated trumpistas cannot grasp their illogic and Clinton cultism.
To be acceptable to Clintonphiles one must accept humpty dumpty words.
And be afraid to respond to ad hominem, burden of proof fallacies, red herrings etc.
It requires a dedication to training ones mind to support the poor assailed Hillary who has no convictions.
And don’t know what a 2nd Lt knows about securing data.
Ilsm,
I don’t think you are for Trump. I think you are not smart enough to understand that your thoughts(particularly the lies) are an aid to Trump.
And you have taken no time whatsoever to find out if the things you hate most about Clinton would actually be worse under Trump.
The answer is easy if you take any time at all.