It really doesn’t matter if Hillary Clinton is ‘dishonest’

[cali]

How depressing is that? Hillary is dishonest. Lots of people are aware of this. She's got a problem due it. But the pundits have her back! They're there to inform us idealistic, stupid voters that being dishonest is fine, even necessary in the political sphere.

It's so interesting how just as Iowa tightened up, the long knives came out, not just from the Clinton machine but from the MSM, along with endless pieces about how great Hillary is and how Democrats have a duty to nominate her. The complaints of Clinton and her supporters about the MSM, have always been largely spurious. The MSM doesn't treat her unfairly. The Clintons created that narrative. And media moguls have donated to her handsomely.




Here's the link to the article. Kind of the opposite of attacking an opponent's strengths. This is about dressing up weaknesses to appear as sterling qualities.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/28/it-really-doesnt-matter-if-hillary-clinton-is-dishonest/

[randys1]

1. I wonder if one could find a thread titled "Trump dishonest" or "Cruz a scumbag"

at free republic.

I bet you cant

[hrmjustin]

2. But that won't stop her from calling Hillary a liar and dishonest everyday.

[Z_California]

4. Do you disagree that she's dishonest?

Or do you just want the people at DU to stop saying it?

[hrmjustin]

5. She is not dishonest and I am getting sick of hearing rw attacks on du.

[kelly1mm]

21. She FLAT OUT lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. For no fathomable reason I would add. nt

[Z_California]

22. I disagree with you.

Among other things, her attack on Bernie for voting for the CFMA was clearly a dishonest attack. Her claim at the Town Hall that she's fought against "homophobic inequality" for 40 years couldn't be considered "honest". Her claim that she's been in favor of more debates for a "long time" is also less than honest.

I'm sorry you don't like to hear it, but intellectual dishonesty is still dishonesty.

[hrmjustin]

26. She was wrong on marriage equality but saw the light.

She never claimed to be against more debates and did claim to want more debates. She did not push like Sanders did but she never opposed more debates.

[Z_California]

32. She "saw the light" 8 years ago

At the town hall she claimed to have been on board for over 40 years. Honest?

As far as the debates go, please. We all know about the debates and playing dumb about that is intellectually dishonest on your part.

[hrmjustin]

35. She agreed with marriage equality in 2013. She did not say she was for that for 40 years.

She was giving a general remark about all kinds of discrimination and she has been fighting against it. She was not perfect but no one is.

As for the debate prove she said she was against more debates.

[arcane1]

37. And she repeated EVERY ONE of Bush's lies, verbatim, to support his invasion of Iraq.

People want to somehow convince us that she was stupid enough to believe George W. Bush was telling the truth

[SheenaR]

27. 22%

22% of Democratic voters in the Yougov poll said they would describe Hillary Clinton as "honest"

29% called her consistent

These are Democrats.... Take that imaginary RW bs elsewhere. It's real

[hrmjustin]

28. The online poll?

[SheenaR]

38. Economist/YouGov

ABC News poll is kinder at 36%

CNN/WMUR- "least honest in the field"

All I am saying is, let's not pretend this is a DU thing. It's everywhere. You are a great advocate and you are in every thread advocating for HRC. But let's be "honest" here.

[hrmjustin]

41. Thank uou for your kind words and we will have to agree to disagree.

[VulgarPoet]

17. Whatever you do

Don't bring up Iraq, Syria, Libya, her email server, or the fact that she changes her mind when politically expedient, and you'll find DU a lot more of a tranquil place.

[Z_California]

3. I would hope Democrats have higher standards

Wouldn't you?

[randys1]

8. This thread proves we dont, though...or did you miss the point of this?

I think some of you folks are going to keep misunderstanding what you are doing right up to the point of the inauguration of president Cruz.

[Z_California]

24. "you folks"?

So HRC supporters AREN'T attacking Bernie?

You're starting to take after your preferred candidate I'm afraid.

[randys1]

31. Hmm, since I am a Bernie supporter, I think he would not like your comment

See how messed up stuff is.

Your attacking Clinton and someone you mistook as a supporter of hers is more important to you than paying attention.

And it is damn important that you pay attention, now.

You see on one side are barely believable, highly likely bought and paid for by somebody candidates who might or might not help fix the situation, and the other side is the GOP...the terrorists, I like to call them.

I dont make the mistake of believing that any of them care about me, but I do believe one side will destroy me on purpose if they can.

[Z_California]

36. Point taken

I disagree that dishonesty shouldn't be called out when it happens though. We need to keep our candidates honest.

The problem isn't that people call HRC dishonest. The problem is that there is clear evidence that it's true.

[randys1]

40. All politicians lie. ALL...now I will give you that Bernie is damn near as close as

you can get to an honest politician.

But that is not the point, is it.

If we can only vote for an honest politician, we either cant vote at all or everybody has to vote for Bernie, and we sure as hell know that aint happening.

You can call out dishonesty on politicians if you want but you will get real tired real fast.

I see politics this way, you work all day everyday, 24/7, 365, to get actual liberals in power and every year on election day or every other, you take 5 minutes out to vote for the least harm, or 8 hours if you are Black.

[arcane1]

42. Agreed. If we have to lie about our candidate in order to win, we lose in principle.

[Fumesucker]

6. Exactly, DU should be more like Free Republic

[randys1]

9. I see you also are missing the point.

sigh

[Fumesucker]

20. I'm not even sure why I'm here any more

I was on the way out before Sanders announced, convinced there was no possibility of real change in the system. I was reading less often, posting much less and pursuing my technical interests over politics. Frankly I can make a far larger impact with my technical interests than I can in politics, here I'm one small voice among a multitude, on the technical forums I frequent I'm a respected and valued contributor in a smallish (much smaller than DU) community. Why would I come here for abuse and insults when I can go somewhere people are appreciative of my knowledge and skills?

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination you won't have to worry about me violating TOS, I won't be here much and I'll be posting even less because I'll know any chance of breaking the grip of the 1% on our politics is hopeless, just like all the Clinton supporters want me to believe now.

[randys1]

25. Not hopeless. If you give up, then you are to blame. I want to give up all the time.

I still cant believe some middle class Walmart workers care more about health insurance exec profits than their own survival, but they do.

It makes me want to give up, but I dont

[Fumesucker]

33. Middle class Walmart workers is an oxymoron except for management

[randys1]

34. True, I thought of that when I wrote it. But you catch the drift of which I surfed on.

[Fumesucker]

43. People know in their hearts that they aren't going to get a fair shake from the insurance companies

I remember when Pitt was upset about his wife's illness and being denied for a medicine that was life saving for her. It took a damn team of experts here on DU in addition to Pitt who is undeniably an intelligent person to get her on the meds she needed. The average person doesn't have that advantage and they are quite likely to just lay down and die when faced with the ridiculously byzantine medial system we have in the USA.

The insurance companies know that and that's why the system is so complex, to make it difficult for the average person to deal with so they won't utilize their insurance any more than they absolutely have to.

[Armstead]

7. Hell's bells -- This is a garden party compared to the GOP at the moment

They're ripping each other apart in twenty different directions -- in ways that are more virulent than anything you'd see here.

[randys1]

15. And when they pick a nominee they will ALL vote for that person. Always do

[Armstead]

18. And I think most here will too. Not all but that's life.

[closeupready]

12. If you see Free Republic as DU's counterpoint, then

I really have to question, what on Earth can you possibly mean???????

It's like saying the counterpoint to Doctors Without Borders is ACDC. Nothing but the vaguest general logic can make sense of it.

[randys1]

13. Nice try. The point is there are two parties, one is going to cut it's throat if it

doesnt get it's way paving the way for the other.

Which is suicide and insane.

[cali]

14. It's the title of the WaPo piece, and it's

one that defends her. And you can find dozens of pieces in Freeperville calling Trump a liar, Cruz a liar, etc. Not that that has anything to do with it.

P
Here are some examples:


To: dangus
Does it matter now? Trump has his drones. Doesn’t matter what he says they believe him to be the savior of the nation.


3 posted on 1/26/2016, 4:12:44 PM by Reagan Disciple (Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: dangus
Oh, boy, selling my soul to get this prancing clown elected seems like a really great idea.


4 posted on 1/26/2016, 4:12:48 PM by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: dangus
Some believed the Nazis did “good things” too, Donald. They sure kept the trains running on time!

This guy is a trainwreck ... and not conservative at all.


5 posted on 1/26/2016, 4:12:58 PM by dinoparty


To: dangus
What an ass.


9 posted on 1/26/2016, 4:14:13 PM by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: dangus
It’s okay, because Trump changes his positions every day. The key is only to believe him when he says something you like. Just block out everything else.


From another thread:

Nobody believes that, Ted. Nobody thinks Trump is afraid of anything. Stop with the stupid stuff.

Only Trump fan-bois believe that nonsense.

The facts are self-evident. Trump is a coward!
13 posted on 1/27/2016, 11:50:22 AM by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different
To: SoConPubbie
Lolk...Cruz is clinging to Trump’s leg like a poodle in heat.


21 posted on 1/27/2016, 11:51:26 AM by mac_truck (aide toi et dieu t'aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: SoConPubbie
Nothing there to defend that would not expose him further as a lefty liar and manipulator with the manners of a 5 year old with no parental guidance and as much class... Nevermind, he has no class or sense of human decency. I can’t think of an adult with less class than him.


22 posted on 1/27/2016, 11:51:28 AM by libbylu (Cruz: The truth with a smile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Zuben Elgenubi
[Cruz should just shut up and let this thing play out.]

Yup. Cruz is sounding more and more like an ass. Hopefully enough people get tired of his lame schtick and move over to Trump, a real leader.


To: conservative98
I think Trump is absolutely afraid of having Cruz expose his liberal record. Trump is a con man and he doesn’t want his con to unravel.

[randys1]

16. ahh, so you DO want to be the counterpoint to Free Republic...this is where I drop the mic

[cali]

23. No. I said no such thing. You told me that you were sure

that one couldn't find freepers calling Trump or Cruz dishonest. In fact, you said you'd bet on it. I was simply responding with proof that you are wrong. Simple really.

[bigwillq]

10. Sadly, the majority of politicians are dishonest

So, Hillary is in the majority in that regard. I think the country can do better than another Clinton, imo.

Bernie and Martin are better choices, I believe.

[farleftlib]

11. Reading that was nauseating "truly"

I was going to cut and paste some of the more egregious statements, but an entire article making a case that Hillary's dishonesty makes her a better candidate for president is too sleazey to parse.

It also managed to enumerate all the most ludicrous talking points against Sanders.

[cali]

19. It's pretty unbelievable

What's next? Greed is good?

[farleftlib]

30. Why not? It's one of her strengths

One other thought comes to mind though after reading that, it claims that she leads from the head and he from the gut.

When we suffered under the Bush Jr. regime, we were constantly told that it didn't matter that he got it wrong all the time, he always "went with his gut" and that was to be admired....then. The apologists are shamelessly craven.

[sadoldgirl]

29. So we are supposed to vote for a candidate

who has been proven to be dishonest as well
as evolving when expedient?

Nice! A new way to get the voters strongly
engaged and all fired up!

Compromising is essential, but starting out
with "truthiness" is mind boggling.

[VulgarPoet]

39. See at first I didn't understand Clinton supporters

and then I realized that when translated, the screaming comes out roughly to "your conscience is inconvenient let our corporate overlords continue to make policy for profit"

[MisterP]

44. hey, they said it, not us!

[Recursion]

45. From an electoral standpoint, it doesn't

Voters have shown repeatedly they will vote for a candidate they find to be dishonest.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. Doesn't that say something? Right now in the HRC group they're swooning over the Millbank piece

calling it "spot on", etc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html

Here are a few takeaways from the OP-ED they're calling "spot on":

"Hillary Clinton is... a dreary candidate. She has, again, failed to connect with voters"

Her policy positions are "uninspiring", her reflexive secrecy causes a whiff of scandal to follow her everywhere, and she "seems calculating and phony"

Her politics are "inauthentic".


etc.


And THIS is the crap they're goo-gooing over, as "spot on!"

Yay, Inauthentic! Go Dreary!



FFS.

[Bernblu]

47. She isn't effective either.