Why isnt Hillary destroying Trump in the polls?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
Trump keeps talking about his YUGE crowds at his rallies. And apparently that is what Trump counts on as a guaranteed victory.
I suspect Hillary is drawing YUGE crowds as well.
I would like to see stats on crowd size for Clinton and Trump.
I wonder of anyone keeps track?

One thing we know for sure....
Trump rallies have one black person. Trump's black guy.
Probably the same guy going to all the rallies.

Hillary and her crowds have YUGE numbers of blacks and Hispanics.
If that tells us anything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: eton975

gorobei

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2007
4,107
1,607
136
any other democrat candidate and trump would be underwater at the polls.
any other republican candidate and clinton would be down by double digits.

but this is the only matchup that current hillary could win. assuming a decent clinton first term record and the same supersized number of republican primary candidates all refusing to drop out and 2020 will give her another chance of being elected.

make no mistake, however objectionable the candidates are to most people, it will be a landslide in the electoral college count, just due to the way the states are set up.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,821
136
any other democrat candidate and trump would be underwater at the polls.
any other republican candidate and clinton would be down by double digits.

but this is the only matchup that current hillary could win. assuming a decent clinton first term record and the same supersized number of republican primary candidates all refusing to drop out and 2020 will give her another chance of being elected.

make no mistake, however objectionable the candidates are to most people, it will be a landslide in the electoral college count, just due to the way the states are set up.

I don't know -- I'd say that Cruz might also struggle. He has a reptilian quality to him. He shares Clinton's cynical-power-grab aura, but he lacks Clinton's basic human compassion and willingness to negotiate on anything. The biggest strategic difference is that he might not alienate the GOP establishment that much... but their votes aren't the ones that matter.

Having said this, I suspect Clinton is intensely thankful that her opposition is an incompetent ball of hate like Trump. Obama won his elections in part based on minority support, and Trump's sacred mission is to alienate everyone who isn't white, Christian and straight.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,499
560
126

Sure I do, and she has a documented history of it. One such example is her claiming to come off the plane under sniper fire in Bosnia. Long time ago? Yeah, doesn't matter. She outright lied, and would never admit it even when confronted about it. Anyone trying to deny shes a liar and has been of decades is either ignorant or just not very bright.

Some people may not care, may think its just a little lie. To me its pretty large and I care a lot. After doing separate combat deployments to Iraq, Afghan, and Africa thats a fucking slap in the face. One of the biggest things that will set me off is someone lying about what they did on deployment. Trying to trump up (nice pun?) their actions. She knowingly lied, and kept lying about it. Some people may not care about that, I do. The fact that she still have her security clearance, and just got her first briefing after lying on stand is another issue all together. That is nothing more than rules not applying to her. I hold a Secret and Q clearance with HRP. Secret is the DOD clearance, and Q is the DOE clearance. Q is equivalent to a Top Secret in DOD land. There is no way she should still have her clearance and getting briefings. You can fuck up but if honest you can keep your clearance. You cannot lie however, every single time, even over something small I have seen people lose their clearance. She's been above the law, and its tiresome.

Don't mistake my dislike for Hillary, as a like for Trump. I dislike them both immensely. The only thing I like about Trump is that he will speak his mind. 99% of the time he sounds like an idiot, but too many people play the game and are too PC. I appreciate anyone who will speak what they think, and not try to placate everyone. If he didn't speak his mind we wouldn't see what a fool he really is either.
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
any other democrat candidate and trump would be underwater at the polls.
any other republican candidate and clinton would be down by double digits.

but this is the only matchup that current hillary could win. assuming a decent clinton first term record and the same supersized number of republican primary candidates all refusing to drop out and 2020 will give her another chance of being elected.

make no mistake, however objectionable the candidates are to most people, it will be a landslide in the electoral college count, just due to the way the states are set up.


Yep bad candidates are the reason the polls are they way they are. When a 3rd candidate like Gary Johnson is polling 10% when many polls do not even give him as a option that should, tell you how bad the 2 big party candidates are.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Sure I do, and she has a documented history of it. One such example is her claiming to come off the plane under sniper fire in Bosnia. Long time ago? Yeah, doesn't matter. She outright lied, and would never admit it even when confronted about it. Anyone trying to deny shes a liar and has been of decades is either ignorant or just not very bright.

Some people may not care, may think its just a little lie. To me its pretty large and I care a lot. After doing separate combat deployments to Iraq, Afghan, and Africa thats a fucking slap in the face. One of the biggest things that will set me off is someone lying about what they did on deployment. Trying to trump up (nice pun?) their actions. She knowingly lied, and kept lying about it. Some people may not care about that, I do. The fact that she still have her security clearance, and just got her first briefing after lying on stand is another issue all together. That is nothing more than rules not applying to her. I hold a Secret and Q clearance with HRP. Secret is the DOD clearance, and Q is the DOE clearance. Q is equivalent to a Top Secret in DOD land. There is no way she should still have her clearance and getting briefings. You can fuck up but if honest you can keep your clearance. You cannot lie however, every single time, even over something small I have seen people lose their clearance. She's been above the law, and its tiresome.

Don't mistake my dislike for Hillary, as a like for Trump. I dislike them both immensely. The only thing I like about Trump is that he will speak his mind. 99% of the time he sounds like an idiot, but too many people play the game and are too PC. I appreciate anyone who will speak what they think, and not try to placate everyone. If he didn't speak his mind we wouldn't see what a fool he really is either.

I think you are hanging onto the sniper fire thing a bit too much myself. I'm aware you have a long service record, but putting Trump in charge as POTUS regrading the military would be outrageous.

And it seems he wants to let Pence handle things like that if he was elected anyway, and I am not a Pence fan by a longshot.

Trump does normally speak his mind, and it is usually a stream of garbage.

You are not going to take a security clearance away from someone who is the Secretary of State :p

I'm pretty sure she has access to a lot of information you have never seen in the past, no insult intended.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,246
55,794
136
Sure I do, and she has a documented history of it. One such example is her claiming to come off the plane under sniper fire in Bosnia. Long time ago? Yeah, doesn't matter. She outright lied, and would never admit it even when confronted about it. Anyone trying to deny shes a liar and has been of decades is either ignorant or just not very bright.

Literally every politician ever has lied at some point or another and they rarely admit it. Why do you think she's special?

If you think dishonesty is a problem I strongly suggest you look at both the character and frequency of Trump's falsehoods. They are light years beyond Clinton.

This is what I meant before about false equivalence.

Some people may not care, may think its just a little lie. To me its pretty large and I care a lot. After doing separate combat deployments to Iraq, Afghan, and Africa thats a fucking slap in the face. One of the biggest things that will set me off is someone lying about what they did on deployment. Trying to trump up (nice pun?) their actions. She knowingly lied, and kept lying about it. Some people may not care about that, I do. The fact that she still have her security clearance, and just got her first briefing after lying on stand is another issue all together. That is nothing more than rules not applying to her. I hold a Secret and Q clearance with HRP. Secret is the DOD clearance, and Q is the DOE clearance. Q is equivalent to a Top Secret in DOD land. There is no way she should still have her clearance and getting briefings. You can fuck up but if honest you can keep your clearance. You cannot lie however, every single time, even over something small I have seen people lose their clearance. She's been above the law, and its tiresome.

Elected officials are the SOURCE of security clearance, the president in particular. You cannot revoke the president's clearance, as that would be illegal. Of course she gets briefed.

Don't mistake my dislike for Hillary, as a like for Trump. I dislike them both immensely. The only thing I like about Trump is that he will speak his mind. 99% of the time he sounds like an idiot, but too many people play the game and are too PC. I appreciate anyone who will speak what they think, and not try to placate everyone. If he didn't speak his mind we wouldn't see what a fool he really is either.

I don't get this idea that people think Trump speaks his mind. He lies constantly and casually about all things big and small. He will lie one day and then deny having said that same lie the next day. On the third day he will take yet another position and then deny it being any different than his first two lies. That's not speaking your mind, that's being so utterly dishonest that you take all sides of every issue.

In fact if he is speaking his mind this is far more frightening because it means he's having some sort of schizophrenic disassociative episode where he can't tell what's real anymore. There is no other answer other than deliberate continuing lies or some sort of mental disorder.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Why isn't Hillary further ahead in the polls?

23+ years. The right has had a 23+ year head-start to smear her with every unfounded, misogynistic piece of propaganda they could think of. That is as longer than most people I meet have been alive. It. Sinks. In.

Many people have an aversion to her that they can't quite explain. She's 'unlikable', 'untrustworthy', 'shrill', etc. Its all very nebulous. When her opponents do try to claim anything specific to justify those feelings, its either something that has already been discredited such as Bhengazi or the emails, something with no real policy or leadership relevance such as the 'under sniper fire' incident mentioned above, or worse miscellaneous stuff like vulgar references about Monica Lewinsky, references to her 'health' (hint- two X chromosomes), etc.

I have literally spent my entire adult life and most of my childhood hearing about what a she-devil she is, with none of it holding up to any real scrutiny. The propaganda has sunk in, and it was effective. She's no saint, but her lifetime of service should be largely worthy of being emulated upon closer inspection.

But then there's Trump. Finding his skeletons are closer to shooting fish in a barrel. "Textbook definition of racist comments" - Check. Being sued for housing discrimination and having to settle - Check. Stiffing his workers/contractors while claiming his business acumen as his primary qualification for office - Check and Check. Refusal to release tax returns despite decades-long custom - Check. Being under audit from the IRS while conveniently using that as an excuse not to release said returns to the public - Check.

I could go on here, but I would be typing all day if I got into actual issues of personal morality, or heaven forbid, actual policy positions he holds which this election decision should be solely about.

I never thought that a US election could be so Kafkaesque. 2016 can't end soon enough.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,888
2,193
126
Sure I do, and she has a documented history of it. One such example is her claiming to come off the plane under sniper fire in Bosnia. Long time ago? Yeah, doesn't matter. She outright lied, and would never admit it even when confronted about it. Anyone trying to deny shes a liar and has been of decades is either ignorant or just not very bright.

Some people may not care, may think its just a little lie. To me its pretty large and I care a lot. After doing separate combat deployments to Iraq, Afghan, and Africa thats a fucking slap in the face. One of the biggest things that will set me off is someone lying about what they did on deployment. Trying to trump up (nice pun?) their actions. She knowingly lied, and kept lying about it. Some people may not care about that, I do. The fact that she still have her security clearance, and just got her first briefing after lying on stand is another issue all together. That is nothing more than rules not applying to her. I hold a Secret and Q clearance with HRP. Secret is the DOD clearance, and Q is the DOE clearance. Q is equivalent to a Top Secret in DOD land. There is no way she should still have her clearance and getting briefings. You can fuck up but if honest you can keep your clearance. You cannot lie however, every single time, even over something small I have seen people lose their clearance. She's been above the law, and its tiresome.

Don't mistake my dislike for Hillary, as a like for Trump. I dislike them both immensely. The only thing I like about Trump is that he will speak his mind. 99% of the time he sounds like an idiot, but too many people play the game and are too PC. I appreciate anyone who will speak what they think, and not try to placate everyone. If he didn't speak his mind we wouldn't see what a fool he really is either.

First, I'd ask you to take a look at what Senator Joanie Ernst said during the GOP convention.

She said we shouldn't tell people that Iraq was "Bush's mistake," because it suggests that the sacrifice of the troops is somehow "less" than it is. So she's suggesting we should not admit to these types of mistakes -- like Vietnam, or the 2nd Iraq War, which is as much to say "don't examine the history in greater detail to distinguish the truth from the news," as if you don't want to take corrective action at both the public and the executive level to assure the events don't occur again. This is like a corollary to the notion that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over, hoping to get a different result."

Second, I've had my fill of "greatest generation" types who exaggerate about their military service, but they were the "greatest generation." Everybody makes these sorts of exaggerations, depending on their personality flaws -- which are pervasive. People remember certain things, distort them with some twist like "sniper fire," and begin to believe the story themselves. Ultimately, it's not much of a lie. A serious lie has serious immediate consequences, but putting a spotlight on these sorts of inaccuracies is merely political theater.

Third, you want a rule of thumb to use in judging some politician's character. How do you choose which inaccuracy (or "lie") is important? And since, as Mark Twain tells us, we are all "Grand Masters of the Lie," how much good does that rule of thumb do you?

Finally, in a pluralistic media, the most effective propaganda doesn't start with the media: it begins with the manufacture of events, like a congressional hearing when a non-partisan "911" commission would've resolved it all. It's political theater on steroids. By repetition, hearing the stories over and over again, you begin to imagine that there's a "There" there. I even did -- myself. It's the old Goebbels playbook.

If they wanted to pillory Hillary over Benghazi, why didn't someone pillory Ronald Reagan over the 274 dead marines and an attack on an embassy in 1983? Then, there's the e-mail frenzy: "no 'There' there." There will be no "There" there with the Foundation and State, which should prove out by looking at the Foundation accounts, the appointment schedule and the decisions.

If something looks like a scab, you can pick at it and pick at it until it bleeds. But if you keep picking at it with the hope that it will turn into a sucking chest-wound, the sucking chest wound may only exist in the mind of the beholder, and the mind of the beholder is more likely to be a media-sponge as I say I was myself for 35 years of my adult life.
 

tracerbullet

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2001
1,661
19
81
I find almost daily that Hillary is held to a double standard. I saw a bumper sticker with her face on it that said "Life is a bitch, don't vote for one". I think the same person would hate her if she was "soft". Also saw an opinion piece calling her a bitch for criticizing Mylan's cost of the Epipen. The reason she was considered a bitch was because, according to them, Mylan donated to the Clinton foundation and she had now "turned her back" on her donors. As if Clinton's doing the opposite and seeming OK with the price increase, and the insinuation she was bought off, was better.

For some, no matter what Hillary does, she loses. I wish I could figure out why that's the case for these people.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,888
2,193
126
Why isn't Hillary further ahead in the polls?

23+ years. The right has had a 23+ year head-start to smear her with every unfounded, misogynistic piece of propaganda they could think of. That is as longer than most people I meet have been alive. It. Sinks. In.

Many people have an aversion to her that they can't quite explain. She's 'unlikable', 'untrustworthy', 'shrill', etc. Its all very nebulous. When her opponents do try to claim anything specific to justify those feelings, its either something that has already been discredited such as Bhengazi or the emails, something with no real policy or leadership relevance such as the 'under sniper fire' incident mentioned above, or worse miscellaneous stuff like vulgar references about Monica Lewinsky, references to her 'health' (hint- two X chromosomes), etc.

I have literally spent my entire adult life and most of my childhood hearing about what a she-devil she is, with none of it holding up to any real scrutiny. The propaganda has sunk in, and it was effective. She's no saint, but her lifetime of service should be largely worthy of being emulated upon closer inspection.

But then there's Trump. Finding his skeletons are closer to shooting fish in a barrel. "Textbook definition of racist comments" - Check. Being sued for housing discrimination and having to settle - Check. Stiffing his workers/contractors while claiming his business acumen as his primary qualification for office - Check and Check. Refusal to release tax returns despite decades-long custom - Check. Being under audit from the IRS while conveniently using that as an excuse not to release said returns to the public - Check.

I could go on here, but I would be typing all day if I got into actual issues of personal morality, or heaven forbid, actual policy positions he holds which this election decision should be solely about.

I never thought that a US election could be so Kafkaesque. 2016 can't end soon enough.

Kafkaesque. That's good.

Here's an op-ed that appeared in today's LA Tiimes:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brennan-epistocracy-20160828-snap-story.html

While I agree with the author to a great degree about "median voters," I disagree with his model.

My model has citizens with an idea of their own self-interest, an "enlightened self-interest" that is one and the same with a "public interest," and some vision of the future. Greater knowledge and logical firepower of a voter may be relevant, but only as much as it informs these three things. Since nobody predicts the future with any real accuracy, there's a lot of slop in that pot that would lead to variation in political choice and opinion.

Here's another pair of items that appeared on the front-page of the Times today as well:


printed side by side with the same headline type-size:


http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-framed/#chapter1


It’s the beginning of a series about a PTA-mom who was framed because she has local political enemies – for a policeman and a suspicious tip that she had drugs in her car – which appear to have been planted. Her explanation? “I must have enemies.” Enemies in the microcosm of a local Irvine school district. "I must have enemies:" Sound familiar? There are echoes of "Vast right-wing conspiracy," even if the stories and conspiracies aren't connected.


Then there’s the story about Chagoury and his history with the Clinton foundation:


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-donor-chagoury-20160828-snap-story.html


Both of these are true stories. Juxtaposing them on the same page might affect the perceptions of some suburban soccer-mom who was leaning to Trump. But they are both TRUE. The Times doesn't ask people to infer something from the PTA-frame-up story; it simply offers them an opportunity to do so. The Chagoury story is front-page news, anyway. "Column One" is usually something the Times wants to raise attention to, even if it isn't necessarily "front-page material."

So there is a “propaganda of Truth,” and the artful but limited means of presentation might allow the parallel stories to stew in someone’s mind – perhaps in a useful and productive way. “Ah! But it’s the Liberal Media!” Sure – and Breitbart.com is reliable and “fair and balanced” – like FOX. Like the bumper-sticker says: “I believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and honest Republicans.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: agent00f

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,499
560
126
I think you are hanging onto the sniper fire thing a bit too much myself. I'm aware you have a long service record, but putting Trump in charge as POTUS regrading the military would be outrageous.

And it seems he wants to let Pence handle things like that if he was elected anyway, and I am not a Pence fan by a longshot.

Trump does normally speak his mind, and it is usually a stream of garbage.

You are not going to take a security clearance away from someone who is the Secretary of State :p

I'm pretty sure she has access to a lot of information you have never seen in the past, no insult intended.

And like I said in the beginning of this, different subjects matter more to others. That lie matters a lot to me. Tomorrow is a 6 month mark of a close friend dying right by me, I have his name and the date tattoo'd on my right side. I rarely talk about that stuff here, it means more to me than most I admit. I fucking detest people who lie about war and things they've done to make themselves look better. No I am not saying what she said directly correlates to that. What she said was at a military base, and she tried to play up something that never happened, then denied it over and over again. That lie matters a lot to me. You don't have to agree, I am not trying to force you to. Bill has a chance meeting on a plane the day before? Yeah, ok. First time something like that has every happened? Uh huh. No records until after the election? Nice coincidence. Shes been above the law for years, as I said it is very tiresome.

I said what Trump says is nonsense, I only said that I liked he said what he thought unlike most people now days. I never once said I liked what he said.

Why wouldn't you take clearance away from the SOT? They're above everything? That is not how its supposed to work. I would argue that she should be the example to follow, not the example of what not to do. Just because she is in such a high office does not mean she shouldn't be held accountable, she should be more accountable. I work at a National Security Clearance and everyone knows the rules. You sign and agree to what policies are, she broke them and then lied about it. Just because she is SOT doesn't mean she should get a pass.

I have no doubt she has seen much more, and more "important" information than I have. I was not trying to compare, simply stating that is how clearances work. You lie, or otherwise prove yourself distrustful, you lose it. I don't know what they do in the next building to me. Because information is not shared, you do you work at thats it. Once you go into the protected area, you cannot have your cell phone, thumb drive, camera, etc. All vehicles are government vehicles, no backup camera, USB ports, GPS, etc. My Garmin watch was barely allowed. You are actually not allowed to use your cell phone anywhere on site once you enter the front gate. Which is actually kinda refreshing, nobody walking around texting, people are actually having conversations in the lunch area. But that's off topic, the point is there are rules to follow. Breaking them and then lying about it should revoke a clearance. If you don't agree then so be it. I think the same rules should be applied to all.

Literally every politician ever has lied at some point or another and they rarely admit it. Why do you think she's special?

If you think dishonesty is a problem I strongly suggest you look at both the character and frequency of Trump's falsehoods. They are light years beyond Clinton.

Yeah I understand politicians lie, especially when in the game as long as she has been. When did I saw she was special? I said I dislike them the same amount. You don't have to agree, and I don't give a fuck if you do. They're both terrible to me. Equally so, some for the same reasons, some for different.
She's been doing this in the spotlight for a very long time. I am sure you know she was kicked off a case for lying and being unethical forever ago. Nothing has changed. Obama said she would do anything to get elected in their race, which is true. Now he says nobody has ever been more qualified? Shes done far more since then to disqualify herself than qualify herself.

For the last time. Nobody has to agree that I think they're both terrible. I have been called a Trump supporter on here, but thats trolls being trolls. I have never said I support or want him elected. I am not going to go back and forth about it. They both suck, I don't want either as a President. They're both dishonest and will bend the rules for themselves. They've both lied, and say stupid things. Trump does make more idiotic statements. You can't change my opinion, I am not trying to change yours.

It is amazing to me that so many people are trying to jump to her defense, like I am being unfair. Or that people actually support and like her, wanting her to be President. I am saddened by that fact alone.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,821
136
For the last time. Nobody has to agree that I think they're both terrible. I have been called a Trump supporter on here, but thats trolls being trolls. I have never said I support or want him elected. I am not going to go back and forth about it. They both suck, I don't want either as a President. They're both dishonest and will bend the rules for themselves. They've both lied, and say stupid things. Trump does make more idiotic statements. You can't change my opinion, I am not trying to change yours.

It is amazing to me that so many people are trying to jump to her defense, like I am being unfair. Or that people actually support and like her, wanting her to be President. I am saddened by that fact alone.

The problem is that they're not equally terrible. Clinton may be cynical and even corrupt... but she's at least a competent politician with some shred of compassion. Trump has shown that he's not only racist, sexist and just plain cruel (advocating for torture, making fun of physical handicaps), but fundamentally clueless about how politics work. He's not just the wrong person for President, he's outright dangerous. Never mind voting your conscience -- the one truth in this election is that Trump must never be allowed to hold political office, and that means holding your nose and voting Clinton.
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
I don't know -- I'd say that Cruz might also struggle. He has a reptilian quality to him. He shares Clinton's cynical-power-grab aura, but he lacks Clinton's basic human compassion and willingness to negotiate on anything. The biggest strategic difference is that he might not alienate the GOP establishment that much... but their votes aren't the ones that matter.

Having said this, I suspect Clinton is intensely thankful that her opposition is an incompetent ball of hate like Trump. Obama won his elections in part based on minority support, and Trump's sacred mission is to alienate everyone who isn't white, Christian and straight.
Cruz only had the GOP establishment's support because he was the most popular alternative to Trump. That is it. Cruz has thrown the establishment under the bus quite often for his power grabs. He's not going to get the support from them when he's back in a crowded field with no Trumps.


Sure I do, and she has a documented history of it. One such example is her claiming to come off the plane under sniper fire in Bosnia. Long time ago? Yeah, doesn't matter. She outright lied, and would never admit it even when confronted about it. Anyone trying to deny shes a liar and has been of decades is either ignorant or just not very bright.

Some people may not care, may think its just a little lie. To me its pretty large and I care a lot. After doing separate combat deployments to Iraq, Afghan, and Africa thats a fucking slap in the face. One of the biggest things that will set me off is someone lying about what they did on deployment. Trying to trump up (nice pun?) their actions. She knowingly lied, and kept lying about it. Some people may not care about that, I do. The fact that she still have her security clearance, and just got her first briefing after lying on stand is another issue all together. That is nothing more than rules not applying to her. I hold a Secret and Q clearance with HRP. Secret is the DOD clearance, and Q is the DOE clearance. Q is equivalent to a Top Secret in DOD land. There is no way she should still have her clearance and getting briefings. You can fuck up but if honest you can keep your clearance. You cannot lie however, every single time, even over something small I have seen people lose their clearance. She's been above the law, and its tiresome.

Don't mistake my dislike for Hillary, as a like for Trump. I dislike them both immensely. The only thing I like about Trump is that he will speak his mind. 99% of the time he sounds like an idiot, but too many people play the game and are too PC. I appreciate anyone who will speak what they think, and not try to placate everyone. If he didn't speak his mind we wouldn't see what a fool he really is either.

Yawn. We had an honest President once. His name was Jimmy Carter. Perhaps you've heard of him as the, at best ineffective, one-term President that lead to Reagan. We want our politicians to lie to us. Trump supporters beg to be lied. We're not getting a border wall with built and it sure as hell wouldn't be paid for by Mexico, but oh what a wonderful lie it is.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
16,130
8,724
136
Times like this I really wish Bernie Sanders got the Dem pick for POTUS. There could not have been a more clear line of distinction between he and Trump.

Along with Bernie's reputation for being a whole lot more honest and sincere than most if not all of those other "distinguished" slick gilded tongued orators that we keep sending back to DC, his message has been clear and concise from the get-go, unlike what we've been getting from Trump and Clinton.

If previous polling was any indication, Sanders would be lapping Trump over and over again.

Yet, here we are having to choose between a lady that has no personality whatsoever against a guy that has too many of them.

Still, logic dictates that Trump should not get anywhere near having to nominate Supreme Court judges and being able to fiddle around with that nuclear trigger he'd have access to, so that leaves..........
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,741
17,394
136
Times like this I really wish Bernie Sanders got the Dem pick for POTUS. There could not have been a more clear line of distinction between he and Trump.

Along with Bernie's reputation for being a whole lot more honest and sincere than most if not all of those other "distinguished" slick gilded tongued orators that we keep sending back to DC, his message has been clear and concise from the get-go, unlike what we've been getting from Trump and Clinton.

If previous polling was any indication, Sanders would be lapping Trump over and over again.

Yet, here we are having to choose between a lady that has no personality whatsoever against a guy that has too many of them.

Still, logic dictates that Trump should not get anywhere near having to nominate Supreme Court judges and being able to fiddle around with that nuclear trigger he'd have access to, so that leaves..........

Yep, I always want a president with personality, that's a requirement for me. /S
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,243
86
Sure I do, and she has a documented history of it. One such example is her claiming to come off the plane under sniper fire in Bosnia. Long time ago? Yeah, doesn't matter. She outright lied, and would never admit it even when confronted about it. Anyone trying to deny shes a liar and has been of decades is either ignorant or just not very bright.

Some people may not care, may think its just a little lie. To me its pretty large and I care a lot. After doing separate combat deployments to Iraq, Afghan, and Africa thats a fucking slap in the face. One of the biggest things that will set me off is someone lying about what they did on deployment. Trying to trump up (nice pun?) their actions. She knowingly lied, and kept lying about it. Some people may not care about that, I do. The fact that she still have her security clearance, and just got her first briefing after lying on stand is another issue all together. That is nothing more than rules not applying to her. I hold a Secret and Q clearance with HRP. Secret is the DOD clearance, and Q is the DOE clearance. Q is equivalent to a Top Secret in DOD land. There is no way she should still have her clearance and getting briefings. You can fuck up but if honest you can keep your clearance. You cannot lie however, every single time, even over something small I have seen people lose their clearance. She's been above the law, and its tiresome.
I would recommend reading what I linked and pondering for while what it means in the context of your post.

On the specific incident, this is what I can find of her reply to questions about it:

‘Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK — because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke — I didn’t say that in my book or other times but if I said something that made it seem as though there was actual fire — that’s not what I was told. I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can’t, I can’t rush by her, I’ve got to at least greet her — so I greeted her, I took her stuff and then I left, Now that’s my memory of it’

“‘No, I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. you know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement.’

---

Now here are your words about it:

"She knowingly lied, and kept lying about it. Some people may not care about that, I do. "

So did you lie about it, or will keep lying about?

Don't mistake my dislike for Hillary, as a like for Trump. I dislike them both immensely. The only thing I like about Trump is that he will speak his mind. 99% of the time he sounds like an idiot, but too many people play the game and are too PC. I appreciate anyone who will speak what they think, and not try to placate everyone. If he didn't speak his mind we wouldn't see what a fool he really is either.

Now contrast Clinton's reply above to how Trump replies to incorrect statements, which is pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth. It's not too hard to figure which fits better with "knowingly lied, and kept lying about it.".

Either you care about honesty, or you don't, and we're going to find out which soon.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Yep bad candidates are the reason the polls are they way they are. When a 3rd candidate like Gary Johnson is polling 10% when many polls do not even give him as a option that should, tell you how bad the 2 big party candidates are.
I mean, Gary Johnson was polling at 8% in 2012 and I'd say both candidates were fairly decent that year.

historically, though, 3rd party support plummets between polls and election day between the candidates not being on the ballot in every state, their supporters not showing up to the polls because they think their vote doesn't matter, and people changing their mind at the last minute to vote for someone who actually has a shot. Gary Johnson's 2012 8% translated to about 1% on election day.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,821
136
I mean, Gary Johnson was polling at 8% in 2012 and I'd say both candidates were fairly decent that year.

historically, though, 3rd party support plummets between polls and election day between the candidates not being on the ballot in every state, their supporters not showing up to the polls because they think their vote doesn't matter, and people changing their mind at the last minute to vote for someone who actually has a shot. Gary Johnson's 2012 8% translated to about 1% on election day.

And it's likely going to be even more true in 2016, I suspect. Voting Libertarian sounds good now... but when you're in the booth and realize that your choice is to either vote Clinton or help Trump ruin the country, you're probably going to vote Clinton.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
16,130
8,724
136
Yep, I always want a president with personality, that's a requirement for me. /S

Good point. Hillary did beat out Sanders despite having a personality that prevents a lot of folks from warming up to her.

I am voting for her come November, although I can't help but think that if the Repubs had produced a much stronger candidate to run against her, her personality, which IMO defines who she actually is as a "whole person" would be much more of a factor than it is running against Trump.

This with the thought in mind that I am specifically referring to her ability to win elections and not her ability to be our next POTUS. In regards to her capabilities as CIC, I am confident that she will be a competent and sturdy leader, being cast from a similar mold that Meir, Thatcher and Merkel came from.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Why isn't Hillary further ahead in the polls?

23+ years. The right has had a 23+ year head-start to smear her with every unfounded, misogynistic piece of propaganda they could think of. That is as longer than most people I meet have been alive. It. Sinks. In.

Many people have an aversion to her that they can't quite explain. She's 'unlikable', 'untrustworthy', 'shrill', etc. Its all very nebulous. When her opponents do try to claim anything specific to justify those feelings, its either something that has already been discredited such as Bhengazi or the emails, something with no real policy or leadership relevance such as the 'under sniper fire' incident mentioned above, or worse miscellaneous stuff like vulgar references about Monica Lewinsky, references to her 'health' (hint- two X chromosomes), etc.

I have literally spent my entire adult life and most of my childhood hearing about what a she-devil she is, with none of it holding up to any real scrutiny. The propaganda has sunk in, and it was effective. She's no saint, but her lifetime of service should be largely worthy of being emulated upon closer inspection.

But then there's Trump. Finding his skeletons are closer to shooting fish in a barrel. "Textbook definition of racist comments" - Check. Being sued for housing discrimination and having to settle - Check. Stiffing his workers/contractors while claiming his business acumen as his primary qualification for office - Check and Check. Refusal to release tax returns despite decades-long custom - Check. Being under audit from the IRS while conveniently using that as an excuse not to release said returns to the public - Check.

I could go on here, but I would be typing all day if I got into actual issues of personal morality, or heaven forbid, actual policy positions he holds which this election decision should be solely about.

I never thought that a US election could be so Kafkaesque. 2016 can't end soon enough.

Propaganda works. Any lie repeated often enough & convincingly enough becomes the truth in the minds of too many people.

My fave Kafka-esque bit is the evangelical leadership embracing Trump- serial philanderer & collector of trophy wives. A man who makes his living peddling booze, gambling & real estate schemes of all kinds, who ruthlessly exploits people's dreams to enrich himself. A man who preaches divisiveness & encourages bigotry & hatred.

A man of real Christian values, right?

I can't get past the fact that he's so fucking vain that he'll do that to his hair, you know?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Good point. Hillary did beat out Sanders despite having a personality that prevents a lot of folks from warming up to her.

I am voting for her come November, although I can't help but think that if the Repubs had produced a much stronger candidate to run against her, her personality, which IMO defines who she actually is as a "whole person" would be much more of a factor than it is running against Trump.

This with the thought in mind that I am specifically referring to her ability to win elections and not her ability to be our next POTUS. In regards to her capabilities as CIC, I am confident that she will be a competent and sturdy leader, being cast from a similar mold that Meir, Thatcher and Merkel came from.

Repubs can't run that guy because they don't have that guy. He's Colbert's Rick Parry.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
16,130
8,724
136
Repubs can't run that guy because they don't have that guy. He's Colbert's Rick Parry.

It IS rather amazing that out of the exceptionally large field of 17 candidates vying for the Repub nomination, the Repubs ended up picking Trump. That speaks volumes about the type of person the rank and file Repubs feel should best represent their interests....of which I am still curious as to what those interests really are. I mean, when they picked Trump, I assumed the rank and file Repubs wanted, in ridiculous fashion, a huge wall built and then financed by Mexico along the southern border, along with immediately booting out those millions(?) of undocumented illegals, as well as denying any Muslims entry into the country the minute Trump took up residence in the White House.

What I thought most notable about Trump's rhetoric is his complete avoidance of mentioning how vigorously prosecuting those businesses who employ the undocumented would for all practical purposes solve the "immigration problem" we have at this time.

Trump's mantra about "Making America Great Again" is a perfect example of how vague, disingenuous and empty his words are. Yet, it seems to suit his followers just fine.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
It IS rather amazing that out of the exceptionally large field of 17 candidates vying for the Repub nomination, the Repubs ended up picking Trump. That speaks volumes about the type of person the rank and file Repubs feel should best represent their interests....of which I am still curious as to what those interests really are. I mean, when they picked Trump, I assumed the rank and file Repubs wanted, in ridiculous fashion, a huge wall built and then financed by Mexico along the southern border, along with immediately booting out those millions(?) of undocumented illegals, as well as denying any Muslims entry into the country the minute Trump took up residence in the White House.

What I thought most notable about Trump's rhetoric is his complete avoidance of mentioning how vigorously prosecuting those businesses who employ the undocumented would for all practical purposes solve the "immigration problem" we have at this time.

Trump's mantra about "Making America Great Again" is a perfect example of how vague, disingenuous and empty his words are. Yet, it seems to suit his followers just fine.

What Trump voters want is to vent their rage & frustration. What they don't want to acknowledge is the role they've played in creating our current economic malaise & insecurity in trying to sustain their belief in capitalism & job creators in the face of the economic reality those forces have created. They're desperately avoiding a very necessary epiphany.

If it weren't for that, the whole blame game of Repub politics would lose its bite. They create the situation they exploit, then blame others for what they have wrought.