![]() |
Quote:
Her changing on issues to align with what'll get her the most votes and make her seem the best isn't a thing i think will disappear magically once she becomes president, she'll stick to the mindset that got her elected and hope for a second term more than she'll do a 180 and reveal her true cackling witch self or something |
Quote:
Of course, the party that is full of anti-ssm members and which is running on a platform that supports discrimination laws against lgtb people, the Republicans, have nothing to lose from enacting those laws because their own supporters like them. So Trump would be fine doing that (or "leaving it to the states"). But yeah, if you believe Clinton could possibly think that undoing marriage equality is anything worth considering, then it's pretty obvious you have bought her "She's The Devil Incarnate" caricature so there isn't much hope, sadly. |
Quote:
Quote:
It's far from the only time she's "misspoke" or "misremebered" something that was significantly different to what happened. |
Quote:
She lies, she lies a lot. She gets away with lines like "I misspoke" which is of course political talk for "i was caught lying". She also constantly flip flops on issues, there's no consistency and there's a lot of hypocrisy. She's not a trustworthy person, and sure, you could argue a lot of politicians aren't, but a lot of politicians aren't running to be POTUS. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/03/16/4-Hillary-Clinton-Flip-Flops-Will-Make-Voters-Think-Twice https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/hillary-clinton-gave-the-exact-right-answer-to-explain-her-flip-flops-it-still-might-not-work/ http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-and-immigration-flip-flops-2015-4 It's not me calling it flip flopping, that's what the universally used term for behavior of this nature is. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=compromise&oq=compromise&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3343j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Completely changing your stance to an opposite of positions you've held for years because another candidate's popularity increased isn't compromise, its outright flip flopping. I want someone who really believes what I believe as a leader, someone who's history backs it up. Not someone who is fickle. I want a rock, not a weather-vein. |
I just want to add my own $0.02 about how Politifact is not without bias. Anecdotally, I've seen some of their reasoning for labeling something false are based on very narrow, cherry picked phrases not taken in the context they were spoken in. On the whole they're probably correct more often than not, probably even most of the time, but they are not infallible and I wouldn't agree with their statement that Clinton is more honest than Sanders and others - itself a troubling statement since that comparison doesn't state what statements they are drawing from and we're meant to take their word for it without being to check ourselves.
I don't doubt their motives, but I don't think they're as reliable as they could be since they have to deal with making their analyses easy to digest for the widest group of people interested in this kind of political stuff - and not everyone who is is going to have the same degree of critical thinking to understand a more nuanced answer than "pants on fire." |
#jigglypuffforpresident2016
|
Okay, in an attempt to Correct The Record, when did Politifact say that Clinton was more honest than Sanders?
|
One thing constantly over looked is the fact that 80% of congress is up for re-election in November as well. You honestly think that Trump will be able to pass any of his more radical policies with a hostile Republican congress? or do anything at all with a Democrat majority? If you remember EO's are not law. With Hillery I'm worry about entering the realm of wrong thought policing that Canada and Australia has wondered into as of late.
|
Quote:
Quote:
If we look at the records now, Bernie's file has 52% True and Mostly True, and 28% Mostly False and False. Hillary Clinton has 50% True and Mostly True, and 26% Mostly False and False, but 2% Pants on Fire False. To Correct the Record, it looks like that, yeah, Bernie Sanders is more honest than Hillary Clinton, give or take. Sarcasm aside, I don't think that Politifact had any opinion one way or another about the relative trustworthiness between Sanders and Clinton at all. For that reason, I don't think Politifact's reputation is at stake. I also think there's not much value in comparing quantifiable, yes, but ultimately highly abstract and decontextualized data points. But I think it's worth pointing out that a highly reputable source can come up with ideas or data that aren't very valuable, and I'm sure they never meant for it to be taken too seriously. |
Quote:
I wouldn't agree that how serious you take the Politifact numbers depends on individual preference - data, depending on the context, can be more or less rigorous and I don't think either of us disagree that the numbers aren't very rigorous. If the data isn't rigorous, how meaningful can any conclusions derived from said data be? I am pleased that we are in agreement, however, that it's each statement, in its own specific context, that counts. |
Quote:
There's been claims that climate change helped cause ISIS and Politifact said that was a lie, but when you get into the nitty gritty details about how climate change forced lots of agrarian people into cities and ruined many people's livelihoods and such that means that, yes, climate change did help push people into desperate situations like forming terror groups. ISIS wouldn't say "We're doing this because of climate change" and there are other factors that come into it, but it did play a part. But that's all very messy and my summary of it is very brief - not the kind of thing that the average person would be willing to learn about just to see if a politician is being honest or not. When you have to simplify the narrative about the founding of ISIS it's all about the political/military events of the Middle East, the US invasion, and that sort of thing - so Politifact says "Climate change cause ISIS? Wrong!" because there's no room for that factor in the simple explanation of it. Basically, I would say that a lot of what politicians say isn't just direct yes or no statements about very narrow topics - it's more nuanced, which is how you can have confusion about honesty and I don't think Politifact is as nuanced as I would like it to be in order for them to be considered as accurate and authoritative as they are taken to be. |
Here are my thoughts on Hillary's honesty.
In my experience, the allegations of out-and-out lying against Hillary Clinton usually come not from the progressives or the left, but primarily from the right (on issues like Benghazi) or right-leaning independents. The main gripe the left has with Hillary is that she's a standard establishment politician- whatever major downsides she has ultimately have to do with that fact. Being a standard politician comes with having to be flexible, to an extent, with one's principles. You can only be as good and revolutionary as the donor money and the establishment strictures allow you to be. When these subvenient causes change, so would your policies, thereby explaining the flip-flopping characteristic of the establishment politicians. This means even when you make appeals to change in the right direction it sounds disingenuous. So Hillary, according to the phenomenology of the left, is untrustworthy, compromising, flexible, manufactured, and inauthentic- but all of these come only because of her being a politician. Now people- democrats, at least- would probably have been accepting of all of this were it not for Bernie Sanders and the political revolution he speaks of. It's because of Bernie setting a different, higher standard than what people are used to is why Hillary is getting so much flak. That's the only reason. Hillary is not more evil than the usual standards, but Bernie came and threw a wrench into those standards that all of us probably considered normative. Sarah Silverman explains it nicely (link) when she says Hillary's taking corporate donor money really wasn't an issue for her, since it's a necessary evil for the system there is. But when Bernie came along and showed a new way, what was once 'necessary evil' just became 'evil'. Finally, I posted this video earlier in this thread, Dave Rubin basically encapsulates pretty much all of my thoughts on her becoming the nominee (link). |
Quote:
Of course, there's also her own political record to take into account, the fact she hired DWS literally a day after she had to step down from the DNC Chair for attempted antisemitic attacks against Sanders and her Super PAC paying people to post child porn to Bernie Sanders facebook pages which haven't helped her credibility either. The western world is getting tired of it. We saw it in Greece, in Spain, in Britain (Jeremy Corybn, a borderline socialist, won a landslide victory to lead his party and is set to win it again) and have already seen a far more left Germany, France, Sweden and Holland. America is playing catch up, but rest assured, people have had enough. |
Quote:
Second, the places where insurgent left-wing parties have been most successful (Greece, Spain, Italy) are countries that -albeit with bonuses to the winner in G and I- approportion their seats in a proportional way to the vote. You get X votes, you get X seats (again, there are some distortions, but the base is that). So you actually can afford to vote for a new party. In Spain, the Socialists (the equivalent to US Democrats) got 44% of the vote in 2008 and 47% of the seats. This year, the Socialists and Podemos got a combined 43% of the vote... and a combined 43% of the seats. Fair enough! The US, on the other hand, has a First Past The Post system- or Winner Takes All. Meaning, if the Democrats split their votes according to the primary results (55-45), then the resulting two parties would end... with a combined handful of seats in Philadelphia, California and little else. Ever heard about deranged and hated Republican Paul lePage winning blue Maine twice with 30-odd percent of the vote because the left wing split up their votes between two different candidates? That, in all levels of Government, accross all the country, times ten. And this is exactly why the Labour party is trying to kick Corbyn away, fearing a complete wipeout in the next election if they are seen as "too radical" and moderate voters choose to pick the safer-sounding Conservatives, as it already happened in the UK during the 80s. Third, not only the US has an electoral system that punishes divisions and parties whose leaders seem too radical (see: McGovern, Goldwater), the legislative system is designed to force parties to compromise, drop part of their proposals, pass wishy-washy bargains and flip-flop inside dark rooms. Why? Because, unlike in European systems where Parliament is all-powerful and appoints and removes Governments (and usually the House-equivalent alone has that power, even if there is a Senate), ensuring that both wings are on the same page and can pass laws without too much trouble, in the US there is a complete, absolute division of powers. What does that mean? That one party with barely 41 senators (which is 41% of just 1/3 of Government) can veto every single bill from ever becoming law - even if the other party controls the presidency and has majorities in both houses of Congress. When you give veto power to such a tiny piece of the system, you are essentially forcing both sides to deal. Even if only one of the two sides becomes crazy (see: Republicans), the entire system is doomed into gridlock forever unless both sides compromise in everything. In other words, the US Constitution was written to encourage moderate, centrist leaders who can deal in the shadows and who can appeal to the largest share of the population by not looking too extreme or radical, and to encourage a "lesser-of-evils" mindset on the voters. Thus, Hillary Clinton. Hence, Trump is tanking. Therefore, insurgent parties simply cannot grow. The US can wake up, but as long as the Constitution is intact, it won't do much good. Also good luck changing the US Constitution. |
Quote:
The Political system differences are irrelevant to the tides of people who are disenfranchised. Whether or not the constitution pushes moderates is of little value to the millions of Americans who back Sanders, Stein, Johnson or don't vote. The sentiment is still there. |
Quote:
And second, the differences are profoundly relevant, as in a Parliamentary system, Sanders could easily build his own party and win well over a hundred seats in the House without needing to jump into the hoops of the Democratic Party, and Stein and Johnson could have a seat (or a dozen) each and actually get a voice in Congress. In the US, disenfranchised voters can only cry and resign themselves to try and take over a major party in the primaries. |
Quote:
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/us/politics/donald-trump-mexico-enrique-pena-nieto.html?_r=0
Quote:
|
I'm not surprised. There needs to be the continuation of policy on the part of both Mexico and the US since their relationship is so comprehensive with such close trade, economic, and security ties. It's also an opportunity for both parties to gauge the actual positions of one another, filtered from all the public rhetoric.
|
With the first presidential debate happening in exactly two weeks, do you guys have any predictions about how things will go? Do you think that there will be any real bombshells dropped?
|
Quote:
I just hope Hilary doesn't sink down to the same level and rely more on personal attacks and bullshit than discussion of political issues... but I don't know if I see that happening either. |
Hillary Clinton Has Pneumonia.
Expect relentless attacks upon her fitness to be President. |
Quote:
The only real reason why this is an issue is because the Republicans and Democrats are having a contest on who's side is the shiniest pile of shit, and they need to put any reason possible on why someone shouldn't be in office. Then again, this has been an issue in politics since Nixon vs Kennedy and will probably not stop any time soon. |
People are acting like she has Stage IV Cancer or Alzheimer's, it's ridiculous. Although, it does raise an interesting ethical issue between a person's right to privacy, particularly when it pertains to their health, and the ability to be commander in chief sanely and free of any physiological or mental roadblocks. That one time you got sick in the summer on a long and brutal campaign trail has nothing to do with one's mental and physiological ability to be President. Hillary with pneumonia, doped up on Amoxicillin would still make more sane choices than Trump regardless, not sure how that affects one's character or judgment, haha.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.