Yes, Hillary Clinton has probably lied at some point. That makes her normal.

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post just wet his pants over this exchange between Hillary Clinton and CBS News’s Scott Pelley:

Hillary Clinton in Cleveland, screenshot via YouTube

Hillary Clinton in Cleveland, screenshot via YouTube

PELLEY: You know, in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, “I will not lie to you.”

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I’ve always tried to. Always. Always.

PELLEY: Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.

CLINTON: Well, no, I’ve always tried —

PELLEY: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, “I will never lie to you.”

CLINTON: Well, but, you know, you’re asking me to say, “Have I ever?” I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people.

It’s very obvious from the exchange that Clinton is not comfortable saying, unequivocally, that every statement she has made during her time in public life has been true. This is presumably because saying so would be false. At some point since Clinton’s years as a young lawyer, she has probably fibbed, which would make it impossible for her to say, truthfully, that she has never lied.

Cillizza doesn’t care:

I mean, what? W-H-A-T?  “I’ve always tried to” tell the truth?  On what planet is this a good answer for a politician?

The answer, of course, is on no planet. While I am less familiar with politics on Mars than I am with those on Earth, I am pretty sure that being unable to simply say, “Yes, I have always been truthful with the public,” would be a problem on the Red Planet, too.

I think I understand why she answered the way she did. She knows she has been in public life for a long time and that she has said lots and lots of things. Because of that, it’s possible that at some point in the future, someone will unearth a statement in which it could be construed that she wasn’t telling the whole truth. Clinton is protecting against the damage incurred by such a revelation.

But when you have the problems regarding honesty and trustworthiness that Clinton does, the only right answer to Pelley’s question is: “Yes, I have always been truthful. Of course.” That Clinton didn’t give that simple answer suggests she is either (a) unaware of or doubts the depth of voters’ concerns with her ability to be honest, or (b) she is so naturally cautious as to get herself in trouble even on a question she has to know is coming.

Cilizza’s analysis misses the most obvious answer. Rather than being unnecessarily lawyerly and hedging against some inconsistency of which she isn’t aware, it’s much more likely that Clinton has in fact lied at some point, and knows it.

Hillary Clinton became First Lady of Arkansas in 1983. She became First Lady of the United States in 1992. Regardless as to which year you choose to start your timeline for Clinton’s tenure in public life, that’s a really long time to go without lying. Has Bernie Sanders gone more than 20 years without lying? Has Marco Rubio? Has Chris Cillizza? Have you? Not just on something small and harmless; I’m talking about something major and worth remembering.

Even our bastions of honesty couldn’t or wouldn’t stick entirely to the truth all the time. George “Cannot Tell a Lie” Washington started his career in the army as an awful liar and ended it as an expert liar. Even Jimmy Carter, after promising that he wouldn’t lie to the American people, lied to the American people.

Everyone lies. Politicians lie a lot. People in our national security apparatus — say, perhaps, the Secretary of State — lie a ton. It’s part of their job. There’s a line between public disclosure and national security, and while we can have major disagreements over where that line is, we all agree that the line exists. That line, like it or not, is drawn in lies. By offering up the alternative answer of “Yes, I have always been truthful with the public,” Cillizza is basically arguing that Clinton should have lied. About lying. Would that have made her answer any better?

Getting lied to sucks. People who lie consistently for antisocial reasons should be judged accordingly. Hillary Clinton’s perceived dishonesty may have merit, and it may result in a well-deserved drag on her poll numbers.

But let’s not pretend that it’s reasonable to expect someone who’s been in public life for decades to have never once said anything that was false. We all know better, and none of us are that good.


Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

  • Al

    ” News…A great nation deserves the truth” (this blog’s slogan) & the irony of this title are just too good to be true.

    It’s indicative of the lengths HRC supporters are willing to go in order to prop up their cognitive dissonance.

  • David Bernier

    Not so much that she lied. It is why she lied. Everyone lies . But you can not convince me her lying is for the better of the people. The way she attacked Pat Smith there is no excuse for. The attack the victim part. She could have said I may have made a mistake. But chose to attack a victim. Clear case of Narcissism . Would much rather take a chance on Trump . Seriously doubt Bernie would have handle it that way. They all Lie . Her age for her own gain when caught she lies about it.

  • NikolaiG

    Totally disagree. State something about Bernie as bizarre and false as Hillary’s 3 lies about Bosnia, or about Bernie not helping with healthcare in 1993, or about being a lifelong champion of women and girls when she defended and let a man walk free, a man she stated she believed to be guilty of rape, and in the process shamed and humiliated the 12 year old victim! A victim she believed really had been raped by the defendant. Imagine the kind of person who does such a thing – certainly not someone who can truthfully claim to be a lifelong advocate of women and girls!

  • NikolaiG

    She is most certainly not normal. She lies pathologically. She lied about landing under sniper fire, then spun a lie to excuse away that lie, and then when caught in the second lie, told yet another lie to get out of that lie.

  • SeattleGuy

    Interesting that these Silicon Valley giants would take Apple’s side. Let’s see, who makes the most money by capturing your personal information, storing it and selling it for pennies? Uh, Google, MicroSoft and let’s not forget our benevolent friend, FaceBook?

    This has been debated many times over the decades and Congress and the SCOTUS have ruled for law enforcement. I don’t see them reversing themselves because technology firms want to make a little more money by allowing terrorists to be beyond the arm of the law. Apple created the problem. Hopefully, both sides can work together and find a way to comply with our laws and constitution. The last time I checked, Congress and the SC had a little more standing than any corporation.

  • Don Chandler

    Well, Today Google, Microsoft joined in supporting Apple. Clearly these companies don’t like being pushed around by government. I think the courts also don’t like the way they were bypassed…lower courts. It would damage their product to sell backdoor’d phones. Guess the government will have to do more ruthless surveillance. You can hold on to your stock.

  • SeattleGuy

    I am glad to see this case going before Congress and the SCOTUS. We need to debate the issues and see what we want to do going forward. Tech corporations love data mining when it benefits their bottom line, not so much when it is used to protect fellow citizens.

    Tech companies need to tell us how they’re collecting, storing and selling our personal information for profit while trying to deny law enforcement a right to investigate crimes. If they were really interested in protecting their customers privacy as they have stated, they wouldn’t demand their privileged access to our personal information, would they?

    Tech companies have move the goal posts lately in order to make more money. This is not a benevolent action. I think they could even put themselves in the position to sell our personal data back to the government in the future.

    We need more transparency private corporations. The government at least gives us far more than they do:

    https://nsa.gov1.info/surveillance/

    The typical American has no idea how much of their personal information is being captured, stored and shared with other companies for profit. If they did, they would be a lot more concerned about corporate surveillance than government surveillance IMO.

  • Don Chandler

    “if the government loses this case to Apple, they have other ways to extract information surreptitiously from their targets anywhere.”

    I completely agree with Tim Cook. Don’t cooperate. Make them do their own dirty work. Always let them expose themselves and their methods. Our government has also tortured people. Abu Graib was ample proof that we should not trust the government. Under certain leadership, it knows no bounds. “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” –acton

    We need to do things differently. We really do need transparency in government. I like Bernie.

  • SeattleGuy

    I don’t want Apple or any company to have wholesale access to our communications. Those are you words, not mine. But I do understand law enforcement’s constitutional right to search our houses, cars, computers, phones and so on. This right goes back about 30 years. It’s an extension of pen register law.

    Apple doesn’t “keep tabs on citizens”. That’s a fallacy. They do respond to legal warrants. It doesn’t help your argument that you continually use inflammatory concepts that have long been debunked.

    “or else ‘they’ will make sure the telcoms don’t do business in the good old USofA.”
    Companies have to follow the law. We are a country of laws, you know.

    The government does not access metadata with “minimal judicial oversight”, it does so with probable cause which is a very high standard.

    I don’t follow what you are saying here, “or other potential criminal activity.” Why did you leave that detail out? What difference does it make if the government destroys that which they have taken from the telcoms if they can reacquire it at anytime.”
    This whole paragraph makes no sense to me.

    Anyone or any enterprise can be hacked. They don’t let it happen. It happens because almost all systems have vulnerabilities and hackers work to find them. I won’t get into the weeds, but if the government loses this case to Apple, they have other ways to extract information surreptitiously from their targets anywhere.

    Did you even browse the link I sent re surveillance? Google cloud? Undersea cable with submarine? Are you starting to comprehend how many ways they have to get the intel they need?

  • No, she can’t be trusted when it comes to Wall Street. They have shoved millions in her pockets, so no she can’t be trusted. Obama rolled over for them as well. I’m not happy bout that. Are you really arguing that a Clinton administration is going to be tough on Wall Street? This is me laughing in your face. But I am voting for her for other reasons, but don’t sell me a bunch of talking point nonsense. Yes, she’s a liar. So is every Republican running. So that is funny if they want to go there, but it doesn’t change the fact that she has a long history of saying things that are just not true.

  • Don Chandler

    really a really simple search:
    PRISM program is a massive surveillance program operated by the United States National Security Agency (NSA). The PRISM program utilizes extensive data mining efforts to collect information and analyze that data for patterns of terrorist or other potential criminal activity.

    It’s the first search result. What you want is for Apple to join in on keeping tabs on citizens. Then you can say, all the computer companies have backdoors on phones and cooperate with US spy agencies… just like the telecoms do….

    It’s the telcoms that have the info, not the NSA…the NSA just organizes it and accesses it and does so with minimal judicial oversight if any and then requires the telecoms to keep it on file or else ‘they’ will make sure the telcoms don’t do business in the good old USofA. Everyone is afraid of the unchecked US security apparatus except me. I have nothing to lose except the freedom to express myself. I don’t want a system like Putin has. He is a spy. A tyrant. He is absolutely ruthless. And Trump would like to have the same powers and the same reins on our security apparatus.

    “or other potential criminal activity.” Why did you leave that detail out? What difference does it make if the government destroys that which they have taken from the telcoms if they can reacquire it at anytime.

    How is it that the government has been hacked and the NSA allowed the hacking? Aren’t they their to stop hackers? How is it that Snowden could take so much info from the NSA systems and take a flight to Hong Kong that doesn’t have an extradition treaty? Incompetence. Yeah, Snowden is so naive.

  • SeattleGuy

    Again, you are misrepresenting what the NSA programs do. 1. The telecoms house the metadata, not the NSA. Got that? 2. the can only access it under a legal warrant with probably cause, thus they don’t keep tabs on Americans. That absolute propaganda., 3. the don’t monitor any conversations, period, unless the potential target has contact with a “known foreign terrorist” and turns out to be on US soil. If that is the case, it is turned over to the FBI for investigation to determine whether or not this truly is a threat. 4. Under normal investigative procedures, the FBI can decide if this was an innocent contact or a terrorist threat. If innocent they drop the investigation and destroy all they’ve found.

    I can tell from your post that you just do not want to read the details about the programs. They are available online here:

    https://nsa.gov1.info/surveillance/

    and your hyperbole is not helpful in trying to discuss the real issues of privacy vs. national security. Despite what you think, you have a huge digital footprint in cyberspace and are far more vulnerable to attack from hackers than you think.

  • Don Chandler

    “They don’t “spy” on innocent Americans.”

    The NSA keep tabs on innocent Americans–it’s the basis of Prism. They are not authorized to do this. It’s spying. I can’t remember the last time Amazon sent out police to arrest someone :) Snowden revealed the details of Prism. If he is good or bad, it’s in the details of what else he shared with whom else. SS# are one thing. Conversations with friends and family are another thing. If we are going to be a transparent society, then so must government be transparent. Government cannot be allowed to operate as minders–it’s too corrupt.. [and incompetent]

    BTW, I have yet to be scammed by Amazon. It’s actually pretty good. I usually deal with independent sellers on Amazon. They seem to have a good take on what I like to buy and they have a ratings system in place. Google seems to be clueless. I don’t use facebook. Don’t like social media gossip…feels icky…people talking about things that should be talked about in private. Yahoo is a scammers dream site. Microsoft is pretty much turning into a self-serving pop-up windows. So, you see, I can go to the places I trust and have had good experience. Same applies to credit card companies. Some are good and some are clearly abusive. Listen carefully to how they treat you when problems surface. You’ll be okay. Now, the government, they seem to get hacked by China, Russia, North Korea regularly. I’m always reading about the personal information the government has lost due to sophisticated foreign hacking. Where is the NSA in all this?

  • SeattleGuy

    Where to start? We can agree to disagree, OK?

    1. The NSAs surveillance programs since 2002 are legal, approved by politicians of both parties as well as the SCOTUS who have taken the constitution into account. They don’t “spy” on innocent Americans. Bush started the Patriot Act without the need of a warrant, but that has been part of the program for many years now. Their mandate is “foreign terrorist” targets, not Americans here or abroad. Many ppl continue to misstate what they are doing because the simply don’t understand big data. I worked in it for many years. Their fears are misplaced. They have far more to worry about with hackers and other governments getting access to their phones.

    You don’t have any idea how intrusive corporations are, do you? The NSA harvests metadata from telecoms (although that’s just a fraction of what they have access to), but most of us have FB accounts, perhaps a Gmail account, shop at Amazon, and pay bills online, right? Almost all of the largest tech firms capture your every keystroke. They know where you are and what you buy. They know your SS number and mother’s maiden name. Hackers trade on your personal info and as Larry Ellison once said, you don’t actually have any privacy, you have only the illusion of privacy. Don’t let your illogical fears keep you from weighing the real threats to your personal info. You have far more to fear from hackers and identity thieves than government.

    What surprises me is that you saw what Snowden did and have trouble trying to determine whether he was bad or good? He is our worst nightmare. He purposely stole Top Secret data and left the country. He is releasing it without permission. He is trying to sell to sell his story. He is the very government criminal you fear, supposedly. What are you struggling with?

    Of course, the NSA spies on our friends and allies, too. They always have. And they spy on us. Get it? Do be naive.

    If government is “always “corrupt, why is it whenever we privatize something, it becomes even more corrupt and incompetent? Like Enron, our prison system, or outsourcing the war to military contractors like Snowden? No, conservatives choose to ignore anything that doesn’t fit their narrative, but these mistakes are glaring.

    If government is corrupt, show me a couple of violations of personal privacy this week brought about by the NSA surveillance programs. I can show you a couple here in my town every week from hackers. There are no such failures by government since Snowden’s illegal activity.

  • SeattleGuy

    By definition, “Sexual relations” = intercourse, so of course not. Would the police prosecute you for rape if you kissed an office mate while drunk at the Xmas party? Ah, no. There is a difference between one and the other. What I was pointing out is that both Bill and Kenneth knew they didn’t want to litigate these distinctions in a courtroom.

    Why can’t you trust Hillary? Look at her record. She does not jump to WSs tune. That’s poppycock. The great RW conspiracy trained a microscope on her for more than 20 years and they’re left with trying to point out that she’s told small lies or her voice is a little high pitched. That’s all they’ve got. They are desperate to bring her down. DUH!

    I also think Bernie is better is vulnerable to attack. Rove and the GOP smear machine are keeping their powder dry to see if the need to go after him. At this moment, it is looking like Hillary vs. Trump. And Republicans want to call her a liar? That’s really rare! Politifact couldn’t find just one statement Trump has made to call their “Lie of the Year”, there were too many.

  • Britt Reid

    It’s not so much that Hillary Clinton has lied in the past. It’s more that she can’t tell the truth about whether or not she lied. If you can’t trust her to tell the truth about something so simple as that, how can you trust that she’ll tell the truth about the big things?

  • Don Chandler

    I think where you and I are not connecting is I’m talking mostly about how government abuses it’s power in government…ie, the CIA manipulating data on the computers that the Senate Intelligence committee was using to investigate the CIA. Clear violation of trust number 1. Then the NSA expanding it’s surveillance program to include spying on citizens within the states without legislative and judicial approval. Clear violation number 2. Then there was the telcoms cooperating with the various spy agencies that allowed router access exceeding homeland security legislation. Clear violation number 3.

    None of these violations has to do with me specifically. It’s government overreach by spy agencies and law enforcement. When they exceed the legislative intent, that destroys trust. It then makes me feel that they could do most anything they want. Governments can destroy citizens. If they are caught red handed in three clear cases, then why would anyone think they are trustworthy. Btw, Putin can do all these things in his country without oversight. He is a dictator. He can kill anyone anywhere. I think Trump likes Putin and would like his power. Should I trust a government with a President Trump? Should I trust a government that isn’t going to honor the presidents right to nominate a supreme court justice? I don’t think so.

    You are actually saying I don’t trust government to spy on me. Many folks don’t want the government to be eavesdropping in their lives or fishing for this and that or acting as their conscience. I don’t know of any violations of my privacy. How would I? I’m not in the spy loop. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. In fact, snowden has proven that government eavesdrops on people and then squirrels away data in case people are later accused of some crime. So then Prism is accessed. Then arrest can occur. In fact, that is how government might catch a shooter like Columbine shooters before they act…certain alerts occur that then trigger investigations that might eventually stop a domestic terrorist attack. This kind of system has it’s advantages and disadvantages. Do we want to be tabbed? like this? It would be nice to find cybercriminals this way…especially stopping foreign hackers outside of law enforcement and our judicial system. I don’t worry about this so much. But I know the FBI will abuse it. Spy agencies have already done so to Apple and Google and facebook. I think backdoors have been installed on equipment and in software by Snowden himself…that was actually his job. Installing CIA or NSA computer systems…

    Okay, on Snowden, I don’t know if he is good or bad. All I know is he uncovered illegal actions by the NSA. He has shown us proof that the NSA has exceeded it’s intended role in domestic spying. He also provided proof that the NSA was spying on Merkel and various foreign leaders… Hollande…Brazil’s leader…probably Ecuador’s leader. The NSA also lied to congress when confronted. They are a shady organization. They may be very important to national security too given a hostile world. It’s very tough to pass judgement but they seem to be operating without oversight. No?

    I don’t think you can keep saying that government is trustworthy when there are so many lies. When power is sought by respective political parties, they tend to break campaign laws, not obey campaign laws. When Bush went to War, he lied about the WMDs in Iraq. He lied about spreading democracy. He lied about the link between 9/11 terrorism and Sadam. Today, the republicans accuse each other of lying daily. And somehow, you think we could be comfortable with their domestic spying programs? The NSA and the CIA want billions of dollars of funding. Don’t you think they will try to get there new best friend forever into office to insure funding? That’s where I don’t trust them most.

    BTW, government is not just corrupt, it’s incompetent. The gulf oil spill resulted for not just corruption in the government regulators, they were not doing their jobs competently. No?

  • Are you actually claiming that Bill and Monica didn’t have a sexual relationship? Really? REALLY?

    As I’ve said before I’m not all that thrilled about any of the candidates this year. I am planning on voting for Hillary but I do wish there were someone I felt I could trust on important issues. Someone not bought and paid for by wall street, someone who didn’t have a history of throwing gay people under the bus, and one who hasn’t so blatently lied so many times. And Bernie? He’s the second coming of George McGovern. By the time the right wing machine is done with him there won’t be anything left but dust. I’ll hold my nose and vote for Clinton and hope we get someone who actually has a spine and isn’t a sell-out but who is electable 8 years from now.

  • SeattleGuy

    “one who was not particularly mature or stable enough to keep her mouth shut”

    Oh, that’s a good one.

    “I don’t feel good about having defending a former Constitutional Law professor for lying under oath.”

    Funny, but I followed the case start to finish and I did not see either Bill admit he lied, nor Starr ever proving that. My reading of the case is that Starr would have failed winning the larger case in a court although he did influence Clinton’s ability to do his job which was the primary goal of the GOP anyway.

    As I have said many time before, Clinton’s statement was very carefully crafted to hold up in court. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you. The behavior in question is not usually considered full fledged sexual relations. Just like kissing cannot be called rape. I realize that’s splitting hairs to Clinton haters, but it is fact.

    Starr was in a tough spot. His Republican backers wanted him to proceed and the American people didn’t. I think it was about 80% to 20% in favor of dropping the case and I doubt 80% of voters were Democrats as the time, so it was his only option to take a settlement. He could crawl away and write more porn and Bill could move on and finish his second term.

    I have an honest question for you. Who among the few remaining candidates on both sides has absolutely no baggage? Give me a name and I will give you a little OR that will blow you away.

  • SeattleGuy

    I have heard all the excuses before including yours, “you can stop dealing with businesses you don’t trust. You can’t stop dealing with government you don’t trust.”

    You see the reality is that the government doesn’t abuse its access to private information, but private corporations and individuals do. Go ahead and give me just a couple of examples of government spying on individuals and stealing their personal information not including those who come under surveillance due to breaking the law. You can’t. Other than a rogue analyst like Snowden, government is not the one to fear. It is hackers and foreign governments insofar as corporate vulnerability.

    I can find examples of identity theft every day. There is nothing on the government side that comes close to that. I don’t know why you don’t trust government. They don’t need the NSA probing metadata to use what you voluntarily provide to them in normal interaction. You doubt they know your SS number, mother’s maiden name, address, height, weight, birthdate, etc? Try and find documented examples of government misuse. Do you know why you can’t? Their employees know their activities can be monitored. It may take a while, but they will be caught and prosecuted. Snowden knew this. That’s why he fled.

    Your fear of government is illogical. We all have far more to fear from criminals and their use of our personal information. Are you biased due to the propaganda the right-wing has been pushing for years? Can’t you see how frequently private enterprises, like Enron, have been found to be corrupt while the government, not so much? Besides we have the FOIA to chase down government malfeasance. We have no similar mechanism to expose corporate fraud and law breaking until it blows up in a huge scandal.

    As an AAPL shareholder, I think they have no exception to responding to a legal warrant. The FBI has probable cause. Apple has cooperated in the past, but now they want to push back because the new OS has built in features that protect criminals who choose to go dark. Apple designed this problem when they wrote the s/w. All tech companies are required to follow the law. In a perfect world, Congress would pass a law making any company compliant. Those who refuse to comply with our rule of law should be barred from selling their products here. Simple, huh?

  • marknc

    Exactly right.

    There is only one thing I admire Republicans for. They support their own. When the pick was Romney (a Mormon), the Christians rallied behind the fact that Mormons hate people of color and gays as much as they do and supported him fully.

    In our world, a bit of trivia causes a tantrum. Pathetic.

    But you have to love watching Dems bitch that Hillary was caught saying the sky is blue (no, it’s light blue) while we watch Trump claim Muslims were shot with bullets dipped in pig blood (didn’t happen) or Muslims cheered by the thousands when the towers fell (didn’t happen), or that there is rampant voter fraud, or that they are going to hold up the SC nominee because that is the precedent over the last 40 years, or that the economy is worse because of Obama, or Obama is coming to take you precious guns, etc.

    Republicans lie for sport, and none of them care.

  • Don Chandler

    “He said they should only “fear losing their illusion of privacy”. They lost real privacy many years ago and not to the NSA.”–you mean google controls us.

    Ofc, anyone saying “we should fear losing the illusion of privacy” is indulging in a special kind of irony because losing the illusion of privacy is not losing anything but naivety and one should not fear losing naivety. But equating government and advertisement is a bit disingenuous. One ‘entity’ can arrest you or harass you to the ends of the earth while the other might sell you a bar of soap you don’t really want. Google is forever pairing me up with ads seeking campaign donations for religious righters. Google sure does have me pegged. But yeah, these businesses play fast and loose with our personal info. It is dangerous in banking and really, it can be dangerous in most all businesses that take your credit card and personal information. You want to deal with ethical businesses. This has always been true. The thing is, you can stop dealing with businesses you don’t trust. You can’t stop dealing with government you don’t trust. You have to live with it or change it.

    I used the email example only to show how spy agencies might be used by organizations like say the GOP to disqualify candidates through calumny. Benghazi and the email scandal are both elaborate election propaganda.

    You think apple should give the FBI information that might allow them to reverse engineer the apple security? Or you think apple should cooperate with all governments to spy on their citizens? You don’t think the government might have abused previous arrangements and Apple and Google and all are a bit fed up? It’s pretty complex.

    I can go on forever on these topics. Basically, I don’t trust government much. But it’s needed. Our government is in bed with business. I think Bernie is getting this message out. Citizen’s United is so corrupt and everyone knows it.

  • SeattleGuy

    You need to get out more. Out of the bubble that is the right-wing Echo Chamber. Fox News is by far the most dishonest network on the air. What would you expect when your top guy was a Republican dirty tricks artist. You have to respect how effective he has been, though, in using excellent propaganda techniques in an attempt to change minds. It just doesn’t work with people who have critical thinking skills and with the internet making it so easy to verify what Fox says on the air vs. the real truth.

    Here is Politifact’s scorecard on them. Only 22% true or mostly true. The worst of all networks:

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

  • SeattleGuy

    The only thing worse than a Republican is someone who won’t stand up for anything like you. Take a stand for something. State your case. R U independent or libertarian? or green or what?

  • SeattleGuy

    “No WMDs in Iraq”
    “Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/

    Here’s your hero, “W”, admitting there were no WMDs in Iraq. Some cons and libertarians still think Bush protected us from terrorism when even Trump says otherwise and he’s their leader now. They will not accept reality no matter how much evidence you show them like this @ 25 seconds.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE

  • SeattleGuy

    False equivalence. The Koch brothers buy government pawns to advance policies that put money in their pockets and protect them against being fined again for polluting the environment and cheating some of their partners. Guess who finked on them? One of the brothers. In contrast, Soros used to spend his money to advance the working class. I don’t think he is spending anything significant this cycle.

    I did read the hair weaver bit. I suppose Cons and Libertards get their hair cut by anyone who just happens along on the street from their appearance, but most of us prefer someone trained in his or her specialty. Poor example. Try again.

    If you’re not a Republican, but agree with them more than Dems you’re a Libertarian, right? Do you ever test those theories in the real world?

    Did you see the journalist take down Rand Paul a few years ago. He thought every biz owner should have the right to decide who to serve. It was comical. He thinks every state and every biz should have exclusions to the constitution, but he says he supports the constitution. What a fool! He thinks libertarianism works. Funny, I can’t find even one example of a successful libertarian government is the entire world in the history of the world. Go figure. It sounds nice in textbooks, though.

  • I would love to elect pragmatic, intelligent people to public office. As the Democrats hardly even put up candidates where I live I even considered voting in the GOP primary in 2014 to try to help the less extremist candidates. (More moderate wasn’t an option.) But they were all extremists. It was a clusterfuck of assholes trying to out TeaParty each other. So don’t blame most Americans if the elected officials are so extreme. We aren’t be offered any other choices.

  • I defended Bill Clinton at the time but I don’t feel good about having defending a former Constitutional Law professor for lying under oath. Yes, the lawsuit was bullshit, but he lied. And the all that nonsense about the definition of “is”. What nonsense. And yes most of those women threw themselves at him, Monica certainly did. And Linda Tripp egged her on every step of the way even coordinating with Ken Starr to try to get her to talk the president and others into breaking ethical rules to get her a job. They didn’t. (I have some inside information about that as I used to work for a company that had Vernon Jordon on the board. The most he did was pass along her resume. Jordan was well liked there and had he put on the slightest pressure to find her a job in the company they would have. She wasn’t a fit for any open positions so there wasn’t so much as an interview much less a job offer. Starr’s repeated questioning of Jordon was harassment if you ask me.) I’m also well aware of the criminal actions of Starr and his team, especially things like the trumped up charges against Susan McDougal and threatening people with jail time if they didn’t lie about business dealings with Jim McDougal. It was shameless all of it. But all the while Clinton knew that the right had a long history of (sometiems literally) digging through his trash and he had an affair with an intern anyway and one who was not particularly mature or stable enough to keep her mouth shut about it. That was stupid. No, I don’t think private consensual sex is anyone else’s business, but it was reckless and we ought not pretend that it wasn’t. That’s what I mean by the Clintons not being exactly innocent in all that. There’s a lot more but that’s plenty. The Clintons are exhausting. I’m about to vote for her next week but I really wish there were a viable candidate without so much baggage.

  • SeattleGuy

    Are you sure about that, Tom?

    1. “Over the last year, the solar industry added jobs twelve times faster than the rest of the economy, even more than the jobs created by the oil and gas extraction and pipeline sectors combined.”
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/12/3737971/solar-job-growth/
    2. What context was she making this statement. I did not hear that one.
    3. “There were 74 bills that became law that Clinton co-sponsored.” Politifact
    4. “Overall national health care spending is growing at historically low rates. President Obama has boasted that “health care costs overall are actually going up more slowly over the last three years than in the last 50,” which is true.” FactCheck
    5. “Al-Shabaab Releases Recruitment Video Featuring Donald Trump” 1/1/16 ABC
    6. “Immunity statutes grant legal protection to gun manufacturers and dealers, shielding them from liability for a wide range of conduct. Similar immunity laws have been adopted in some form by the federal government and 34 states.”
    http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-industry-immunity-policy-summary/
    7. “Clinton’s number is correct: there were seven previous congressional probes into the Benghazi attack. Saying these committees were led “mostly by Republicans” is also a fair assertion: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs were the only two committees not led by Republicans. As for her comment that there was no overt wrongdoing, that’s a rosy assessment. But it is also largely accurate. We rate this claim Mostly True.” Politifact
    8. You have one right so far. Keep trying
    9. “Income-based loan repayment isn’t a new idea – the federal government already offers several IBR plans – but it’s a bad one.” National Review
    10. What tax experts agree on is that the “carried interest” loophole that Hillary was referring to allows hedge fund managers to pay just 15% on income structured by them to appear as a dividend. All of the fact checkers ignore the actual tax rate paid by hedge fund managers and refer to what the highest earners pay and that still does not take into account how much is being hidden offshore. See ICIJ.com for more.

    So, you are correct in just 1 of 10 accounts. I could go on, but it is obvious to any objective person, you hate Hillary for other reasons.

    Who do you support that always tell the truth and nothing but the truth? This will be fun.

  • SeattleGuy

    “Bernie Sanders says he polls better against GOP candidates than Hillary” Clinton

    “The statement is not accurate, so we rate it False.”

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-gop-ca/

    So, why don’t we ask Scott Pelley (R) to ask Bernie the same question? of Trump or Rubio or Cruz?

    Do you really think they would answer it truthfully?

  • SeattleGuy

    You, obviously, don’t realize that Hillary is a lawyer and doesn’t make that mistake. She has been trained in telling the truth. That doesn’t mean what your think it does. Most of those statements are equivocations not lies, but you didn’t name your presidential candidate so I can show you how foolish it is to parse sentences.

    Bernie, Trump and Cruz are all huge liars by those loose standards.

  • SeattleGuy

    I listened to a Larry Ellison interview with Charlie Rose. He was responding to Snowden’s supposed revelations and he laughed at anyone thinking they had privacy in cyberspace. He said they should only “fear losing their illusion of privacy”. They lost real privacy many years ago and not to the NSA.

    USA Today ran an article back on May 10th of 2006, outlining the NSA surveillance programs in great detail. Snowden was either very naive or trying to leverage his position to steal the TS information for personal gain. He is trying to sell his story for a book or movie deal. He should come back and face the music. He was a traitor to our freedoms. That’s why he’s in hiding.

    We have far more to fear from “those kids” at the local bank or when you buy something at a store. There is absolutely no evidence that the NSA is abusing its mission to discover and disrupt terrorist attacks. Meanwhile there is evidence almost every day of hackers attacking major companies and individuals. Hackers can steal your personal information and set up credit cards and take over your identity. The government doesn’t do that. That’s what Larry was alluding to. He and Steve McNealy of Sun said people are stupid to think they have privacy with their personal information stored on servers at FB, eBay, Apple, Amazon, there ISP and so on. Way more dangerous than the metadata being held at your telecom for lawful warrant.

    Hillary’s email scandal has no legs. Didn’t you see Kevin McCarthy admit it was simply a war for Republicans to take her popularity down? Even Fox News admitted that. There is no scandal other than the one contrived like their Benghazi pseudo-scandal. There will be no indictments, nor any legal actions. It’s the usual conservative BS like Whitewater.

    Fivethirtyeight dot com has Hillary at better than 80% to win the nomination. If Clinton haters ignore the obvious and sit on their hands, we can look forward to the Republican President destroying all the good work Obama has done in his term and installing more partisan justices on the SC. Not a pretty thought.

  • SeattleGuy

    She is a pragmatist. Why do you think Republicans praised working with her in the Senate?

    I love Bernie, too, but I think Hillary will win the nomination.

  • Moderator3

    It might be a good idea to take a break. It seems that you prefer arguing.

  • maquignon

    Don’t know why you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a Republican. I certainly am not; although I certainly agree with them more than I do with Democrats. I think I gave several examples of ridiculous regulations. Did you not read them? Apparently you did not read what I said about the hair weaver either because your reply makes no sense whatsoever. I have head of the Koch brothers and know that they finance lots of Republicans but that is about all I know about them. Apparently you have also assumed that I am an admirer of them as well as assuming that I am a Republican. I assume then that you are an admirer of the Democratic counterpart to the Koch brothers – George Soros, one of the most evil men on earth who finances the most depraved liberal causes.

  • SeattleGuy

    Nonsense! The subprime mortgage fiasco and the resultant financial crisis were cause by the lack of regulation. Google Graham-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) or “glibba”. Greenspan and Republicans thought they could take away banking regulations that were implemented after the stock market crash in 1929, so they neutered them. Removing Glass Steagall and replacing it with glibba.

    Go watch “The Big Short” movie or read the book. It outlines in quite succinct detail where our financial chieftans went wrong. We have too little regulation against Wall Street corruption and are now vulnerable to another taxpayer bailout just like the one Paulson and Bernanke demanded in 2007, remember?

    We can streamline and reduce some regulation, but Republicans are only interested in voting against the ACA (a Republican idea) repeatedly and taking away funding for PP to rally single-issue Christians for votes in November. Get it? They have no desire to actually change Roe v. Wade.

    Why don’t you try specifying the regulations that are overreach. The one you cite is not entirely true. A person can be an understudy to attain their license as a cosmetologist. Of course, Republicans don’t care. They’d prefer to have their hair styled by someone just learning. Who needs a license?

    You are simply regurgitating talking points given to Republican lawmakers at the Koch’s bi-annual conferences. They hate regulation for the same reason bank robbers prefer fewer cops on the beat. The Koch brothers father made a fortune in oil in Russia and brought back his aversion to communism. His sons have leveraged their hatred from complying with regulation. Their company, Koch Industries paid the largest fine in US history for pollution. That’s what’s behind their drive to corrupt our political system.

  • maquignon

    If you don’t check them for yourself you have no right to repeat the allegations. I NEVER comment on anything I have not checked for myself. I do not take ANYBODY’S word for ANYTHING. Most of the time it is just as with the supposed “lie” about the tub deaths. If you consider “children” those under fifteen years of age, Fox was absolutely correct. If you are going to consider eighteen year olds children, then they lied. Now maybe they should have said “children under fifteen years old.” But they DID NOT lie. Yes I watch Fox because they lie less than any of the other networks BUT I do not even take their word for anything. I check at least one other source before I accept it. It makes me furious when they say “we have not confirmed this BUT…. If you have not confirmed it, it is NOT news. It is GOSSIP. I have been livid with rage at Fox for trying to pit candidates against each other BUT they were certainly not as bad as CNBC and Fox Business conducted the best of any of the debates. I am certainly no fan of George Bush but I believe that he acted on bad intelligence. I do not believe he lied. I am not even convinced that there were no WMD’s. They could have been moved, but I repeat, I am no fan of George Bush. I am NOT a Republican. The only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat.

  • SeattleGuy

    Usually those who criticize the effort to fact check politicians are on the wrong side of the argument. The Koch brothers didn’t like what science found about climate, so they hide the millions they’re spending to manipulate the message. They’re probably the biggest source of dark money funding AGW deniers.

    Same with Sheldon Adelson buying the Las Vegas Review Journal to manipulate public opinion about his activities. As I often say, the middle class doesn’t have the wherewithal to buy newspapers or television networks. The disinformation campaigns are all on the cons side.

    Fox News lies are too numerous to check out each of them. I wouldn’t have time to sleep and eat. I watch it now and then for laughs. What I wanted to demonstrate is that cons lie at least as much as liberals and certainly Trump and Cruz are at the top of the pecking order when it comes to providing untruths, half truths and deceptive responses to questions. Hillary is not in the same league with these big boys.

    Come over to our side. We’re going to win big this year. The natives are restless. They’re tired of cons obstructing legislation and aren’t buying the conventional Republican orthodoxy that they’ve been pushing and winning with for about 30 years.

    Despite the fact that South Carolina is a military bastion and voted twice for dubya, Trump told the audience last Saturday that Bush lied us into the Iraq war. He ignored warnings from the intelligence community leading up to 9/11. And despite cons saying he protected us from terrorism, Trump insisted that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch because he didn’t pay attention to the facts. Conventional wisdom says Trump swallowed enough poison that night to kill himself ten times over, but he not only won in SC, he pulled away from his rivals.

  • maquignon

    If you REALLY want to prove that Fox lies, why don’t you include children up to the age of 26!!! That will REALLY show them!!!

  • maquignon

    Hillary lie – CEO’s earn 300 times what workers make. Truth – CEOs average $216,100, median household income $53,657 – about 4 times CEO earnings. Now Hillary makes about $30,000,000. That’s about 516 times median household. The truth is not in the woman.

  • maquignon

    She was named for Sir Edmund Hillary
    She was under fire in Bosnia
    Chelsea was jogging at the time of the world trade center explosion
    Benghazi was the result of a video
    All rape victims should be believed
    she claims she was a player in the Northern Ireland peace process (she was not there)
    No classified emails were sent or received from her unprotected server
    She didn’t know where the Rose Law firm records were (in the White House)
    “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”
    “No. We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices … Government has to make those choices for people.”
    My husband may have his faults, but he has never lied to me
    In almost every profession – whether it’s law or journalism, finance or medicine or academia or running a small business – people rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it.
    I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.
    “The thing with Obama is that he can’t be bothered and there is no hand on the tiller half the time. That’s the story of the Obama presidency. No hand on the f*cking tiller.”
    “The IRS targeting the Tea Party, the Justice Department’s seizure of AP phone records and James Rosen’s emails — all these scandals. Obama’s allowed his hatred for his enemies to screw him the way Nixon did.”
    “You can’t trust the motherf*cker.” (Obama)
    “Obama has treated Bill and me incredibly shabbily. And we’re angry.”
    “He agreed to the arrangement but then he reneged on the deal. His word isn’t worth shit.” (Obama)
    “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”
    “I, like everyone else, would like to know the answer about how those documents showed up, after all these years.” (in her private quarters in the white house)
    “And so when I was asked about it last year, I didn’t recognize it, I didn’t remember it. The billing records show I did not do work for Castle Grande. I did work for something called IDC, which was not related to Castle Grande.” (They were the same)
    “There were no documents taken out of Vince Foster’s office on the night he died, and I did not direct anyone to interfere in any investigation. I know very well what we were talking about. We were grieving, we were supporting each other.” (later found in her private quarters at the White House)
    “I don’t believe I knew anything about any of these real estate parcels and projects.” (billing records later proved otherwise)

    Some of these may not be recognizable as lies in and of themselves except that she contradicted them subsequently.

    There are thousands more!

    Worst one is “I have always tried to level with the American people”

  • Don Chandler

    “You do realize that Hillary wrote the single payer HC plan for Dems in 1992, right? She dealt with a universal HC approach back then.”–the powers that were, raked Hillary and Bill over the coals and trained them to be part of the corrupt system. They are not progressive. They are pragmatic. But under such leadership, we never got close to a reasonable health care system. Obama was an effective pragmatist. He actually accomplished things. I don’t have much criticism for Obama. Some folks are more critical than myself. Like I said, if Hillary can get past her failures of the past and present herself as an effective pragmatist and turn around the trend, “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” I’ll be happy with her. In the meantime, Bernie seems to be willing to show initiative.

  • maquignon

    Yes we need SOME regulation but we have gone so far overboard that it is ridiculous. There are so many regulatory bodies that they overlap each other and even CONTRADICT each other. Just last week I heard of a regulation that says a woman’s hair weaver has to have a degree from a beauty school. What makes that ridiculous? No beauty schools TEACH hair weaving!!!!! There are thousands of examples. The EPA won’t let one farmer farm his land because it is an “ideal” site for some endangered species. No one has EVER seen this species in the area but the EPA says it COULD live there. A lawyer on tv a few weeks ago pays disabled people to go around to businesses and collect business cards just to prove that they were there. The lawyer said that is all he needs because no one can possibly comply with all of the regulations of the Disabilities Act and all he needs is proof that a disabled person was there and he can find something to sue them for. He says most of them just settle because it is cheaper etc etc etc ad infinitum

  • Don Chandler

    I remember hearing Larry Ellison talk about the grave nature of the NSA prism program. He said domestic spying wasn’t as important for regular citizens as it was for potential candidates and business leaders. His reasoning went along the lines of how a national security employee could have sensitive information on future leaders. And how the information could be tailored to engineer leaders and distribute governmental powers. It’s incredible power to listen in on peoples conversations. All the safeguards against abuse have been violated by the NSA. It’s real abuse. ‘These kids’ as a 29 year old kid named Snowden referred to the NSA employees are very young and hold people’s future in their inexperienced hacker-hands and hacking-minds. They can sift through your reverie and affect your daily life…especially the powerful. Who knows what they knew during bridge-gate involving Chris Christie. It’s possible that they did a service for NJ and NY and the US and left clues about the true nature…or maybe it was just chance that the scandal was revealed. It’s maybe the best case scenario to reveal a true abuser of power. But then, with Hillary’s emails, maybe they also know about the juicy details of Hillary’s home computer system and emails ;) And will leak the info at the right time or wrong time depending on who you want to be president. It’s too much power in the hands of an ethically challenged spy network. It’s not about me. It’s about our government. That is where Ellison is wrong. It’s OUR government. Not the leaders government. It’s very important that spies can’t engineer elections. And Snowden provided proof that they are very capable.

    A better way to deal with terrorism is to minimize the commitment to war in the middle east. Let the middle east sort it out. Let Russia get bogged down in the war they are perpetuating. Instead, let’s get our house in order back home and not be such a policeman abroad. Stop putting ourselves in harms way. I’m tired of being a target for terrorism because government isn’t very good at foreign wars whether it’s democrat or republican. Bernie is a socialist. Money you spend in war is money you can’t spend at home on socialized medicine.

    I’m sorry, I already paid my student loan. I already got through college…long ago. I see places like Sweden and Denmark and Germany and they have better systems of government. Holland has a great standard of living and strong economy. Tuition needs to be lower and loans need to be very low interest. Education needs to be a prime goal. A stupid populace is not going to elect smart people like Bernie or Hillary. Maybe Putin types. And that is bad for you and me.

  • maquignon

    Well I only checked one of them and my guess is that all of them are similar. The one about more children dying in bathtubs depends on what age you consider. If you consider children up to 14 which I think is reasonable it is true. More do die in bathtubs. Now if you add teenagers between 14 and 17 then the number killed by guns jumps dramatically. so I say NOT A LIE. But My guess is that you didn’t bother to check even one of them. As someone wisely said: who is checking the fact checkers??? Now who is lying???

  • SeattleGuy

    Yeah, it those liberals who lie. That’s a good one. Here was Jon Stewart’s response to Fox News when they made a similar statement and asked someone to show them anything they had lied about. Jon reeled off 50 is less than a minute:

    http://www.politifact dot com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/feb/26/fact-checks-behind-daily-shows-50-fox-news-lies/

    Face it, Cons can survive without lying. How else can you explain Trump or Cruz’s success?

  • SeattleGuy

    You would prefer we become more like China? If you’ve ever been there, you’d know why government regulation of dirty industries are important to our health.

    Do you know what intelligent ppl call unfettered, laissez-faire, free market capitalism? Organized crime.

    Do you know why the fossil fuel industry denies the existence of AGW even though their own research has shown it to be an existential threat? Because low-information voters will believe anything they’re told if you spend enough money through your disinformation campaign.

    I will agree that Nixon was a flawed man, but he was pretty smart as well. Why do you think they called him “Tricky Dick”?

  • SeattleGuy

    What did she say on video that rises to lying in your belief system? Give me the exact quotes where you think she lied. I saw Pelley’s hit job. It was anther feeble attempt to bring her down from another Republican. Did he ask Trump or Bernie the same question? No! Has the GOP spent millions of dollars and more than 20 years trying to make that case? Check! Who cares about him except those who cling to such trivial nonsense or live in the bubble of conservative talk radio.

    It’s frustrating as hell to attempt to have a reasoned debate with right wingers who take the misinformation coming form their Echo Chamber as gospel. Where are the promised indictments of Hillary for WhiteWater, Vince Foster, TravelGate, Mena, Benghazi, ad nauseam?

    If you want to have some fun, give me one statement from Hillary which is demonstrably false, and I will give you one from whomever your candidate is. You wanna play that game? Stop trying to win over support for false scandals. Critical thinking skills and google are your friends.

  • SeattleGuy

    You do realize that Hillary wrote the single payer HC plan for Dems in 1992, right? She dealt with a universal HC approach back then.

    I am for lower interest rates for student loans and reasonable tuition but you must realize that for those of us who paid our own way through college, we don’t want to pay your tuition now and Republicans are behind allowing private lenders to increase profits. So, it is not as easy as Bernie is suggesting.

    i don’t think lack of financial resources should prevent anyone from getting a college eduction, but in many cases we need accountability. Many students are wasting their time studying for credentials that won’t lead to a job. They’re just taking up space from those who want to excel. I would like to see lower interest rates and more students going to trade schools so they can get good paying jobs when they get through the program.

    When you suggest Hillary or even Obama are for “status quo”, you just show your impatience for the slow pace of legislation. I hope you stay motivated even if your favorite candidate loses to Hillary. Your votes will be important to advance the progressive agenda.

    While I may be left of you, we are on the opposite as far as national security. These are very gray areas like the current Apple/FBI case which involves known terrorists in San Bernardino. Let me first say that the only thing at stake is your “illusion of privacy” as Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy have said, you lost any true privacy years ago to the corporate world.

    As an AAPL shareholder, I want them to comply by unlocking this one iPhone 5c. There is absolutely no reason any tech company should have an exclusion from a legal search warrant looking for evidence about know terrorists just to protect their business model/profits. The government and legislators need to follow up by passing legislation to prevent any of AAPL’s competitors from having a marketing advantage by writing code allowing bad guys to go dark. I’m sure you know what I mean. If Samsung wants to sell products in the US, they need to comply as well.

    You’ve got the strategy back asswards. From what I have witnessed, we need to flip Congress to get anything accomplished. Young ppl supported Obama in 2008, but did not show up in the midterm elections in 2010 and 2014 allowing Republicans to take control of both houses of Congress. Without them, all the president can do is veto bad bills. He cannot write legislation from the Executive branch. History says Bernie’s young supporters will fail the Democratic party again. This is a long, hard slog. It cannot be accomplished by electing a president alone.

    I love Bernie, too, but I can go back and dissect his words over his 25 years in public service and find what you call lies as well. We don’t win by attacking each other with Republican talking points. By the way, as far as Trump goes. Check out Politifact dot com and see how they rate his honesty. They were trying to find their annual “lie of the year” and decided to just give it to him. They had too many lies to choose from. To think voters will consider Hillary even close is laughable. She has very deep support from those of us who have seen this movie before. I’m glad that even the other side realizes that Bush lied us into war and so on. At least Trump made a few honest to God truths in the debate last week which should have destroyed any chances he had to win SC. Instead, he won going away. The GOPe are shaking in their boots.

  • beracis

    As you SJWs are fond of saying….false equivalence.

  • SeattleGuy

    Both parties do the same thing or haven’t you noticed that? When Bush worked with his own R-controlled Congress to pass Medicare Part D, he did so to upstage the Dems and the bill is industry-written and business friendly. It disallows the federal government from negotiating prices with drug companies even though it is the largest marker on Earth. That locked the Democratic version from being passed when they took power.

    GOP candidates are trying to “save Social Security” now. They want to privatize it so each state can chop benefits for seniors and their friends on Wall Street can access more of our hard earned money. So, when they say they want to save it, they mean save if from even worse Republican ideas. They could just fund it with the money workers pay into the system and they know this, but they’re hell bent in undermining the popular New Deal program, so they hide their true goals.

  • maquignon

    It is liberals who approve of much of what Nixon did – creating the EPA – known by some as the Environmental Protection Act but more accurately known as the Employment Prevention Act. He was a crook but not quite as clever as Hillary as he did not destroy the evidence. Hillary learned from him but she will get her comeuppance eventually.

  • SeattleGuy

    I forgot to mention, I lived in CA when Reagan was governor. He was intensely disliked because he was behind payroll tax deductions which allowed Republicans to raise state income taxes threefold. His reputation is not actually a very honest accounting of his deeds.

  • maquignon

    Right wing propaganda that Hillary lies???? IT’S ON VIDEO!!! You can search you tube and find all of them! What the hell does “connect the dots on what transpired” mean in reference to Hillary’s lying? It’s frustrating as hell trying to debate liberals who apparently don’t even listen!

  • SeattleGuy

    We already do. Both parties see the mindless hypocrisy when Dems cry about obstructing a SC nominee, when it was almost as bad when the shoe was on the other foot. We keep sending more ideological candidates to Congress. Why should we expect partisanship to calm down?

    The current brouhaha will be interesting to watch. As someone wrote, the Rs can either refuse to confirm Obama’s replacement for Scalia and keep their seat in the Senate or obstruct it, allow the Democrats to win the presidency in November, see Obama get his choice through anyway, and then lose their seat when they are primaried the next time around.

  • SeattleGuy

    There were and are no crimes genius. If there were, the GOP would have her azz in court. They can only use false accusations because they can’t run on their lack of accomplishment since taking over Congress. The scandals are used to distract low-information voters so Republicans don’t have to answer questions about policy like “do you think we should send more ground troops into Syria, Libya, Ukraine or (fill in the blank) to fill the coffers of our MIC?” or “Even though taxes are at historic lows we haven’t seen in about 60 years, will you cut taxes for the richest Americans again despite the debt Bush and his rubber-stamp Congress ran up during his term?” or “When you say you want to save Social Security, does that include cutting benefits for seniors while continuing to increase corporate welfare?”

    All current pols learned a lot from Nixon. Rove and Bush hid as much data from their everyday activities while in the WH as they could. It was far more than Hillary. Jeb did the same as governor. With today’s digital trail, we are learning far more than ever before. If you think HRC is bad for trying to use a personal server for her communications, wait until the next Republican gets into the WH. I guarantee it will be worse by at least an order of magnitude. Republicans are far worse at hiding things than Democrats.

    I think Nixon was a brilliant but paranoid individual. He could have easily swept into reelection, but felt it necessary to use the power of his office illegally to win by an even bigger landslide. No, I do not agree that he will be remembered as a great president. He did start the process to bring China into the markets, though, and for that alone he will be remembered.

    I regret that Congress let him fly off into the sunset and allow his supporters to deny any culpability for his egregious actions. He misused the FBI for God’s sake! That’s not politics as usual and now I still see right wingers trying to suggest he would have survived if he had only stood his ground and fought. Poppycock!

  • Don Chandler

    I’m not sure. Bernie was the first to start talking about things that progressives really wanted. Accountability of the banks and financial systems and the continuation of the “healthcare revolution.” Only after Bernie brought it up did It seem like Hillary started talking about these issues. So, Bernie got the ball rolling. He earned some trust among progressives. And for years, politicians have talked about no-interest student loans…and no action at all…in fact, banks are predatory when it comes to student loans. If anything, the student loan is an even bigger burden to young people and student loans certainly crushed baby boomers back in the 70’s and 80’s with high interest rates. So, it’s nice to hear Bernie talk about the holy grail of progressive issues: free tuition. And doing it first gives him some more credence. We know he will roll up his sleaves and start working for progressive causes. And we want action.

    Now, lets leave the panderer out of it and assume Hillary is just status quo…. This past week saw Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein calling on apple to let the FBI put backdoors on iphones. This she does after having the CIA put backdoors on the computers Feinstein and the Senate Intelligence Committee used to store data that was used to investigate the CIA. The CIA then manipulated the data. Why does Diane Feinstein support the FBI power structure but let the CIA off with a mere scolding? It’s typical status quo bullshit: “now now now, CIA, that is bad.” Diane is a moderate conservative status quo democrat that gives lip service to progressive issues like single payer healthcare. She told us to get real about Obama Care and didn’t really support healthcare reform. She is a conservative cog. She needs to be replaced if real change is going to happen. And this is the kind of politician that Hillary reminds me of… Tell the progressives what they want to hear but tell them they can only have a spoonful of change. We’ve all seen it over and over. Hillary needs to sound like a real progressive. But yeah, Bernie most certainly is only going to be able to go so far with the progressive agenda. But at least he sounds honest and puts it out there first and has a progressive record. What flavor ice cream is Hillary? Any flavor you want her to be. — Colbert. Bernie seems like a real progressive. And I think we got to start with the real deal. Send congress a non-establishment president and make them understand that Obama was just the beginning. If Congress doesn’t take Bernie seriously, we can replace Congress next. If Hillary can sound genuine and do some leading on progressive issues, she would make a good president. But she can’t quite admit that she doesn’t lie and there in is the problem. Yes, they all lie, but Hillary is better at it. “I try not to lie.” I wonder how much fun Trump will have with that wimpy little line.

  • SeattleGuy

    Sorry, I didn’t know whether or not you were aware of the ceaseless right wing scandal mongering. I met Bill as well in DC shopping with Chelsea at Christmastime for gifts which was his yearly routine from what I gather.

    Anyway, go ahead and lay our your facts. I think I’ve heard them all and I have never found anything more significant that Bill’s roving eye. As I said, he’s not perfect but that doesn’t rise to the level or all the games the GOP is willing to play in their feeble attempt to distract voters from their lack of accomplishment. No, I do not agree that the Clintons brought “a lot of that on themselves”. That’s BS. Only someone who did not follow the money behind the empty attacks would say that. Paula Jones’s lawsuit was paid by Newt Gingrich’s PAC, if I recall correctly.

    The next thing you’ll tell me is that Bill chased all these women. If you dig a little deeper, you’ll find that most idolized him and threw themselves at him. Power has its own temptations, doesn’t it? Some pols take as much money under the table, others, well…..

    To my sense of morality, the Koch’s efforts to create such a large number of non-profits and spend so much cash to disseminate misinformation to advance their unpopular agenda is undemocratic. If they honestly believe they could get voters to back their ideas, why can’t they debate the issues in the light of day? Why must they rely on dark money flowing through false advocacy sites?

    By the way, if you want to see how some cockroaches hide their assets so they can evade paying their fair share of taxes, check out ICIJ dot org.

  • SeattleGuy

    Extremists don’t normally win general elections. That stands in the war of either Trump or Cruz.

    If you think Hilllary panders, what do you call Bernie’s raison d’etre?

    A friend once said of pols, “TAL”, they all lie.

  • dcinsider

    Hillary is as honest as the next politician, including Bernie. She is not some evil doer, and she is not a horrible person. She’s just a politician, like Obama, like O’Malley, like Biden. This ridiculous meme about her honesty is such GOP fueled drivel it amazes me how many otherwise intelligent people fall for it.

    I voted for Obama in 2008 because I believed he was better for our time — at that time — than Hillary. Not because I hated Hillary, or thought she was a bad person.

    I am supporting Hillary today because I believe she is the best candidate in the field, not because I hate Bernie, or think he is some kind of nutjob, or unqualified.

    Democrats are not required to jump into the gutter with Republicans and adopt all their uneducated, buffoonish caricatures of our candidates. We can actually just disagree with each other as to who the right candidate is for the current times, and vote accordingly, without ascribing motives or false narratives to the other candidate.

  • It’s a long held stereotype that lawyers are terrible at math.

  • I remember a lot of mocking of Reagan over that by Democrats. Imagine what our political system would be like if we all held everyone to the same ethical standards.

  • Russ Bowles

    Disqus, Thx for the email off this forum …
    I will try to keep up although I will never vote for Clinton . I am just a concerned citizen and I am not a tool for any party. I am an independent and a Gen X – Latch key kid .
    Thx alot Reagan and Thatcher
    I realize by going back through your posts that it “seems” you prefer Clinton and do not like Bernie Sanders .
    This is ok as freedom of speech/opinion is your right and this is your forum .
    I watch Stephanie Miller when I have time .
    I still will .
    I believe it will come down to trump vs hillary and in that event I’ll have no choice but to go against what my inate feelings are and set them aside and then …choke …cough ..choke vote for hillary
    As I “feel” trump is too dangerous and I will be alive 4 yrs ltr and I am no feminist
    I would actually LOVE to see a female president
    As I believe in diversity and fairness .
    I am a moralist per others . I believe in choice of religion too. Myself I follow the ten commandments as best I know how.
    Outside of that I’d probably choose to be a Buddhist .
    Now on political I have 0 problem with the Muslim religion. It’s extremists that seem to go too far just like ( OPEC ).
    Yes I did go there
    Too many Body Bags

  • maquignon

    Yes, Hillary started her life of crime many years ago back in Little Rock where she learned to conceal evidence of all the crooked deals made by the Rose Law firm where she was a partner (she got that AFTER bill became governor (she has been riding his coattails ever since). She learned from Richard Nixon to destroy it. If Nixon had done what Hillary has done, Richard Nixon would never have resigned and would be remembered by most (not me) as one of the greatest presidents in history. Hillary will get her comeuppance eventually.

  • Gee, thanks ever so for the condescending lecture. I first met the Clintons in 1982. That isn’t a typo, btw. I have known them, the good, the bad and the ugly, for a very long time. Yes, there was always a lot of mud slung at them, some of it complete bullshit and quite a bit quite legit. I don’t need to have this all explained to me. I remember it all quite well. I think I’ve been more than fair to both Bill and Hillary over the years and have voted for both of them at least twice for various offices. I also know the nightmare that comes with supporting them because both were/are ehtically challenged to say the least. I am planning on voting for her next week but I really do wish there were a better option because I don’t know if I have the stomach for another round of this. Don’t act like the Clintons didn’t bring a lot of that on themselves because I was around back then and I know that they most certainly did. That doesn’t excuse the Starr nonsense and a lot else but they aren’t exactly pure either.

  • SeattleGuy

    You do realize that when she said the brouhaha about Whitewater and the appointment of a Special Prosecutor who had subpoena power was stretched out for about ten years. When Starr could not find anything with Whitewater, he decided to abandon his investigation and the GOP forced him to continue it for several more years. He asked the Republican Congress to expand his partisan investigation to include Bill’s sex life because he had found Linda Tripp by then and wanted to smear Clinton to justify his investigation and diminish Bill’s many accomplishments.

    Newt Gingrich moved to impeach BC because as he said, “we could”. He had the votes in the House to refer articles of impeachment despite the fact that more than 80% of Americans did not want the Republicans to move forward with impeach and Republicans had absolutely no chance of convicting him in the Senate. I think the GOP was pissed by Nixon’s impeachment and were trying desperately to smear a Democrat in return.

    Your animosity towards Hillary is understood, but I think you are not being fair. Like anyone who is hounded by false scandal after false scandal, she is a little gun shy with reporters and she takes care not to say or do anything that would get he in trouble. The GOP uses this against her if you can’t tell.

    You do know that Karl Rove used his own cell phone while in the WH? Bush used his personal email even though he was supposed to use the government system. They all do this to prevent another incident like the infamous Nixon tapes. Get it? Any good lawyer would tell you not to answer any questions, but that’s pretty hard to do when you’re running for office.

    By the way, why do you suppose Scott Pelley (R) doesn’t ask each and every one of the Republican candidates the same question? Is he anti-Hillary? Duh! CBS News hired Frank Luntz a few years ago as a political analyst. He has been a Koch-paid political operative, but they don’t disclose that over the air.

    We all need to find objective sources for information. If you watch corporate-owned television networks, you’re getting a right-leaning slant to every story. We can do better than that. CBS dismissed Lara Logan for her faux Benghazi story. She is married to a right wing operative, so I guess they should have expected as much.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-asks-lara-logan-to-take-leave-after-flawed-benghazi-report/

  • Don Chandler

    Hillary needs to be shoved hard to move to the left of center. If she wins against Bernie, I’ll vote for her…even though she is a woman ;) She is famous for pandering. And she actually has said some really dumb things about gays and lesbians over the years. She is not above small lies and miss-representation.

  • SeattleGuy

    I’m not trying to defend BC’s behavior which was reprehensible, but his statement in this video was very carefully crafted to be true. A journalist queried the Young Republicans Club at a major midwestern university whether or not a __ was, in fact, “sexual relations” and to a man, they said no. Just as most of us would not consider the brief encounter an “affair”, but given how little Kenneth Starr had to work with to write his porn, he pounced on it.

    Naturally this statement was too cute by half and neither Clinton nor Starr wanted to debate its veracity in open court, so it was never actually weighed by a jury.

  • SeattleGuy

    You have been taken in by right-wing propaganda. Go back and connect the dots with what transpired. I can assure you if Republicans could prove any of what they accuse Clinton of, they’d tie up our courts for a decade or so.

    No laws broken and no indictments. Kevin McCarthy and Fox News both admitted the scandals were simply an attempt to bring her popularity down so she would be vulnerable in the general election. Go ahead and do the research.

  • SeattleGuy

    It’s pretty difficult to choose a “lie of the year” with Trump. He lies more than any of his adversaries. Don’t take my word for that.

    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

  • SeattleGuy

    Were there any indictments for wrongdoing or are you just unaware of how much money Richard Mellon Scaife and the GOP smear machine spent trying to neuter Bill Clinton and the progressive agenda?

    While you’re at it, google Vince Foster’s suicide which the Rs tried to say involved HRC somehow, TravelGate, and drug dealing in Mena, AR. These were the faux scandals that preceded Benghazi and her private email server. No crimes and no indictments. Kenneth Starr hounded them relentlessly for years at the bequest of GOP leadership because they feared running against Hillary now.

    Did you see the admission by Kevin McCarthy a few months ago about using Benghazi to bring Hillary’s popularity down and make it possible for a Republican to beat her in the general election? Fox News also admitted as much then. You need to keep up. HRC called it years ago, it’s the vast right wing conspiracy and only those who lack critical thinking skills believe this nonsense.

  • SeattleGuy

    What bothers me is that you think there is some kind of equivalence to justify Bernie’s optimistic view of paying for his dream and Hillary knowing a few rich ppl. Since Bernie is in the Senate, he rubs shoulders with multi-millionaires on a daily basis. He claims to be incorruptible, but so does Mr. Trump and we know he it a pompous azzhol.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0

    Hillary does not pander to WS. She is in favor of everything Bernie favors. Why don’t you simply say you don’t like women or think of something original to say rather than a false statement.

  • SeattleGuy

    Hillary’s lie about coming under sniper fire is a horrible lie to Republicans who adored Reagan who misremembered being a football hero in real life as opposed to the role he played in a movie. Go figure.

  • Max_1

    What’s a lie when it runs in the family…

  • Bill_Perdue

    Here’s a very partial list: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

  • Russ Bowles

    Very good information (FLL)
    We the people want the straight truth without their spin like most infotainment in most so called news media these days.
    I would like to see at least an exam for politicians kinda like a deputy sheriff exam . This is an “honesty” exam . And set up like SAT exams with no cheating ; A score of no more than 1 wrong answer to pass and then one may run for office. Lol it’s just a thought I propose.

  • FLL

    To my knowledge, you are only the second commenter—other than Nicho—who has posted a comment regarding Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. I’m sure I remember public opinion at the time as being rather evenly split. Some folks were offended that Bill Clinton lied when Kenneth Starr’s grand jury demanded to know the details of his affair with Lewinsky. Other folks were offended that Kenneth Starr’s grand jury was given the power to investigate Bill Clinton’s sexual life at all—assuming Lewinsky did not receive taxpayer funds, in which case it was not the public’s concern. It always seemed to me that the Bible thumpers were on Kenneth Starr’s side.

  • FLL

    Is Telling the Truth a Good Standard to Strive For? Part 1

    Everybody, whether politicians or non-politicians, lies at one time or another. I think a more substantive question is whether someone assigns value to telling the truth, even if they sometimes fall short of that standard. Another good question is what is the motive for the specific lie. Let’s examine two examples and ask both of those questions.

    (1) In his effort to demonize American Muslims, Donald Trump insisted and continues to insist that they cheered from New Jersey when they saw the World Trade Center come down. When confronted with the entire collection of news reports from the time, both video and print, which lead us to the conclusion that Trump is lying, he simply doubles down on the lie. In other words, Donald Trump will not accept telling the truth as an acceptable standard to strive for. In addition, his motive seems to be pretty nasty: demonizing American Muslims, regardless of the consequences. Here is a link to an article that summarizes statements by NPR, the New York Times and the Associated Press that Trump was lying.

    (2) When Hillary Clinton arrived on the airport tarmac in Bosnia during the Balkan Civil War, she described arriving “under sniper fire.” She made this claim when she was running against Obama in the 2008 primaries as a way of bolstering an impression of having experience in dangerous international situations. The truth, as recounted in a 2008 New York times article, was as follows:

    “…aides to Mrs. Clinton at the time of the trip, as well as an Associated Press photographer who was on the trip, said that she and others were briefed before landing about the possibility of sniper fire around the airport in Tuzla, Bosnia. None of the aides remembered actual sniper fire.

    So Hillary could have truthfully said that she was “briefed on the possibility of sniper fire,” but she wanted to embellish the story to make it look like she had experience in a dangerous international situation with actual sniper fire. The NYT article quotes her admission of lying about her arrival at the airport in Bosnia (link to the 2008 NYT article here):

    Mrs. Clinton said she had been told “that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire,” not that actual shots were being fired. “So I misspoke,” she said.

    It’s worth it to ask how these two lies compare as to whether the person admits that they didn’t tell the truth and that telling the truth is a good standard to strive for. It’s also worth asking whether the person’s motive was trying to make their credentials look good… or something far more unworthy.

  • Russ Bowles

    I am an independent and have been the victim of voter fraud. Where I live now they state I was registered as a Republican for 2 decades. I was a landowner here for 20 yrs Hwvr nvr registered in my life as a Republican nor did I here nor did I vote here as I lived up north in NY. They state how could that be ? Lol
    I do not like either party Hwvr having watched FSTV on directv for yrs now that on the Thom Hartmann show I’ve been privaledged to have watched Bernie every Friday for Lunch with Bernie.
    Which is a live call in and he has answered all pointed questions of viewers and some of mine as well…directly and as far as I can tell honestly.
    I consider him to be one of the most interviewed candidates ever on tv.
    Who else in Washington does this?
    I am going to vote for him Hwvr if I felt another candidate would make a bttr president. ..We’ll I’d vote for them .

  • Russ Bowles

    Part of law enforcement training is reading people’s eyes when they lie… right handers look rleft or up and when they lie and lefties right . In a righties brain the fact side is the right side the other the creative/lie side . Just watch their eyes that is if they’ll look directly into the camera . The eye movements may be ever so slight Hwvr are ever so telling.
    Ever wonder why it is so uncommon or intentional that they are stage turned to one side or the other … to disguise this ?

  • 2karmanot

    GO BERNIE! Boo Hillbots!

  • 2karmanot

    She could have said, I lied about my hair color once.” instead she became borderline hysterical because her basic personality as a politician is a LIE.

  • 2karmanot

    pppppfffffttttt

  • kladinvt

    I’ve always thought of her triangulations on the issues, as a form of lying.

  • Don Chandler

    What bothers me most about Hillary is she can say Bernies numbers don’t add up while forgetting that the 1 % keep adding up to more and more. Hillary is a strict accountant when it comes to progressive issues while she’s a panders to Wall Street.

  • Yes, I read it. I’m responding to what she said and expressing my disappointment at the clintonbot response that it doesn’t matter. I think one of the reasons Bernie is polling so high is this kind of dismissive response to any criticism of Clinton. It certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I’m planning on voting for her!

  • Russ Bowles

    Article by wash post editor on ” whitewater” scandal regarding her legal records at the firm that she said didn’t exist were found in her private living quarters in the white house some two years later and she was NOT charged with lying to the special grand jury
    So she HAS for a FACT lied about that.
    Please look up the ROSE LAW FIRM SCANDAL
    OR WHITEWATER SCANDAL.
    CHECK THE FACTS . SHE KNOWS SHE WAS LYING
    AND HOPES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE MEMORY OF GNATS.

  • timncguy

    Boy, you missed the whole point of the article, didn’t you?
    You say here: “Is she that full of herself, that she can pretend she’s never lied when she’s been caught many times? ” And, of course the main point of the article is exactly the opposite. The point is that she REFUSED to claim she’s never lied. But, you somehow turn that into her making the claim she never lied? Is English a second language for you?

  • Eileen Wright

    I NEVER insult lazy and stupid govt-teat-sucking liberals.

  • Doug105

    There are a few good people on the right(no, not the leaders), but the more they suck on that conservative fascist theocratic tit the less human they will become.

  • You realize none of that actually helps. The rest all lie too is not much of an excuse. Yes, every Republican running has been caught in a flat out easy-to-spot lie multiple times and it’s only February.

    The problem is that Clinton is a terrible politician. She might be a very good president (we’ll see) but she’s horrible at handling things like this and it doesn’t help her that no matter what she does her supporters go on the attack. At this point I’m sick of the crowds following both Bernie and Hillary and if there were anyone else still in I’d vote for them. I’m not kidding. Hillary’s reputation of lying is a problem with Democratic voters (including me) and her tendency to blame others when confronted with her record is also a problem for me. But I guess I’m stuck with her. I don’t like this election at all and we’ve still got 9 months left. Ugh.

  • marknc

    What a bunch of horse shit nit-picking.

    How about:

    There is rampant voter fraud – All Republicans and a massive deliberate lie

    President Obama is a Muslim – Nearly all Republicans and a massive deliberate lie

    President Bush kept us safe – Nearly all Republicans and a massive deliberate lie

    Waterboarding (and other torture) kept us safe – Nearly all Republicans and a massive deliberate lie

    No vote on a SCOTUS pick for the benefit of the candidate – Nearly all Republicans and a massive deliberate lie

    Tax cuts for the rich lead to higher government revenues – Nearly all Republicans and a massive deliberate lie

    I could make a mile long page of these. Republicans lie for sport. Not just little things that a slight misstatements but deliberate lies intended to fool the rubes.

    Let’s see, which lies do you not care about? The massive deliberate ones, of course!

  • marknc

    Soooo, I’m guessing you think Hillary should look into the camera and say “yep, I’ve lied a few times” – right. That’s instant political suicide (as you well know). But, my standard is a bit different from yours. In fact, I’ve lied a few times myself, and so have you. AND, I don’t see anybody asking Trump if he’s a liar – why bother, he’ll just lie.

    But, you are contrasting a few times with the people on the right who essentially lie for sport. They lie deliberately about nearly any topic you can pick.

    So yea, Hillary is human. Good. I’m not sure I consider people on the right to be human.

  • Doug105

    People lie, some to themselves, a few out of mental issues like can be see on this page.

  • Max_1

    Simple lies… They’re common enough, NO?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

  • Demosthenes

    Actually analyses have shown that the biggest liars are Messers Trump & Cruz. I’m not saying the others are models of probity; nor do I claim Sen. Sanders is someone I’d ever support (because I won’t).

  • Bill_Perdue

    Yes, Hillary Clinton has probably lied at some point. That makes her normal like every other Democrat/Republican politician. It’s what they do and for most almost all that they do.

  • *facepalm*

    Of course she’s lied. Should we make a list. I really don’t have time but there have been some doozies. Is she that full of herself, that she can pretend she’s never lied when she’s been caught many times? Or is she such a liar that it doesn’t register. I’d really like to vote for her in a couple of weeks but crap like this makes it hard for me to justify that vote. This is sure to be the centerpiece of an attack ad. What the fuck???

  • itoldyou

    It is funny many women are delusional most of them tell me you are number 4 I could care less but it is strange many say the same thing. Everyone lies but when someone makes up a strory that is a lie like Brian Williams that is when they cross the line between sanity and lunicy

  • Tom Sawyer

    Proven Hillary Lies Part 1: Verified by Politifact

    “We now have more jobs in solar than we do in oil.”
    (False, not even close)

    “I am the only candidate on either side who has laid out a specific plan about what I would do to defeat ISIS.”
    (Longest winded response perhaps, but far from the only one with a “plan”)

    “Every piece of legislation, just about, that I ever introduced (in the U.S. Senate) had a Republican co-sponsor.”
    (Clinton claims she “phrased it wrong”, which still doesn’t explain the lie here)

    “We now have driven (health care) costs down to the lowest they’ve been in 50 years.”
    (not even close to reality)

    ISIS is “going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting
    Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.”
    (no evidence of this as of yet has ever emerged)

    The gun industry is “the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.”
    (untrue, gun manufacturers are in fact sued regularly)

    The Benghazi probe is “the longest-running congressional investigation ever.”
    (not by a long shot)

    Says Scott Walker rejected legislation to make college loan payments
    tax deductible and the result was “to raise taxes on students.”
    (Bill never even , made it to Walkers desk, much less passed)

    “Not one of the 17 GOP candidates has discussed how they’d address the rising cost of college.”
    (actually many Reps have, most notably M. Rubio)

    Hedge fund managers “pay less in taxes than nurses and truck drivers.”
    (both incorrect and misleading)

    Says “all my grandparents” immigrated to America.
    (Only one did, not all)

    The number of jobs created and people lifted out of poverty during
    Bill Clinton’s presidency was “a hundred times” what it was under
    President Ronald Reagan.
    (stats were only marginally better, and literally nowhere near 100x better)

    “I actually started criticizing the war in Iraq before (Obama) did.”
    (she voted FOR the Iraq war not against it, AND Obama was in the Senate first)

    Obama “only wants your children to have health insurance.”
    (Knew full well his plan included adults as well)

    Says the difference between her and Barack Obama is “about 35 years of experience.”
    (her math is laughably off quite a bit off there)

    “So that 2005 energy bill was a big step backwards on the path to clean, renewable energy. That’s why I voted against it.”
    (actually it was a well known and massive boon to the industry)

    “It’s just outrageous that under President Bush, the National Institutes of Health have been basically decreased in funding.”
    (She knew despite her statement that they were actually up under Bush)

    Also keep in mind one of the most incredible lies in recent politics, the “Birther movement” was also started by Hillarys supporters in her 2008 campaign against Obama. ( this fact was verified by The Washington Post)

  • itoldyou

    Do you lie to your diary. H is beyond crazy and Hillary two never tells the truth and that is the one we most often see

  • itoldyou

    Hillary has never lied it depends on which Hillary you are talking to. She is delusional and a true multiple personality. We saw Hillary one and two.

  • Demosthenes

    All politicians lie; some more than others. Compared to the habitual liar The Donald, Secy. Clinton is the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.

  • maquignon

    Of course EVERYBODY lies sometimes; however, MOST of us do not lie CONTINUOUSLY. Hillary DOES!!! She lies about EVERYTHING – about videos, about evidence, about email, about being fired on, about whether women should be believed (when it suits her), about insider trading, about concealing evidence, about destroying evidence. The list is endless. The woman lies lies lies!!! She lies even when there is no reason to! Who was she named after? A man who was completely unknown until four years after she was born? She lies about lying!

  • People lie. The biggest lie is claiming or promising never to lie.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzVxsYzXI_Y

  • timncguy
© 2018 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS