Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The question though is why Clinton has such a high unfavourable rating. Is it because of actual things she has done or the 20+ years witch hunt against the Clintons?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 22:37:17
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
d-usa wrote: So the right has never made the argument against firings such as from ESPN recently?
Who is "the right"? ESPN can fire people for cause if the employee violates a clause in the contract they willing chose to sign. What inconsistency are you referring to? Freedom of speech doesn't convey freedom of consequences or make conduct clauses in labor contracts unconstitutional.
feeder wrote: Politics is, and always has been, a dirty, stinking, vicious mess. The more power up for grabs, the truer this is. As one half of Washington's elite power couples, HRC must be dirty, because the whole system is covered in gak.
This is an inescapable fact of politics.
The reality is, you need to have someone in the White House in November, be it HRC, Trump, or Stein/Johnson.
Of your available candidates, HRC is the only one remotely qualified for the job.
Yeah, yeah, lied, politics for sale, take our guns, Bengazhi!!, etc.
Still the only person available remotely qualified.
That is a demonstrably false statement. All the candidates on the ballot Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein meet the constitutional qualifications to be President of the USA. What you are claiming is that Clinton is the only candidate worthy of being PotUS which is a matter of subjective opinion. Hillary has the second highest unfavorable rating in the decades spanning history of PotUS candidate unfavorable ratings, only Trump ranks higher. If the "best" candidate running is the second most disliked candidate ever then it's no wonder that so many people are apathetic and disappointed in this election.
That's because any idiot with an opinion can say if they like or dislike someone. The PotUS should not be whomever can win the "Who Would You Rather Have a Beer With" contest.
HRC is objectively the most qualified to lead your country based on skill, experience and connections.
One can disagree with her policy, but one who thinks she doesn't have the best resume out of the bunch is either misinformed or lying.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Case and point. You can't even read the title Whem.
Hillary Clinton's wrong claim that FBI director Comey called her comments about email 'truthful'
You can't even read the article!
Comey said, "We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI."
Comey never said she lied. He never backed her up as she claimed.
Clinton said regarding the presence of classified information in her email, FBI director James "Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people."
A reasonable person would interpret Clinton’s statement to mean that Comey has endorsed her public remarks about her email. This is not the case.
Basic reading has been sacrificed on the pedestal of this inane prattle.
I've read the article... I posted it!
If you can't recognize that Dir Comey is covering Clinton... then... I can't help you there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: The question though is why Clinton has such a high unfavourable rating. Is it because of actual things she has done or the 20+ years witch hunt against the Clintons?
Both.
She was never a "likable" person to begin with...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 22:41:29
d-usa wrote: So the right has never made the argument against firings such as from ESPN recently?
Who is "the right"? ESPN can fire people for cause if the employee violates a clause in the contract they willing chose to sign. What inconsistency are you referring to? Freedom of speech doesn't convey freedom of consequences or make conduct clauses in labor contracts unconstitutional.
Conservative talk radio complaining about restrictions on freedom of speech when someone is fired.
Politicians doing the same.
Posters here doing the same.
feeder wrote: Politics is, and always has been, a dirty, stinking, vicious mess. The more power up for grabs, the truer this is. As one half of Washington's elite power couples, HRC must be dirty, because the whole system is covered in gak.
This is an inescapable fact of politics.
The reality is, you need to have someone in the White House in November, be it HRC, Trump, or Stein/Johnson.
Of your available candidates, HRC is the only one remotely qualified for the job.
Yeah, yeah, lied, politics for sale, take our guns, Bengazhi!!, etc.
Still the only person available remotely qualified.
That is a demonstrably false statement. All the candidates on the ballot Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein meet the constitutional qualifications to be President of the USA. What you are claiming is that Clinton is the only candidate worthy of being PotUS which is a matter of subjective opinion. Hillary has the second highest unfavorable rating in the decades spanning history of PotUS candidate unfavorable ratings, only Trump ranks higher. If the "best" candidate running is the second most disliked candidate ever then it's no wonder that so many people are apathetic and disappointed in this election.
That is what we call a straw man argument. Qualified as per the Constitution and qualified as per skills are two different things. Not to mention, being popular has no bearing on whether you are, in fact, qualified.
d-usa wrote: So the right has never made the argument against firings such as from ESPN recently?
Who is "the right"? ESPN can fire people for cause if the employee violates a clause in the contract they willing chose to sign. What inconsistency are you referring to? Freedom of speech doesn't convey freedom of consequences or make conduct clauses in labor contracts unconstitutional.
Conservative talk radio complaining about restrictions on freedom of speech when someone is fired.
Politicians doing the same.
Posters here doing the same.
Then I would say those people are making faulty arguments/have an improper understanding of 1st amendment protections.
d-usa wrote: So the right has never made the argument against firings such as from ESPN recently?
Who is "the right"? ESPN can fire people for cause if the employee violates a clause in the contract they willing chose to sign. What inconsistency are you referring to? Freedom of speech doesn't convey freedom of consequences or make conduct clauses in labor contracts unconstitutional.
Conservative talk radio complaining about restrictions on freedom of speech when someone is fired.
Politicians doing the same.
Posters here doing the same.
feeder wrote: Politics is, and always has been, a dirty, stinking, vicious mess. The more power up for grabs, the truer this is. As one half of Washington's elite power couples, HRC must be dirty, because the whole system is covered in gak.
This is an inescapable fact of politics.
The reality is, you need to have someone in the White House in November, be it HRC, Trump, or Stein/Johnson.
Of your available candidates, HRC is the only one remotely qualified for the job.
Yeah, yeah, lied, politics for sale, take our guns, Bengazhi!!, etc.
Still the only person available remotely qualified.
That is a demonstrably false statement. All the candidates on the ballot Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein meet the constitutional qualifications to be President of the USA. What you are claiming is that Clinton is the only candidate worthy of being PotUS which is a matter of subjective opinion. Hillary has the second highest unfavorable rating in the decades spanning history of PotUS candidate unfavorable ratings, only Trump ranks higher. If the "best" candidate running is the second most disliked candidate ever then it's no wonder that so many people are apathetic and disappointed in this election.
That is what we call a straw man argument. Qualified as per the Constitution and qualified as per skills are two different things. Not to mention, being popular has no bearing on whether you are, in fact, qualified.
The constitutional qualifications are the only qualifications one has to meet to be president. Any other sense of "qualified" is purely a matter of opinion.
d-usa wrote: So the right has never made the argument against firings such as from ESPN recently?
Who is "the right"? ESPN can fire people for cause if the employee violates a clause in the contract they willing chose to sign. What inconsistency are you referring to? Freedom of speech doesn't convey freedom of consequences or make conduct clauses in labor contracts unconstitutional.
Conservative talk radio complaining about restrictions on freedom of speech when someone is fired.
Politicians doing the same.
Posters here doing the same.
feeder wrote: Politics is, and always has been, a dirty, stinking, vicious mess. The more power up for grabs, the truer this is. As one half of Washington's elite power couples, HRC must be dirty, because the whole system is covered in gak.
This is an inescapable fact of politics.
The reality is, you need to have someone in the White House in November, be it HRC, Trump, or Stein/Johnson.
Of your available candidates, HRC is the only one remotely qualified for the job.
Yeah, yeah, lied, politics for sale, take our guns, Bengazhi!!, etc.
Still the only person available remotely qualified.
That is a demonstrably false statement. All the candidates on the ballot Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein meet the constitutional qualifications to be President of the USA. What you are claiming is that Clinton is the only candidate worthy of being PotUS which is a matter of subjective opinion. Hillary has the second highest unfavorable rating in the decades spanning history of PotUS candidate unfavorable ratings, only Trump ranks higher. If the "best" candidate running is the second most disliked candidate ever then it's no wonder that so many people are apathetic and disappointed in this election.
That is what we call a straw man argument. Qualified as per the Constitution and qualified as per skills are two different things. Not to mention, being popular has no bearing on whether you are, in fact, qualified.
The constitutional qualifications are the only qualifications one has to meet to be president. Any other sense of "qualified" is purely a matter of opinion.
Constitutional 'qualification' and actual qualifications are completely different animals. And the amount of subjectivity is minimal unless you are being extremely partisan.
d-usa wrote: So the right has never made the argument against firings such as from ESPN recently?
Who is "the right"? ESPN can fire people for cause if the employee violates a clause in the contract they willing chose to sign. What inconsistency are you referring to? Freedom of speech doesn't convey freedom of consequences or make conduct clauses in labor contracts unconstitutional.
Conservative talk radio complaining about restrictions on freedom of speech when someone is fired.
Politicians doing the same.
Posters here doing the same.
Then I would say those people are making faulty arguments/have an improper understanding of 1st amendment protections.
Was posting from my phone, so I was wanting to clarify that I didn't mean to pain the entire conservative spectrum with the same brush.
It was mainly the fact that Sean Freaking Hannity was talking about punishing people for their speech because they signed a contract. I'm pretty sure he was on the opposite side of that argument with many public firings of people who said stupid gak in violation of their contracts.
d-usa wrote: So the right has never made the argument against firings such as from ESPN recently?
Who is "the right"? ESPN can fire people for cause if the employee violates a clause in the contract they willing chose to sign. What inconsistency are you referring to? Freedom of speech doesn't convey freedom of consequences or make conduct clauses in labor contracts unconstitutional.
Conservative talk radio complaining about restrictions on freedom of speech when someone is fired.
Politicians doing the same.
Posters here doing the same.
Then I would say those people are making faulty arguments/have an improper understanding of 1st amendment protections.
Was posting from my phone, so I was wanting to clarify that I didn't mean to pain the entire conservative spectrum with the same brush.
It was mainly the fact that Sean Freaking Hannity was talking about punishing people for their speech because they signed a contract. I'm pretty sure he was on the opposite side of that argument with many public firings of people who said stupid gak in violation of their contracts.
AH... I see where you're coming from.
Hannity is a joke.
If Trump has a colonoscopy, they'll likely find Hannity there.
Then you evidently failed to understand it. Comey never said she lied. He in fact said he couldn't make a determination, because he's an investigator and investigators don't make (or at least shouldn't) official determinations absent evidence. Hence you're post doesn't even respond to my comment that there is no evidence she lied in regards to a conversation about the FBI's investigation about her emails. At best you can say she lied when commenting about the FBI's investigation of her emails, which is a completely different lie from the one you and other insist she has made.
I posted it!
Posting is so simple a cat can figure it out. Understanding is a tad bit harder. But of course, if you choose to ignore everything that doesn't mesh with what you want it to be, understanding becomes a tad bit overrated, and that's why no one can help you and (to answer Shadow Captain's original question pages ago directly), why no one engages in serious discussions about this anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 23:46:58
Then you evidently failed to understand it. Comey never said she lied. He in fact said he couldn't make a determination, because he's an investigator and investigators don't make (or at least shouldn't) official determinations absent evidence. Hence you're post doesn't even respond to my comment that there is no evidence she lied in regards to a conversation about the FBI's investigation about her emails.
I posted it!
Posting is so simple a cat can figure it out. Understanding is a tad bit harder. But of course, if you choose to ignore everything that doesn't mesh with what you want it to be, understanding becomes a tad bit overrated, and that's why no one can help you and (to answer Shadow Captain's original question pages ago directly), why no one engages in serious discussions about this anymore.
You're hanging your hat on the fact that based on the FBI's investigation, Comey said she didn't lie to the FBI.
whembly wrote: However, you stated that there were NO evidence that she lied.
Clinton's comments to the public are not what we were talking about. I think you know that, and you'd realize how absurd it is in a conversation about whether or not Clinton lied to the FBI about her server to say "but she did lie, she told the public that Cromy said she didn't lie therefore she is a liar" if you hadn't so thoroughly trained yourself in deploying red herrings, strawmen, and goal post moving.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 00:03:38
There's also a difference between 'lying' defensively ( I didn't have sexual relations with that woman'), especiallyin the middle of a witch hunt, and lying offensive('I saw thousands of Muslims in Jersey celebrating the 9-11 attacks', 'Obama is a foreign-born Muslim')
skyth wrote: There's also a difference between 'lying' defensively ( I didn't have sexual relations with that woman'), especiallyin the middle of a witch hunt, and lying offensive('I saw thousands of Muslims in Jersey celebrating the 9-11 attacks', 'Obama is a foreign-born Muslim')
However you gotta justify it.
Blaming a man for inciting a protest that got people killed, when you know he had nothing to do with it, isn't exactly "defensive lying" whatever the hell that is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 00:19:29
d-usa wrote: So the right has never made the argument against firings such as from ESPN recently?
Who is "the right"? ESPN can fire people for cause if the employee violates a clause in the contract they willing chose to sign. What inconsistency are you referring to? Freedom of speech doesn't convey freedom of consequences or make conduct clauses in labor contracts unconstitutional.
Conservative talk radio complaining about restrictions on freedom of speech when someone is fired.
Politicians doing the same.
Posters here doing the same.
Then I would say those people are making faulty arguments/have an improper understanding of 1st amendment protections.
Was posting from my phone, so I was wanting to clarify that I didn't mean to pain the entire conservative spectrum with the same brush.
It was mainly the fact that Sean Freaking Hannity was talking about punishing people for their speech because they signed a contract. I'm pretty sure he was on the opposite side of that argument with many public firings of people who said stupid gak in violation of their contracts.
AH... I see where you're coming from.
Hannity is a joke.
If Trump has a colonoscopy, they'll likely find Hannity there.
Agreed. I can usually tolerate Limbaugh in small doses but Hannity can really irritate me in less than a minute it's uncanny.
feeder wrote: Politics is, and always has been, a dirty, stinking, vicious mess. The more power up for grabs, the truer this is. As one half of Washington's elite power couples, HRC must be dirty, because the whole system is covered in gak.
This is an inescapable fact of politics.
The reality is, you need to have someone in the White House in November, be it HRC, Trump, or Stein/Johnson.
Of your available candidates, HRC is the only one remotely qualified for the job.
Yeah, yeah, lied, politics for sale, take our guns, Bengazhi!!, etc.
Still the only person available remotely qualified.
That is a demonstrably false statement. All the candidates on the ballot Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein meet the constitutional qualifications to be President of the USA. What you are claiming is that Clinton is the only candidate worthy of being PotUS which is a matter of subjective opinion. Hillary has the second highest unfavorable rating in the decades spanning history of PotUS candidate unfavorable ratings, only Trump ranks higher. If the "best" candidate running is the second most disliked candidate ever then it's no wonder that so many people are apathetic and disappointed in this election.
That is what we call a straw man argument. Qualified as per the Constitution and qualified as per skills are two different things. Not to mention, being popular has no bearing on whether you are, in fact, qualified.
The constitutional qualifications are the only qualifications one has to meet to be president. Any other sense of "qualified" is purely a matter of opinion.
Constitutional 'qualification' and actual qualifications are completely different animals. And the amount of subjectivity is minimal unless you are being extremely partisan.
What are the "actual qualifications" that a candidate must have to be "qualified" to be PotUS? Who's deciding this? We've had a bunch of "great" presidents that have had very different backgrounds and "qualifications."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 01:30:49
skyth wrote: There's also a difference between 'lying' defensively ( I didn't have sexual relations with that woman'), especiallyin the middle of a witch hunt, and lying offensive('I saw thousands of Muslims in Jersey celebrating the 9-11 attacks', 'Obama is a foreign-born Muslim')
However you gotta justify it.
Blaming a man for inciting a protest that got people killed, when you know he had nothing to do with it, isn't exactly "defensive lying" whatever the hell that is.
I really don't understand what you're talking about.
d-usa wrote: So the right has never made the argument against firings such as from ESPN recently?
Who is "the right"? ESPN can fire people for cause if the employee violates a clause in the contract they willing chose to sign. What inconsistency are you referring to? Freedom of speech doesn't convey freedom of consequences or make conduct clauses in labor contracts unconstitutional.
Conservative talk radio complaining about restrictions on freedom of speech when someone is fired.
Politicians doing the same.
Posters here doing the same.
Then I would say those people are making faulty arguments/have an improper understanding of 1st amendment protections.
Was posting from my phone, so I was wanting to clarify that I didn't mean to pain the entire conservative spectrum with the same brush.
It was mainly the fact that Sean Freaking Hannity was talking about punishing people for their speech because they signed a contract. I'm pretty sure he was on the opposite side of that argument with many public firings of people who said stupid gak in violation of their contracts.
AH... I see where you're coming from.
Hannity is a joke.
If Trump has a colonoscopy, they'll likely find Hannity there.
Agreed. I can usually tolerate Limbaugh in small doses but Hannity can really irritate me in less than a minute it's uncanny.
feeder wrote: Politics is, and always has been, a dirty, stinking, vicious mess. The more power up for grabs, the truer this is. As one half of Washington's elite power couples, HRC must be dirty, because the whole system is covered in gak.
This is an inescapable fact of politics.
The reality is, you need to have someone in the White House in November, be it HRC, Trump, or Stein/Johnson.
Of your available candidates, HRC is the only one remotely qualified for the job.
Yeah, yeah, lied, politics for sale, take our guns, Bengazhi!!, etc.
Still the only person available remotely qualified.
That is a demonstrably false statement. All the candidates on the ballot Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein meet the constitutional qualifications to be President of the USA. What you are claiming is that Clinton is the only candidate worthy of being PotUS which is a matter of subjective opinion. Hillary has the second highest unfavorable rating in the decades spanning history of PotUS candidate unfavorable ratings, only Trump ranks higher. If the "best" candidate running is the second most disliked candidate ever then it's no wonder that so many people are apathetic and disappointed in this election.
That is what we call a straw man argument. Qualified as per the Constitution and qualified as per skills are two different things. Not to mention, being popular has no bearing on whether you are, in fact, qualified.
The constitutional qualifications are the only qualifications one has to meet to be president. Any other sense of "qualified" is purely a matter of opinion.
Constitutional 'qualification' and actual qualifications are completely different animals. And the amount of subjectivity is minimal unless you are being extremely partisan.
What are the "actual qualifications" that a candidate must have to be "qualified" to be PotUS? Who's deciding this? We've had a bunch of "great" presidents that have had very different backgrounds and "qualifications."
Real governing experience. Knowledgable in world affairs. Level headed. Reasonable policies. Plus not inciting racial/religious discrination. Doesn't suggest that they would order the military to commit war crimes.
There's a difference between not wanting someone elected and thinking that the person isn't remotely qualified.
I thought Romney was qualified. I didn't want him anywhere near the White House. Same with Cheney.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The question though is why Clinton has such a high unfavourable rating. Is it because of actual things she has done or the 20+ years witch hunt against the Clintons?
I think it's the stuff she's done, because there's a lot of it.
To me, she is just the worst.
Wish I had some of Obama's '08 quotes about her.
Make Dolls Great Again
Clover/Trump 2016
For the United Shelves of America!
skyth wrote: There's also a difference between 'lying' defensively ( I didn't have sexual relations with that woman'), especiallyin the middle of a witch hunt, and lying offensive('I saw thousands of Muslims in Jersey celebrating the 9-11 attacks', 'Obama is a foreign-born Muslim')
I'm not about the defensive/offensive distinction, but there is certainly a big difference between lying over a personal scandal, and lying over your policy platforms.
Clinton has certainly lied when caught up in scandals. Whether those scandals are overblown nonsense or very important national matters is up for debate, but there's no doubt she lied to minimise damage to herself.
Trump has lied to deflect his personal scandals as well, but he also lies as a matter of course about policy issues. As well swapping policies in and out to suit the mood of the day and keeping his policies hopelessly vague so that no-one can know exactly what he will actually do, he also tells a constant stream of lies to justify his policies and hide any weaknesses they might have.
As such, I think it is pretty safe to say that if Clinton wins the Whitehouse she will lie as best she is able if she is caught in another scandal. If Trump wins he will also lie about any possible scandal, and on top of that he will attempt to deliver political reforms based in, and sold entirely through lies.
It shouldn't be necessary to point out one of these things is much, much worse than the other.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The question though is why Clinton has such a high unfavourable rating. Is it because of actual things she has done or the 20+ years witch hunt against the Clintons?
I think it's the stuff she's done, because there's a lot of it.
