We’re not talking about Obama, but rather Hillary and Trump. You chalk up distrust of Hillary to rubes being taken in by misinformation, but you accept criticism of Trump uncritically. That’s exactly what a liberal ideolog - and, as you said yourself- elitist would do.
There are those who don’t share your perception. These people see Hilliary’s many flaws and they don’t ignore them or explain them away.
They also know the way people like you look down on people like them. And the message a Trump presidency would send to you is a big part of the reason they supported him. You reap what you sow. Keep slinging mud at people who disagree with you and you can expect more reactions.
Libs have discounted Trump from the day of his announcement up to election day and were wrong every step of the way.
They have some superpower that enables them to look at a blatantly crooked, uncharismatic woman who has scrabbled madly for power since she was the first lady of Arkansa and who used the DNC to beat back Sander’s campagin as a great candidate.
Libs honestly think they’re free from bias, that they can slander wide swaths of society with impunity, that they’re the good guys and are willing to use government to impose their view of what’s right on society.
Rember, this board is an echo chamber. Salon, the New York Times, NPR, Jon Oliver, Stephen Colbert, these are all echo chambers. People reiterating the party doctrine to those that already agree and scoffing at or vilifying those that don’t is not rational discourse.
Go to a right or libertarian board and debate them if you want to learn something. Read a magazine with a position you don’t support if you want stop being a know nothing. Or stay here, have undignified hissy fits when your side loses and remain insulated.
If you like, I’d also gladly assert my perception that the available scientific evidence points to a warming earth, caused by human activities, and that the results thereof will be, on a broad scope, negative as though it was fact. Along with my perception that the earth is moving around the sun.
Bullshit. Most liberals accept that Clinton shouldn’t have used her email server. Most liberals think her voting for the Iraq war was a serious black mark on her record. Many liberals were turned off by her speeches to wall street. But what most liberals recognize is that none of that is even in the same ballpark as Trump’s complete lack of qualifications.
Again, bullshit. Was the left-wing media screaming from the sidelines about Trump’s rape case with the 13-year-old girl? No, they weren’t. You could hardly get them to report on Trump’s donations to Pamela Bondi, which may have been a straight-up bribe. Interestingly enough, 17 out of 20 of the most-shared “fake news stories” were pro-Trump. Only 3 were pro-Clinton. That’s a pretty substantial partisan bias when it comes to “fake news”. I’m curious which false claims about Trump the left “accepted as gospel”. Not that many of the people pushing this fake news didn’t try…
Earlier in the year, some in Veles experimented with left-leaning or pro–Bernie Sanders content, but nothing performed as well on Facebook as Trump content.
But clearly, both sides are equally wrong. Clearly, this:
Is a statement born out of a careful consideration of the evidence, and not a knee-jerk partisan response. C’mon then. Which “fake” anti-Trump stories featured heavily in the campaign? What did the deomcrats swallow which proved to be wrong?
Clinton spent her entire life in public service, from the start of her career as a lawyer to the end of her run for president. Her family runs a charitable foundation that has saved countless lives the world over and has legitimately made the world a better place. The idea that she only cares about herself… I don’t know on what basis you make that claim. Just like I don’t know what you base any of your other claims on. This is just rank projection.
She claimed the emails deleted were personal emails. There’s good reason to believe her, because if she had deleted government emails while under subpoena, it would have been easy to find copies of those government emails on other people’s servers. Servers run by the government. There’s no good reason to believe she deleted tens of thousands of government emails - if she had, we’d probably know about it by now.
Her excuse was that carrying multiple cell phones around was a hassle. As someone who has to do that for work, I can concur - it’s a pain in the ass, and if I could get the company’s outlook stuff on my phone, I would do it. Why do you think that Colin Powell did it? Did he do it because he thought it was more secure? Did he do it because he wanted to hide stuff? Or do you think he did it for convenience?
…Are you claiming that there was some foul play involved? Or that she was carpetbagging? Wow, what a damning accusation for a senator who ended up with in-state approval ratings of close to 2/3rds.
Did you ever read Clinton’s speech on why she gave that vote, given at the time of that vote?
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
Bit of a different story, that.
…Are you for real? You haven’t heard any of the countless people pointing to the numerous utter falsehoods he’s uttered? By all means, educate yourself. I find The Toronto Star’s database on it quite useful:
Sure, all politicians lie. But Donald Trump is in a class by himself.
He lies strategically. He lies pointlessly. He lies about important things and meaningless things. Above all, he lies frequently. Since he began his campaign last June, the Republican presidential candidate has subjected America to a daily barrage of inaccuracy and mendacity.
His rival, Hillary Clinton, has her own reputation for dishonesty. Some of it is no doubt earned: she has made false claims this campaign about her email scandal, about her flip-flop on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and about assorted other things. But our scrutiny shows there is just no comparison in their level of accuracy on the campaign trail. At the three presidential debates, for example, we counted 104 false claims for Trump to 13 for Clinton.
The extreme, unprecedented quantity of Trump falsehoods is why we started fact-checking everything he said. From mid-September through Sunday, we did 28 “#TrumpCheck” analyses of every word he uttered or tweeted in a given day.
**The total: 560 false claims, or a neat 20 per day.
**
Emphasis mine.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that you have heard the bashing, but not the basis for the bashing. Trump has lied more than any politician in recent memory. Virtually every major policy proposal either is a lie, is propped up by a lie, or has a lie in its workings.
No. No, I’m sorry, but this is like comparing a man who has a few drinks every other friday to a guy who gets blackout drunk 7 days a week, and saying, “So, the choice is between two alcoholics. Not a good choice.” Sure, if you want to define “liar” the way Ray Comfort does and offer no room for relativity or nuance, then sure, they’re both liars, and so is everyone else, because there is not a single person alive today who wasn’t literally born yesterday who hasn’t lied about something.
But if you actually care about who is going to lie to you… Well, as the Toronto Star put it:
At the three presidential debates, for example, we counted 104 false claims for Trump to 13 for Clinton.
That’s sort of a running theme. Clinton lies a little, mostly on certain topics to cover her own ass. Trump lies all the time. About everything.
And yet he still lies at every step of the way. It would be one thing if he was just saying, “This is my position” and exaggerating it. But he’s not. He’s also saying, “this is why I take that position” and lying there too. He’s also saying, “I never said that was my position” - also a lie. He constantly goes back and forth, to the point where your claim to “understand the way in which he lies” is straight-up ludicrous.
Politicians lie the way people lie. Occasionally, when they think they can get away with it. It’s normal human behavior. Not the greatest thing in the world, and we should damn well hold them to a high standard when it comes to it, but again, if I have a few beers on the weekend, this does not mean I am as likely to need a liver transplant as a guy who labels his bottles of Vodka from Monday to Sunday!
What you’re doing is acting like since both fail the impossibly high standard of “Never ever lies ever”, they’re somehow equivalent. They’re not. Most politicians try to hold most of their promises. It averages out to about 67%. There’s no reason to believe Clinton isn’t pretty much normal in that band. There’s very good reason to believe that Trump is not.
And then you claim to believe to understand how Trump works. Which is cute.
Go ahead. Start a thread. Make predictions. After the fact is considerably less impressive than before the fact, and if you can figure out the policy plans of someone who has lied about virtually everything on the campaign trail, well, be my guest.