Donald Trump's 2016 General Election Campaign

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

It’s entirely reasonable to draw at least some broad conclusions about honesty and accuracy of a candidate when most of what they say is bullshit.

That would be all of them. Some more than others of course. The conclusion you can draw is that Republicans have less concern for fact checking. To compare integrity and honesty though, you need to look at how Republicans handle scandal. Are they more likely to come clean or resign? Or more likely to lie to cover up their misdeeds and try to stick it out? Can such a thing be measured? IMO, Republicans are a hell of a lot more honest by that standard. But there’s no study you can do to prove it.

What we can do is compare Clinton to some of the people on that Mann chart though, and it’s frankly laughable to conclude that she’s a more honest and trustworthy person than Sanders, Biden, McCain, Kasich, or comparable to her running mate, Tim Kaine, who has a similar aggregate to hers, which makes sense he probably gets fed his facts from the same sources she does since he was named he running mate.

Pure opinion. My opinion is quite different – I’d say she’s as honest as Bernie and Joe, and more honest than Kasich and Cruz. Unlike your opinion, my opinion actually is based on some facts, including the measurements of sites like Politifact.

As honest as Bernie? First, ha ha ha. Second, if you believe than then Politifact is not a valid source to use that way, because the data shows Bernie lies a lot more than Clinton.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

That would be all of them. Some more than others of course. The conclusion you can draw is that Republicans have less concern for fact checking. To compare integrity and honesty though, you need to look at how Republicans handle scandal.

Concern for fact-checking is part of integrity and honesty.

Are they more likely to come clean or resign? Or more likely to lie to cover up their misdeeds and try to stick it out? Can such a thing be measured? IMO, Republicans are a hell of a lot more honest by that standard. But there’s no study you can do to prove it.

I’m sure something could be done, but I can’t imagine that your opinion is based on anything but wishful thinking. I can’t think of any real scandal in which the politician, of whatever party, didn’t at least start with some sort of dishonest response.

What we can do is compare Clinton to some of the people on that Mann chart though, and it’s frankly laughable to conclude that she’s a more honest and trustworthy person than Sanders, Biden, McCain, Kasich, or comparable to her running mate, Tim Kaine, who has a similar aggregate to hers, which makes sense he probably gets fed his facts from the same sources she does since he was named he running mate.

I’m sure it’s laughable to Mark Halperin and Hannity, but they are hacks or partisan yo-yos. Though I haven’t claimed that she’s more honest and trustworthy than Sanders and Biden and Kaine, but I definitely think she’s more so than McCain and Kasich – honesty and trustworthiness include honesty with one’s self, and McCain’s position on the Iraq war and the aftermath have mostly destroyed what respect I had left for his honesty and decency.

When one actually looks at the facts, Clinton isn’t especially dishonest.

As honest as Bernie? First, ha ha ha. Second, if you believe than then Politifact is not a valid source to use that way, because the data shows Bernie lies a lot more than Clinton.

Politifact is part of my analysis, but not the entirety of it. I think Bernie is guilty of self-delusion quite frequently – if he wasn’t, then both his Politifact score and my opinion of his honesty would be higher.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

Concern for fact-checking is part of integrity and honesty.

The word you’re looking for is “credibility”. There are many people you’d trust with your life but not to give you directions to the nearest Starbucks, and I’m sure you don’t consider your friends who spout uninformed political opinions to be dishonest folk who can’t be trusted.

I’m sure something could be done, but I can’t imagine that your opinion is based on anything but wishful thinking. I can’t think of any real scandal in which the politician, of whatever party, didn’t at least start with some sort of dishonest response.

John McCain, for starters, came completely clean on Keating. Elliott Spitzer resigned pretty much right away when he was caught(that’s a Democrat, good on him for not being a Weiner about it). Bob Livingston admitted his affair when it was first made public and resigned, effective six months later. Chris Lee resigned immediately after stories came out about him sending shirtless pictures of himself to a woman not his wife.

Here’s a list of sex scandals I found, although that’s not the only type of scandal and the stories don’t always make clear whether the guilty politicians admitted they were guilty or tried to lie their way out of it as John Edwards or Anthony Weiner did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States#2000.E2.80.932009

I’m sure it’s laughable to Mark Halperin and Hannity, but they are hacks or partisan yo-yos. Though I haven’t claimed that she’s more honest and trustworthy than Sanders and Biden and Kaine, but I definitely think she’s more so than McCain and Kasich – honesty and trustworthiness include honesty with one’s self, and McCain’s position on the Iraq war and the aftermath have mostly destroyed what respect I had left for his honesty and decency.

Okay, so you acknowledge that using Politifact the way Mann did(and he’s not the only one) is not a valid method to measure honesty. If it was, Clinton is a saint by politician standards and many politicians with honest reputations are worse liars than she is. That just doesn’t pass the laugh test.

When one actually looks at the facts, Clinton isn’t especially dishonest.

Even in cases where scandals were nothing, she used lying as a tactic to combat them. She lied about Benghazi, she lied about Whitewater, she lied about Travelgate.

Politifact is part of my analysis, but not the entirety of it. I think Bernie is guilty of self-delusion quite frequently – if he wasn’t, then both his Politifact score and my opinion of his honesty would be higher.

Self-delusion is again, a credibility issue, not an honesty issue. I have never heard of Sanders being accused of knowingly telling a falsehood. For Clinton, that’s just a typical Wednesday headline.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

The word you’re looking for is “credibility”. There are many people you’d trust with your life but not to give you directions to the nearest Starbucks, and I’m sure you don’t consider your friends who spout uninformed political opinions to be dishonest folk who can’t be trusted.

Credibility is part of honesty and integrity. It’s fundamentally dishonest to say things as if they are factual if one hasn’t verified that they are true.

John McCain, for starters, came completely clean on Keating. Elliott Spitzer resigned pretty much right away when he was caught(that’s a Democrat, good on him for not being a Weiner about it). Bob Livingston admitted his affair when it was first made public and resigned, effective six months later. Chris Lee resigned immediately after stories came out about him sending shirtless pictures of himself to a woman not his wife.

Here’s a list of sex scandals I found, although that’s not the only type of scandal and the stories don’t always make clear whether the guilty politicians admitted they were guilty or tried to lie their way out of it as John Edwards or Anthony Weiner did.

List of federal political sex scandals in the United States - Wikipedia

This doesn’t support your position. Larry Craig lied. Mark Foley lied. Gingrich blamed his love of America for his affairs. There are many others.

Okay, so you acknowledge that using Politifact the way Mann did(and he’s not the only one) is not a valid method to measure honesty. If it was, Clinton is a saint by politician standards and many politicians with honest reputations are worse liars than she is. That just doesn’t pass the laugh test.

It’s not the only input, but it’s at least part of a valid method. If someone doesn’t include accuracy and credibility in their assessment of honesty and trustworthiness, then that’s ridiculous and “doesn’t pass the laugh test”.

Even in cases where scandals were nothing, she used lying as a tactic to combat them. She lied about Benghazi, she lied about Whitewater, she lied about Travelgate.

Cite the lies about Benghazi, please. The others are so old I don’t care, but I certainly don’t believe your assertions without a cite.

Self-delusion is again, a credibility issue, not an honesty issue. I have never heard of Sanders being accused of knowingly telling a falsehood. For Clinton, that’s just a typical Wednesday headline.

Credibility is part of honesty and integrity. Not taking the time and effort to evaluate one’s own beliefs is part of honesty and integrity.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

Credibility is part of honesty and integrity. It’s fundamentally dishonest to say things as if they are factual if one hasn’t verified that they are true.

Depends on the context. Sometimes you have to go with the data you have in your head. The debate will likely feature several false statements from both candidates, most of which will simply be failure to perfectly organize all the facts and figures that have been placed into their head during debate prep. Clinton will almost certainly do better than Trump, but that’s because she’s got a better team and better memory.

This doesn’t support your position. Larry Craig lied. Mark Foley lied. Gingrich blamed his love of America for his affairs. There are many others.

I didn’t say Republicans never do it, I just said I believe Republicans are more likely to do the right thing when busted than Democrats, while also stressing that I had no way of measuring it. The sex scandals I could compile and give you numbers, but that wouldn’t be all that helpful since sex scandals aren’t the only wrongdoing politicians engage in.

Cite the lies about Benghazi, please. The others are so old I don’t care, but I certainly don’t believe your assertions without a cite.

It was a video? Now she insists she never said that, that the family’s relatives are the liars. Okay, Hillary.

Travelgate:

Hillary Clinton gradually came under scrutiny for allegedly having played a central role in the firings and making false statements about her role in it. In 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray issued his final report on Travelgate. He sought no charges against her, saying that while some of Clinton’s statements were factually false, there was insufficient evidence that these statements were either knowingly false or that she understood that her statements led to the firings.

That’s a generous reading too. In fact, she was the primary mover behind the Travel Office firings and denied that she had anything to do with it. It was a lie she simply never had to tell.

White House travel office controversy

Credibility is part of honesty and integrity. Not taking the time and effort to evaluate one’s own beliefs is part of honesty and integrity.

So by that definition the most untrustworthy people in the country are the more religious.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Depends on the context. Sometimes you have to go with the data you have in your head. The debate will likely feature several false statements from both candidates, most of which will simply be failure to perfectly organize all the facts and figures that have been placed into their head during debate prep. Clinton will almost certainly do better than Trump, but that’s because she’s got a better team and better memory.

Most of the assertions we’re talking about weren’t during a debate.

I didn’t say Republicans never do it, I just said I believe Republicans are more likely to do the right thing when busted than Democrats, while also stressing that I had no way of measuring it. The sex scandals I could compile and give you numbers, but that wouldn’t be all that helpful since sex scandals aren’t the only wrongdoing politicians engage in.

So it’s a wild guess, then. That has no value to me, and that you started a thread based on a wild guess and wishful thinking should trouble you.

It was a video? Now she insists she never said that, that the family’s relatives are the liars. Okay, Hillary.

“It was a video” doesn’t conflict with “it was terrorism”. It could have been both, and they might have thought so at the time (from the records, the CIA actually did believe this in the aftermath). And bullshit that “she insists she never said that” and that she called the relatives “liars”, unless you have a cite. And if you have a cite, understand that I will read your cite and compare it to your assertions. You might want to actually put some effort into it.

Travelgate:

That’s a generous reading too. In fact, she was the primary mover behind the Travel Office firings and denied that she had anything to do with it. It was a lie she simply never had to tell.

White House travel office controversy - Wikipedia

You still didn’t cite any lies.

So by that definition the most untrustworthy people in the country are the more religious.

That can have something to do with it, but it also depends on the nature of the belief, and how they behave about it. Trustworthiness is about words and actions, not beliefs one keeps silent. I find proselytizing fundamentally dishonest, for example. It doesn’t mean that every missionary is a terrible liar, but in my view that’s a mark against their honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

Most of the assertions we’re talking about weren’t during a debate.

They were often off script statements, much like a debate.

So it’s a wild guess, then. That has no value to me, and that you started a thread based on a wild guess and wishful thinking should trouble you.

??? I haven’t started a thread based on how Republicans or Democrats react to scandal. That’s just a side bar to this Donald Trump thread, where we’ve gotten into a discussion of relative honesty. My argument was that how a politician reacts when they get into trouble says a lot more about their character than whether their grasp of the facts is solid. I also stated that yes, it’s my opinion that Republicans are better on this count but that it would be hard to measure it. Believe it or not, not all arguments can be settled with data. Honesty can be a hard thing to measure. A lot depends on what you consider important, since everyone lies at times. Quantity is irrelevant for the most part. A guy at work who constantly tells whoppers about his golf score or the size of the fish he caught but always conducts himself honesty and ethically at his job is more worthy or your trust than a guy who can cite facts and figures like a pro but is stealing money.

“It was a video” doesn’t conflict with “it was terrorism”. It could have been both, and they might have thought so at the time (from the records, the CIA actually did believe this in the aftermath). And bullshit that “she insists she never said that” and that she called the relatives “liars”, unless you have a cite. And if you have a cite, understand that I will read your cite and compare it to your assertions. You might want to actually put some effort into it.

The allegation that Clinton lied to victims’ families refers to events right after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Three days after the attacks, President Barack Obama, Clinton and others met with the families of the four victims, gathering at Joint Base Andrews to receive the victims’ remains.

No one recorded these brief meetings behind closed doors. Family members and Clinton disagree on what was said. Especially given the emotional setting, memories — both Clinton’s and the families’ — might be fuzzy.

When we fact-checked this claim in January, we tried to reach as many family members as we could and reviewed their past statements.

Checking Patricia Smith's claims about Clinton and Benghazi

It’s her word against theirs. She’s outnumbered and they have no reason to lie. She does. By saying they aren’t telling the truth, she’s calling them liars.

You still didn’t cite any lies.

Only if we assume she’s an idiot who had no idea she was requesting firings.

That can have something to do with it, but it also depends on the nature of the belief, and how they behave about it. Trustworthiness is about words and actions, not beliefs one keeps silent. I find proselytizing fundamentally dishonest, for example. It doesn’t mean that every missionary is a terrible liar, but in my view that’s a mark against their honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.

They believe in things that are unprovable or in some cases provably wrong. Yet I’d trust any one of them to be honest where it counts: will they do what they say they will do? When they state what they believe, are they being honest?

How does your approval of politicians lying about their faith square with your views of what constitutes honesty and integrity?

[OwnRules]

I’m starting to get the feeling Democrats are going to regret running Hillary even more than they did Gore. And so will most of the world.

[Fear_Itself]

How is telling them it was a video constitute a lie? She could have been misinformed, and repeated what she heard in the fog of war. She did correct it later.

Not a lie.

[adaher]

@OwnRules

I’m starting to get the feeling Democrats are going to regret running Hillary even more than they did Gore. And so will most of the world.

Gore was a fantastic candidate(well, in a substance sense, not in a campaigning sense), who legit won the election except for some really horrible luck(Nader nationwide and the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach). He also faced a tougher candidate than Clinton does. While GWB was a mental lightweight and not a great candidate himself, he had a trusted name(before he drowned it in the toilet) and a very united party behind him.

Clinton is facing Donald Trump, a guy that many Republicans will never support. If Clinton loses, it will be because independents turned against her bigtime.

[adaher]

@Fear_Itself

How is telling them it was a video constitute a lie? She could have been misinformed, and repeated what she heard in the fog of war. She did correct it later.

Not a lie.

Because she already knew it was a planned terrorist attack that was unrelated to the video.

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

The next day, she told the Egyptian prime minister: “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the Obama administration wanted to get their messaging right and Clinton was being the good soldier, just like Susan Rice.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

They were often off script statements, much like a debate.

Then there is plenty of opportunity to add “I believe…” or “If I have the facts correct…” followed by the assertion. And then, afterwards, to check and make sure you were correct. Not doing so is dishonest and dishonorable.

??? I haven’t started a thread based on how Republicans or Democrats react to scandal. That’s just a side bar to this Donald Trump thread, where we’ve gotten into a discussion of relative honesty. My argument was that how a politician reacts when they get into trouble says a lot more about their character than whether their grasp of the facts is solid. I also stated that yes, it’s my opinion that Republicans are better on this count but that it would be hard to measure it. Believe it or not, not all arguments can be settled with data. Honesty can be a hard thing to measure. A lot depends on what you consider important, since everyone lies at times. Quantity is irrelevant for the most part. A guy at work who constantly tells whoppers about his golf score or the size of the fish he caught but always conducts himself honesty and ethically at his job is more worthy or your trust than a guy who can cite facts and figures like a pro but is stealing money.

Yes, and McCain’s self-delusion (or lies to the public) that support or would have supported further action resulting in dead soldiers was far, far worse than any lie Obama or Clinton have told. If McCain had won, his lies would have killed thousands more American soldiers for nothing.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/18/checking-patricia-smiths-claims-about-clinton-and-/

It’s her word against theirs. She’s outnumbered and they have no reason to lie. She does. By saying they aren’t telling the truth, she’s calling them liars.

What lie? What words? And where did Hillary say they didn’t tell the truth?

Only if we assume she’s an idiot who had no idea she was requesting firings.

What lies? What are the words? You’re still just throwing darts out there without specifying.

They believe in things that are unprovable or in some cases provably wrong. Yet I’d trust any one of them to be honest where it counts: will they do what they say they will do? When they state what they believe, are they being honest?

They’re being honest about what they believe, but they’re still bullshitting when they proselytize. It’s bullshit that I need to do this to be saved, even if you honestly believe it. If you haven’t been able to really sit down and analyze your beliefs before you try and spread them, then you’re not being honest with yourself.

How does your approval of politicians lying about their faith square with your views of what constitutes honesty and integrity?

It has nothing to do with it. I literally care not a whit if a politician lies or not about religion or their personal sex life (assuming consenting adults). I’d prefer a lying atheist to an honest evangelical Christian, since one shows a much more rational view of the world and is tied to better policy than the other.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Because she already knew it was a planned terrorist attack that was unrelated to the video.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/benghazi-was-planned-attack-not-protest-clinton-told-egyptian-pm-24-hours

The intelligence changed in the aftermath – the CIA and State Department revised their talking points several times. Again, that the video was involved doesn’t mean it wasn’t terrorism, and planned terrorism doesn’t mean the video wasn’t influential. In the immediate aftermath, sometimes they say the wrong things.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the Obama administration wanted to get their messaging right and Clinton was being the good soldier, just like Susan Rice.

Maybe according to Hannity and Halperin, but according to the facts, the information at the time was quite muddled and no one was sure what caused the attack. They might have briefly thought so, but the information was changing by the hour up to minutes before a spokesperson would go on TV.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

Yes, and McCain’s self-delusion (or lies to the public) that support or would have supported further action resulting in dead soldiers was far, far worse than any lie Obama or Clinton have told. If McCain had won, his lies would have killed thousands more American soldiers for nothing.

The surge saved American lives. It was the right thing to do and in 2004 was supported by most of the Democratic candidates.

What lie? What words? And where did Hillary say they didn’t tell the truth?

They say she blamed it on the video, she says she didn’t.

What lies? What are the words? You’re still just throwing darts out there without specifying.

According to the wikipedia article, she claimed that Vince Foster and other aides handled the travel office firings. What she didn’t say was that it was her demands for action that resulted in the firings.

It has nothing to do with it. I literally care not a whit if a politician lies or not about religion or their personal sex life (assuming consenting adults). I’d prefer a lying atheist to an honest evangelical Christian, since one shows a much more rational view of the world and is tied to better policy than the other.

Your view of what constitutes honesty seems to be in the minority in this country, although you seem to find plenty of support in the SDMB bubble. You should ask your ex-military buddies what they think.

[Gyrate]

@Fear_Itself

How is telling them it was a video constitute a lie? She could have been misinformed, and repeated what she heard in the fog of war. She did correct it later.

Not a lie.

And if you follow the timeline of the initial intelligence, at various points the intelligence was indeed pointing to a connection to the video. And if you follow the timeline of what she said and when, it follows the timeline of the intelligence.

And if you follow what the right-wing say she said, well… the facts of the matter are probably not a priority.

[Evil_Economist]

@adaher

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/18/checking-patricia-smiths-claims-about-clinton-and-/

It’s her word against theirs. She’s outnumbered and they have no reason to lie. She does. By saying they aren’t telling the truth, she’s calling them liars.

According to that article:

Speaking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in October 2015, Kate Quigley, sister of CIA operative Glen Doherty, said Clinton mentioned protests but not a video.

…

Jan Stevens, father of Ambassador Chris Stevens, told PolitiFact that the first time he heard anything about a video was when the Washington Post Fact Checker called him with a similar question. He confirmed that he heard “nothing whatsoever” about a video from Clinton but declined to comment further.

Tyrone Woods’ mother, Cheryl Bennett, told PolitiFact that when she spoke with Clinton, she “never heard the word ‘video’ mentioned. That’s just a fact.” Bennett, who is estranged from Charles Woods, said the motivation behind the attack didn’t come up in her brief interaction with Clinton.

Barbara Doherty, Glen Doherty’s mother, didn’t recall talking with Clinton about a video and said she remembered Clinton as being sincere and crying, according to the Washington Post.

So that’s four people who said she didn’t mention a video and two who said she did.

The article you cited goes on to say:

For the sake of argument, let’s say Clinton had told the families something about the video: Would she have been telling them something she knew to be false? Not necessarily.

A clear picture of whether there had been protests in Benghazi didn’t come together until Sept. 15, a day after Clinton met with the families, according to multiple Senate investigation reports.

So, it’s pretty clear you’re wrong on this one.

[adaher]

That article was written before it was discovered that Clinton knew the video was irrelevant, something she knew within 24 hours. That’s why government transparency rules.

[running_coach]

@HurricaneDitka

Here’s one example: the issue of whether Hillary Clinton released all her work-related emails or not. On the one hand, she claimed, back in April “… I have now put out all of my emails” and we can contrast that with Chris Christie’s claim in July that HRC “said all work-related emails were sent back to the State Department. The FBI director said, that’s not true.”

So how did Politifact score that issue?

Well, HRC got a “Half-True” rating for her April claim, but Christie got a “True” rating for his July claim. Huh? Politifact says it’s “True” that the FBI Director said Clinton’s claim of having returned all work-related emails to the State Department was “not true”, and yet somehow Clinton’s claim is “Half-True”. Do you see a problem here? You ought to.

But if we just total up Clinton’s ratings, she gets to add another one to Half-True, instead of something that probably deserves a “Mostly False”, “False” or “Pants of Fire” rating, at least according to the Director of the FBI. And the little chart that you linked to get to misrepresent her dishonesty as “half-true”.

Did you read the actual article that accompanies each rating? You missed this in Clinton’s.:

She turned out to be correct. (Editor’s note, July 11, 2016: Based on the information publicly available at the time, she appeared to be correct. The FBI’s report from July 2016 subsequently revealed she was not correct. Although that does not affect our ruling on this statement, we have downgraded another statement that she never sent or received classified material and rated that False.)

So they did re-review the appropriate statement and revised(downward) the rating.
Can you show a pattern rather than a single instance?

[Evil_Economist]

@adaher

That article was written before it was discovered that Clinton knew the video was irrelevant, something she knew within 24 hours. That’s why government transparency rules.

Let’s go back over the major point that you seem to have missed: most of the families Clinton talked to said she didn’t mention the video when she talked to them. Since you care so much about numbers, i.e. “She’s outnumbered and they have no reason to lie”, you will concede this point.

By the way, you claim that “they have no reason to lie.” Well, the people who say she never mentioned a video also have no reason to lie, and there are more of them.

Also, when you say “By saying they aren’t telling the truth, she’s calling them liars.” …what are you calling the people who say she didn’t mention the video? Apply your standards to your statement: Are you calling the families of people killed in Benghazi liars?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

The surge saved American lives. It was the right thing to do and in 2004 was supported by most of the Democratic candidates.

It resulted in dead Americans (and dead Iraqis) – it didn’t save any lives. Whatever the earlier support, now we have the benefit of hindsight – it was terrible policy that resulted in hundreds more dead for nothing. The only decent policy would have been immediate withdrawal – that’s the only thing that would have stopped the killing of Americans.

They say she blamed it on the video, she says she didn’t.

Where did she say she didn’t? And several of the families say she didn’t mention the video anyway – are you saying they are liars?

According to the wikipedia article, she claimed that Vince Foster and other aides handled the travel office firings. What she didn’t say was that it was her demands for action that resulted in the firings.

How do you know? And if this is so, this isn’t the lie you characterized – this is an omission. Still dishonest, but not in the way you described.

Your view of what constitutes honesty seems to be in the minority in this country, although you seem to find plenty of support in the SDMB bubble. You should ask your ex-military buddies what they think.

I do – some agree, some don’t. Most agree that the Iraq war was a disaster and we should have never gone in, and after going in, we should have gotten out as soon as the trouble started.

Dead Americans for nothing – that’s what McCain and Graham’s favored policies would get us. And it just so happens that many of these dead folks would be my friends… you and McCain and Graham wouldn’t have to sacrifice a thing.