Dial it back, this isn’t the Pit.
[/moderating]
Well, that’s just God’s will. What happened to her was a conspiracy.:eek:
Then by the rationale of many here on this board, it would be your fault if Trump got elected.
This sounds like you’re asking for a really screechy version of “and yet, she persisted”.
I feel the same way about the IRS.
Its almost as if Condoleeza Rice and Sarah Palin don’t have vaginas.
Well, Clinton had some own goals on the email front as well. Keep in mind that Clintons biggest negative before the election was honesty. And what did she do?
#1. Trying to downplay the emails and act as though she didn’t know anything. “Like with a cloth or something?”
#2. Lying about emails not containing any secret information.
#3. Trying to justify #2 by saying “It wasn’t marked secret! I pinky swear!”.
#4. Lying about having permissionto use a private email server.
And so on. It played directly into the general view that she isn’t honest.
Of course, Trump isn’t honest either but he is generally dishonest in a different way. Trump tends to lie like a braggart while Clinton tries to spin everything.
Slee
shrug Bernie Sanders would be as bad for the nation in his own way as Trump, although his circus car of clowns would look much different. And in the end it would still boil down to the DNC not being able to make a suitable candidate out of Hillary Clinton.
Stranger
It was a different time. You cannot judge me by the standards of today. I never meant my actions in the past. I only said those things to please others. I promise like a rock standing on a mountain that everything I swear to in the future shall be my true beliefs until I change them.
Which means Clinton is at least aware she’s telling a lie and understands that lying is wrong on a theoretical level. That puts her two steps ahead of Trump.
It’s an argument I made during the campaign. Even if you believe Clinton and Trump are equally evil, isn’t competent evil better than uncontrolled evil?
OMG, are the only choices!!! 
It’s kind of ridiculous how worked up people get over things like this.
Obviously Hillary made any number of decisions which, in retrospect, grievously hurt her chances of being elected. Do you think she doesn’t know that? Vastly better than any of us do? Do you think she hasn’t been agonizing over basically every thing she said or did?
If she’s ever quoted saying anything like “I make no mistakes” or “the ONLY reason I lost was Comey/misogyny/whatever” then get back to me. Until then, stfu and keep things in perspective.
Hillary isn’t a competent liar though. If you’re voting in favor of competence at lying, then you should definitely vote for Trump. Clinton tells really transparent lies that even her supporters don’t believe, like claiming to be opposed to TPP.
That’s a pretty wild tangent from the point the excerpt you quoted started from, which was in reference to the suggestion that she shouldn’t have run because her husband had been president already regardless of her own qualifications (or lack thereof) for the role. It was a stupid argument and I was calling it out. This “Yeah but she changed positions on things!” is a legitimate criticism of those qualifications but is irrelevant to the point I was making.
I’d find it much easier to discuss the (many) real problems with Clinton and the Democrats if only we didn’t have to keep digging through all the fake ones the right-wing keep harping on about to get to them.
Sadly they were.
Trump doesn’t lie; he bullshits. Clinton knows what the truth is; Trump shows no evidence that he does, merely saying whatever pops into his head even if it contradicts something he had just said. This isn’t about competence in lying; it’s about fundamental acceptance of what reality is, which is something I consider kind of important in a US President. PJ O’Rourke’s quip about Clinton being wrong but within normal human parameters is disturbingly relevant here.
When Hillary Clinton lies, she essentially does so for the reason that most politicians and public figures do, and in the same way. She lies to avoid discussing uncomfortable subjects or she tries to frame the truth with partial truth but in ways that are misleading. Clinton’s merely a ‘dissembler’.
Trump, on the other hand, tells lies that are so outrageously factually incorrect that anyone who lives in a fact-based world immediately recognizes the falsehood without the need of doing any further investigation. Trump’s lies are an assault on the very concept of truth itself.
Logically, any educated person would naturally conclude that, of the two, Clinton’s lies would be more believable, and that Trump’s lies would immediately be disregarded. In reality, however, Trump’s lies - like those of any skilled ‘gaslighter’ - exploit a flaw in our software, which is that truth is ultimately perceived in different ways by different people. “Reality” is not based on “facts”; rather, it is a concept that is constructed by people, and different individuals can have different perceptions about the world around them, and they can construct reality in different ways.
Trump’s lies also capitalize on the fact that trying to ascertain the “truth” requires effort. People might expend effort to know the truth about how whether drinking coffee causes cancer, because as was said earlier in this thread, people on some level know that while they can escape reality, they cannot escape the consequences of reality. People might not want to believe that the things they eat or drink can cause them to become ill, but ultimately, many people who might swallow Trump / GOP bullshit on a daily basis would rather not take a chance when it comes to something with more immediate impact, such as their health. But take something like “science” (global warming) and “history” (the causes of the Great Depression or the history of racial discrimination) and it’s much less costly to construct a different narrative, particularly if one doesn’t perceive outcomes of that narrative as having a more direct and adverse impact on themselves or their immediate circle of family and friends.
say what you want about HRC’s campaign, she was far better qualified than Thrump and would not be a far better POTUS than he will ever be able to conceive of being. None of the bullshit from R’s about her in the last 20 years had any real basis, but it managed, finally, to put an absolute piece of offal into the Presidency. Sometimes, even if you have biases against women, against career politicians, against various platform planks, etcc. etc…you have to pick the best person for the job. I honestly don’t think most of you actually understand how precarious the fabric of our country has become with that fool in the office.
Trump is a symptom of the disease but not necessarily the disease itself. I’ve tried to imagine what the aftermath would have been like had Hillary Clinton actually won, and in some ways, even though I voted for her, I could see this outcome being better than the alternative. Had she won, she would have done so with claims that her victory was illegitimate, just as many of HRC’s supporters claim about Trump. But whereas HRC’s supporters have gradually (and peacefully) accepted the outcome, Trump’s and the GOP’s supporters might have turned this into an ugly spectacle. Mitch McConnell and the Senate GOP would have still opposed a SCOTUS appointment – just because he could. They’d probably be arguing that nothing in the Constitution mentions anything about having 9 justices and the Court is better off being downsized through attrition. They’d almost surely try to impeach her over Bengazi and the Clinton foundation. They’d fall short of the votes needed to remove her from office, but we’d be dealing with legislative paralysis. At least now, the supporters of the GOP have no other grievances to make about liberals – they own the shop now. I know that won’t stop many from grumbling about the left anyway, but I’m going to assume that not everyone on the right is detached from reality.
I wish SDMB had a “like” feature.
I’ve had much the same thought too. The main flaws are that 1) irreparable damage could be done to the country in the interim, and 2) just because the GOP’s fingerprints will be all over many of the government-driven disasters of the next four years doesn’t mean that they won’t still blame Obama for them nor that their supporters won’t accept that line unquestioningly. The article I read recently about Trump supporters continuing to support him even if he and Congress pass laws that literally threaten their very survival indicates that we cannot assume that the guilty will be punished at all.
If you talk about Clinton’s qualifications and experience, her record is not a tangent, it’s actually the thing you were referencing in the first place. The habit of talking about how qualified and experienced she is, but objecting to any discussion of what she actually did during the qualification and experience time highlights why she was such a bad candidate.
It is good to see, at least in this thread, that no one is peddling the ‘honest Hillary’ line that I heard so much during the campaign, and are willing to admit that she routinely lies like any other politician. It is funny that people talk about Trump making blatantly unbelievable lies when Hillary supporters routinely talked about her honesty during the campaign though.
sigh So are you agreeing that she shouldn’t have run because Bill had already been president? Because that was the point under discussion.
I find it funny that people talk about Hillary’s honesty when Trump told blatantly unbelievable lies pretty much non-stop during the campaign. It’s like saying “I don’t trust my baby with this teenager because she spends all her time talking on the phone, so instead I’m going to leave it with this rabid Rottweiler”, and when someone points out that this might be a bad idea insisting “Yeah, but the phone…”