If this becomes precedent, it would only encourage further illegal electronic espionage. Why reward foreign intervention in our elections?
That is, literally, the funniest thing I’ve read all week.
Tax returns are private too. In fact they are protected by law in a way that speeches are not.
Politicians can have private speeches, but if you are going to tell wealthy people one thing behind closed doors and the victims of those wealthy people something else in public, and then complain that you were taken out of context when someone leaks PART of your speeches and you weren’t REALLY sucking up to those wealthy people behind closed doors then… Its reasonable to ask you to prove it by releasing the transcript of your speeches.
It is totally irrelevant for these purposes whether we got the text of the speeches from Wikileaks, Jimmy Carter’s nephew or Hitler. If those were your words and your defense to accusations of sucking up to rich people is that you were taken out of context, it is reasonable to ask you to release the text of your speeches to prove your claim.
Hillary has no problems with honesty and trustworthiness?
She is rated as more honest than most politicians? She can’t even beat Donald Trump in that category and how many people can you say THAT about?
Are you under the impression that she is being paid $225,000 for the contents of her half hour speech? Is your argument that he speeches (if given by anyone else other than the future president of the united states of america, and lets face it she was the future president of the united states of america since before we even KNEW who barack obama was) are worth $225,000 because of the creative effort that went into creating them? Are you fucking kidding me?
Why rewards dishonesty in our politicians. Should we really disregard facts that are brought to our attention because of who provided the facts?
If it’s the right thing to do, then we should expect her to do it regardless of the hacking. If it’s not necessarily the right or wrong thing to do, then leave it be.
From my perspective, I don’t see any reason why she should be forced or bullied into releasing this stuff if she doesn’t want to. I think we go overboard in this country about having presidential candidates release personal information. I care about what policies they support, and care little about their tax returns or some private speeches they may have made somewhere.
Actually, in certain cases-yes. It’s not like there isn’t any precedent for how to handle information that is gathered illegally(just ask the police), and there are still the problems of privacy(are you claiming that it is null and void if the info can be acquired illegally?), the encouragement of espionage and the questionable provenance of the material.
The Russian government conducts espionage, steals information from our government’s computers, then releases mountains of data they claim without evidence are accurate transcripts in a blatant effort to disrupt the American electoral process, and some here are saying(to paraphrase) “All THAT aside, why isn’t Hillary…”
Why the fuck aren’t you more upset that the Russians are trying to fuck up our election process and hacking into our governmental and private computer systems? Where did your sense of perspective disappear to?
As long as what they are releasing is true, why should we care what their motivation is for releasing it?
If the New York Times had been given this information by some traitor and released it, there would be no question that what they were doing was admirable.
These are not state secrets, they are the actions and of a political candidates which they are trying to hide.
I believe my post explained why we should care, and why their motivation in stealing private information from our government’s computers should cause you to have doubts as to the info’s veracity. As for me, there are lines I won’t cross when it comes to political battles-“The ends do not justify the means” still means something to me.
Does it matter if people have a public and private opinion? How many of you say to your boss what you actually think, or to your mother-in-law? Even if you were justified, there is a case of keeping the peace, or not rocking the boat, or simply because the other person would be so prejudiced by what you actually think they won’t consider if it might be true or not.
The fact is, and everybody knows this, Hillary Clinton has been vilified in public for decades. Everything she says has been taken apart, put back together, and distorted. Given the unrelenting attacks she’s suffered, why shouldn’t she be more guarded in public? Why shouldn’t she save the harder to understand nuance that sounds bad for private meetings?
Consider what we actually know of her and not what she’s been accused of. She’s been a tireless public worker, defender of women and children, for decades. She wants Americans to have health care. She came together with an opposition president after 9/11 and supported him. She is a hard worker who prepares well. She isn’t a natural speaker and can sometimes come off as boring or pedantic. She was a lawyer, so speaks in legalese sometimes. That’s the true Hillary Clinton. Everything else is a caricature her opponents want you to believe.
Therefore, she says the open borders refer to energy? Believe it, because its true. Even the edited Wikileaks transcripts mention energy.
Speaking to Wall Street bankers and telling them to hush up in public? So what? Some things are too difficult to understand and explain in a soundbite, and financial policy is one of them.
Taking money from the likes of Saudi Arabia? I guess the people of Haiti is going to turn down aid because it comes from a bad place, huh? What a joke.
On the surface, of course it sounds bad to have one public and one private opinion. But its something everyone does and more importantly, its necessary in many cases. She’s been helping people for decades. She’s been attacked by the GOP for decades. One of these things is the real Hillary and its not the one coming from the right. She deserves the benefit of the doubt from everyone and I, for one, could not be more excited to vote for her and not simply against Trump.
Yeah, Sanders beats her out, but she is rated more honest than every GOP candidate.
And, hwaaaaaaaaaaay more honest than Trump.
I dont care about polls. I use Politifact, where she beats every candidate but Sanders.
Try these tho:Hillary Clinton Is One of America’s Most Honest Politicians – Mother Jones
“Look: all politicians lie sometimes. That includes Hillary Clinton. But as the chart on the right shows, Hillary is one of the most honest politicians on the national stage. Here’s a similar conclusion from the New York Times.”
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-the-most-honest-candidate-trump-lying-most-of-the-time/25130/
However the most respected fact checking outlets have a comprehensive method of tracking and researching these things, and as it turns out, Clinton rates out as the most honest candidate of the entire 2016 election. Trump, on the other hand, has been determined to be lying most of the time.
http://www.attn.com/stories/10483/chart-compares-presidential-candidates-honesty
Based on the data pulled from Politifact, Clinton — dubbed “Crooked Hillary” by her presidential race opponent Donald Trump — actually ranks as the country’s second most honest politician, with just over 70 percent of her statements ranking somewhere between “Half True” and “True.” President Barack Obama ranked No. 1 in honesty, with just a slightly higher percentage of his statements staying out of the “False” zone.
You conveniently quote a July 25th article, right after the GOP convention "It’s common for presidential candidates to get a bump from their conventions, and two new polls Monday suggest Donald Trump did indeed get that. Old news. :rolleyes:
Was Bush being paid for the contents of his speech? Was Palin being paid for the contents of *her *speech? Gore? Bill Clinton?
Ex-presidents, even Ex Vice Presidential candidates who lost really badly are also being paid large sums for their speeches. Are people paying off Sarah Palin :rolleyes:for future Political gain? :dubious:
It’s a fact of life. Get over it.
If it doesn’t matter if someone’s private information is stolen, as long it is passed to the public, then it shouldn’t matter if someone’s private monies/goods are stolen, as long as they too are passed along to the public. Right? “Disregarding where it comes from or how it was acquired”, doesn’t the public benefit from it?
That’s a good point since it’s Politifact, not actual living, breathing voters, who decides for whom to vote in November.
I think he and Damuri are talking about two different things and arguing over each other.
Its true that Clinton is more honest. DrDeth feels this takes precedent and therefore the opinions of people in a poll doesn’t matter. Politifact analyses statements and draws a logical conclusion that is more factual than opinion polls.
However, it is also true that the perception of Clinton’s honesty does affect the amount of votes she’s getting, so in that case, polls do matter like Damuri says.
What should happen is that living, breathing voters realize that news outlets such as Politifact help to get to the truth of something regardless of the perception. In that case, it would be useful to cite Politifact in order to try and change the perception that Clinton is dishonest
Well, yeah, polls are worthless when he has to scour the internet to find the one time that Trump was rated better than Hillary- when he got his one time post convention Bump- * a 3 month old poll. *
But even so, a poll shows who is considered the most honest. Fact checking *shows who really is. *
I have no doubt Karl Rove’s hate machine has been quite effective in denigrating Hillary. I have stated this several times.
Except for 2 things:
-
You ignore the possibility that all of those guys have a problem with honesty, and the public is not grading on a curve.
-
Those numbers address honesty, no “trustworthiness”, and so deal with only half the claim.
And of course most of us know that perception and reality are often in conflict, but only one person here seems to be ignoring that.