I found little to dispute there except what Politifact put in, which was some context. What, I’m supposed to be impressed that many facts she cites are true, especially when they don’t have to do with her behavior?
I don’t think voters are concerned that Clinton’s going to make up stats about voter ID laws. They are concerned that she won’t respect the spirit and letter of the law as President.
I’m sure some voters are. I’m far more concerned about all of the Republican candidates in that respect – I trust Hillary’s honesty and commitment to respecting the “spirit and letter of the law” as President far, far more than each one of the Republicans. I’m challenging your assertions about Democratic voters, and I think you’re generally very inaccurate about them (us). Why not just ask us? There’s almost always another interpretation, and real Democrats probably know the answer a lot better than you do about what motivates them.
It probably has made me less likely to support her (I don’t remember any “dirty lies”, but I do remember some unsavory tactics). I haven’t decided which Democrat I will vote for in the primary.
You should check yourself for things like this, because you’re probably going to end up wrong. If some notion you have makes you “respect Democrats so little…”, then consider that the notion might be false, especially when it reinforces your own biases. It probably is false in most cases.
This is bullshit. Hillary Clinton isn’t any less honest than, say, the metric ton of GOP candidates who’ve been happy to use a blatantly dishonest video as an excuse to defund Planned Parenthood. Hell, you’ve all but said she must be dishonest because people doubt her honesty. People doubt her honesty because of shit like this, where CNN takes a routine release by a candidate of several years of income tax returns and a statement about the candidate’s health, and because the candidate is Hillary Clinton, they twist it into something sinister.
That sorta shit, which has been going on for over two decades now, isn’t about Hillary’s dishonesty, it’s about the media’s. So I guess we shouldn’t elect the media President. I agree.
Actually, there’s a great deal of truth to that.
I don’t think that if you added up all the false statements made by Democrats throughout history, they would come close to the lies that Republicans have told about Obamacare.
I cited pretty well what Democrats say, which makes it less necessary for me to ask. Three examples from this board and a couple of examples from the Grimes campaign. Then there’s the biggest one from the 2014 campaign, all the Senate candidates distancing themselves from Obama and Obama saying that they all will back him and are just saying what they need to say.
Really, this is such an ingrained part of Democratic political culture that it’s pretty hard to dispute that it’s real at this point. But you’re right that not all Democrats are like this. Biden and Sanders aren’t, and I’m sure most of their supporters don’t tolerate lying in their candidates. But Clinton supporters are either in fantasyland regarding her honesty or simply don’t care, because after all, Clinton’s not lying to THEM. She’s lying to the Bad Guys.
Those didn’t say what you think they did. You interpreted those things to mean that Democratic voters don’t care about honesty – but that’s just you inserting your own biases. That’s not the only interpretation, and I don’t believe it’s the best interpretation.
You should be wary when your interpretations just so happen to confirm your biases and preconceived notions, especially considering how much you’ve admitted that they influence the way you think about Obama.
I think this is an ingrained part of yourself and your biases about Democrats. It’s not an ingrained part of Democratic political culture. You’re just incapable of interpreting things as anything other than confirmation of what you want to be true.
The moral difference is whether your followers believe it or not. We don’t endorse our candidates lying. They do, being politicians and all, but when they get busted they lose our trust as well as yours. You know how many Republican voters said, “I’m glad that Bush claimed that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, we would have never gotten the public support to go to war otherwise.” Zero. You know how many Republican voters said, “I"m glad that Bush cherry picked intel about IRaq’s WMD programs, we needed that for the greater good of toppling Saddam.” Zero.
You’re getting Clintonian again.
Yes, if you try really, really hard, you can find another interpretation of all of those statements. “I knew Obama was lying, I’m not sorry that he did, I still support him.” is not necessarily the same as being “okay with lying” in the same way that oral sex isn’t sex.
There’s a pretty significant difference between something good for America (gay marriage – and I recognize that many disagree, but most Democrats think this was a good thing) and something that most of both parties think was bad for America (the Iraq war). No one is going to bother defending something that they agree was a terrible idea.
As far as Republicans not doing this, I think that’s bullshit too – the entire reason for Frank Luntz’s prominence is for Republicans to get together in dishonesty. That’s where crap like “death panels”, “government option” vs “public option”, and many many more things that were as dishonest as anything Hillary or Obama have said have percolated through Republican talking points (and Fox News talking heads).
We thought the Iraq war was a good idea. It turned out to be a terrible idea. Not because of no WMD, or oil not paying for the war, but because of mismanagement and us failing to understand that creating a democracy is really, really, hard. We thought it would be like Germany or Japan.
But that’s not really the point. The point is that even if it’s a good thing, lying about it is wrong. If a Republican candidate says “I’ll never cut Social Security” then to me, that means he’s not cutting SS, even though I support cutting SS for the good of the country and the good of SS itself. If I think he’s just saying that to get elected but really will cut SS if he gets the opportunity then he’s lost my vote.
But at least now you’re getting at the core rationalization. Democrats hold the conceit that they are the enlightened and that you have to appease the rubes to get good done.
Frank Luntz is about framing issues, a big difference from saying you’ll do something or support something and it turns out you never intended to. Calling IPAB a death panel or the public option a government option may seem dishonest to you, but it’s no different from calling withdrawal from Iraq “strategic redeployment” or spending “investments”, or taxes “revenue enhancements”. I hope that we’re all mature enough to call talking points what they are. if a Doper ever insists on the term “revenue enhancements” and denies up and down that they are supporting raising taxes, then I’d hope the Dope community would laugh that guy out of the forum.
THe kind of lying I referred to was very specific. Candidate says “I support A” but actually supports B and his in the know supporters know he supports B and is being dishonest. Some not only know it, but will carry water for the lie. “Obama’s a Christian, saying he’s atheist is a dirty Republican lie!” Republicans just don’t do that.
This is all fine but I see no evidence that Democrats (voters or politicians) are any different than Republicans on this.
No we don’t. Why do you try to put beliefs in our heads? Why not just ask? What’s the point? You don’t have some special insight into the beliefs of Democratic voters. It doesn’t help your analysis when you try to add it, it only hurts you.
I don’t believe you that “Republicans just don’t do that”. You are making baseless assertions that just happen to confirm your own biases, and I’m not going to just accept your word for it.
And are you saying that you believe Obama is an atheist?
I just cited examples. “I don’t support gay marriage.” “I support the coal industry and oppose Obama’s EPA regulations”. These are statements said by Democrats that a certain number of supporters knew were lies and did not affect their support for those candidates.
Explain how I mis-summarized your argument about it being less bad to lie to get good done.
Then prove that Republican supporters, either on SDMB, or anywhere else, knowing and approving of a candidate’s lie.
I don’t know for sure. A lot of people who aren’t very religious refuse to describe themselves as atheist because they do believe in God, they just aren’t really on board for everything about their organized religion. But I think Obama has proven that he’s not actually a devout Christian. When Axelrod outed him, he said that his opposition to gay marriage was his political position, not his personal belief.
But what he said many times on the campaign trail was that he was opposed to gay marriage because of HIS Christian faith. Anyone who makes up a religious belief is probably not all that religious.
Republicans have done this too. Lying of any kind is not unique to one party. I see no reason to believe that this is worse on the Democratic side.
You said that Democratic voters don’t care about honesty, or are fine with lies, or the equivalent. Those are different arguments than it’s “less bad to lie to get good done”. I can dislike lies while still judging some lies to be worse than others.
You do it too – you’ve placed different values on different lies.
That’s a trivial part of the claim. It’s very easy to demonstrate that Republicans lie about things pretty openly and frequently, and according to Politifact, about as frequently (or more) than Democrats.
As to all Republican beliefs on the inherent importance of honesty, it’s rather easy to prove that false – Scott Walker supported a bill that would allow doctors to lie to their patients if the lie might reduce the chance of an abortion.
So no, I don’t take your assertions about some special relationship with honesty regarding Republicans vs Democrats. They both routinely have politicians lie, and they both routinely downplay or excuse lies. You just have trouble breaking out of beliefs that don’t confirm your own biases.
Perhaps not by your definition of Christianity, but who’s to say how devout he is to his own?
I didn’t argue that Republicans lie less than Democrats. I argued that Republican supporters don’t approve of their candidates lying. Democrats do, under the right circumstances, such as when they take a politically expedient stance.
Well, if Biden gets in the race we’ll find out, because there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two on issues or background. The primary difference between Biden and Clinton is on personality issues. If Democrats choose Clinton despite this, that says a lot about Democratic tolerance for dishonesty. No question, a lot of Democrats have a big problem with Clinton about honesty, and will vote for any other Democrat that is viable. I’m not asking Democrats to take a stand on principle and vote Republican. Just take an opportunity to nominate someone honest when it’s presented to you.
This isn’t about my definition of Christianty. Obama could say just as easily, “My understanding of my faith requires me to support gay marriage.” That’s not what happened. He claimed that his faith required him to oppose it, but then said later that he personally believed that gays should be allowed to marry. He basically Clintoned the whole thing, trying to make a distinction between his personal views and his political views. Which would have been fine, if he hadn’t invoked religion. What it boils down to is that he’s supported gay marriage since at least 1996, and lied about it while invoking his faith. No one religious would do that. It doesn’t make him an atheist, but he’s certainly not a religious person.
And I don’t take your word for it. That you found Democrats on a left-leaning board isn’t convincing on this. I found a Republican approving and fighting (politically) for a lie – that doesn’t mean that Republicans are more likely to do so.
We’ve been over this – Democrats might make their choice based on policies (not much difference between Biden and Hillary, from what I can tell), experience (both have lots of different experience), or likelihood of winning (this might be very, very different). Further, many Democrats might believe Hillary is just as honest as Biden.
You’re not establishing that Democrats don’t or wouldn’t value honesty – just that Democrats may not feel the same way that you do about how honest Hillary is, or how honest Biden is, or whether this is the best measure of which would be a better candidate.
Choosing Hillary over Biden, in my view, would indicate that most Democrats believe Hillary will be more likely to win in the general election.
You say “no one religious would do that”, and I don’t believe you. You’re just saying that because that’s what you believe about religion. It doesn’t mean that that’s what all people believe about religion. It also probably confirms your own biases about Obama, and you should be wary of that.
His position evolved. He changed his mind. He came to the conclusion that he was wrong. He wasn’t lying- he WAS opposed to SSM, now he isn’t. Like the rest of the public, he changed his mind.
C’mon now, that doesn’t withstand the reasonableness test, even if it can be true if you really, really stretch. You do this a lot in debates. A person who is willing to lie about their religious beliefs for personal gain is not a religious person.
He changed his political stance, according to his own words. He always favored gay marriage. He says that’s not dishonest, but again, it’s a rather Clintonian view of honesty that only a law professor could love.
“Personal gain” is different than “political gain” or progress. And in any case, I’m not just taking your word for it. Other religious people might feel differently.