2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo people think Clinton is a liar? Or don't they?
That question is still open, despite an article proposing to prove people do not associate Clinton with the term "liar." Hillary Clinton supporters are presenting this article by Tom Watson and Peter Daou as proof that a recent Quinnipiac poll is a slanderous attack on Clinton.
http://www.hillarymen.com/latest/new-report-proves-q-liar-poll-was-false-and-slanderous
Evidently, there was a Quinnipiac poll concluding that many people associate the word liar with Hillary Clinton. The conclusion was a sham, according to the article. The basis for that statement appears to be that the poll included Republicans and people who favor the Republican Party, or that the poll disproportionately reported negative comments from Republican respondents. I dont know and I dont care. Considering that both major political parties conduct polling with the express intent to skew and misrepresent the results, it seems a little people who live in glass houses of the authors to attack Quinnipiac for doing the same thing.
At the end of the article, there is this biography of the authors.
Peter Daou and Tom Watson founded #HillaryMen to provide actionable analysis of the 2016 campaign focusing on the gender barrier in U.S. politics. Peter is a former senior digital adviser to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative. He is a veteran of two presidential campaigns (Kerry '04 and Clinton '08). Tom is an author and Columbia University lecturer who advises companies and non-profits on social activism.
Imagine that! A couple guys active in the Clinton campaign find proof that an uncomplimentary poll is all wrong. Who woulda thunk it? This is something we have to watch out for in the primary season, candidate supporters appearing and saying, Look! This proves it! Yes, the poll may be incorrect in concluding people think of Clinton as a liar. But its just as wrong to debunk the poll and then say, Ha! This proves people like Hillary! It does not.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)poll's results. The poll was weighted more heavily with Repubs.
What we have is the right doing what it has always done to Hillary, that is making up shit.
Now if you want to pile on, join with the right in attacking Hillary. It is so convinient to let other people do your dirty work for you.
I find it funny that the way Hillary opponents find a path to victory is to cut her down. That doesn't say much for her opponents' strengths.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Just because she isn't any good at it doesn't mean she doesn't do it.
If she can't take it she shouldn't...
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)We don't find too many takers from Hillary's camp, however, when we talk about policies.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)But yes, I think she's a liar. Actually I don't just think it. It's well documented despite what a couple of her shills might say.
louis-t
(23,295 posts)Show me a list of the "lies".
louis-t
(23,295 posts)Or, so say the repugs in my office. When you ask what lies or why she should be in jail, they have no answer. The subject gets changed.
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)... depends on what you mean by "liar." Does she tell the odd intentional untruth? Undoubtably. Does she systematically and intentionally chronically mislead with malicious intent? I don't think so. I do think she's not above misrepresentation when it serves her ambition, but this separates her from most other politicians not at all.
-- Mal
PATRICK
(12,228 posts)and often too transparent which goes to political talent. Cynically you could say it is part of the game and everyone does it until you get someone who doesn't(hopefully) or not offensive- someone politically super talented. Simple truth or awkward lying won't necessarily get you elected.
Given the 24 hour news cycle attack dogs you have to be pretty good at not answering questions in a way that media liars won't turn back on you. That certainly is not simple truth-telling. Beating them at their game however winning by truth.
randys1
(16,286 posts)They have to discredit Hillary to take the WH, they only need 46% of the vote, they have already in place mechanisms that will steal 5% of the vote, or prevent enough people from voting for same result.
So, to complete the total annihilation of unions, Women's rights, Gay rights, Minority rights, to complete this they must convince enough moderates that Hillary is a liar.
Then either these people dont bother to vote at all, or they vote 3rd party, or actually vote for the candidate who will destroy them, guaranteed.
So much is at stake.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)She doesn't have a corner on the market because she's a politician and most (if not all) politicians lie. So do most people.
I believe Hillary is a liar and tells lies. I accept that as a fact.
I just don't think that she should be president.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I think she, like Bill, tries to avoid lying outright about anything, but parses her words extremely carefully to leave people able to draw mistaken conclusions that benefit her.
It depends on what the definition of 'is' is... and all that.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i realize trustability (channeling stephen 'colbert') is important, but i am sick of the shit stirring by media to get readers and ratings.
give people the facts about the candidates and let THEM speak. people can figure out for themselves who is/is not lying and can be trusted.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)I rest my case.
hopeforchange2008
(610 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)Case rested
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I do not think she has any core principal anymore save for self-advancement for its own sake. She has been running for the presidency non-stop for at least 15, and possibly 22 years. She will say or do anything to advance her chances of winning the office for the sake of winning the office.
The last politician so utterly and completely obsessed with winning the office at any cost was one Richard M. Nixon, and the parallels between the two grow more obvious and glaring each day.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Many people make a good case that Nixon was a pretty good president, that he approved some very good legislation during his term in office. Everybody knows he was not a very nice person, maybe even a bad human being, so the Nixon comparison may not be all bad. It suggests a president may be personally unlikeable, and still do a good job.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Artificially prolonging the Vietnam War for four years in order to announce "peace with honor" just before the 1972 election; the peace settlement was EXACTLY THE SAME ONE proposed by Lyndon Johnson in 1968, 20,000 dead GIs and half-a-million dead Vietnamese earlier. Huge amoungs of domestic spying, which was actually illegal then, graft and bribery on then never seen scales. Enemies lists. Watergate. The documntation of Nixon's criminality has literally filled libraries.
My meta-point, implied but not stated, is that no one who wants the office that badly should ever, EVER get it.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)It has been suggested anyone who seeks the office should be disqualified. That's a little too simplistic, but it does point out that we sometimes get presidents who seem to be there mainly to gratify their own egos, not to serve the nation or the public.