It doesn't matter. This election season isn't about facts, it's about appealing to people's base instincts. For trump supporters it's about fear and hate (in world that's changing around them). For Bernie supporters it's about hope and big ideas and achieving what they thought Obama was going to give them when they voted for him. For hillary supporters it's about getting back to a functional government in Washington. For Cruz supporters it's about getting any republican elected besides trump.
The country shares a strong dislike for both Trump and Clinton.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-...n-viewed-unfavorably-by-majority-cbsnyt-poll/
^ That is an interesting rebuttal. So the fact that Gallup did not call you delegitimize the data? I suppose you do not give any weight to most Gallup surveys, then? (except for the polls you participated in, whichever those might be)
The rest of your post is non sequitur. We all have our opinions, and you have yours. That is not the thrust of this thread, though. The gist of this thread is that data gathered by fact-checking groups and survey groups refute the common myths with regard to Clinton.
For trump supporters it's about fear and hate (in world that's changing around them).
Trump is very good on playing on people's fears. The world is changing, but many middle class Americans are desperately clinging on to the past. How things used to be. But, as Buddha has taught attachment leads to suffering. Many middle class Americans are suffering because they haven't learned to let go. To go with the flow of life.You may be right on your Trump/Clinton feelings. I noticed a situation somewhat similar. At least once or twice a year, a bunch of old neighborhood friends get together and have a night out a bar/tavern near where we grew up( 30+years ago). This bar had a couple tv's on the hockey game and couple on a news station and part of a Trump speech came on. I was too far away to hear what Trump was saying but I imagine Trump was saying what he always says.(the wall,getting ripped off in trade,politicans are all talk no action.. etc.) Anyway, I noticed how attention turned to Trump from the the people sitting at the bar. This news station is one that recycles the same news stories a couple times an hour. They did have a segment on a Clinton speech and no even payed attention to it. I noticed this several times as the station recycled the same stories. Many of these people at the bar were blue collar folks. I know for a fact about a dozen were correction officers (union workers who almost always vote "D")celebrating a coworkers birthday.
Only in your mind. In the real world it is about breaking the back of the establishment. Breaking the medical monopoly racket. Breaking the illegal immigration racket. Breaking the endless wars for profit racket. There are a whole bunch of rackets that need to be torn down and Trump is the only one who has even shown the slightest inkling of understanding. The other candidates only seek to feed these sacred cow rackets to further their own ambitions. And the shameful peasantry keeps supporting them. A lot of people are sick of the lies and after beign lied to for decades you become rather adept at spotting the liars. Clinton is just another liar in a long chain of liars who will do nothing but further bankrupt this country to enrich a few cronies on wall street.
Trump is very good on playing on people's fears. The world is changing, but many middle class Americans are desperately clinging on to the past. How things used to be. But, as Buddha has taught attachment leads to suffering. Many middle class Americans are suffering because they haven't learned to let go. To go with the flow of life.
No one is going to make it like it used to be. Those days are over. People need the skills to adapt. Politicians aren't going to do it for you. Only you have that power.
True, and I agree 100%.More than that, people need to band together to change the system to better serve the public interest. Skills don't matter when those same skills are available elsewhere in the world at much lower cost & when the product is easily transportable.
True, and I agree 100%.
But, are people going to band together and do what they say? Are they going to spend their money on American goods when they can get it much cheaper at Walmart? People talk a good game, but their habits tell a different story.
If there are 2 identical flatscreen TV sets on sell. One is made in America and sells for $3k. The other flatscreen is made in China and sells for $1500, most people (99%) are going to purchase the Chinese made TV set. That's fact. No amount of "Made in America" is going to influence buyers if the cost of making products in America can't be controlled.
This is where Trump is wrong. People are used to cheap products. We like our $100 flat screens. If we eliminated imports from Asia, produced electronics in America and charged a much larger price tag, many Americans are going to be pissed. Look at Apple. The iPhone is assembled in China. Imagine if they brought their plants back to America. The iPhone would cost double, maybe triple the price. Would you be willing to spend $2k on an iPhone?
That is the data shows.
Like Obama, the one favorable card Trump has over Clinton is he's never served in office. We don't have a political history on Trump like we do Clinton. So, we get excited over the possibilities on what could happen if Trump is elected into office.
All I need to do is look at Trump's past to know that he's full of himself.
For instance, he says that he wants to bring jobs back to America. Yet, he owns a club in Florida called The Mar-a-Lago. This club caters to Billionaires who want to escape the winters. The thing is you'd think that he'd want to hire locals. You know, Americans. Nope. His staff is made up of foreigners! Not an American worker in site. Trump has defended hiring only foreigners because he says that he can't find Americans workers! That is a lie.
So, I have to ask myself how can I trust Trump when he's not congruent? This is why I laugh at the Trump supporters. Like Trump has said "I love the uneducated.". lol.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/2...force-for-his-florida-club.html?referer=&_r=0
I'm not speaking in those terms. I'm speaking of the right of the people to seek fair compensation for what our govt provides to our Capitalists. When they're allowed to decide, we get to where we are today. Our legal system, our military, our diplomacy, our infrastructure & the basic nature of our society provide them with enormous benefits not accounted for in terms of what it now returns to us in wages & benefits.
But is this so much a knock against Trump or a knock against the staggering number of voters pulling for him? The man is the greatest troll in history.
First off, Politifact is quite biased nowadays.Hmm...fact check or some guy on the internet who masterbates to Bernie sanders. Tough call, especially with all the material you used to rebut factcheck.com
It doesn't matter. This election season isn't about facts, it's about appealing to people's base instincts. For trump supporters it's about fear and hate (in world that's changing around them). For Bernie supporters it's about hope and big ideas and achieving what they thought Obama was going to give them when they voted for him. For hillary supporters it's about getting back to a functional government in Washington. For Cruz supporters it's about getting any republican elected besides trump.
Those who pay some attention to all those "scandals" she was allegedly entangled with, know that there really have been no there there. It is easy for her detractors to throw out buzzwords like "Benghazi," "Whitewater," "Vince Foster," "Private e-mail server," but anyone who spends a few minutes of fact-checking on each allegation knows that they are far from being substantiated. That pisses off her detractors even more (many of them in the press) but to their dismay the voters seem to see through all these smears just fine.
Why on earth would we choose to put the Clinton family drama at the center of our politics again?
By Christopher Hitchens
Seeing the name Hillary in a headline last week—a headline about a life that had involved real achievement—I felt a mouse stirring in the attic of my memory. Eventually, I was able to recall how the two Hillarys had once been mentionable in the same breath. On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy "experience"—Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim "worked" well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton's memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.
Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking. Indeed, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton named Jennifer Hanley phrased it like this in a statement in October 2006, conceding that the tale was untrue but nonetheless charming: "It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add."
Perfect. It worked, in other words, having been coined long after Sir Edmund became a bankable celebrity, but now its usefulness is exhausted and its untruth can safely be blamed on Mummy. Yet isn't it all—all of it, every single episode and detail of the Clinton saga—exactly like that? And isn't some of it a little bit more serious? For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband's uncontainable sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?
What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."
One also hears a great deal about how this awful joint tenure of the executive mansion was a good thing in that it conferred "experience" on the despised and much-deceived wife. Well, the main "experience" involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation's health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy. This abysmal outcome, forgiven for no reason that I can perceive, was the individual responsibility of the woman who now seems to think it entitles her to the presidency. But there was another "experience," this time a collaborative one, that is even more significant.
During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry.
Only in your mind. In the real world it is about breaking the back of the establishment. Breaking the medical monopoly racket. Breaking the illegal immigration racket. Breaking the endless wars for profit racket. There are a whole bunch of rackets that need to be torn down and Trump is the only one who has even shown the slightest inkling of understanding. The other candidates only seek to feed these sacred cow rackets to further their own ambitions. And the shameful peasantry keeps supporting them. A lot of people are sick of the lies and after beign lied to for decades you become rather adept at spotting the liars. Clinton is just another liar in a long chain of liars who will do nothing but further bankrupt this country to enrich a few cronies on wall street.
"The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock," Nader said to a cheering crowd at Chapman University in Orange. The auditorium filled from orchestra pit to balcony, and dozens more listened to his speech through outdoor speakers set up near the campus lawn.
"George W. Bush we can dismiss with a summary comment: nothing more than a corporation disguised as a human being," Nader said. "[And] there's no end to his [Gore's] betrayal. . . . All I can see is this Pinocchio nose coming. . . . He exudes a lack of credibility."
..
After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said: "If it were a choice between a provocateur and an 'anesthetizer,' I'd rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us."
#truthiness
Only in your mind. In the real world it is about breaking the back of the establishment. Breaking the medical monopoly racket. Breaking the illegal immigration racket. Breaking the endless wars for profit racket. There are a whole bunch of rackets that need to be torn down and Trump is the only one who has even shown the slightest inkling of understanding. The other candidates only seek to feed these sacred cow rackets to further their own ambitions. And the shameful peasantry keeps supporting them. A lot of people are sick of the lies and after beign lied to for decades you become rather adept at spotting the liars. Clinton is just another liar in a long chain of liars who will do nothing but further bankrupt this country to enrich a few cronies on wall street.
Personally, I'm glad there are outlets willing to print things too ludicrous for The Onion, although I'm surprised that Hillary being the most truthful candidate with the most enthusiastic supporters is something that anyone would print even as satire. Needs a grain of truth to make good satire.
So lame. What's Trump's answer to the trickle down economics racket? Massive Jerb Creator tax cuts, again.
Merricuh! Hell yeah!
His answer seems to be the bernie sanders answer. Build an economic wall of isolationism around this country to artificially raise wages.