Why is Hilary "evil"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I understand that YOU think that these things indicate dishonesty and scandal, but I would caution you about believing things that have not been proven.

The three things you are discussing "look" suspicious based on the statements of a) a consultant not actually involved in the specific case, b) a former staffer who was dismissed himself for abusing government resources for personal use and c) an article about a repeatedly investigated issue that specifically states "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW."

Your (repeated?) suggestion that she's responsible for her husband's behavior is disgusting and inappropriate.

Yes, that is my judgment call as a voter. I am not alone in not trusting Hillary. Last poll I saw indicated that 68% of the American public distrusts Hillary.

As an ordinary citizen, I am not privy to all the FBI information and can only see a fraction of what has happened under the Clintons' watch. I can just say that I have yet to come across anything that makes me trust her and plenty of things that make me doubt her truthfulness. Let's just give one documented example: the over-the-top story in which Hillary falsely claimed her helicopter landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. It was a bald-faced lie as there was clear videotaped evidence and witnesses to disprove this. There, that's a totally proven Hillary lie. A completely ridiculous lie she made just make herself look cool. Instead of cool, it made her look like a foolish lying idiot. So yes, I don't believe what Hillary says unless it has been proven. If you have any evidence that Hillary Clinton is a truthful person please do share.

The Washingtonpost had this to say regarding the sniper fire story:
Clinton’s tale of landing at Tuzla airport “under sniper fire” and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/

Well, there's the politifact analysis that says she's the most honest person in the race. But of course you're cant believe that. Better to believe Breitbart. Gosh, I wonder why she's held to a different standard???

She, herself, also claims that she is the most transparent candidate.
What a joke.
Some sources just cannot be believed. Hillary is one. Politifact is quickly becoming another.

[Anonymous]

I've moved the bar?

You brought up Bernie's ethics. Perhaps you'd care to comment on his support for Clinton and request that people who support him support her, since he's the grenade-hugger you mentioned.

I've never voted for Clinton (any Clinton) but I find the hatred confusing at best and offensive at worst, particularly coming from the paragons of judgmental hypocrisy who frequent this site.

[Anonymous]

Wonderful. So now, despite numerous awards and accolades for impartiality, because you dislike the result, Politfact must be biased.

The Trump campaign is probably hiring. You could consult for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. So now, despite numerous awards and accolades for impartiality, because you dislike the result, Politfact must be biased.

The Trump campaign is probably hiring. You could consult for them.

In case you hadn't noticed, any time any outlet says something righties don't like, they go on the offensive against that outlet. I'm even starting to see claims that Fox is part of the "Liberal Media" because they actually dared to engage in reporting critical of Trump.

It's really obvious, and pathetic, and sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I understand that YOU think that these things indicate dishonesty and scandal, but I would caution you about believing things that have not been proven.

The three things you are discussing "look" suspicious based on the statements of a) a consultant not actually involved in the specific case, b) a former staffer who was dismissed himself for abusing government resources for personal use and c) an article about a repeatedly investigated issue that specifically states "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW."

Your (repeated?) suggestion that she's responsible for her husband's behavior is disgusting and inappropriate.

Yes, that is my judgment call as a voter. I am not alone in not trusting Hillary. Last poll I saw indicated that 68% of the American public distrusts Hillary.

As an ordinary citizen, I am not privy to all the FBI information and can only see a fraction of what has happened under the Clintons' watch. I can just say that I have yet to come across anything that makes me trust her and plenty of things that make me doubt her truthfulness. Let's just give one documented example: the over-the-top story in which Hillary falsely claimed her helicopter landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. It was a bald-faced lie as there was clear videotaped evidence and witnesses to disprove this. There, that's a totally proven Hillary lie. A completely ridiculous lie she made just make herself look cool. Instead of cool, it made her look like a foolish lying idiot. So yes, I don't believe what Hillary says unless it has been proven. If you have any evidence that Hillary Clinton is a truthful person please do share.

The Washingtonpost had this to say regarding the sniper fire story:
Clinton’s tale of landing at Tuzla airport “under sniper fire” and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/

You should try not believing what other people say about Hillary unless it has been proven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I understand that YOU think that these things indicate dishonesty and scandal, but I would caution you about believing things that have not been proven.

The three things you are discussing "look" suspicious based on the statements of a) a consultant not actually involved in the specific case, b) a former staffer who was dismissed himself for abusing government resources for personal use and c) an article about a repeatedly investigated issue that specifically states "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW."

Your (repeated?) suggestion that she's responsible for her husband's behavior is disgusting and inappropriate.

Yes, that is my judgment call as a voter. I am not alone in not trusting Hillary. Last poll I saw indicated that 68% of the American public distrusts Hillary.

As an ordinary citizen, I am not privy to all the FBI information and can only see a fraction of what has happened under the Clintons' watch. I can just say that I have yet to come across anything that makes me trust her and plenty of things that make me doubt her truthfulness. Let's just give one documented example: the over-the-top story in which Hillary falsely claimed her helicopter landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. It was a bald-faced lie as there was clear videotaped evidence and witnesses to disprove this. There, that's a totally proven Hillary lie. A completely ridiculous lie she made just make herself look cool. Instead of cool, it made her look like a foolish lying idiot. So yes, I don't believe what Hillary says unless it has been proven. If you have any evidence that Hillary Clinton is a truthful person please do share.

The Washingtonpost had this to say regarding the sniper fire story:
Clinton’s tale of landing at Tuzla airport “under sniper fire” and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/

Well, there's the politifact analysis that says she's the most honest person in the race. But of course you're cant believe that. Better to believe Breitbart. Gosh, I wonder why she's held to a different standard???

She, herself, also claims that she is the most transparent candidate.
What a joke.
Some sources just cannot be believed. Hillary is one. Politifact is quickly becoming another.

There you go. They won a Pulitzer, but we should believe you and right wing bloggers instead. No wonder Trump loves the poorly educated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I understand that YOU think that these things indicate dishonesty and scandal, but I would caution you about believing things that have not been proven.

The three things you are discussing "look" suspicious based on the statements of a) a consultant not actually involved in the specific case, b) a former staffer who was dismissed himself for abusing government resources for personal use and c) an article about a repeatedly investigated issue that specifically states "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW."

Your (repeated?) suggestion that she's responsible for her husband's behavior is disgusting and inappropriate.

Yes, that is my judgment call as a voter. I am not alone in not trusting Hillary. Last poll I saw indicated that 68% of the American public distrusts Hillary.

As an ordinary citizen, I am not privy to all the FBI information and can only see a fraction of what has happened under the Clintons' watch. I can just say that I have yet to come across anything that makes me trust her and plenty of things that make me doubt her truthfulness. Let's just give one documented example: the over-the-top story in which Hillary falsely claimed her helicopter landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. It was a bald-faced lie as there was clear videotaped evidence and witnesses to disprove this. There, that's a totally proven Hillary lie. A completely ridiculous lie she made just make herself look cool. Instead of cool, it made her look like a foolish lying idiot. So yes, I don't believe what Hillary says unless it has been proven. If you have any evidence that Hillary Clinton is a truthful person please do share.

The Washingtonpost had this to say regarding the sniper fire story:
Clinton’s tale of landing at Tuzla airport “under sniper fire” and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/

Well, there's the politifact analysis that says she's the most honest person in the race. But of course you're cant believe that. Better to believe Breitbart. Gosh, I wonder why she's held to a different standard???

She, herself, also claims that she is the most transparent candidate.
What a joke.
Some sources just cannot be believed. Hillary is one. Politifact is quickly becoming another.

There you go. They won a Pulitzer, but we should believe you and right wing bloggers instead. No wonder Trump loves the poorly educated.

There are plenty of educated Dems who see through Hillary. However, condescending comments like yours push them over the edge. It takes one pissy situation to change a vote in heartbeat. And once the vote is cast, it's done. Keep it up and you'll see King Don on the White House throne.

lots of Dems sick of radical Libs . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I understand that YOU think that these things indicate dishonesty and scandal, but I would caution you about believing things that have not been proven.

The three things you are discussing "look" suspicious based on the statements of a) a consultant not actually involved in the specific case, b) a former staffer who was dismissed himself for abusing government resources for personal use and c) an article about a repeatedly investigated issue that specifically states "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW."

Your (repeated?) suggestion that she's responsible for her husband's behavior is disgusting and inappropriate.

Yes, that is my judgment call as a voter. I am not alone in not trusting Hillary. Last poll I saw indicated that 68% of the American public distrusts Hillary.

As an ordinary citizen, I am not privy to all the FBI information and can only see a fraction of what has happened under the Clintons' watch. I can just say that I have yet to come across anything that makes me trust her and plenty of things that make me doubt her truthfulness. Let's just give one documented example: the over-the-top story in which Hillary falsely claimed her helicopter landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. It was a bald-faced lie as there was clear videotaped evidence and witnesses to disprove this. There, that's a totally proven Hillary lie. A completely ridiculous lie she made just make herself look cool. Instead of cool, it made her look like a foolish lying idiot. So yes, I don't believe what Hillary says unless it has been proven. If you have any evidence that Hillary Clinton is a truthful person please do share.

The Washingtonpost had this to say regarding the sniper fire story:
Clinton’s tale of landing at Tuzla airport “under sniper fire” and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/

You should try not believing what other people say about Hillary unless it has been proven.

uh

Majority of media outlets have a liberal slant first of all. Secondly, money talks. It's not hard to cover up your flaws if you are connected. Do you honestly think anyone is coming clean at this point? not happening this election

But people who read ALL news sources can figure out the real deal. It's like assembling a puzzle. What the left omits, the right includes and vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonderful. So now, despite numerous awards and accolades for impartiality, because you dislike the result, Politfact must be biased.

The Trump campaign is probably hiring. You could consult for them.

In case you hadn't noticed, any time any outlet says something righties don't like, they go on the offensive against that outlet. I'm even starting to see claims that Fox is part of the "Liberal Media" because they actually dared to engage in reporting critical of Trump.

It's really obvious, and pathetic, and sad.

The hard truth is a fact checker is just a journalist that calls himself/herself a fact checker. It is a great marketing gimmick. Most journalists are only human and they have biases. That is why I get my news from a variety of news sources, both liberal and conservative media. And I see there are very big differences in how the same incident is reported...everything from the type of adjectives/euphenisms used to what quotes/contextual facts are included or left out. By careful crafting of the narrative, the story can be downplayed or exaggerated very easily. Also revealing are what stories are chosen to be front page news and what is picked to be buried in back of the paper.

Currently, most journalists are decidedly left-leaning. This has been established by looking at voter registrations and political party donations. So yes, that likely means that the fact checkers will tilt left when the "facts" to be judged are in a gray zone or need be interpreted. I think of this as the difference between grading a multiple choice answer and an essay answer. The first can be graded right or wrong absolutely, the second can not be so objective. Most politicans do their best to not be pinned down to anything and so naturally, there is plenty of grey area in interpreting their statements.

Fact checkers are a useful political tool but in my opinion, not a substitute for your own personal critical thinking.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political-fact-checking-under-fire
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19113455/ns/politics/t/list-journalists-who-wrote-political-checks/#.V6aNuxQ-BhA
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I understand that YOU think that these things indicate dishonesty and scandal, but I would caution you about believing things that have not been proven.

The three things you are discussing "look" suspicious based on the statements of a) a consultant not actually involved in the specific case, b) a former staffer who was dismissed himself for abusing government resources for personal use and c) an article about a repeatedly investigated issue that specifically states "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW."

Your (repeated?) suggestion that she's responsible for her husband's behavior is disgusting and inappropriate.

Yes, that is my judgment call as a voter. I am not alone in not trusting Hillary. Last poll I saw indicated that 68% of the American public distrusts Hillary.

As an ordinary citizen, I am not privy to all the FBI information and can only see a fraction of what has happened under the Clintons' watch. I can just say that I have yet to come across anything that makes me trust her and plenty of things that make me doubt her truthfulness. Let's just give one documented example: the over-the-top story in which Hillary falsely claimed her helicopter landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. It was a bald-faced lie as there was clear videotaped evidence and witnesses to disprove this. There, that's a totally proven Hillary lie. A completely ridiculous lie she made just make herself look cool. Instead of cool, it made her look like a foolish lying idiot. So yes, I don't believe what Hillary says unless it has been proven. If you have any evidence that Hillary Clinton is a truthful person please do share.

The Washingtonpost had this to say regarding the sniper fire story:
Clinton’s tale of landing at Tuzla airport “under sniper fire” and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/

Well, there's the politifact analysis that says she's the most honest person in the race. But of course you're cant believe that. Better to believe Breitbart. Gosh, I wonder why she's held to a different standard???

She, herself, also claims that she is the most transparent candidate.
What a joke.
Some sources just cannot be believed. Hillary is one. Politifact is quickly becoming another.

There you go. They won a Pulitzer, but we should believe you and right wing bloggers instead. No wonder Trump loves the poorly educated.

There are plenty of educated Dems who see through Hillary. However, condescending comments like yours push them over the edge. It takes one pissy situation to change a vote in heartbeat. And once the vote is cast, it's done. Keep it up and you'll see King Don on the White House throne.

lots of Dems sick of radical Libs . . .

Ah yes, the old spite vote threat. Not scared of you dear. And nowhere near a "radical Lib". Put your tin foil hat back on and go back to your happy Breitbart place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I understand that YOU think that these things indicate dishonesty and scandal, but I would caution you about believing things that have not been proven.

The three things you are discussing "look" suspicious based on the statements of a) a consultant not actually involved in the specific case, b) a former staffer who was dismissed himself for abusing government resources for personal use and c) an article about a repeatedly investigated issue that specifically states "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW."

Your (repeated?) suggestion that she's responsible for her husband's behavior is disgusting and inappropriate.

Yes, that is my judgment call as a voter. I am not alone in not trusting Hillary. Last poll I saw indicated that 68% of the American public distrusts Hillary.

As an ordinary citizen, I am not privy to all the FBI information and can only see a fraction of what has happened under the Clintons' watch. I can just say that I have yet to come across anything that makes me trust her and plenty of things that make me doubt her truthfulness. Let's just give one documented example: the over-the-top story in which Hillary falsely claimed her helicopter landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. It was a bald-faced lie as there was clear videotaped evidence and witnesses to disprove this. There, that's a totally proven Hillary lie. A completely ridiculous lie she made just make herself look cool. Instead of cool, it made her look like a foolish lying idiot. So yes, I don't believe what Hillary says unless it has been proven. If you have any evidence that Hillary Clinton is a truthful person please do share.

The Washingtonpost had this to say regarding the sniper fire story:
Clinton’s tale of landing at Tuzla airport “under sniper fire” and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/

You should try not believing what other people say about Hillary unless it has been proven.

uh

Majority of media outlets have a liberal slant first of all. Secondly, money talks. It's not hard to cover up your flaws if you are connected. Do you honestly think anyone is coming clean at this point? not happening this election

But people who read ALL news sources can figure out the real deal. It's like assembling a puzzle. What the left omits, the right includes and vice versa.

That would only be true if all of the news sources were equally credible. They aren't. Treating the NYT and Breitbart as equals is not smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I understand that YOU think that these things indicate dishonesty and scandal, but I would caution you about believing things that have not been proven.

The three things you are discussing "look" suspicious based on the statements of a) a consultant not actually involved in the specific case, b) a former staffer who was dismissed himself for abusing government resources for personal use and c) an article about a repeatedly investigated issue that specifically states "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW."

Your (repeated?) suggestion that she's responsible for her husband's behavior is disgusting and inappropriate.

Yes, that is my judgment call as a voter. I am not alone in not trusting Hillary. Last poll I saw indicated that 68% of the American public distrusts Hillary.

As an ordinary citizen, I am not privy to all the FBI information and can only see a fraction of what has happened under the Clintons' watch. I can just say that I have yet to come across anything that makes me trust her and plenty of things that make me doubt her truthfulness. Let's just give one documented example: the over-the-top story in which Hillary falsely claimed her helicopter landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. It was a bald-faced lie as there was clear videotaped evidence and witnesses to disprove this. There, that's a totally proven Hillary lie. A completely ridiculous lie she made just make herself look cool. Instead of cool, it made her look like a foolish lying idiot. So yes, I don't believe what Hillary says unless it has been proven. If you have any evidence that Hillary Clinton is a truthful person please do share.

The Washingtonpost had this to say regarding the sniper fire story:
Clinton’s tale of landing at Tuzla airport “under sniper fire” and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/

You should try not believing what other people say about Hillary unless it has been proven.

uh

Majority of media outlets have a liberal slant first of all. Secondly, money talks. It's not hard to cover up your flaws if you are connected. Do you honestly think anyone is coming clean at this point? not happening this election

But people who read ALL news sources can figure out the real deal. It's like assembling a puzzle. What the left omits, the right includes and vice versa.

That would only be true if all of the news sources were equally credible. They aren't. Treating the NYT and Breitbart as equals is not smart.

The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards love child story while mainstream media ignored this story for close to a year.
Drudgereport broke the Monica-Clinton story after Newsweek decided to hold the story.

Don't blindly believe the "most credible" news source is telling you everything. And by all means, bear in mind that Breitbart is politically right and the NY Times is politically left. Though some may believe the NY Times is politically neutral, many of us think the "Old Gray Lady" has a liberal bias. In fact, she herself does.

According to google: In mid-2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote an opinion piece in which he said that The New York Times did have a liberal bias in news coverage of certain social issues such as abortion and permitting gay marriage.

I think that liberal bias permeates throughout the NY Times news coverage is not limited to those specific areas mentioned by Okrent, but well, you can judge for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Sleazy business deals from Arkansas days, a load of trampled and indicted friends aides and associates. Still, Trump's worse by a mile.

[Anonymous]

She promoted the utter, complete destruction of a fully developed sovereign country that posed no threat to the US and afterwards she gleefully cackled about the murder of its leader.

She will not hesitate to pursue war and destruction for geopolitical and financial gain and to appease her benefactors.

[Anonymous]

Which politicians have told more lies than Hillary Clinton?
Go!