More people think Bigfoot exists than Hillary is honest

[rogue06]

Ouch.

Not long ago NBC News (not exactly a right wing source) conducted a poll where they found that only 11% of those surveyed thought that Hillary Clinton is honest and trutworthy.

000000000000hh.png

Compare this to a survey conducted in 2013 by the Public Policy Polling (PPP) which found that 14% think that Bigfoot or Sasquatch exists.

IOW, significantly more people think Bigfoot is real than Hillary is honest and truthful.

000000000000hhbf.png

000000000000ct.jpg

Even worse an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll taken the previous year found that 29% of Americans and 21% of Canadians think Bigfoot is "definitely" or "probably" real. That would be three times as many Americans think that Bigfoot or Sasquatch exists than Hillary is honest.

[NorrinRadd]

That seems entirely reasonable.

There is considerable direct evidence of Hil's dishonesty.

There is only small evidence that Sasquatch, Bigfoot, Yeren, Yeti, whatever, exist, but AFAIK no proof that they cannot.

[Starlight]

What's more astounding is the number of people who believe in Trump's honesty in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary.

[Tassman]

That seems entirely reasonable.

There is considerable direct evidence of Hil's dishonesty.

There is only small evidence that Sasquatch, Bigfoot, Yeren, Yeti, whatever, exist, but AFAIK no proof that they cannot.

So runs the anti Hillary narrative, but this is not the case. "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.dailynewsbin.com/news/fac...he-time/25130/

[Starlight]

"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."

Fact-checking typically measures informedness rather than honesty. Most of the politicians they rate as making false statements, are not deliberately lying, but rather are saying something they wrongly believe to be true. For some politicians, this is because they don't care about reality, and so make no effort to ensure their own beliefs are accurate. Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, for example, wouldn't know reality if they fell over it, and believed that whatever sounded good to them must have been true. Trump is one of that sort. Trump isn't very smart, has no clue about policy, and wouldn't know truth from falsehood, and just says whatever words his half-brain supplies to his mouth... occasionally they make coherent sense, but they are almost never true. However, when it comes to issues he does know about (e.g. his own business failures) he lies like a champion about how great he is.

Hillary is very informed and experienced and knows the truth about facts and policies in nearly all instances, so she gets extremely good ratings from fact checkers, because she doesn't make false statements by accident. However, she has a reputation for crafting deliberate lies for political purposes when being attacked politically. e.g. nearly everything she said about her emails was subsequently shown to be false; her first instinct when she fainted on 9/11 was to lie about what had happened and only when reporters could show video footage of her fainting did her campaign come clean about the fact she had pneumonia, and her and Bill couldn't even get their stories straight as to whether she had a history of fainting. The Clinton way of operating in political scandals for decades has been to lie about everything by default. It doesn't endear them to anyone, and it's given them a very bad reputation. But if Hillary's talking dispassionately about some policy issue, chances are very high that everything she says will be 100% accurate or close to it.

[Tassman]

Fact-checking typically measures informedness rather than honesty. Most of the politicians they rate as making false statements, are not deliberately lying, but rather are saying something they wrongly believe to be true. For some politicians, this is because they don't care about reality, and so make no effort to ensure their own beliefs are accurate. Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, for example, wouldn't know reality if they fell over it, and believed that whatever sounded good to them must have been true. Trump is one of that sort. Trump isn't very smart, has no clue about policy, and wouldn't know truth from falsehood, and just says whatever words his half-brain supplies to his mouth... occasionally they make coherent sense, but they are almost never true. However, when it comes to issues he does know about (e.g. his own business failures) he lies like a champion about how great he is.

Hillary is very informed and experienced and knows the truth about facts and policies in nearly all instances, so she gets extremely good ratings from fact checkers, because she doesn't make false statements by accident. However, she has a reputation for crafting deliberate lies for political purposes when being attacked politically. e.g. nearly everything she said about her emails was subsequently shown to be false; her first instinct when she fainted on 9/11 was to lie about what had happened and only when reporters could show video footage of her fainting did her campaign come clean about the fact she had pneumonia, and her and Bill couldn't even get their stories straight as to whether she had a history of fainting. The Clinton way of operating in political scandals for decades has been to lie about everything by default. It doesn't endear them to anyone, and it's given them a very bad reputation. But if Hillary's talking dispassionately about some policy issue, chances are very high that everything she says will be 100% accurate or close to it.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...st-politicians

OTOH let's talk about Trump's own gratuitous lies which are many, his infidelities, his taxes, his dealing with Cuba illegally and ties to Russia. Let's talk about how Donald cannot even form a coherent sentence. Let's talk about his total lack of proposed policies. Let's talk about how he fat shamed women. Let's talk about his 4th grade mentality. His racism, his misogyny, his ignorance and shameless lying and let's talk about the people who think all this is OK.

[Starlight]

Republicans need to get the beam out of their own eye before they keep banging on about the mote in Hillary's.

Sure, Republicans lie pretty constantly and/or are deluded about or disinterested in the facts of reality.

Are nearly all Republican politicians massive, massive, liars? Yes. Sure.

Do Republican supporters tend to portray Hillary as a massive liar, while totally ignoring the fact that their own politicians wouldn't know the truth if they fell over it? Yes. Sure.

Is Hillary a worse liar than most Republican politicians? No. She's not.

But, by the high standards of truthfulness that liberals like to have, is Hillary a particularly truthful person? No, she isn't. Honesty requires us to be honest about the pros and cons of the politicians on 'our side' just as much as we're honest about the politicians on the other side. Republican supporters may delude themselves about their own politicians, but we shouldn't do the same. When it comes down to it, I don't think Hillary is a very moral or honest person. She does well on fact-checks because she knows facts and uses them in her speeches, but that is quite different to whether her first instinct is to lie when someone accuses her of something. Hillary is one of the worst Democratic politicians when it comes to lying deliberately, and is almost as bad as the Republican politicians. Convincing ourselves that she's better than she is, isn't helpful.

OTOH let's talk about Trump's own gratuitous lies which are many, his infidelities, his taxes, his dealing with Cuba illegally and ties to Russia. Let's talk about how Donald cannot even form a coherent sentence. Let's talk about his total lack of proposed policies. Let's talk about how he fat shamed women. Let's talk about his 4th grade mentality. His racism, his misogyny, his ignorance and shameless lying and let's talk about the people who think all this is OK.

Absolutely. Donald Trump is all of that and more. He probably breaks all sorts of records for just how many bad things can be validly said about him, and how many different problems he has. A literal squirrel would make a better president.

[EvoUK]

You don't get it Tass- its been pointed out on many occasions how horrendously awful Trump is. They don't care- they just don't want a democrat in place who may appoint so-called liberal judges to SCOTUS.

They may think Hillary is the worst of the democrats, but I asked them which democrat they'd vote for instead and I don't believe anyone gave me a name of a current democrat they'd vote for. Coz they're democrats.

It's nice because it means they do not feel the need to defend anything he says or does, but can keep posting in anti-Hillary threads as nausiem.

I think there's maybe 2-3 actual Trump supporters on here, the rest of those voting for him are merely the NeverHillary crowd.

[Starlight]

They may think Hillary is the worst of the democrats, but I asked them which democrat they'd vote for instead and I don't believe anyone gave me a name of a current democrat they'd vote for. Coz they're democrats.

...I think there's maybe 2-3 actual Trump supporters on here, the rest of those voting for him are merely the NeverHillary crowd.

Well it's really the "NeverDemocrat" crowd really, isn't it? If they're against Democratic presidents because-Supreme-court, rather than Hillary herself?

Have any posters told you what they expect a conservative supreme court to accomplish? Are they seriously hoping for an undoing of Roe v. Wade, or perhaps a repeal of same sex marriage? Because neither of those strike me as realistic possibilities even with a conservative-stacked supreme court. Or is there some other issue they care deeply about?

[EvoUK]

Yes, the NeverDemocrat crowd then. Though some do claim to have voted democrat several decades ago if I remember correctly.

Some are wishing for an undoing of roe v wade, as unlikely as that may be- however I suppose they're also worried about it 'getting worse' in their eyes with more progressive policies and issues.

[Starlight]

I suppose they're also worried about it 'getting worse' in their eyes with more progressive policies and issues.

Hmm, but the US is fast running out of social issues. There's really not a lot on the horizon. I guess there's the current desire to have the government monitoring the genitalia of people using restrooms on the part of the "small government" people... but I'm not sure that the Supreme Court is actually relevant to that issue, and I'm not sure that people really care all that deeply. And beyond that there's really not a lot of issues left... legalization of pot and prostitution I guess, but neither would be done via the courts.

[NorrinRadd]

So runs the anti Hillary narrative, but this is not the case. "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.dailynewsbin.com/news/fac...he-time/25130/

I never said anything about Trump's honesty, since that was never part of the OP. The OP says nothing about Hil's honesty relative to anyone else's, only that she is widely recognized to be not honest. The question of least-not-honest is irrelevant to the OP.

[Tassman]

I never said anything about Trump's honesty, since that was never part of the OP. The OP says nothing about Hil's honesty relative to anyone else's, only that she is widely recognized to be not honest.

"she is widely recognised to be not honest". Really! This is an unsubstantiated generalisation worthy of Trump himself...as in "it's widely recognised that I won the debate".

The question of least-not-honest is irrelevant to the OP.

Certainly but that was not the point. The link indicates Hillary is the most honest, not the "least not honest", and this hardly squares with your unsubstantiated assertion that "she is widely recognised to be not honest".

[NorrinRadd]

If I vote Trump rather than abstaining, it will be because of SCOTUS. Even though I find them weak on foreign policy, I'd vote Libertarian if not for their Pro-Choice stance.

Besides being a narcissistic misogynistic megalomaniacal sociopath, I think Trump would be a big-government overreaching fascist pseudo-conservative rather than a big-government overreaching fascist progressive.

Yes, overturning Roe would be ideal, but the obsessive devotion to stare decisis by Justices of all political and ideological stripes makes that vanishingly unlikely. An Amendment would probably be required, and that also is unlikely. I have somewhat of an apocalyptic outlook, so I really don't think things can be "turned around." My best hope is that the decline can be slowed. I would like a SCOTUS that truly values the Bill of Rights; that applies them in a "bottom-up" fashion protecting first individuals, then the States, and placing the Federal government last; that in regard to religion, recognizes that "free exercise" is not limited to what one does in one's own home or church (i.e., in the minds of infidels, protects my "Christian privilege"); takes a "Constitutional Carry" approach to the Second Amendment, and extends the protection beyond just firearms; applies the Fourth Amendment more strictly to surveillance by the NSA, etc. And I would like a Court that, contra Roberts in the ACA, is more concerned with ruling on the merits than on safeguarding some kind of notion of the "integrity of the Court," or whatever.

[Starlight]

"she is widely recognised to be not honest". Really! This is an unsubstantiated generalisation worthy of Trump himself...as in "it's widely recognised that I won the debate".

Um, it's a true statement about the widespread opinions held by the US electorate. See the OP for poll results on the subject.

You could, of course, argue those people are wrong to think that. But critiquing NorrinRadd for noting that people do think that, seems strange.