What specifically did Hillary Clinton say or do, to seem untrustworthy to Americans?

  • I am not from the US but I keep reading that Hillary is perceived as untrustworthy. I tried looking for the things she actually said or did to earn this image, but I can't find many.

    So I'm looking for a list of verifiable things that she actually said or did, to earn her this image (without judging whether or not she deserved it).

    So far, what I've found are the

    1. the email controversy,
    2. the pneumonia episode,
    3. her changing position on gay marriage, and
    4. her changing position on free trade.

    What else is there?

    You are going to have to start looking WAY earlier than 2015. The first instance that was widely-controversial was probably the cattle futures trading which started airing in 1994.

    I didn' DV, but a possible reason why: a basic Google search returns tons of data on the topic, some from sources that aren't obviously right wing (e.g. Slate is extremely left wing; The Atlantic also is rather left)

    Clinton Foundation

    It is not opinion that many find Hillary untrustworthy. The op is simply asking for examples. A reasonable person will look at Hillary's history and conclude that there are indeed instances in which the evidence availabe could lead a person to believe Hillary is less than honest. I believe this community should be allowed to educate our foreign friend on some of the reasons people may find Hillary difficult to trust.

    @acpilot Read the resource I linked above and related resources it links to. One should reasonably conclude that there are infinite possible reasons, all rooted in opinion. This is a well-known problem for this type of question on Stack Exchange, except other sites seem able to self-moderate them out. There is simply no reasonable way to answer this question, stuff like this just further degrades the quality of content on the site. It's no wonder many consider this one of the worst sites on SE.

    Op has a good question that has an answer that is not opinion based. See the answer by Brythan itemizing seven of her most well known lies.

    @acpilot That answer doesn't change the question. It's also just outsourcing the opinions, for a list that may or may-not be why people might perceive her as untrustworthy and is certainly incomplete. The answer doesn't actually address or evaluate how these impact perception, it's just a list. I don't even know what to make of #4 on that list. If silly mistakes like that make the list, is this even a good list? It's the first I've heard of it, and I can see why. Again, see linked resources.

    She didn't "earn" anything. She was just a victim of politics-as-usual...specifically opponent shaming. Having been in politics for a while, she simply had a lot more for people to shame.

    As for the book @KDog recommends, note the author is Senior Editor at Breitbart. There's no doubt that Breitbart tactics is what hurt Hillary the most, but let's not confuse that with things she actually did.

    The book was extensively vetted on the NYC and WAPO pages, who did their own stories on the revelations contained therein. No material point in the book has been proven false

    @KDog thing is, facts are just facts. In and of themselves, pretty benign and open to interpretation. I'm sure that book is grounded on some basic facts, but then breitbarted to absurd levels. I'd suggest just citing the articles that vetted the book instead. /2cents

    An answer that, instead of citing things she did, show some researches on more general reasons (some, or many) American think she is untrustworthy is acceptable?

    @blip Writing for The Washington Post, academic and political activist (and brief 2016 U.S. Democratic presidential primary opponent of Hillary Clinton) Lawrence Lessig wrote "On any fair reading, the pattern of behavior that Schweizer has charged is corruption."[15] James Freeman reviewed the book for The Wall Street Journal, writing that "Almost every page of the fascinating Clinton Cash... will be excruciating reading for partisans on both sides of the aisle".[16]

    @blip Peter Schweizer is a William J. Casey Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution among other things.

    I think all specific instances are excuses. She is untrustworthy because she belongs to an establishment which carefully maintains a "friendly" facade, but failed just as much as the Republicans to share the prosperity of the nation with the working man. It's clear now that Obama didn't win because he was a Democrat, but because he wasn't too much one. Clinton is the embodiment of the establishment. So people turned to the other side, and even more radical.

    it may be worth noting that people perceive intelligence as inherently untrustworthy. basically, voters want a candidate they believe is smart enough to lead them, but not smart enough to trick them. interestingly, most scientific studies show that intelligence is positively correlated with honesty, but the masses don't typically let data get in the way of their opinions.

    Worth noting is that trust is not a simple concept which can be captured by simply looking at a few events. It's also even more complicated for a career politician, which is a role in our society which most Americans view with great distrust. It may not be plausible to pin down the cause of distrust using such rational analyses, although I don't think it hurts to try. Contrast this with Trump, who has given people *plenty* of events which one might presume would cause distrust, but something lead a large number of voters to not feel that way. Are they wrong? It's a tricky question.

    "the masses don't typically let data get in the way of their opinions" = would be an appropriate answer for so many questions on this site. :)

    I think the real question here is "why did Trump seem _more_ trustworthy than Hillary?".

    Surprisingly nobody mentioned WikiLeaks?

    If she has been a man she would have won; that's what she did. A man with her record would have been unremarkable in US presidential elections and no traction would have been gained against her (him) for any of the issues raised - whether those issues were real or imagined. Trump, on the other hand is not someone I would trust in a room with my daughter and that is a remarkable low point in US politics.

    Personally, it all started in 2001 for me. She left DC and all of the sudden was elected senator in NY, which being from NY I was very irritated because I spent most of my life here and she just dropped in and ran for office. I remember her trying to reduce the speed limit statewide from 65 to 55 on highways, passing that law where I can't buy a normal gas can but one that self seals; when you put cold gas from the ground into it on a hot day, it builds pressure and sprays gasoline everywhere when you use it. I could go on...she's detached from normal Americans.

    OK response in general, but I downvoted because of the comment "What else is there?" We could mention Hillary's connections with Walmart and the infamous video of her gloating over the news of Gaddafi's murder. And that's still the tip of the iceberg. In fact, Hillary's carrying so much baggage it's amazing she hasn't broken her back yet.

  • There's a lot of things, most easily found through Google ("lies Hillary Clinton told" produces many results).

    Political Insider suggests:

    1. Dead Broke – In an interview, Clinton stated that she “came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.” Something even the left-leaning Politifact found to be false.
    2. Sniper Fire – During the 2008 campaign, Clinton said she came under sniper fire in Bosnia during the ’90s. She went so far as to claim her group ran “with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” Video of her actual arrival surfaced showing a very calm scene instead, and the Democrat would quickly say she simply misspoke.
    3. Immigrant Grandparents – When discussing immigrant stories, Clinton asserted that “all my grandparents… came over here.” It was another story Politifact said was false, as only one of her grandparents was an immigrant.
    4. Sir Edmund Hillary – Seems Clinton can’t even bring herself to tell the truth about her own name. She claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt. Everest. One small problem though, the explorer didn’t climb Everest until Clinton was 6 years old.
    5. The Few, The Proud, The Marines – Very recently, Clinton claimed to have been turned down by the Marines when she applied in 1975. Washington Post fact-checkers quickly realized the absurdity that a rising legal star at the time, and soon to be wife of Bill Clinton, would drop everything and ship off with the Marines. They gave her a couple of Pinocchios for her tall tale.
    6. Secret E-Mails – Former Secretary of State Clinton claimed her infamous private e-mail server was set up in “accordance with the rules and the regulations in effect.” A federal judge disagreed, saying Clinton “violated government policy” when she used a private server to store official State Department messages.
    7. Benghazi – Clearly the most reprehensible lie of them all – Clinton failed to tell the truth about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi. She claimed for weeks, standing over the flag-draped coffins of murdered Americans, that an insensitive YouTube video had incited the violence that occurred that night. Why? Because a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 – which it was – would have destroyed President Obama’s re-election chances. But hey, at the end of the day it’s worth it to Clinton to tell a politically expedient lie, so long as her party can stay in power.

    I'm not sure how Political Insider stands politically, although those seem to be written by one of Clinton's political opponents. I don't see six of them in your list.

    If those seven aren't enough, a couple more sources:

    Politifact gave her seven Pants on Fire! ratings. While many of Politifact's ratings involve exaggerations rather than outright lies, the Pants on Fire! rating are things that are deliberately false and "make ridiculous claims". Politifact claims to be neutral. If anything, they may lean left--towards Clinton (many conservatives would contest the "may").

    Sean Hannity suggests thirty-six statements as lies. Note that Hannity is politically opposed to Clinton, so take his list with a grain of salt.

    Notably, the Clintons have been involved in a long list of political scandals for decades, which is definitely a factor in how people perceive her. The Atlantic, which is a left-leaning publication, put together a list of prominent Clinton scandals and alludes to many others. Suffice to say, she has a lot of baggage as a political candidate.

    As @HopelessN00b alludes to, lies are *not* the same thing as scandals. They can feed into a scandal, but they are two separate things. Only #6 and #7 on this list were actual newsworthy scandals that came up in this campaign, at least in non-Brietbart news outlets.

    Re *I'm not sure how Political Insider stands politically* -- far right.

    WashingtonTimes 21 top Clinton Scandals, WND.Coms 23 Biggest Scandals, Western Journalisms 22 Biggest Clinton Scandals, etc. Take each list with a grain of salt but a quick Google of "complete list of clinton scandals" (or similar) will go a long way.

    So I was curious about the first: Politifact link. It stated that it is quite possible that they had more liabilities than assets; but that their future earning potential made "dead broke" questionable. Except, of course, this was in an interview talking about how they earned money after Bill left office; Hillary stated roughly "we where dead broke, and needed to pay off our debts", which sounds consistent with what happened? Or am I missing something?

    Regarding Benghazi, I don't understand why people are surprised by an untrue cover story considering it was the site of a clandestine active CIA operation. In my opinion, Republicans did a great disservice to the intelligence community and JSOC by revealing classified information regarding that site during the investigation which may have undermined other similar ongoing operations. And considering the nature of the ordeal, in order to not further contribute to the opsec leakage, Democrats would have their hands tied in defending themselves.

    @brythan your answer is incredibly biased using very right leaning outlets for most your stuff. Your politifact only has 1 pants on fire that amounts to anything at all 2 are about the exact same thing and the rest are nearly meaningless. I would not count these as reasons she is untrusted but if you are trying to show the right has been trying to make her seem untrustworthy you should say that instead.

    @Yakk Someone who can put together an $850,000 down payment and purchase a 2.85 million dollar home is not "dead broke" by any useful definition of the term, which I believe that Politifact article mentioned.

    The Political Insider is a right-wing pseudo news site. It actually does answer the question...what Hillary did is somewhat irrelevant. What right-wing media says she did, is what mattered. That said, it should be mentioned that the source is a heavily right-leaning media outlet.

    And, in fact, items like the Benghazi one have been completely discredited...again, though, not that that matters.

    Also saying "Take Sean Hannity with a grain of salt" has to be one of the biggest understatements on this site, ever. :)

    @hope If you owe 3 million dollars, have 850k cash, and a million dollars in assets, and are being asked why you are working, saying "I am broke" actually makes sense. Your current net worth is negative. You still have a lot of money; but your real asset is what money you can earn. Without it you are bankrupt; and that *exactly* is the context of the question H was answering! 'Why do speaking engagements; because I was broke.' They had to earn money asap or go bankrupt. Without context? Ridiculous. In answer to *that question*? True.

    This is the only answer that contains any reference instead of just rants and original research. Whatever the political bias or trustfworthiness of these reference, the fact that many Americans who don't trust read these biased sites (as people who trust her read *other* biased sites) is what matters to answer this question.

    @BrianHellekin I completely agree, but would argue that needs to be part of the answer. As it is, the answer is presented as a list of facts--when it is not.

    Note the use of the word "suggests" and the notes that the individual sources might be biased in their takes. They already aren't presented as facts (in the answer), although of course they are off-site in the original articles.

    @Brythan fair point, though "might be biased" is clearly incorrect. They are absolutely biased.

    @blip, maybe the answer should be improved with a little wording to make the biased nature of the sources more clear. But basically it's the correct answer.

    I'm hesitant to trust these answers when opinions are obviously mixed in: "But hey, at the end of the day it’s worth it to Clinton to tell a politically expedient lie, so long as her party can stay in power."

    @Brythan you really need to change it to point out the fact that the reason for her untrustworthiness are articles like those and that almost all the articles that show up when doing the search you suggest are either right wing or very right wing.

    This list of claims really needs a wiki of its own carefully moderated by intelligent neutral parties. Things are never quite as simple as they seem. As just one example see http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/03/world/hillary-clinton-meets-man-who-gave-her-2-l-s.html .

    Referring to Politifact as "left-leaning" tells you that Political Insider, or at least this writer, is conservative. Clintons left the White House with millions more in debt than assets, though they had deals in the works that would quickly take care of and reverse that, they were beyond broke when they left. The rest of the list is framed in a very slanted way, and makes characterizations that are not accurate in many of them - the claim that a judge ruled her email server setup was illegal is simply fabrication, for example. This list would need vetting.

    The accusations surrounding Bill's sexual misconduct probably deserve a mention somewhere in here.

    @jpmc26 I wouldn't say they deserve a mention, but yea, people latched on to that too.

    Wait, so you're saying a lie about her own name's origin being linked to the climb of Mt. Everest makes her *untrustworthy* to you? To me it sounds more like a stupid joke than anything else. While I don't really do this myself, people make up stories like this all the time, and it hardly calls their trustworthiness into question... and putting it on the same scale as something like the Benghazi incidents is ludicrous...

    Note that Hillary has *seven* pants-on-fire ratings from politifact, over a political career spanning thirty years or more. Compare that to the number of POF ratings Trump got in the past few months and ask again which one you'd trust.

  • I think that the main reason many Americans don't trust Hillary are the scandals mentioned by @Brythan in his answer, whether they were exaggerated or not by some sources. But I want to add some additional informations, not about things she did (or didn't do) but about how people view Clinton, and why they don't trust her, i.e. more subjective things based indirectly in what she did or talked about.

    Disclaimer: I'm a moderate conservative, and I'm more against Hillary than against Trump (and I'm not an American, if that matters). But my opinions shouldn't matter is this site! So I'll try to be neutral and just show the results of my research.

    Before anything, it should be noted that OP's claim that "Hillary is perceived as untrustworthy" is probably true, according to what opinion researches say. This research by Morning Consult shows that "Clinton and Trump Are Historically Unpopular". And the reasons of Hillary's unpopularity are tied to trust. Besides the general "is not trustworthy", many participants of the research said she "is corrupt" and "changes her positions when it's politically convenient" (Donald Trump is seen as "Racist" and Inexperienced").

    enter image description here

    Now, let's search for some evidences to "why" she is seen as "untrustworthy".

    According to this article from left-leaning The Atlantic:

    Hillary Clinton can’t be trusted because she’ll do anything to win. That’s what several participants in a focus group of thirty undecided voters moderated by Republican strategist Frank Luntz on Friday in Alexandria, Virginia, seemed to believe. At least some of the group of Democratic, Republican and Independent-leaning voters felt the first woman to win the presidential nomination of a major U.S. political party was too ambitious.

    Research indicates that women in leadership positions tend to be evaluated more negatively than men. A 2010 study on backlash against female politicians found that “participants experienced feelings of moral outrage” such as contempt, anger, and disgust when women politicians were described as power-seeking. In contrast, “when participants saw male politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having greater agency (i.e., being more assertive, stronger, and tougher) and greater competence.”

    It’s difficult to differentiate or untangle lurking sexism from general distrust among voters of the political establishment. Clinton is also a political insider at a time when voters have very little trust in government.

    So, according to these researchers, some voters have negative feelings about power-seeking politicians, specially if the politician is a female. However, the article also mentioned the possibility of her position as a political insider to be a source of her being considered untrustworthy for the public.

    Another interesting finding is this research:

    Research, including new work from our Human Cooperation Laboratory at Yale, suggests Trump may be successful precisely because of his hotheadedness and lack of carefully thought-out proposals. Being seen as calculated can make people trust you.

    Hillary Clinton is the opposite of hotheaded. She is careful and calculating – which, despite being a strong asset in actually carrying out the duties of public office, has become a liability in her presidential campaign by undermining the public’s trust in her.

    In a recent paper, we found that if you take an action that people like, you come off as much more trustworthy if you decide to act without doing a careful cost-benefit analysis first: Individuals who calculate seem liable to sell out when the price is right.

    So, Hillary is seen as "cold and calculated", and people tend to think this kind of people is less trustworthy, according to this research.

    There is also this NYT (another left-leaning source) podcast where they discuss exactly this question. According to one of the people they talk, Mark Landler (among others), a "White House correspondent for The Times", about the "high-profile episodes, from Benghazi, Libya, to a private email server, which have contributed to Mrs. Clinton’s troubles":

    “Why wasn’t she willing to have a government email account like every other employee of the state department?” Mr. Landler asked on The Run-Up. “That goes to the broader issue around the Clintons: that they simply don’t view themselves as being subject to the same regulations that the rest of the world has to comply with.”

    I'll not do the thing Hillary is accused, so I'll not lie: I have not listen the podcast. But maybe someone finds it interesting, so it's here!

    Well... Maybe my sources are a bit biased if favour of Hillary (or maybe I'm biased against her so I think my non-biased sources are biased). However, I think these studies can draw a light on the more subjective, unconscious way some people unfavoured Hillary.

    This is the single most horrendous pie graph I have seen in my life.

    ... wouldn't this just mean she's an *extraordinary* person who has no problems whatsoever *besides* being untrustworthy, which naturally spans 8 possible answers in their poll because of course that's what they want respondents to pick?

    “Why wasn’t she willing to have a government email account like every other employee of the state department?" - this is false, as there was prededent - she wasn't the first secretary to not use a government email account.

    @djechlin What's wrong with a pie chart that adds up to 141%? :D

    @endolith Seems they misunderestimated their totals and accidentally made the pie higher.

    @djechlin, that's clearly a cheese graph. No pie would ever be 4 (or 7) different colors of yellow.

    @djechlin Yes... they asked for the top *two* reasons... that's where the 141% comes from.

  • To directly answer your question: She has been accused of many scandalous acts during her long political career, and despite a lack of convictions, the perception of being consistently under investigation is enough cause for many people to solidify their judgement of her. She has also inherited a bit of reputation by association from her husband.

    There is also some concern of negative public perception of strong-willed (some would probably prefer the term "bossy") women in prominent public circles.

    In the end, I don't think that this question has a good "politics" answer and is more of a philosophical issue.

    I think this answer can profit from some links to these studies about negative perception of strong-willed women, as the ones I mentioned in my answer below.

  • The reasons she came to be seen as untrustworthy to Americans are complicated by the heightened political battle between the main parties. The political right ran a very successful campaign to discredit her over a long period of time. If you look up the many claims against her, for example the list of https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/13405/4841, you will find that some are true, some are partly true and some are false. But after a while people stopped caring about how true the claims were or even making an effort to find out. They just generally took the view that she did lots of non-specific bad things. This was a considerable political victory by the strategists on the other side.

    The irony is that her main opponent, D. Trump, is hardly known for telling the truth. In fact on any sensible objective measure he is less accurate in his statements than H. Clinton is. This fact shows, at least to me, that H. Clinton's poor reputation amongst voters is connected more to aspects of the US culture wars than just whether she told some lies or not.

    Slight quibble with 'after a while people stopped caring about how true the claims were' and how that 'was a considerable political victory by the strategists on the other side'. Once someone has provably done bad behavior x, one no longer gets the benefit of the doubt when accused of x. That's just human nature, and equally applicable to the President Elect.

    @jared smith but, on the other hand, it appears Trump got the benefit of the doubt after exhibiting bad behavior multiple times.

    @blip disagree. People (at least people I know in my overwhelmingly red state) voted for Trump *in spite* of his behavior, not because of it. I don't know any women (including those that voted for him) who really want to be around him. I don't know any fathers (again, including those who voted for him) who'd want their daughters around him.

    @JaredSmith I am not sure you are really disagreeing. I didn't express an opinion about whether the victory was deserved or not. As some of the charges are true, some partly true and some completely false, the question of whether this loss of confidence was deserved or not needs careful analysis. I do think it would be interesting for a neutral party to go through the entire catalog of accusations carefully for the history books.

    @Lembik perhaps not, internet conversations tend to go awry from lack of context. As for my original comment, I was just making the observation that the reason people stopped caring about how true accusations against Clinton (and by extension other scandal-ridden politicians) is because once you acquire that reputation it becomes 'just the sort of thing a person who does x would do'.

    @JaredSmith Right. This was my point too. The unanswered (but interesting) question is whether the accusations that caused people to lose trust in the first place were mostly true or not.

    @Lembik I think the bigger issue than percentage is what do people consider 'unforgivable'? And perhaps more importantly, why? Because I thought there would be a lot more people like me: a right-leaning centrist who couldn't stomach some of the things Trump said. Apparently I was wrong: they mostly voted for Trump anyway.

    @JaredSmith Right. I also regard this as a political victory by Trump. It's hard to imagine that that many people would really care about the exact handling of potentially classified material compared with, say, sexual assault, openly mocking the disabled, racist taunts and/or torture as a tool of war. But apparently they did.

    @JaredSmith I guess I don't understand the difference between "in spite of his behavior" and "giving his behavior the benefit of the doubt". Maybe it's semantics. What I was trying to get across is why was only one of the two candidates painted with "acquiring a reputation" when they both clearly had reputations.

    @blip The answer is that Trump was simply better at controlling the public rhetoric than Clinton. He won the political battle and that has little to do with facts.

    @Lembik I agree with you. I addressing Jared's initial comment. It made sense in and of itself, but didn't make any sense once you apply it to both candidates. Only one of the two candidates was painted with a bad reputation. So there was more to it than that (which you rightfully point out is simply that Trump better controlled the rhetoric for his voter base).

    @blip its not semantics. In one instance we're talking about things Clinton *may* have done in light of things she *did* do. On the other we're talking about things that Trump *undisputedly* did/said. No one (credible) is saying that Trump didn't say what he said.

    Oh and politics.se needs a Trump tag :)

    @Lembik There is one. You question would be better constructed without the opinionated editorial.

    @DrunkCynic Do you mean the OP's question? I didn't ask one.

    @Lembik Affirmative.

  • One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that she's a career politician. A lot of Americans on both sides have a very cynical and distrustful view of politicians, seeing them as detached elites with little-to-no real experience

    (I know how much that sounds like a Republican talking point, so just bear with me.) They expect politicians to lie, cheat, and screw people over because that's just how the game is played - or at least how they think it's played. Now if this is actually how things work is beyond the scope of my answer. It's just an unconscious bias that's hammered into them.

    This was part of Trump's appeal. He played on the fact that people are distrusting of the political establishment, hence his rhetoric about being an outsider. Even without any scandals, simply being a politician already makes you look untrustworthy by comparison.

    But then why was Senator Sanders so popular with most people that knew him? He was a politician for decades, also an old white guy, so the stereotype politician on the outside and his rhetoric wasn't that unusual ether. It is hard to guess the entire opinion of a majority but for me the idea that the voters against her or just not for her, are just misinformed and "solely against the establishment" is a little too simple.

    @Ismalith - because the man has been fighting for the people his entire life. He is nothing like Hilary.

    @Davor That is what I mean, Hillary didn't fail because she was a typical politician, but because of who she is. You can be popular as a politician as well.

    @Ismalith - hmm, I'd say that Hillary did fail because she was a typical politician: a long carrier of scandals, lying and flip flopping. I'd say that Sanders is the one that is not typical.

    @Davor I don't see this as a necessary part of being a politician, but there is no way to deny, that the usual politician is a cheap sleezeball.

    @Davor - funny how left wing doesn't consider non-left people "people" (as Sanders clearly didn't fight FOR them but against them)

    @user4012 - I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Sanders has been fighting for everyone's rights, not just those on the left.

    @Davor - nope, he definitely wasn't fight for right of people like me (those who'd have to pay taxes to support his proposals) but against those people's rights.

  • It is not a single line that brought her down, it is everything she does coming together, for example she doesn't stand for anything, while she was running to become the democratic candidate she run as a center democrat, with promoting things as healthcare, doing more for public education and regulation of markets (Wallstreet in public speaking), but in the election she run a "strong America" line, with heavy militarism and free marked rhetoric. People don't simply forget these things, they also remember what she stood for before the whole election process, things like her support of deregulating the markets, what lead to the 2008 crash and her vote for Iraq war, one of the least supported wars by the public and one, that even the supporters of that time now say, was false.

    And then her character, the way she talks and acts, she is a living lie, always on the side where she can get the most out of, and tomorrow if things changed she is on the other. This is probably the part where she lost the most, you can say what you want about Trump, that he is an ass hole, retarded, racists, an whatnot, but he always was that way and didn't change. And many people set up with the decision, voting for a corrupt liar that already has shown to work against them or an idiot that doesn't know what he is doing but has the ego of a country, they tend to go for luck over a direct shot in the own foot.

    FWIW, Trump hasn't always 'been that way'. He's been all over the place politically on a much grander scale than Hillary was. Aside from this being a personal opinion rant, it's actually just plain incorrect.

    He isn't really all over the place, instead permanent hard right wing, overconfident and clueless. Two of these things are liked by some people. Hillary was at the beginning left wing (primary election), than right wing and at the end flipped between right and left wing. Too left for Republicans, too right for Democrats and less confident than Trump. Also she lied, too. So honesty wasn't going for her as well, and to make it really bad she has a hard-line right wing history as already pointed out. So the only thing she had running for her, was that she isn't Trump, not enough for an election.

    To the answer being opinion, the only opinion here is, that these are the factors that costed her the election, maybe it is something completely different and I am wrong, but that is true with everyone that is giving any kind of answer here, nobody has "the truth" about this election and just because some people use their title or some nice diagrams to state their opinion, doesn't change the fact that it is an opinion, to expect real theories or some kind of facts is a rather odd expectation.

    He was a strong democrat for a long time. So definitely not "permanent hard right wing"

    I had to look that up, I give you that, but there isn't that much of a change in direction. link for an example, (other sources state basicly the same), he wasn't for Obama or a left wing politic, he was for Clinton before he switched to the Republicans, remember that I said that Clinton was extremely right wing before the election? Keep that in mind and everything comes together.

    However the fact that he switched would be enough reason to see him as a flip flop, at least for the uninformed, sadly it is 6 years in the past and Hilary didn't do anything to remember the people of this, maybe because she herself was involved?

  • I can't believe no one has mentioned Hillary's connections with Walmart or the grim video of her gloating over the news of Gaddafi's murder.

    That video was the #1 reason I didn't vote for her (though I didn't vote for Trump, either). To my surprise, I've run into several other people who also mentioned that disgusting video as their rationale for not voting for Hillary.

    If that's the lesser of evils, then it's time to climb out of the rut.

    In all fairness, I'm going to go out on a limb and randomly guess that Trump wasn't exactly saddened by Gadaffi's demise either (and neither were, likely, 90% of Americans).

    They're called sheeple for a reason. Even people who have been brainwashed into thinking Gaddafi was evil can't possibly believe Libyans are better off now than when they enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa.

    it's easy to enjoy high standard of living when you live off of oil money. Doesn't take a genious leader.

    ...in a country that has little industry or agriculture (though Gaddafi was working on that). The point is, an evil dictator could have stolen or misappropriated all that money, and an idiot could have mismanaged things. I give credit where credit's due; Gaddafi did an awesome job, and Libya is flirting with status as a failed state, with refugees drowning in the sea. It doesn't take a genius to understand that.

  • The Clinton "Foundation" is another excellent reason. If you look at their website as of today, you see some touching pictures of people who appear to be African, prominently displayed, with the statement

    Fact: 87% of Clinton Foundation spending goes to directly to programs that improve people's lives around the world.

    Really? Let's go to their tax returns. Here is their 2015 form 990. If you look at page 10, you will see the (rounding everything to the nearest million dollars) $99 million in total expenses. Here is a partial list:

    $4 million on "Grants and assistance"
    $5 million on Direct Program
    $29 million on salaries
    $9 million on pension plans, payroll taxes, and other employee benefits
    $4 million on accounting, fundraising, legal, and investment management
    $4 million on advertising, information technology, and office expenses
    $5 million on rent
    $7 million on travel
    $12 million on conventions, conferences, and meetings
    $9 million on "other fees"

    I don't know what creative thinking they use from there to get to the highlighted statement above. Paying money to your employees improves their lives, I suppose, and conferences and travel can be a lot of fun, too. But are they playing it straight with the average viewer of the website?

    And who is getting those salaries? Lower on the form, we see (rounding to the nearest $10k):

    $360k -- [Name omitted], Chairman of the Board
    $360k -- [Name omitted], Director until 1/19/15
    $190k -- [Name omitted], CFO

    and so on for another 12 people, with most of the rest making around $200k. The names look like American names. One can guess that if the top people are making those amounts, the next tier might be making $100-150k or so, and they will be much more numerous.

    Additionally, their address is in this 48-story building in midtown Manhattan.

    And where do they get all that money? Donations, naturally, but from whom? This news story has at least 10 quotes where someone at the State Department was asking whether or not someone was a "Friend of Bill" or FoB, (in other words, a big donor to the Foundation) when deciding how to respond to various requests.

    But why would the State Department care whether or not a particular person was a donor to the Clinton "Foundation"? Should that make any difference one way or the other?

    Here are what Mother Jones (liberal) and the Daily Caller (conservative) had to say about what various donors got from the State Department.

    Was all of this legal? I have no idea; you'd have to check with an expert. Does it stink to high heaven? I have a rather clear opinion about that; what is yours?

    This answer seems to show a lack of understanding of how foundations' operational budgets are used. There's nothing contradictory over your laundry list with the statement you quoted. And, again, this doesn't really explain why Trump, when doing clearly worse things with his own foundation, is completely unaffected by it.

    care to elaborate on the first sentence? And what about the second part of the answer?

    Operational costs are part of what it costs for foundations to do their mission.

    Ie, the foundation spends 87% of its budget on programs. That doesn’t mean the foundation gives 87% of its budget directly to the programs.

    Look at the quote again.

    and? I think you're reading way more into that quote than it's actually saying. It's saying *spending* goes directly to the programs. All the items you list are what would be deemed as *spending*.

    Maybe a better way to explain: A charity might be providing services to orphans. Perhaps the orphans gets $20k of services a year. But the charity spends $80k to get those services to them. One can say that charity spends $100k directly helping orphans. (Whether they are spending *wisely* is a whole other debate...)

  • Don't forget about the terrorist attack that happened in the consulate in Benghazi when she was Secretary of State. Although an investigation has shown her not to be at fault, people still don't trust her in part because of the aforementioned. Whether they are misunderstanding what occurred is up for debate. Also, she was using her power and influence as Secretary of State and Democratic presidential nominee to give people (including foreign leaders and Wall Street) favors in return for payment through the Clinton Foundation and, from what I've heard, private bank accounts.

    "from what I've heard" Did you ever worry about checking "what you have heard" from other sources, or did it just sound good to you and decided that it was true?

    @SJuan76 I heard it on the radio. Here: Those billions intended to rebuild the ruined nation instead disappeared into fantasy houses and roads that were never built, jobs that were never created, a national revival that never happened, and often private bank accounts never traceable. And a company with Tony Rodham, Hillary’s brother, on the board, somehow scored a lucrative 25-year gold mining deal. https://www.google.com/amp/townhall.com/columnists/joyoverbeck/2016/09/03/hillary-cares-about-you-ask-the-haitians-she-ripped-off-n2213504%3famp=true

    I do not claim that you did invent it, what I did ask was if you did check those "facts" in **other**, non partisan sources? Didn't you find strange that there was no explanation of how these "facts" were discovered, how the newscaster "knew" about "untraceable accounts"? Any serious news media making these kind of claim would detail which are their information sources (reports, people, etc.), not just drop the accusation. Did you ever wonder why a supposed fraud of "billions" with such supposed "proof" was neither investigated by authorities nor reported by other media?

    @SJuan76 that was an **other** source.

    Like those: https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.lpnmxlr0x#.qjj0ZnK2Z. It ends being rather "funny" (in a dark way) how just a few foreign teenagers can "convince" Americans of anything they want, no matter how unbelievable, just because it catters to their tastes...

    @SJuan76 What does that have to do with me???

    Think. Unreputed news agencies providing shocking unsourced news that no serious media considers or publishes (and don't start with the "conspiracy" bullshit), accusations of very grave crimes that somehow the police and the FBI do not research about, no explanation at all of the details of how such important news wer uncovered, all of these catered to a public that will mindlessly accept anything that fits their preconceived prejudgements, coupled with other "reporters" that just repeat the falsehoods because "if it is in facebook it must be true"... does any of that ring a bell to you?

    @SJuan76 There's a reason I said "according to what I've heard."

License under CC-BY-SA with attribution

Content dated before 7/24/2021 11:53 AM