Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jarqui

(10,110 posts)
57. "Her words are carefully phrased so that makes them sleazy?"
Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:32 AM
Dec 2015

Nope, didn't say that. Here's what I said in it's context:

"There's a ruthless, calculating nature to her. You don't get straight talk from her - it's too often carefully phrased word games to sleazily circumvent the truth. There's a reason 60% of America does not trust her - that's not my fault - she's the one who lost them with her deceitful actions and words. "


You've cherry picked phrases and delivered a different meaning.

Deceiving people is "contemptibly low" or "disreputable (dishonorable/discreditable)" which are words used to define "sleazy"

I do not believe Hillary is deeply sincere. But it gets pretty darn sleazy when the person has a propensity for not telling the truth in slippery ways.

Like most of us, I'm sure she'd like to do some good. But in general, she's more calculating. I think Bill has more sincerity and more of a heart. But she really pales in comparison to Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, etc. and even her own husband. And most certainly, Bernie Sanders.

She also doesn't think things through carefully. Some of that is evidenced by the number of flip-flops in her career. Some of it is evidenced by some of her lies - because a number of her lies are needless/pointless - verbal diarrhea kind of things.

She has stated an incredible volume of lies over her career - some breathtaking - like having a private server to exchange emails with husband Bill when it turns out Bill doesn't email - only sent two emails ever in his life when he was president (or the Bosnia sniper one). That's not the way to win the public's confidence when entering a new scandal (I think she got caught in a few other lies in that brief press conference).

In a couple of weeks, it will be the 20th anniversary of the 1996 NYT piece on Hillary called "Blizzard of Lies" outlining why she is regarded as a "a congenital liar"
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html
- he uses real examples and in doing so, gives some background to this problem Hillary has had with the truth for more than 20 years

"Estrangement From the Truth Is a Problem for Hillary"
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420963/hillary-clinton-lies-emails-subpoena
- not a bad more recent stab at explaining one of her techniques in deception (to help address "sleazy" and "word games" some):

The most discussed deception came in an exchange about her e-mails. Clinton declared emphatically that, “You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions that are – I’ve never had a subpoena. . . . Let’s take a deep breath here.”

Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), chair of the committee investigating the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack, promptly produced a copy of the subpoena.

Team Clinton says she was responding to a specific allegation that she deleted e-mails that were under subpoena. It’s a legalistically plausible defense given Keilar’s muddled question and Stakhanovite effort to avoid asking meaningful follow-ups.

Still, it was a classically Clintonian way of lying: Make a sweeping, definitive-sounding statement, and then when called on it, release a fog of technicalities.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/donald-trump-lies-2016-candidates-213391#ixzz3siKiV1oC
Not all lies are created equal. When Hillary Clinton lies, she generally does so with legalistic care. You get the sense that she knows what the exact truth is. But you also get the sense that she knows she’ll suffer if she provides the whole truth, so she shades the facts with interpretations and embellishments that flatter or favor her. She presents an incomplete timeline for her email account. She claims that her email practices were “permitted.” She overstates her cases and fibs with the numbers.


You cannot fully cover this subject of Hillary lying adequately in a post. It's very well documented over the last 20+ years. Google "Hillary" "lies" and read your heart out.
It's the corruption on Hillary's behalf AgingAmerican Dec 2015 #1
The cheating? Excuse me: JaneyVee Dec 2015 #9
Sorry, the revolution doesn't happen by means of being kind. nt retrowire Dec 2015 #24
What does that mean, exactly? Orrex Dec 2015 #46
It means the poster lives in a fantasy world onenote Dec 2015 #70
Yeah but Andy823 Dec 2015 #87
At this point RichVRichV Dec 2015 #107
That morals apparently don't matter. Agschmid Dec 2015 #78
Unfortunately, you are not excused. Android3.14 Dec 2015 #42
True dat. n/t RoccoR5955 Dec 2015 #10
And the dishonesty and lying by Hillary and her campaign Jarqui Dec 2015 #13
Can you even hear yourself? Rose Siding Dec 2015 #20
Reading comprehension issue #1: Jarqui Dec 2015 #33
Pretty well sums it up. nt artislife Dec 2015 #44
All true, but another real telling point that for me makes her complicit is that instead Dustlawyer Dec 2015 #49
I see. Rose Siding Dec 2015 #52
Again, you're confused. You claimed "the data breach was deliberate" Jarqui Dec 2015 #59
"Her words are carefully phrased so that makes them sleazy?" Jarqui Dec 2015 #57
William Safire and Jonah Goldberg Rose Siding Dec 2015 #63
Once again, the classic Clinton defense: SHOOT THE MESSENGER!! Jarqui Dec 2015 #66
Yeah, you're most justified in "shooting the messengers" if they are william safire and jonah efn Cha Dec 2015 #98
Do you always use virulently right-wing sources to "prove" your points, or is this a one-off? MADem Dec 2015 #67
Is David Johnson of the NYT ok? Jarqui Dec 2015 #81
He took a golden parachute six years ago--all you've got are Republicans and retirees. MADem Dec 2015 #90
Nope. What we really have is the lame hope that we'd fall for someone shooting the messenger Jarqui Dec 2015 #93
You come in here with right wing sources and expect me to take you seriously. MADem Dec 2015 #94
You've got blinders on. You not ever going to take me seriously Jarqui Dec 2015 #96
You're right about that. MADem Dec 2015 #97
So I looked at this link Jarqui Dec 2015 #99
Read this bit again: MADem Dec 2015 #100
The TOS only says Jarqui must not be a wingnut neo-con freak / right-winger; not his sources... JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #104
I judge people by the company they keep. If a person keeps using right wing sources to MADem Dec 2015 #105
I see what you mean, he was certainly a conservative. JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #106
Ah, the NYT, the 'Grey Lady.' Ever since they hired Judy Miller, I don't think much of them, either! MADem Dec 2015 #108
Yeah they have fallen quite a bit in repute. I try to be a lot more careful to look at facts, JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #111
Because I do not see them quite the same as you. Jarqui Dec 2015 #115
Safire was a self-described Conservative Libertarian. MADem Dec 2015 #122
"He voted against the resolution when he knew his vote would not make a difference" Jarqui Dec 2015 #123
You can't be that obtuse. MADem Dec 2015 #124
Bernie Sanders "supported the Iraq War" ??? Jarqui Dec 2015 #128
"How can you possibly equate her with Trump?" Jarqui Dec 2015 #61
This.. pangaia Dec 2015 #23
If you REALLY believe all that, then I suggest you napi21 Dec 2015 #35
Nothing, but nothing will keep me from voting for Hillary in the General Election! onehandle Dec 2015 #2
+1 leftofcool Dec 2015 #5
We have our own minds. My candidate doesn't cast my vote in the booth. I'll cast my vote for the Ed Suspicious Dec 2015 #3
So your support for Bernie is in no way related to his ability to be a leader? onenote Dec 2015 #73
My support for Bernie is about a lot of things, most especially his track record of fighting for the Ed Suspicious Dec 2015 #74
and if Bernie doesn't get the nomination and his supporters fail to heed his endorsement onenote Dec 2015 #77
"So, why all the sturm and drang about this?" Scootaloo Dec 2015 #4
Tells you all you need to know about the Clinton Party. draa Dec 2015 #6
^^ This right here ^^ Scuba Dec 2015 #34
Followed by "You better vote they way I tell you to vote!" (nt) jeff47 Dec 2015 #65
Why does it weigh on your mind so? Ino Dec 2015 #7
One does wonder. SammyWinstonJack Dec 2015 #53
I will be voting for the DNC nominee whomever it may be. Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #8
You have your candidate then angrychair Dec 2015 #37
As a Hillary supporter I am officially asking for your support for Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #41
The party has gone out of its way to insult liberals and Sanders supporters, and the hillarians Doctor_J Dec 2015 #11
I think that expresses it quite well. navarth Dec 2015 #17
To be honest as a Hillary Supporter I have not felt the olive branch and have been hit Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #43
If it really is about electing Democrats RichVRichV Dec 2015 #109
Whether Hillary distance herself from DWS or not is not the problem. Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #114
One person, one vote. Our vote is ours to cast, not Bernie's. No one tells another person in_cog_ni_to Dec 2015 #12
exactly. nt restorefreedom Dec 2015 #16
I don't like her, she's fake, insincere, and a liar, but I will vote for her. She's JRLeft Dec 2015 #14
^^^ me too ^^^ Hiraeth Dec 2015 #21
People who know her say she's none of those things Rose Siding Dec 2015 #26
All DNC insiders who've been corrupted by the system. JRLeft Dec 2015 #28
Maybe they don't really trust his judgement Rose Siding Dec 2015 #15
Its a win win for Sen Sanders elmac Dec 2015 #18
Added to the usual - many of us see this as a fight for the jwirr Dec 2015 #19
Absolutely no doubt SCantiGOP Dec 2015 #22
vice versa, my fat hairy ass. retrowire Dec 2015 #25
You have nothing upon which to base that remark Rose Siding Dec 2015 #29
Here's my something to base that upon. retrowire Dec 2015 #31
Let's not pretend Hillary winning is a good thing, she's bad for America, because JRLeft Dec 2015 #27
Hillary is much much more a lesser of two evils candidate than Bernie Fast Walker 52 Dec 2015 #69
So, SOTE voting? merrily Dec 2015 #82
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. Even Bernie. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2015 #30
what does that mean? Fast Walker 52 Dec 2015 #68
Opinions differ. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2015 #72
People often say things in the heat of the moment that they may not totally mean, Blue_In_AK Dec 2015 #32
Let me explain. LWolf Dec 2015 #36
Anyone who says they won't vote for the Democratic candidate in the general.... mac2766 Dec 2015 #38
Why? If trump was the democratic nominee would you support him? bowens43 Dec 2015 #127
That's silly. mac2766 Dec 2015 #129
The hatred shown for Hillary Clinton..... quickesst Dec 2015 #39
Dang, h supporters love that term "throw under the bus" artislife Dec 2015 #50
I like the under the bus meme... quickesst Dec 2015 #56
I am not interested enough to go where you point. artislife Dec 2015 #58
Yeah... quickesst Dec 2015 #62
I know 2 on du who have sworn not to vote for him SwampG8r Dec 2015 #54
This is a case... quickesst Dec 2015 #55
We agree SwampG8r Dec 2015 #60
He's a realist sharp_stick Dec 2015 #40
Don't worry, they'll come around just like PUMA in 08 Tarc Dec 2015 #45
The people who will or won't vote for the nominee on DU are irrelivent in the grand scheme. RichVRichV Dec 2015 #113
Backwards ignorance Tarc Dec 2015 #119
tell that to the party's peak back when they sabotaged Lamont and Halter MisterP Dec 2015 #47
We don't really 'love Bernie'. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Dec 2015 #48
Yeah. The issues came first. artislife Dec 2015 #51
What you are not getting is Sanders supporters are not a cult. jeff47 Dec 2015 #64
sure... but if you respect his ideas greatly, won't you respect his endorsement? Fast Walker 52 Dec 2015 #71
No. Again, it is not a cult. I will not jump just because he says "jump". (nt) jeff47 Dec 2015 #83
What you fail to appreciate onenote Dec 2015 #75
What you fail to appreciate is Clinton will lose my state by double-digits. jeff47 Dec 2015 #84
But total numbers matter when it comes to building power and influence in DC onenote Dec 2015 #85
Yeah, look how total numbers utterly crippled W's administration!! jeff47 Dec 2015 #86
If we're playing some sort of non-sequitur game, I'll point out that it's partly cloudy outside onenote Dec 2015 #88
It's not a non-sequitur. It demonstrates your claim about total numbers is not actually true. jeff47 Dec 2015 #89
total number by faction onenote Dec 2015 #91
Because it's not about "going against" a hero figure. Maedhros Dec 2015 #76
and the candidate that might win without your support? what do they represent? onenote Dec 2015 #79
Endorse Hillary? LOLOLOLOLOL randys1 Dec 2015 #80
One of the reasons kenfrequed Dec 2015 #92
a number of Hillary supporters have said that they would never support Bernie Douglas Carpenter Dec 2015 #95
If there are people like Manny in the Hillary camp Tarc Dec 2015 #121
Why are people obsessed with this point? CoffeeCat Dec 2015 #101
People should vote their conscience and not merely how others tell them to vote aikoaiko Dec 2015 #102
I think Hillary supporter comments, DWS and Hillary's own snark may have a lot to do with it. nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #103
don't worry, it's just a small number of people shireen Dec 2015 #110
This is larger than Bernie. That's why even if he doesn't win his message will continue. liberal_at_heart Dec 2015 #112
I agree. I see all these people who hate Hillary so damn much treestar Dec 2015 #116
I wouldn't worry too much about this if I were you. Vinca Dec 2015 #117
The movement that Sanders started Le Taz Hot Dec 2015 #118
Yes, he will Tarc Dec 2015 #120
This is also the reason he isn't tearing HRC down every chance he gets justiceischeap Dec 2015 #125
Being a bernie supporter has nothing to do with the fact that I will NOT vote for hill bowens43 Dec 2015 #126
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Even if Bernie Sanders do...»Reply #57