[kenberg]

Driving home I heard the DT has scrapped his tax plan, such as it was, and is promising something new soon. It will, of course, be terrific.

Possibly someone has actually gotten through to him. If so, HC might still have a fight on her hands.


Be prepared.

[hrothgar]

Good article describing the differences between Trump and Clinton wrt "truth telling"

http://www.nytimes.c...ies.html?src=me

[kenberg]

I think that there is a real danger of complacency here. I think that everyone on this thread agrees that Trump is awful. But the other day I took Becky's car in for an oil change and a general inspection. The guy doing the work was wearing a Make America Great Again cap. I suspect that if I showed him the Times article saying that
"One metric comes from independent fact-checking websites. As of Friday, PolitiFact had found 27 percent of Clinton's statements that it had looked into were mostly false or worse, compared with 70 percent of Trump's."
this would not convert him.

Recently Trump has endorsed Ryan and McCain and he is, I understand, putting out a new tax plan that is more conventionally Republican. He has put together a group of advisers for his economic message. All are rich white males. I doubt that my guy in the baseball cap cares, actually I doubt that he knows.

The message that Priebus and others have been sending is "If you want to win, you have to pretend for a few months that you are someone other than who you are". Perhaps this message has gotten through. If so, there will be work to be done. Just as Sanders said "The public is tired of hearing about your damned emails" it will be true, in September, that the public will be tired of hearing about Trump mocking a disabled reporter. Old news, and besides, he "explained that he was misunderstood". Ridiculous? Sure. But the Clinton team should not rely on Trump continuing to reveal himself as the obnoxious jerk that he is. And saying look what he did in July, or May, or January, is not going to do it either.

So my advice (free advice, worth every penny) to the Clinton team: Don't rely on Trump's pathological nature to win this for you. You have to do it yourselves.

Btw, after seeing the baseball cap I treated the recommendations for further work needed with great suspicion. My car is a 2013, Becky's a 2001. We have started looking for a new one for her. If we decide to stick the old one (unlikely) we will have someone else do the work. Probably an unfair judgment based on only a baseball cap, but its our money, our car, our judgment. But time for a new one anyway.

[Winstonm]

The Trump verses Hillary lie-off reminds me of a friend of mine from my past.

A number of years ago I lived in Las Vegas and worked in one of the casinos. A co-worker (Pete) was from New York, an ex-policeman who had retired with a disability check, was Sicilian (not Italian, he assured me), and he said some in his family were mob, something he could not do because it required a ruthlessness of which he was incapable. Still, being family, he was friendly with them.

He told me the story of being under observation (unknown to him) by his superiors at the police department due to his family connections, and one day he met his uncle (a mobster) at a restaurant for lunch. When he left the restaurant, still holding the door open, he was immediately approached by a police Captain who demanded to know what he had been doing in the restaurant.

Pete said, "What restaurant? I wasn't in any restaurant."

After telling me this story, Pete looked me in the eye and offered this sage advice: "Always deny it, no matter what."

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2016-August-09, 07:26, said:

the other day I took Becky's car in for an oil change and a general inspection. The guy doing the work was wearing a Make America Great Again cap. I suspect that if I showed him the Times article saying that
"One metric comes from independent fact-checking websites. As of Friday, PolitiFact had found 27 percent of Clinton's statements that it had looked into were mostly false or worse, compared with 70 percent of Trump's." this would not convert him.

There are plenty of idiots in the world. I have neither the time nor the patience to convert them all, especially if they aren't inclined to look at inconvenient little things like "facts".

Here's what I do need: Democrats to get damn serious about hardball politics and capitalize on what looks to be a wave election in the making

1. Come January, I want to see a lot of effort around bringing gerrymandering cases in front of the Supreme Court. In particular, I want to see the following type of ruling coming down from the Supreme Court "If the allocation of votes in a state differs from the allocation of representatives in a state by more that X%, this is prima facie evidence of an unfair election and the state must immediately adress this via redistricting. If a state *****s up two elections in a row, there will a second redistricting effort, this time administered by the Federal government"

2. Also come January, if the Democrats capture any new statehouses, we move forward with out of cycle redistricting and undo "Operation RedMap"

[barmar]

Last night's Daily Show had a segment on gerrymandering, using it to point out that Trump is correct on one thing: US elections are rigged.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-August-09, 08:56, said:

Last night's Daily Show had a segment on gerrymandering, using it to point out that Trump is correct on one thing: US elections are rigged.

In my area there have been suggestions that Maryland and Virginia would work out a deal. We ungerry our D favored manders, they undo their R favored ones. Fat chance. Neither Maryland Ds nor Virginia Rs have the slightest interest in fixing this.

Just out of curiosity, did Maryland come up on the Daily show? Maybe I should watch it. I live in District 8 in the large blob, my daughter in the funny little add-on at the bottom. It looks as if the pieces are connected by a bicycle path or some such. I see it as a large bird trying to help a small child up off the ground.

[olegru]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-05, 16:02, said:

Why do you mistrust Hillary? And please, be precise, as I really don't understand why there is so much antagonism toward her. Thanks.

kenberg, on 2016-August-09, 07:26, said:

"One metric comes from independent fact-checking websites. As of Friday, PolitiFact had found 27 percent of Clinton's statements that it had looked into were mostly false or worse

Any more questions?

[hrothgar]

olegru, on 2016-August-09, 10:56, said:

Any more questions?

Yes. Which, if any of the candidates running for president in 2016 scored higher...

You might not like this score, however, its really very good.

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2016-August-09, 10:56, said:

Any more questions?

If you expect any person - much less politician - to be 100% truthful 100% of the time you will be sorely disappointed. We all try to present ourselves in the best light. Sometimes this requires a complete falsehood, but often it is enough simply to leave out some details or only slightly misrepresent what actually happened. Sometimes, we don't even know that we are being evasive.

My daughter is a lawyer. Lawyers think unlike the rest of us because of the discipline required of their profession. Hillary Clinton quite often thinks, acts, and speaks like a lawyer - which she is - and that usually means she is being too clever for her own good. That does not make her particularly dishonest, at least not dangerously so.

Trump, on the other hand, seems to be compelled (some think due to a genuine mental condition) to make himself the hero and the center of attention regardless of the events in question. This requires lies; but beyond that it requires some type of decision or action to back up the self-aggrandizement. Case in point: There is a story about Donald Trump calling reporters, pretending to be someone else, and bragging about himself. (https://www.washingt...46e0_story.html). This is the mark of lying that is dangerous because it is a compulsion.

[kenberg]

I certainly agree that Trump is in a whole different category from Clinton, really in a different category from anyone. And not in a good way.

All that being granted, I believe there is a danger. It is very important that HC learn how to attract voters. As useful as negative campaigning is, it is not enough. She needs to attract voters. She needs to work on this. "More than three fourths of what I say actually turns out to be true" is not a good start, regardless of what Trump's numbers are.

[olegru]

hrothgar, on 2016-August-09, 11:03, said:

Yes. Which, if any of the candidates running for president in 2016 scored higher...

I guess you took my comment separate from the part of discussion I participated. To check the trustworthiness of Trump Ken (kenberg) suggested to think if you are ready to trust him own money in business. I replied that I don’t think any top level politicians will pass that test.
Winston (Winstonm) suggested Hilary as a politician who could trust. My reply was:

olegru, on 2016-August-05, 14:40, said:

Sorry, in my list of politician who I would not trust even to hold a bag with my dog’s droppings, Hilary is on the third place. Trump is on the second.

He asked me to clarify and those stats is my answer.
I never said I trust Trump more than Clinton. As a matter of fact, I don’t. I also think that Hilary more trustworthy than Lotan Fisher, Claudio Nunes and other couple of thousands people around the world.

I see your point. We need to choose the less evil. However, I still cannot force myself to vote for Clinton based only on the fact that she is better than Trump. I know in today’s polarized America the third force have no chance, but I am still going vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson.

hrothgar, on 2016-August-09, 11:03, said:

You might not like this score, however, its really very good.

Do you have stats from other top-level public servants to base your opinion that 27% of lie by Hilary is a good score?
My gut feeling that one proven lie out of every four claims is worse than unacceptable, but if you have data to support your opinion, I can accept that I am wrong in that regards.

By the way, I think that comparison for lie rating of Clinton and Trump is comparison apples and oranges.
From one side are lies told by high-level public servant, many of them concern her duty as a public servant and lying about them is a borderline crime.
From the other side are lies told by a person in a short period during the process of election; time there some level of lying is expected. It does not make Trump anywhere near the acceptable candidate, it just demonstrate that article in NY Times made in a way to benefit Clinton.

Winstonm, on 2016-August-09, 11:57, said:

If you expect any person - much less politician - to be 100% truthful 100% of the time you will be sorely disappointed.

Lets look at The PolitiFact scorecard for Clinton cited by NYT:

http://www.politifac...illary-clinton/

Quote

True - 22%
Mostly True - 28%
Half True - 21%
Mostly False - 14%
False - 11%
Pants on Fire - 2%

I am not expecting 100%, but there are many numbers below 100 that bigger than 22. I also would expect a normal lawyer be able do not cross the line below "Half True" statements too often.

[helene_t]

It is not so that 22% of everything Clinton says, and 70% of what Trump says, is false. Policofact checks on statements that are worth checking. The figures might have been smaller if they had included all statements made by them, including those that were trivially true.

[kenberg]

Maybe one way to look at it: John Kenned got people to sign up for the Peace Corp. He got the country to commit to landing on the moon. It's hard for me to imagine HC getting people to commit to much of anything. And it's too bad. We could use a little idealism. I know, I know, I saw The Seventh Seal where the Crusades were described as so stupid only an idealist could have thought of it. Some forms of idealism are better than others.
It would be good to feel we are all more or less on the same journey.

OK, just a thought. Time to mow the grass. You have my vote Hillary. May you make good use of it.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-August-09, 12:38, said:

I certainly agree that Trump is in a whole different category from Clinton, really in a different category from anyone. And not in a good way.

All that being granted, I believe there is a danger. It is very important that HC learn how to attract voters. As useful as negative campaigning is, it is not enough. She needs to attract voters. She needs to work on this. "More than three fourths of what I say actually turns out to be true" is not a good start, regardless of what Trump's numbers are.

Agree 100%.

[Winstonm]

olegru, on 2016-August-09, 12:56, said:

I see your point. We need to choose the less evil. However, I still cannot force myself to vote for Clinton based only on the fact that she is better than Trump. I know in today’s polarized America the third force have no chance, but I am still going vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson.

First, you have the right to vote for whomever you wish. It is, after all, your vote. But, if you are voting for a Libertarian candidate instead of the Democrat, it makes me think that political positioning (read that as: right wing politics) underlies your position more than trustworthiness of the person.

[Trinidad]

There is, of course, a big difference between Clinton and Trump when it comes to telling the truth.

Clinton is a lawyer. Lawyers have the legal obligation to tell the truth. This is inconvenient, but lawyers quickly learn to present the truth in such a way that it looks best for them.

Trump is a businessman. For him, truth is completely irrelevant. Warranties last until the door (or November 8th, 2016).

Rik

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on 2016-August-09, 15:09, said:

But, if you are voting for a Libertarian candidate instead of the Democrat, it makes me think that political positioning (read that as: right wing politics) underlies your position more than trustworthiness of the person.

Politifact has only ten statements by Johnson so far so who knows if he is more or less trustworthy than Hillary.

[shyams]

Isn't "trustworthy politician" an oxymoron?

[helene_t]

shyams, on 2016-August-10, 03:28, said:

Isn't "trustworthy politician" an oxymoron?

No I don't think so.

Politicians have an impossible job -making everybody, including people with opposite interests, happy, while at the same time taking responsibility for lots of things that are beyond their control.

I am not convinced that they have worse ethics than so many other professions.

Sure, they are often caught in scandals, but wouldn't we all if the whole news industry was geared towards pointing out our faults? I am sure that I could be on the front page of the Sun every week if they suddenly got a billion-pound stake in pointing out the mistakes I make at work.