PeterZ wrote:You appear to agree with me. You cut President Trump no slack just as I cut Clinton none. While I recognize my bias, you don't. Further, there are more folks out there who also don't recognize their bias. I watch their righteous fury with great enjoyment.
To add to what others have said:
The Benghazi affair is different. An equivalent situation would have been one in which Clinton had denied ever making those statements, which she didn't - the entire debate was on whether she
knowingly made false statements.The Republicans wasted millions of taxpayer dollars trying to prove she did that, and failed.
*Maybe "spent" would be a better word, seeing as they got [
what they were actually after in the end...
Trump's statements are different because he'll say one thing - on video, even - and then come the next day, deny it and say the opposite. There's no room for different interpretations or doubt on what he did - yet his supporters eat it up anyway.
When we come to evaluate the truth of a statement by a public figure, we can weigh the following (absent supporting information):
1) Does he have an interest in lying on this?
2) Is the matter important enough to lie about (and risk getting caught out?
3) Does the speaker have a reputation for being honest in general?
In Trump's case, he and his team have shown they'll lie about anything, no matter how trivial it is, or how likely they are to get caught. Which means that the White House currently has almost no credibility.
Consider - a couple of days ago, there were reports that Trump was intending to reopen the CIA black sites (I'll refrain from making an XCOM2 joke). Spicer denied it, saying it was a proposal from someone no longer on the transition team. The problem is that since Spicer has shown he'll lie about anything, his denial by itself isn't worth spit.
PeterZ wrote:Annachie wrote:A large part of Clinton's loss is the 12+ year, and hundreds of millions of dollars, campaign against her by the GOP.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
If any sorry fool could have beat her, why cheat to keep Bernie off the ticket?
Cheat how? I mean, the only thing I've seen which has any substance is Donna Brazile giving here a debate question before hand - except that the question was both an obvious one (regarding the Flint water crisis during a debate in Flint) and in any event wasn't asked as and by who Brazille claimed. I mean, the DNC was being accused of cheating due to actiosn carried out by state-level Republicans (e.g. primary voting in Arizona), FFS!
