Gyroscopic Investing

What is it about Hillary Clinton that you either like or dislike?

Reub wrote: What is it about Hillary Clinton that you either like or dislike?

I'd say my biggest dislike is she is a self-arrogant, self-centered, self-entitled, "my shit don't stink" stereotypical Baby Boomer.

EDIT: Come to think of it; Obama has the exact same problem.

EDIT: No, I've decided Obama is just negligent.  He doesn't really want to be President other than the perks.

I honestly, truly can't think of anything about her that I like.

White woman speak with forked tongue.

A good question is: will Hillary be to the left or right of Barack "In Over My Head" Obama the Conservative?

[quote=http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012]The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals. Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principle architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.[/quote]

In other words, he's just raking it in big time while paling around with his black celebrity friends.  Every time he plays golf (which he does a lot), it allegedly costs taxpayers $25 million.  I don't think there's been a bigger whore occupying the Presidency in modern (all?) history.

The sad thing is the American electorate have no one to blame but themselves.

madbean wrote: White woman speak with forked tongue.

As I pointed out in the other thread, she is more truthful than any of the Republican candidates.  That's not good for going up against her in a debate.

MachineGhost wrote:

madbean wrote: White woman speak with forked tongue.

As I pointed out in the other thread, she is more truthful than any of the Republican candidates except for Rand Paul.  That's not good for any of the others going up against her in a debate.

Fixed it for you.

Libertarian666 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

madbean wrote: White woman speak with forked tongue.

As I pointed out in the other thread, she is more truthful than any of the Republican candidates except for Rand Paul.  That's not good for any of the others going up against her in a debate.

Fixed it for you.

Only half fixed.

Truth-O-Meter:
Clinton 71%
Bush* 70%
Paul* 66%
Romney 59%
Walker 51%

* Not statistically significant.

Bush is a relative straight-shooter if he can keep or increase it.  Not sure that is possible given the emotional delusions rank and file Republicans believe despite contrary factual evidence.

MachineGhost wrote: Truth-O-Meter:
Clinton 71%
Bush* 70%
Paul* 66%
Romney 59%
Walker 51%

Is this based on subjective observation or is there a source for this?

madbean wrote: Is this based on subjective observation or is there a source for this?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

MachineGhost wrote:

madbean wrote: Is this based on subjective observation or is there a source for this?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

I don't see any checking of facts from Hillary on that website, nor a breakdown of truthfulness percentages like the ones you listed.

MachineGhost wrote:

madbean wrote: Is this based on subjective observation or is there a source for this?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Sorry, but I looked up their explanation for one Rand Paul "pants on fire" item (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... id-israel/) and their "analysis" is bullshit.  He was truthful in his statement that he did NOT propose cutting aid to Israel. He proposed cutting off ALL foreign aid, which obviously is not equivalent to proposing cutting aid to Israel.

So they are just a bunch of hacks with no credibility.

madbean wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

madbean wrote: Is this based on subjective observation or is there a source for this?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

I don't see any checking of facts from Hillary on that website, nor a breakdown of truthfulness percentages like the ones you listed.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/

That said, I agree with techno; that site is pretty heavily biased IMHO. When something is not quite true (as most things aren't), sometimes they rate it as mostly true, and other times mostly false. I'll often read their explanation for something only to discover that it was pretty close to the truth but they rated ist mostly false anyway for some reason.

Pointedstick wrote:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/

That said, I agree with techno; that site is pretty heavily biased IMHO. When something is not quite true (as most things aren't), sometimes they rate it as mostly true, and other times mostly false. I'll often read their explanation for something only to discover that it was pretty close to the truth but they rated ist mostly false anyway for some reason.

Okay, I found the Hillary file but I don't see where MG's 70% truthfulness figure comes from.

Nevertheless, when you say something like "businesses don't create jobs", does that count as a lie or just stupidity?

madbean wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/

That said, I agree with techno; that site is pretty heavily biased IMHO. When something is not quite true (as most things aren't), sometimes they rate it as mostly true, and other times mostly false. I'll often read their explanation for something only to discover that it was pretty close to the truth but they rated ist mostly false anyway for some reason.

Okay, I found the Hillary file but I don't see where MG's 70% truthfulness figure comes from.

Nevertheless, when you say something like "businesses don't create jobs", does that count as a lie or just stupidity?

That's an example of what I'm talking about; Politifact would probably rate that as "half-true" because it's true that there are other influences and businesses don't operate in a vacuum and blah blah blah blah.

madbean wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/

That said, I agree with techno; that site is pretty heavily biased IMHO. When something is not quite true (as most things aren't), sometimes they rate it as mostly true, and other times mostly false. I'll often read their explanation for something only to discover that it was pretty close to the truth but they rated ist mostly false anyway for some reason.

Okay, I found the Hillary file but I don't see where MG's 70% truthfulness figure comes from.

Nevertheless, when you say something like "businesses don't create jobs", does that count as a lie or just stupidity?

Does it matter? Either one logically disqualifies any candidate for President.

Pointedstick wrote: That said, I agree with techno; that site is pretty heavily biased IMHO. When something is not quite true (as most things aren't), sometimes they rate it as mostly true, and other times mostly false. I'll often read their explanation for something only to discover that it was pretty close to the truth but they rated ist mostly false anyway for some reason.

That's why I used Half True or whatever as the full score instead of half.  Another weird quirk of the site is the percentages don't total up to 100%!

I didn't think they were biased since they started off with the Obam-o-meter a couple of years ago, but now I wonder.  The organization funding the site is a journalist organization.  So is the stereotype true?

MachineGhost wrote: I didn't think they were biased since they started off with the Obam-o-meter a couple of years ago, but now I wonder.  The organization funding the site is a journalist organization.  So is the stereotype true?

Yes.

TennPaGa wrote:

Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.[/size][/font]

WTF.

LOL!  Maybe they double count each Half True for Half False and vice versa??

Hillary Clinton’s lucrative life of crime
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/201 ... -of-crime/

The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cas ... r_partner/

I had naively assumed that people who thought of Hillary as untrustworthy/a liar wouldn't vote for her.  However one of the focus groups found that a large percentage of democratic voters didn't care and were going to vote for anyway.

Bernie Sanders must be stopped! He is more personable, affable, and available. He is even good on late night talk shows. His crowds are growing. And his socialist agenda is appealing to the young and naive (those who haven't yet fallen for libertarianism).

I predict that he will be smeared, arrested, ridiculed, or meet with a tragic boating accident shortly. None of this will be traceable to the Clintons, of course.

An Award for Bill Clinton Came With $500,000 for His Foundation
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/po ... ation.html

Benko wrote: I had naively assumed that people who thought of Hillary as untrustworthy/a liar wouldn't vote for her.  However one of the focus groups found that a large percentage of democratic voters didn't care and were going to vote for anyway.

Yes, that is quite naive. Of course there are Republicans who have the same approach.

Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, that is quite naive. Of course there are Republicans who have the same approach.

I'm pretty sure Democrat voters don't quite get it when Hillary "embodies their values".