[Closed] Why do so many people in the US believe Hillary is untrustworthy?

I think they have a far more moral and trustworthy candidate in mind.

Same reason 52% of the UK voted for Brexit....

Mass stupidity.

She's married to bill who once lied about doing his secretary and apparently she doesn't smile enough..
There maybe some other reasons I haven't covered

Probably because she's very much part of the political establishment, which a lot of people have little faith in.

Have a read of [url= http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ ]item 3 of this article[/url] posted in the Trump thread.

Because telling lies comes from genetics and she had sex regularly with Bill, once upon a time. 😉

There have been quite a few convenient deaths of people involved in scandals that could have otherwise touched the Clintons.

Can't remember the details now, but it's probably googleable.

Benghazi, where the American ambassador was killed, it is still unclear who knew what he was doing, how he died who killed him and why, FOX News keep hammering the point.

Hillary was Sec of State when that happened, the e.mail thing

She is a woman

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy ]Whitewater[/url]

She is untrustowrthy, her saving grace is she is less untrustworthy than Trump

I was in New York in May. The feeling, even among the left leaning, was that she's not a squeaky clean as they would have everyone believe. A couple of different people mentioned her way of handling Bill's affair(s) and other antics wasn't the nicest.

New York is a little bit bias as the home town of Trump. The view from many seemed to be she's far from perfect but at least she's not Trump.

Why do so many people in the US believe Hillary is untrustworthy?

The Clinton foundation has been heavily funded by the Saudi Royal family. She makes millions a year giving paid speeches for bankers and financial institutions and she lied about the email issue.

So the email stuff is not enough?

That's like saying apart from killing people, why does everyone think *insert murderer here* was so bad?

But the emails, the corporate ties, several situations where she has allegedly mislead investigators, etc etc.

Also, she never picked Elizabeth Warren for VP, went for a guy who could speak Spanish to get the Latino vote.

Everyone is like wooo! we got a woman nominated....so what? Doesn't matter if they're not fit for office.

Southpark summed it up best....

I have wondered this myself.

Some people even claiming that she is just like this fella:

[img] [/img]

and some people like this fella too:

[img] [/img]

The mind boggles....

"There's nowt as queer as folk" as my grandma used to say.

US Elections are often between some fairly uninspiring candidates, but what sort of person puts themself up for it?

Barack Obama was unusual in that he appeared to be a high quality candidate for US President. It seems a shame that he was unable to enact more of his ideas. I hope he goes on to future positive influence.

Agreed. Top level govt business carried out via secret private e-mail server. In what way is she not untrustworthy.

Because she probably isn't very trustworthy, and because many of them are a bit nuts.

When was the last time you had real trust in a UK party leader (JC excepted)?

When was the last time you had real trust in a UK party leader (JC excepted)?

Paddy Ashdown probably.

unless you were his wife

Tarnished by being part of the establishment and her own actions, inactions and cover ups

That said how anyone can think Trump is the saviour to big business cronyism is completely lost on me.

Bacause of her track record. Let me dig out a video - here you go. There is so much of this stuff. Clinton really is a just say what people want to hear politician. Her use of personal email for secret government business and lying about that is going to come up again and again. She has already been castigated by a Senate Committee and the ex head of the FBI

If I where voting in the US it would be Democrat but that would be in spite of Hilary not because of her

When was the last time you had real trust in a UK party leader (JC excepted)?

And even he pulled a fast one over that water/wine thing. And crashed all those caravans.

Mainly, having been in the public eye for a long time and through association with Bill she's had a relentless heap of crap thrown at her by the media for decades. Of course she's almost certainly done some naughty things too. Few people in that sort of position haven't.

I see this sort of thing in real life (I'm involved in climate science) with colleagues who are not perfect, but who are nowhere near as bad as they are portrayed by some sections of the media/blogosphere.

Dunno, but from what i've seen of her there's something about her that just seems wrong. Somehow get the feeling it would be like voting for the Devil 👿

Have the feeling we are headed for an extremely screwed up next 5 years with Trump on one side of the atlantic and rise of the far right on the other.

castigated by a Senate Committee

Jambafact or more of your blatant rubbish

Jamba here is a straight question, do you support Trump? Yes or no

Clinton really is a just say what people want to hear politician

I doubt he even knows what he thinks on major issues

That said its pretty hard to like or feel enthused about her in general and she is correctly tarnished for the actions you mention.

What politician is not?

Most are, but then some do have a moral substance behind the pandering. Clinton seems to just assume the job was always going to be hers, and all she has to do is smile at everyone and say yes.

The thing is, as Obama showed, you can be a bushy tailed idealist ready to change the world, but your dreams gonna get crushed by the senate Republicans at every turn. When people are voting bills down just because they are from the other side, the situation is dire.

[url= http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/ ]Look at her full on Flip Flop over gay marriage[/url]

She's a politician, of course she lies.

Interesting article in [url= http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-election-2016-lies-466889?rm=eu ]Newsweek[/url] (Voters don't seem to care whether candidates tell the truth)

If I where voting in the US it would be Democrat

You feeling alright Jamba?

I'd have expected you to be complaining that Trump wasn't going far enough......

I'm not surprised Jamba would vote Democrat.

We're not aligned with the US politically, their centre left party, the Democrats, even Obama, is if anything more right of centre than our centre right Tory party.

The closest they came to a Centre Left President quit and endorsed Clinton a few weeks ago, most US voters thought his talk of state funded healthcare and such was crazy talk.

I work for an American bank. I don't talk to anybody about politics - I'm too afraid to find out somebody I respect professionally actually supports Trump.

Clinton seems to just assume the job was always going to be hers, and all she has to do is smile at everyone and say yes

I am not her greatest fan but some of the abuse is OTT

TO be clea i dont think you are a sexist but i think she does get more grief due to her gender

TO be clea i dont think you are a sexist...

That's very gracious of you.

Now put your knickers on, and go and make me a cup of tea.

[img] [/img]

wtf

That moment the drugs kick in....

Vince Foster ..

Lizard suit malfunction

She's a politician?

Jambafact or more of your blatant rubbish

Jamba here is a straight question, do you support Trump? Yes or no

Pigface did you watch the coverage of her appearence, I did.

Have you read my various posts on the Trump threads and the one I made here ? If so why post this trolling nonsense ?

An appeal to your own authority sure beats posting up a link to prove your claim

Slow hand clap

Verifiable EVIDENCE please
I have no idea if true or false so prove it or it another one where you will claim you have answered it again and to "do our own research"

Possibly because she is a nutjob?

A fair amount of hipocrasy as well. "I stand for women's rights". While accepting donations from countries with dubious treatment of women.

Flip flopping on several issues. Against gay marriage, pro gay marriage for ex.

[img] [/img]

Many of us remember the classic line from the “Seinfeld” show, that “it’s not a lie if you believe it.” Applying that theme to the evolution of Hillary Rodham, then Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now just plain Hillary Clinton, here are the notable accomplishments of her “public service” career:

• Flunked the D.C. Bar Exam.

• Was removed from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying.

• The Whitewater scandal.

• Married a serial liar and cheater, who occasionally had sexual encounters with non-consenting partners.

• Lied about “sniper fire” in an attempt to simulate exposure to danger in a war zone.

• The subject of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband

• Took crockery, furniture, artwork and other items from the White House — had to return and/or pay for them.

• Said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.

• Totally ignored the structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national security information.

• Amassed a personal fortune with “speaking fees” and payments from private sector political donors and foreign governments into transparent “foundations” in obvious exchange for future political favor.

Two conclusions emerge from this nefarious list of “accomplishments”:

First, Hillary’s brief solo “professional” career [without Bill] was a total failure, and of her own doing. This despite high-level political sponsorship to get her a key “entry level” job as a legal staffer on the Nixon Impeachment investigation in the early 1970s. But she flunked the D.C. Bar Exam [perhaps the easiest in those days] and got fired from her staff job.

Second, she is identified today in friendly media solely by her “career” post-marriage to Bubba. This is the part that Barack Obama recently described as making her “probably the best qualified person ever to run for president.” This is both laughable and ironic, as she is better qualified than was Mr. Obama, arguably the most unqualified person ever elected president. And, as presidential aspirants go, they had one professional “qualification” in common: Neither had ever worked in a “real job.”

After she and Bill left the White House [along with the furniture, crockery and art work they took with them] she simply punched her ticket with two more political gigs that were handed to her. Neither of which identify her as anything but an opportunist, saying and doing whatever necessary to perpetuate her “new” political career, this while biding her time until she could run for president — twice.

Her time as a senator from New York was purely a block-checking exercise to stay “relevant.” Best illustrating this is the question: Why didn’t they go back to Arkansas? Easy, returning to Arkansas would have been the political — and financial — end for them and they knew it. It’s the same reason the Obamas are not returning to Chicago. And in this context, look for an “Obama Foundation” that rakes in money and a series of Hillary-style political appointments for Michelle — after all, she flunked the Bar Exam too.

More than anything else, Hillary’s campaign is counting on the “newer” American voters to simply not remember her and Bill’s checkered political and legal past. Accordingly, we can expect a Republican campaign replay of the 1990s: Bill’s Impeachment, the Star investigation, Bill’s disbarment for lying, her Rose Law Firm partner going to jail — and on and on and on — as supplemented by her latest scandals: Benghazi, “speaking” fees and classified emails.

So, is Hillary “really” qualified to be president, or is it just a lie she believes after so many years with “slick Willy” and a series of political jobs?

Sadly, her flakey “qualifications” may not matter at all — because if she wins, it will likely be a repeat of the 1992 election debacle: Remember that Bill would never have been elected had it not been for the third party “spoiler” candidacy of H. Ross Perot, who took 20 million votes away from George H.W. Bush — literally giving the election away and beginning the Clinton protracted political soap opera we are still dealing with.

Will it happen again? Will the latest rupture in the Republican Party work to elect “crooked Hillary,” the other half of the Clinton sleaze team? Will horny old Bill — again — be on “intern patrol” in the White House and “feeling our pain”?

These are the “truthful” parts of the lie that have most of us saying: “is this really the best we can do?”.

• Daniel Gallington frequently writes about national security.

Common sense?

bongohoohaa - Member
When was the last time you had real trust in a UK party leader (JC excepted)?
Paddy Ashdown probably.

A couple of great examples there 😀

The subject of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband

Hmmm, but I thought in the end he was aquitted?

EDIT: and some more of the stuff up there turns out to be economical with the actualite:

Said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.

Full quote:

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

Which seems a lot less damning to me.

@Spekkie indeed its a very long "rap sheet"

Google it up yourself Junky, there is not a snowballs chance I'd take even a second to that for you. You seem to do a lot of posting without actually paying attenton to what's available on the the various news rescources.

Given her position and security clearance there was absolutely no reason or excuse for using an unofficial/unauthorised email server. When this point is fully understood then any 'oops it was an oversight' bollox must be ruled out and she is left with no credibility whatsoever.

Given what occurred whilst she was up to no good (US Ambassador etc) and that all the emails have since 'been deleted' she cannot be trusted and still has a lot to answer for both legally and professionally.

And then there's the face that she pulls when she 'speaks the truth' 😡

EDIT: Oh and then there's the slight issue of Putin very probably having a copy of all the 'lost' emails.. what could possibly go wrong.

@oldnpastit Benghazi - others had pulled their diplomats out including us. Hillary wasn't paying attention and didn't take the threats seriously. IMHO her focus was elsewhere.

The more I see of Hilary's campaign the more I think Trump is going to win. Hillary is just too mired in too many scandals. Obama has been a big dissapointment. America wants a change of direction and the voters see Trump as that man.

It's a pity both sides can't lose

Henry Kissinger's words remain true today

Given her position and security clearance there was absolutely no reason or excuse for using an unofficial/unauthorised email server

Oh, there may have been no excuse, but there was certainly a reason - it was to stop anything she wrote being government property and subject to FOI.

Are there any properly sane US politicians?
John Hinckley (the man who shot Reagan) is being released, a Republican was on Radio 4 yesterday, saying it was Bill Clintons doing, as Bill appointed the Judge who has recommended the release.
He was appointed in 1994.
That's pretty good planning by Bill to get that sorted 22 years before it happened.

I just copy & pasted one of many "Clinton crimes lists" available via Google after remembering one I'd seen before. This wasn't the one I'd seen, this list is much shorter.

Jambatrump

Pigface did you watch the coverage of her appearence, I did.

What all of it? another Jamabuntruth

I saw enough to realise a bunch of Republican senators were out for blood and they didn't get it, they eventually started arguing among themselves.

Trolling nonsense that is high praise from you thanks.

You didn't answer a simple question though and your concerted attacks on Clinton indicate which way you would vote.

Don't flatter yourself people don't read all the rubbish you post.

I also suspect she's, well, a woman. You can't trust them, they're hormonal

Are there any properly sane US politicians?

There's a few, but I think they're outnumbered. Jim Webb, Elizabeth Warren...christ, even Mitt Romney was a progressive before he tried to appeal to the rotten core of the tea party.

Oh, there may have been no excuse, but there was certainly a reason - it was to stop anything she wrote being government property and subject to FOI.

This. As one Republican member of the Senate House Committee said, people don't naturally lie so when they are lying repeatedly they are trying to cover something up.

I don't see a way out of this email issue, aside from the lying she's been shown to have conducted classified government business via a private email address. This goes to the heart of her trying to say she's the safe pair of hands vs "willd and unqualified" Donald Trump.

Except it has been put to bed 🙄

Let's see what happens with Trump University

google clinton body count. People around them have a habit of dieing, especially if they are going to attend a hearing.

bongohoohaa - Member
When was the last time you had real trust in a UK party leader (JC excepted)?

John Smith.

She has repeatedly refused to admit murdering Vince Foster despite numerous opportunities to do so. Would you trust someone who won't confess to murder?

She's seen as untrustworthy because she is. I mean, not just a little bit, she's as much a post-truth politician as Trump. The only difference is she's a wee bit more cunning about it- but not much, she still tells lies she knows won't stand up, but more importantly tells lies she just doesn't need to- amateurish stuff sometimes, more like a stw nutter in some ways.

But since neither candidate is remotely trustworthy it shouldn't really matter.

Shes got more baggage than lost and found at Heathrow, but that's only coz she's been in politics for so long and has been a resident of the Whitehouse.

She gets the standard dose of vitrioloc mysoginy that any female in politics will receive (see Thatcher and the left) but with all that added Tea Party madness thrown on top.

She's played the game ruthlessly to get to where she is but spekkies list of out of context quotes, blaming her for her husband mistakes and petty greivences are embarrassingly weak imho (the emails are the only really bad thing)

All of that and she still looks waaaaay note competent than Trump

That said Brexit has shown that listening to experts is trumped by gut feelings so wtf knows what ll happen

Here's that gif from page 1 in context

And here's a much better analysis of the situation
https://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-hillary-clintons-problems-with-trust-63028

I think for her there is a lot of 'murkiness' that surrounds her. Be it the emails, Benghazi and some of the other stuff. She does walk away clean from it all, be it she is clean, or she has a very good team of cleaners who make this stuff disappear. Chance or design?

I love the way any criticism of a women politician gets dismissed by SJWs as misogyny.

bongohoohaa, standard. I'm sure the reason most female voters don't like Trump is due to misandry. 😉

Nothing to do with the fact he's well, just everything that could be wrong with a human!

@kimbers the IMF are not experts. Economics borders on speculation, its not surprising that many qualifications are BA not BSc. IMO what Brexit showed was that people can see a vested interest when it rears its ugly head. Trump does have this aura of not having a vested interest (other than a massive ego) whilst Clinton is the complete opposite.

Obama came in on a wave of hope "yes we can" and leaves after 8 years having achieved little of substance domestically, disasterous foreign policy and race relations in crises. I believe the US wants to try something new and (sadly) thats Trump not Clinton

So the conclusion to all of this is that if you want to elect a leader you have a choice between a low down filthy rat or a or a low down filthier rat.Oh and because it's the greatest democracy in the world you have a choice of two just in case your brain goes into a part that it's never entered before in which case you could become an enemy of the state and decide you may wanna visit the neighbouring country ie the state next door

Obama came in on a wave of hope "yes we can" and leaves after 8 years having achieved little of substance...

Hmm...I wonder why that is?

Hint:

[img] [/img]

bongohoohaa - Member
I love the way any criticism of a women politician gets dismissed by SJWs as misogyny.

Except that I also went onto to comment on genuine criticisms of her as well 🙄

You do the have to be a hardcore feminist out to smash the patriarchy to acknowledge that women are held to different standards than men in politics or the public eye in general

Not going to get into a STW trademarked quote-athon, but did you really comment on genuine criticism? You dismissed Spekkie's list as weak, and only popped the email stuff at the end in parenthesis.

For the email thing, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice also used private email servers. It seems it hasn't been uncommon in the time frame that the technology allowed for it.

Now they were all probably wrong to do so, and the rules/law should be clarified to prevent it from happening in the future, but it has been a cross party practice and using it to bash Hilary is just ridiculous. It is a clear indication of the right wing and its media media friends just repeating clichéd mistruths that stick in the minds of the simple.

Little of substance? 🙄

Why do so many people in the US believe [s]Hillary[/s]Donald is [s]un[/s]trustworthy?

They are used fo seeing him on the Apprentice, as such he has a familiarity and is a straight-talking decsion maker. He is not a politician. As a wealthy businessman they see him as "uncorruptable", he already has the money and thus cannot be bought

People believe what they are fed by those who want to twist things.

There's a huge quantity of guff being posted as fact on here. It does demonstrate the power of communication, miscommunication and downright lies. There's a few posters trying to look smart and they are posting the worst of it.

[quote=jambalaya ]
Google it up yourself Junky, there is not a snowballs chance I'd take even a second to that for you. You seem to do a lot of posting without actually paying attenton to what's available on the the various news rescources.

Funniest troll - tbh i gave up googling your claims as quicker and easier to just assume their false as they always seem to be and you then do something like this when its pointed out to you as you just dont seem to need facts for your views and occasionally even make the facts up/get them very very wrong- for your view

I did genuinely laugh at that one some of your posts are so funny and ironic.

She has already been castigated by a Senate Committee and the ex head of the FBI

As i said i dont know if its true or false and asking for proof is hardly uncalled for in a debate of facts. I know you are not use to it but trust me its a very normal question that honest accurate folk then provide the evidence for their claim and then i go oh thanks I didn't know this thanks

Or we can do this if you prefer..you are the bright one why dont you pick ?

People believe what they are fed by those who want to twist things.

There's a huge quantity of guff being posted as fact on here. It does demonstrate the power of communication, miscommunication and downright lies. There's a few posters trying to look smart and they are posting the worst of it.

Why not correct those people with the facts then? Rather than giving some vague rebuttal.

People aren't convinced by facts. As proved repeatedly in the climate change debates. The small subset who may be, are quite capable of finding them by themselves.

Why not correct those people with the facts then?

Why not correct those people with the facts then?

Because a Jambafact is 100% lipsmakin solid gold flat out FACT, it is spoken by the Jambalaya a creature so perfect its FACTS are never wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence.