Opinion: Hillary Clinton is Fundamentally Honest

[Metro Jacksonville]

Opinion: Hillary Clinton is Fundamentally Honest



This opinion piece written by Michael Arnovitz and backed by some interesting data is going viral on Facebook. Whether you think high or low of HC, it's definitely worth a read.  At the end of the write-up there is a link to another piece where Arnovitz responds to criticisms with a follow-up article.

Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2016-jul-opinion-hillary-clinton-is-fundamentally-honest

[JeffreyS]

Excellent work! I hope it gets some traction.

[southsider1015]

Let me sum it up:

The only reason why people dislike her is be she's female, not because of her actions or words.

It's OK that she changes her politcal stances, twists her words, and embellishes the truth; all politicians do.

She must be honest because Trump is so dishonest.

Scandals are only accusations, and don't hold any truth.

It's OK where her money comes from, and how she uses it.

Ridiculous.  I'm sure if someone here wrote a pre-Trump piece and posted it here, it would shredded and the poster burned at the stake.

[TheCat]

^ are you offering to write a pro-trump piece? And, where would you prefer we plant the stake? 

In seriousness, I would love to read a thoughtful pro-trump piece, but I don't think it is possible for someone to write a reasonable argument supporting Trump.

[spuwho]

Interesting read.

Hilz is honest as long as it doesnt interfere with her goals.

Unfortunately for her she lets her professional goals get in front of her moral compass. She has a personality that resents admitting fault.

Does it make her a fundamentally bad person? Hardly.

But it doesnt lend her to be exceptional in certain fields.

Arguing cases in front of a judge perhaps, hence her ambition to go into the legal profession. She would be a crappy physician.

But her approach to dealing with things is strictly utilitarian, in other words, it sometimes not an issue of right or wrong, its what you can prove.

I think that is what drives the resentment in some cases.

[coredumped]

southsider1015 nailed it perfectly. This article does claim it's an opinion piece, which it certainly is. Hilary is anything but honest.
I have nothing nice to say about Trump either though.

Johnson 2016!

[spuwho]

I had a random thought today pondering what the conversation would be like if the 3 most accused disingenuous people of the world had to sit in the same room and discuss something significant.

Putin
Netanyahu
HR Clinton

Would 3 lies combined constitute a truth? 

[coredumped]

A few more liars in a single room and you'd have Congress!

[JeffreyS]

Check out the scoring for politicos and compare on politfact


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


Hillary Clinton

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

Donald Trump


http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

[Cheshire Cat]

Does Metrojacksonville endorse Hillary Clinton?  I am asking because the post is entered by Metrojacksonville.

[Cheshire Cat]

I was just wondering because usually MJ does not endorse political candidates. Endorsements are usually personal and on the forum.  That is all. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Got it.

[finehoe]

Both are unpopular. Only one is a threat.

"This election," a spokesman for Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Thursday, "remains a dumpster fire." Well, yes, the two major-party candidates for president are historically unpopular. But if this election is unusually bad, it is not because both parties chose bad candidates. There is no equivalence between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — as even responsible Republicans should be able to recognize.

Ms. Clinton is a knowledgeable politician who has been vetted many times over. She understands and respects the U.S. Constitution. She knows policy. She can cite accomplishments in the public interest, such as pressing through an important children's health insurance program during her husband's administration. As a senator, she was respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She completed four years as secretary of state to generally positive reviews. She began her presidential campaign by rolling out a series of serious policy papers.

None of this means you have to like Ms. Clinton or believe she would be a good president. You may disagree with her views; we have done so often enough and will do so again when we think she is wrong. You may believe she was foolish to push for the Libya intervention, arrogant to keep her emails out of the official State Department server, greedy to take large speaking fees as a private citizen. But measured against other major-party candidates of recent times, Ms. Clinton is well within established bounds of competence, knowledge, commitment and integrity. She is not a dumpster candidate.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has waged a campaign based on bigotry, ignorance and resentment. He has no experience as a public servant, and his private record of bankruptcies and exploitation should be disqualifying. He regularly circulates falsehoods. He has no dis­cern­ible interest in or knowledge of policy. Just in recent days, Mr. Trump tweeted out an anti-Semitic image circulating on neo-Nazi websites and attacked the media for reporting as much. He called one sitting senator a loser and threatened another while proving that he lacks even a passing familiarity with the Constitution. He praised one of the most vile dictators of the 20th century.

Those Republicans with enough self-respect to be mortified by the man their party is about to nominate continually hold out hope for some magical transformation. Yet even if Mr. Trump flipped his agenda — not a problem for a man with almost no fixed beliefs — he would still be the candidate who mocked a disabled reporter, proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States, attacked a judge based on his ethnicity, celebrated violence at his rallies, demeaned women and promised to round up and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants . He would still be the candidate who vaulted to political prominence with race-based attacks on the incumbent president and launched his campaign by calling Mexicans rapists.

Mr. Sasse has proved to be a rare Republican official with the moral courage to speak as honestly about Mr. Trump after he clinched the nomination as he did before. It's not surprising that the senator would want to dismiss the whole campaign as a mess, and we don't doubt that he genuinely fears the direction in which Ms. Clinton would lead the nation.

But to equate the two candidates as indistinguishably unqualified products of a rigged or failed system only feeds public cynicism while blurring distinctions that should not be blurred. Ms. Clinton is a politician, long in the arena, whom you may or may not support. Mr. Trump is a danger to the republic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/both-are-unpopular-only-one-is-a-threat/2016/07/10/4d78dce8-4529-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html

[fsquid]

Trump isn't really a threat, he has no idea how to play the game in DC.  Heck, some of his more pointed policies wouldn't even make it to the floor of either house of Congress.

[Cheshire Cat]

Trump isn't really a threat, he has no idea how to play the game in DC.  Heck, some of his more pointed policies wouldn't even make it to the floor of either house of Congress.

Not only that but if you break down his support across the board in a general election he can at the best maybe claim more than 25% to 28% of the real vote and I am thinking with a Clinton/Trump ticket we will see a very low turn out.  In fact a recent poll has people using their vote against Trump or Clinton, not in support.