Politifact is a nonpartisan website that monitors candidates’ statement for truthfulness. It evaluates their claims and keeps a running record.
Here is the evaluation of Hillary Clinton. Seventy-two percent of her statements are rated true, mostly true or half true.
Here is the evaluation of Donald Trump. Thirty percent of his statements are rated true, mostly true or half-true. (My error corrected!)
Here is Barack Obama’s evaluation. Seventy-six percent of his statements are rated true, mostly true or half-true.
Here is Tim Kaine. Seventy-six percent of his statements are rated true, mostly true or half-true.
Here is Mike Pence. Fifty eight percent of his state to are rated true, mostly true or half-true.
Trump is a world-class liar.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Trump’s Behavior Similar To Male Chimpanzee, Says Jane Goodall
LikeLike
Trump’s Behavior Similar To Male Chimpanzee, Says Jane Goodall
LikeLike
Who am I to question Jane Goodall , I really she may have picked the wrong ape. Definitely an Orangutan
LikeLike
He walks more upright than a natural ape or monkey — more like a bigfoot or a schwarzenegger.
LikeLike
We know Donald is a big liar. Everyone who is not voting for him knows. Even some of the people voting for him know, they just don’t care as much about that as certain other things.
Hillary Clinton is also fundamentally dishonest.
One important element for understanding this kind of evaluation:
___ % of statements evaluated by Politifact. What about the statements they chose not to evaluate?
Another important thing to know: “half-true” and “mostly true” statements can be very intentionally dishonest, or simple mistakes. You can quote a source about levels of income inequality, for example, and believe it to be true, and it can later be found that the analysis/source you trusted was not entirely accurate. This is Bernie Sanders’ kind of “dishonesty” on Politifact. Or, you can tell a big lie with a statement that was determined to be “mostly true” or “half-true.” For example, implying that Bernie Sanders is a Big Red Evil Commie Who Is Gonna Take All Your Income Taxes. This is more Hillary’s style of “dishonesty.”
(For anyone who accuses me of being a Right-Winger, or that I can’t backup my statements, or whatever along those lines: I will be posting my analysis of Hillary Clinton after the November elections. My current draft has ~100 links to reputable external sources, often in Hillary’s own words. Hillary Clinton is, at best, no more honest than the typical politician, and typical politicians are renowned for being among the most dishonest of people.)
LikeLike
I missed when Hillary said Bernie was a Big Red Evil Commie Who Is Gonna Take All Your Income Taxes. Could you cite something even close to that?
There may have been a debate about how to pay for programs, but that is the kind of characterization I used to hear from Republicans. I didn’t realize that Hillary said the same thing, so I hope you will point out where so I can properly judge her.
LikeLike
Like I said, I am working on a quality report, which takes time, and you and everyone else will be welcome to read it. I will include many of her intentional lies, some subtle and some less subtle, about Bernie Sanders. Notice how I wrote Hillary “implied” — not “said” those exact words.
LikeLike
I just hoped to have one example now.
LikeLike
Ed, will you write a report on Trump too? He is the alternative. Bernie has endorsed Hillary. When you tear down Hillary, you help the Great Liar.
LikeLike
Diane, I’ve thought about it. But why would I need to? It is pretty clear to all of us who he is. Not so clear to all of us who Hillary Clinton is. If telling the truth about Hillary is helping Trump, that’s her own fault. Anyways I said I would release it after the election — it’s not as if it would make a difference in the election results if I published it before. Most likely, less than a hundred people will read it.
LikeLike
Ed Detective, I hope you eventually check back and find me where Hillary Clinton implied Bernie is a “Big Red Evil Commie Who Is Gonna Take All Your Income Taxes”. When did she say that?
And how little do you think of Bernie Sanders that he could possibly endorse such a woman? Is Bernie a sell-out, too? Is he also a liar? Just as bad as Donald Trump to you?
I don’t have any idea whether you a right winger or a left winger or a moderate or a conservative. I just expect that when you make statements like that, you back them up.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent, “implied” is not the same thing as “said.” Politicians and lawyers (which Hillary happens to be both) are often good at saying things without explicitly saying them. Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary because he thinks she is better than Trump and can be more influenced — it’s not that difficult. He doesn’t have to also be a liar or “just as bad as Donald Trump” (ridiculous analogy) to want the better option. Both Hillary and the DNC incorrectly painted Bernie as costing the public their hard-earned money/assets on several occasions before/during the primaries. I have to go back through the debates, and my list of articles, to find the exact times and content. I understand the request for evidence, but I am not on your timeline and what I’m saying is not that difficult to believe if you watched the debates and paid any attention during the primaries, especially if you read the wikileaks documents from the DNC. This stuff is common sense to most Bernie supporters who paid attention. It’s not far out there to say that Hillary lied about Bernie Sanders where she thought it would hit him the hardest in the public’s eyes — the scary S word, socialism, and the scary T word, taxes. The point is that Hillary would have brought down Sanders regardless of the truth about him. She is the same kind of politician as most the others who do the same.
LikeLike
I voted for Bernie in the primary, but I confess I did not watch every debate. But I just don’t recall seeing that kind of nasty campaigning during the primary. I don’t recall it in 2008, either, when I supported Obama. I’m generally attuned to it, because (as you can probably tell) one of the things that bothers me most is dishonesty. But maybe I didn’t pay enough attention.
I am trying to be fair-minded, Ed Detective. I don’t think Hillary is perfect. I do think your characterization of her is wrong. Perhaps you don’t mean it, but the portrait you paint is of such a corrupt individual that there is no way Bernie Sanders would be endorsing her.
Maybe it’s unintentional. Maybe you’d characterize President Obama the same way. But that is certainly not how you come off. You come off presenting her as barely any less corrupt as Trump. And that is certainly the perception the media gave voters for months. That’s why so many of them are willing to vote for Trump.
LikeLike
“Perhaps you don’t mean it, but the portrait you paint is of such a corrupt individual that there is no way Bernie Sanders would be endorsing her.”
Bernie Sanders was painted by Hillary Clinton and the DNC as “pie in the sky” and some kind of unabashed idealist, but in reality, Bernie Sanders has always been about compromising when necessary. He endorses and votes for compromising bills when they are “the lesser of two evils,” not because he wants them exactly that way, but because when they are finally presented, he acts in the best interest on his limited choices. Bernie was an independent senator who caucused with the democrats. He “endorsed” Bill Clinton as lesser of two evils, precisely as described in his book, Outsider in the White House, and he is now “endorsing” Hillary as lesser of two evils, though he will not admit it publicly because he knows it will be spun out of control. I will include in my report some analysis of body language, his own previous statements, and general reasoning to back up this assertion.
Bernie Sanders was able to influence the dem platform committee, the democratic party, and Hillary Clinton herself — that is why he endorsed — not because Hillary Clinton is the president this country needs (if he thought she was, he wouldn’t have ran, as he said on multiple occasions), but because she is the best option we have left. She is one of two options. Bernie Sanders will pick the best one, and try to make it happen. That is Bernie Sanders.
“Maybe you’d characterize President Obama the same way.”
I am very unhappy with President Obama, as are many regulars of this blog. A formidable amount of public intellectuals and activists are incredibly disappointed with his presidency (one prominent example, and one of the best critics, being Cornel West). Most leftists, like myself, think the Obama administration was much less than it could and should have been, and did little to fundamentally improve the conditions for the majority of this nation and world. Though most leftists (“liberals” are not leftists) didn’t necessarily believe he would make real “change” anyways. President Obama has been in strong alignment with the TPP. His administration deported 2.5million+ undocumented immigrants. He failed to challenge and meaningfully change Wall Street and the banker/billionaire economy. He failed to challenge the fossil fuel industry. His administration furthered the privatization of public education and the misery of school students even more quickly and effectively than the Bush administration, as seems to be the consensus on Diane’s blog. Obama’s administration bombed a lot of people who shouldn’t be bombed, including with the nefarious drones — we call this imperialism and a massive waste of taxpayer money. Enough said? All of this is verifiable through a quick google search. And yes, Obama had a lot of opposition in congress and elsewhere. Still, he often failed to make the right decisions when the decisions were his to make, and he failed to fight hard “for us” in certain times when he should have fought much harder. And you know what? He told us that things would change. So yes, many of us are outraged at Obama. Thousands have already written in depth about his failures to live up to his big bold promise of change. If we followed the money then, and took more of the early criticism seriously, we wouldn’t have had so many people surprised by this lack of “real change” and the downward spiral in certain domains.
And now, we could have learned from the Obama administration and decades of neoliberalism, regulatory capture, corrupted campaign finance laws, voter suppression, and mass media deception. And we have a lot of evidence that Hillary will be more of the same in many ways, and probably worse than Obama in other ways. And guess what? She swears she will “fight for us,” despite being even more in debt to her campaign donors than Obama was, and despite having a legitimately troublesome history if you care about economic things and war things. You know, that pisses me off that she says she is on our side, because it appears she is on our side much more in word than in deed. And you know what, she is the reason Bernie Sanders won’t be our president — the president we really needed. And you know what? Lots of people think Hillary Clinton is virtuous and that she will be the president we need and can trust. I am not going to let that go unchallenged. I have seen, read, and heard too much. I have a lot of reason to believe that Hillary Clinton has fallen from her noble-intended political activist youth and could be a complete disaster as president.
“And that is certainly the perception the media gave voters for months. That’s why so many of them are willing to vote for Trump.”
So many are willing to vote for Trump because so many are angry at the political status quo, and Hillary Clinton finely represents the political status quo, not just in conspiracy theory but in her own words, her own movements, and her own history of actions. Beating Trump should be an easy feat with her kind of establishment support and Trump’s general idiocy and lack of political experience. But Hillary and her campaign are failing to resonate with people, not all because of crazy conspiracy theories, but because Hillary and her team have failed to convince the majority of people that she really stands for something good and will help all of us like she says she will. And she really does lack the charisma, political instinct, and down-to-earth charm of Obama — perhaps because she’s so much more isolated by wealth and social status from the general population. Which only hurts her in comparison to Obama. At least Obama seems honest. Hillary is very calculated with her speaking, the words she uses, and even the way she moves sometimes. She is very calculated/calculating in a time when establishment politics is all about calculation and manipulation, and the population now strongly hates establishment politics precisely because it is so calculating and seemingly deceptive, just like Hillary Clinton. Some conspiracy theories have been blown out of proportion, but also out of proportion are the absolute counter-theories that there is nothing in Hillary Clinton to be outraged about.
LikeLike
Ed Detective asked me to post this comment for him. For unknown reasons, he was unable to post it:
ED DETECTIVE:
This is what I tried to post. Thanks.
I strongly disagree with Diane Ravitch when it comes to certain political matters (especially when we’re talking about a certain presidential candidate) and have some differences when it comes to education and how it should be implemented, perhaps even some major differences. Yet just as I disagree with many on this blog about many things, I still consider most of them to be allies, if not friends, including Diane Ravitch.
Diane has tolerated my criticism and the criticism of so many others. I can only imagine what it’s like to be a high-profile intellectual and have thousands of people who disagree with you or even hate your guts, just for having a strong opinion and making it heard. I doubt I’ll ever know what that’s really like. A lot of celebrity-types do not handle it well. I think being famous is just as much a curse as a blessing, if not more so. It is a big responsibility to have your words heard and work read by potentially millions of people. Those who take this responsibility seriously, and do not quickly crumble from the pressure, have earned a lot of trust and respect from me.
I will continue to disagree with Diane Ravitch on certain issues, but at the end of the day I recognize that we have the same major goals. Diane truly believes in “liberty and justice for all” and has provided more than enough evidence that she is fighting for this in the right way. I will not stop disagreeing on certain matters, but I hope I am never so enraged or foolish enough to try to undermine her. Note that I said “try,” because it’s not like I could, even if I wanted to. Jim Horn cannot either.
I don’t think the Hillary vs Bernie analogy is a good one, since the concerns about Hillary not being on our “side” are well-justified. I see an analogy more along the lines of Socialists attacking Bernie Sanders for Not Being Socialist Enough. In a sense, the socialists were right that Bernie was not repping Socialism (workers owning the means of production), but he raised awareness in millions of people and strengthened/emboldened the working class and marginalized populations, which is also what Socialism is about. Bernie Sanders moved us closer to the goals that Socialists have, more than virtually any other “Socialist” of our time has done. It was short-sighted to try and undermine him from the left, and it is short-sighted to try and undermine Diane Ravitch from the left.
The left has long been an enemy of itself, in different ways than the right has undermined itself (which now can be observed through Trump).
Jim Horn should re-evaluate his allegiance.
Drawing a line in the sand and making yourself lonely on one side is usually not a good idea. I say that as a life-long “lone wolf” who has tried to learn to fight together for the common good, especially when it becomes so necessary for survival. I say this as a teacher who doesn’t even like the way most teachers teach. I started out my “detective” career doing a lot more criticism of teacher practices, but I have laid back on that, because I have become more attuned to the “goliath” we are fighting. I don’t agree with lots of teachers, but I’ll be damned if economists, politicians, and billionaires decide what education will be instead.
LikeLike
Trying again to post Ed Detective’s comment:
This is what I tried to post. Thanks.
I strongly disagree with Diane Ravitch when it comes to certain political matters (especially when we’re talking about a certain presidential candidate) and have some differences when it comes to education and how it should be implemented, perhaps even some major differences. Yet just as I disagree with many on this blog about many things, I still consider most of them to be allies, if not friends, including Diane Ravitch.
Diane has tolerated my criticism and the criticism of so many others. I can only imagine what it’s like to be a high-profile intellectual and have thousands of people who disagree with you or even hate your guts, just for having a strong opinion and making it heard. I doubt I’ll ever know what that’s really like. A lot of celebrity-types do not handle it well. I think being famous is just as much a curse as a blessing, if not more so. It is a big responsibility to have your words heard and work read by potentially millions of people. Those who take this responsibility seriously, and do not quickly crumble from the pressure, have earned a lot of trust and respect from me.
I will continue to disagree with Diane Ravitch on certain issues, but at the end of the day I recognize that we have the same major goals. Diane truly believes in “liberty and justice for all” and has provided more than enough evidence that she is fighting for this in the right way. I will not stop disagreeing on certain matters, but I hope I am never so enraged or foolish enough to try to undermine her. Note that I said “try,” because it’s not like I could, even if I wanted to. Jim Horn cannot either.
I don’t think the Hillary vs Bernie analogy is a good one, since the concerns about Hillary not being on our “side” are well-justified. I see an analogy more along the lines of Socialists attacking Bernie Sanders for Not Being Socialist Enough. In a sense, the socialists were right that Bernie was not repping Socialism (workers owning the means of production), but he raised awareness in millions of people and strengthened/emboldened the working class and marginalized populations, which is also what Socialism is about. Bernie Sanders moved us closer to the goals that Socialists have, more than virtually any other “Socialist” of our time has done. It was short-sighted to try and undermine him from the left, and it is short-sighted to try and undermine Diane Ravitch from the left.
The left has long been an enemy of itself, in different ways than the right has undermined itself (which now can be observed through Trump).
Jim Horn should re-evaluate his allegiance. Drawing a line in the sand and making yourself lonely on one side is usually not a good idea. I say that as a life-long “lone wolf” who has tried to learn to fight together for the common good, especially when it becomes so necessary for survival. I say this as a teacher who doesn’t even like the way most teachers teach. I started out my “detective” career doing a lot more criticism of teacher practices, but I have laid back on that, because I have become more attuned to the “goliath” we are fighting. I don’t agree with lots of teachers, but I’ll be damned if economists, politicians, and billionaires decide what education will be instead.
LikeLike
Ed Detective says:
“also out of proportion are the absolute counter-theories that there is nothing in Hillary Clinton to be outraged about.”
Unless you give Obama a pass, an intelligent voter would have no more reason to be “outraged” at Hillary than they are “outraged” at Obama. Except for them thinking that Hillary is a lying, unethical, money-hungry cheat as the right wing and certain Bernie supporters have managed to convince the American people is true.
Obama’s approval ratings have been over 50% lately. Obama offered the same corrupt policies you despise and say people are angry about (thus voting for Trump), but people still approve of Obama. They don’t approve of Hillary offering similar policies. Why?
The reason is that Roger Ailes/Karl Rove and company have successfully painted her as MORE corrupt, MORE unethical and MORE terrible than Obama could ever be.
The irony is that she would probably be far better on many issues you care about than Obama. Perhaps nowhere near as good as Bernie. But better than Obama.
So when you claim people are turning to Trump because Hillary isn’t offering them the Bernie agenda, it is simply not true. If it were, those same people would not approve of Barack Obama in such high numbers. They would be just as disgusted with him as they are with Hillary. More so, since he was actually President for 8 years and had a chance to fight for things you claim those people care about and blame Hillary for not supporting.
People aren’t “outraged” with Hillary Clinton because she offers the exact same policies as Obama (but a little more liberal thanks to Bernie’s influence).
They are “outraged” with her because of right-wing efforts at painting her as a criminal.
Pretending anything else is true is just a self-justification so you don’t blame yourself when Trump wins. And I get that white men think “oh, it’s no big deal for a racist, sexist, sower of hatred to win since the other side is bad, too”.
Sorry if I can’t agree. No doubt many non-Jewish Germans felt the same way and felt free to tell their Jewish friends “Oh both candidates are bad, so don’t you worry your little head over the anti-Semitic remarks of Hitler.” And then, after the war, finding their Jewish friends died in concentration camps, those Germans told themselves “well, it was still the fault of Hitler’s opponent for just not offering a better plan, so I was justified in doing my part to help Hitler get elected and telling my Jewish friends “”it’s just an election, who cares”.
Easier to say “no big deal” as a white male. Just as it was easier to say in Germany if you weren’t Jewish.
LikeLike
Hillary Clinton has never been the liar that a very problematic media has characterized her as in an attempt to please the Fox News “fair and balanced” crowd. No matter what she said: (i.e. “Colin Powell advised me on the e-mail issue”; not announcing her mild case of pneumonia) it is turned into a “lie” (“But Colin Powell did not specifically say to use your own very secure server instead of using AOL like he did, so you lie, lie!” and “How dare you try to suck it up and work through an illness — the kind of thing we’d of course admire if Trump did it. You lied by not announcing it so that no matter what you did we could either say “what bad judgement to work through it” or “what a weak woman not working with a mild illness”). She can’t win.
Donald Trump, until this weekend, has always received a pass. His blatant and non-stop lies were characterized as “theories”. You might disagree with his “theories”, but he was a good, honest man just doing the best he can because he believes in helping others.
For a brief day the media called a lie and lie. No doubt they will return to giving Trump a pass for the next 2 months.
LikeLike
Amazing double standard.
LikeLike
“. . . are rated true, mostly true or half true.”
Or we might say rated true, somewhat false or half false. Seems to me that anything less than rated true is actually false. Yes, it really is that simple. Subtle nuances of what constitutes truth? Don’t think so.
LikeLike
Not the way Politifact works, Duane. They ALSO have “mostly false,” etc. I expect you believe that 2nd place is the “first loser,” too. Everything isn’t always black and white.
LikeLike
Don’t know that much about Politifact and how it works. Just pointing out the flip side which is a way of saying everything isn’t always black and white, even if there are three or four categories instead of two.
Knew a dentist out in Denver whose basement bar was called “Second Sucks”. He had a neon sign made up for it. Thought it was great.
Let’s just say that I’ve played and coached many different sports over my life and I’ve come in second more often than first. Never bothered be because hey at least the team was in contention and for me it is the enjoyment of playing/coaching that is what matters and not first, second, third, etc. . . .
LikeLike
So Duane, to use your words, “Seems to me that anything less than rated true is actually false”, you and your second place teams were losers?
LikeLike
By definition, second place teams are the “losers” of the championship match/game/contest. Now taking that statement of fact-loser and twisting into a derogatory meaning for those 2nd place finishers is a whole other thing.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on BLOGGYWOCKY and commented:
Imagine my surprise. Not.
It has driven me crazy how many “passes” the media has given The Donald. If they had been as diligent (or even half as diligent) about reporting his lies, half-truths, and oh, by the way, his not releasing his tax returns, as they have been about Hillary, maybe I would respect the media more.
LikeLike
Lying about Obama’s place of birth is a crime against rationality, sanity, reasoning, thinking and human decency. Trump then turns on a dime and claims that HE and HE alone has put an end to the birther movement which he spent years promoting. But wait, there’s more. He has the unmitigated gall and chutzpah to claim that Hillary and/or her surrogates started the birther movement. Another huge fat odiferous reeking pustule of a lie. Trump is the king of lies, dishonesty and the cynical obfuscation of facts. When Trump enters the room, truth slithers under the sofa for fear of being trampled to death by this vicious prevaricator.
LikeLike
Amen
LikeLike
If you are including statements that are rated true, mostly true or half-true then Trumps score is 30%, not 15%.
Still a miserable score…
LikeLike
Stu,
You are right.
I corrected my error
I have a hard time believing he ever tells the truth except when he says his name
LikeLike
According to John Oliver, even Trump’s last name isn’t the original one his family had when it arrived in the U.S. Time magazine even ran a story about it.
http://time.com/4277790/john-oliver-donald-drumpf-records/
LikeLike
Only world class? Donald Trump should be awarded a higher rating than that for his serial lies. How about galaxy class or universe class?
LikeLike
It’s just all so sad, but you have to do what you have to do in a crisis.
LikeLike
I think you math is wrong on Trump – 30% is true, mostly true or half true. Notwithstanding, Trump is still a world class liar, maybe even the “gtreatist” liar
LikeLike
Andy, you are right, and I changed it.
I am surprised that he tells the truth, or even half the truth, as much as 30% of the time. All I hear when he speaks is lies, slander, insults, bullying, and more lies.
LikeLike
Well of course his truth telling is 30 percent… “My name is Donald Trump”… “I am rich”…”I think Putin is a great guy” “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, I would date her”… I think the statements of “truth” fall into categories like the above statements (wink wink)…..
LikeLike
artsegal,
I would rate some of those as half-truths. For example, it is true that he thinks Putin is a great guy (after all, Putin says nice things about him), but in fact Putin is not a nice guy at all. He murders critics and journalists. He invaded a neighbor. Putin must be eager for Trump to win because he can make Trump melt by praising him and inviting him to dinner.
LikeLike
I can only imagine what a Putin/Trump dinner would entail… perhaps they could have side by side portraits painted… I laughed hysterically at a portrait Trump has displayed in one of his gold palaces where he is wearing tight white pants and a vee neck golf sweater and weighs about 150 pounds (a far cry from his current 267 pounds… so am guessing KFC got the best of him on the campaign trail). And the painter made sure that the viewer could imagine him to be well endowed! Wonder if that is the painting Obama referenced in referring to how Trump spent charitable contributions made to his organizations!
LikeLike
Putin knows that he only has to praise Trump, and Trump will give him Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
LikeLike
Hi Diane totally understand your reply but.. the “truths” to which I refer are connected to the fact that Trump is an “island in his own mind”… in referring to “statements of Trump truth”… it is true that HE BELIEVES Putin is a nice guy! Henceforth the “wink wink”… My favorite descriptive comment about Trump recently is “orange baboon”… although this is most unkind to the baboon :).
LikeLike
The first lesson that I have learned from a meditation seminar since 2002 is about three important facts
1) The past is over and terminated. (= we need to have RATIONAL mind in social context)
2) The future cannot be guessed how it would become. (= we need to have INTELLIGENCE and knowledge in political context)
3) The present is here and now. Present means gift, so appreciate the present in order to live in contentment and fulfillment. (= we need to have WISDOM = knowledge, pragmatism, and experience in civilized context)
IMHO, the way in which we live in present, is a good prediction for the consequence of our near future.
In short, people, who keep whining about certain corrupted politicians, should acknowledge the power of the puppet master who owns media, and who controls most of corrupted politicians in the House of Congress and senator.
All links, all fabricated evidences, all intentional national news have been manufactured to smear the reputation of the opposite leader. This is the political games. Back2basic
LikeLike
When they say Trump “speaks the truth”, to me it means that they see that he’s not afraid to say anything because it may offend or hurt or shame others and he doesn’t worry if his words come across as a racist, sexist or hateful and because he is willing to “speak the truth” to insult and demean others, many of the folks who say he speaks the truth live in the same xenophobic, hate-filled, paranoid world and that scares me more because those that support Trump and say he “speaks the truth” agree with the hateful thoughts and ideas he’s voicing and when they say that he speaks the truth, what they really mean is that they agree with what he says and love that there’s someone out there to demean others.
LikeLike
Years ago, President Ronald Reagan infamously said, “Facts are stupid things.” Most people assume he was attempting to quote Twain, who said, “Facts are stubborn things.”
However, unconscious or (literally) demented as it might have been, it was an honest reflection of Reagan’s attitude toward the truth, which he saw as something malleable in service of power and ideology.
Now, with Donnie, facts don’t matter at all, he can say anything, and his supporters accept and internalize it. It makes me scared about the debates, where I can imagine Hillary holding her own along traditional argumentative lines, but it not mattering at all, since “facts are stupid things.”
Alas, the age of Smart Phones, and Stupid People.
LikeLike
I was curious about the “Big Red Evil Commie” comment(s) so I did a quick search for it. I was surprised to find that there were only two links that it turned up.
The first was for the comment that Ed Detective posted in this blog yesterday, and the second was a reference to the ‘Top 20 X-Men and X-Adjunct Characters’ for ‘The Best Super Villain’, a character named ‘Magneto’.
[Begin quote]
“Magneto is sorta overrated as The Best Supervillain, but that’s mostly just a contrarian take. Everyone likes Magneto. He’s cool, he has a sweet helmet, he murders people, and it’s okay for him to be a DILF Holocaust survivor because of that one story where he got turned into a baby and came back 35.
Magneto was originally envisioned as a big red evil Commie;
the benevolent academia-based socialists (the X-Men) had to beat him up to prove that they were still contributing to American society despite their seditious politics. However, as the X-Men audience evolved with the times, most readers came to realize that destroying the NASA space program because you hate American values is actually good. The zeitgeist currently favors angry old Jewish men who want to destroy our way of life, so Magneto is generally portrayed as more of an antihero, or just as Cyclops’ cool uncle.”
[End quote]
It would seem unlikely that Clinton would characterize Sanders as the Super Villain Magneto let alone be familiar with the character!
Search Results for ‘Who said “Big Red Evil Commie”?’
2 results (0.42 seconds)
Politifact Compares Trump and Clinton on Veracity (Who Tells the …
https://dianeravitch.net/…/politifact-compares-trump-and-clinton-on-veracity-who-tell…
20 hours ago – Trump’s Behavior Similar To Male Chimpanzee, Says Jane Goodall … I missed when Hillary said Bernie was a Big Red Evil Commie Who Is …
Top 20 X-Men and X-Adjunct Characters — The Manor Review
http://www.themanorreview.com/top-20-xmen-and-adjunct-xcharacters/
Magneto was originally envisioned as a big red evil Commie; the benevolent …. her first appearances in X-Men, Storm was “the African one,” meaning she said …
LikeLike
Thanks for trying anyway.
I believe that certain people who post on here despise Hillary Clinton far more than they despise Barack Obama despite every evidence that Hillary Clinton is no worse, and arguably has a chance at being more concerned about American’s most vulnerable citizens than Obama.
Those people say they hate Hillary Clinton because of what she “did to Bernie” or because she “lacks Obama’s charisma”. I wonder if this was 2012 and Obama was running against Trump (as he is today), would those same people be accusing Obama of being just as corrupt? I doubt it.
It’s one thing to be disappointed with Obama or Clinton for embracing the status quo.
It is quite another to paint them as irredeemably corrupt – not much different than Trump.
I find the way that some people characterize Hillary to be sexist and gender driven or maybe just evidence of Clinton derangement syndrome (to be fair, Gore got similar treatment). They don’t just criticize her about being part of the status quo and politics as usual, as they do Obama.
They criticize her as corrupt. Unethical. Evil. Money-hungry. Happy to sell out America to foreign interests.
If supposed pro-Bernie voters don’t think that characterization is the reason so many people think it is okay to vote for Trump, they are simply fooling themselves.
If you make Trump’s opponent seems just as evil and bad, voters think they have nothing to lose by shaking up the system because the evil and bad Hillary will be far worse than Obama. Not the same. WORSE. CORRUPT.
These are people that LIKE President Obama who are voting for Trump. Obama’s approval ratings are much higher than Hillary Clinton’s. So when many of them are voting for Trump, it is not on the issues. It is because those characterizations — really character assassinations — on Hillary are working. Karl Rove is breaking out the champagne. Getting people who love Obama to vote for Trump!
LikeLike
“I believe that certain people who post on here despise Hillary Clinton far more than they despise Barack Obama. . . ”
Don’t know to whom you refer, but it is hard to despise the killings of innocents as promoted by Clinton more than the not adjudicated ordered hit on American citizens that Obama did. Degrees of disgust with both notwithstanding, both have been thoroughly infected with the holier than thou American Exceptionalist bullshit.
“I find the way that some people characterize Hillary to be sexist and gender driven or maybe just evidence of Clinton derangement syndrome (CDS). . . ”
Looked up and couldn’t find any mention of CDS in the new DSMV. But when in doubt, throw the “sexist and gender” driven card out!
“They criticize her as corrupt. Unethical. Evil. Money-hungry. Happy to sell out America to foreign interests.”
Ummm, isn’t that what cogent critique should do??
LikeLike
GE2L2R said:
“I was curious about the “Big Red Evil Commie” comment(s) so I did a quick search for it. I was surprised to find that there were only two links that it turned up.”
GE2L2R, your mistake was in misinterpreting what I said, whether on purpose to suit your own bias or through careless reading. I said that Hillary and the democratic party “implied” this as a part of their campaign strategy against Bernie Sanders — and at a few moments during the national televised debates — not that Hillary outright said it. The point is that she twisted the truth in order to paint Sanders as someone who is going to simply cost the public their hard-earned dollars (or whatever), in order to get more votes.
LikeLike
You are right – I did miss “implied”. Not bias – careless reading.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent said,
“Thanks for trying anyway.”
NYC public school parent, you may believe I am delusional about Hillary Clinton, speaking emotionally rather than rationally, and for reasons of self-interest. Interestingly, I have come to believe something similar about you. You think Hillary “aint so bad” because some of the attacks on her are ill-motivated, and there’s more criticism of her right now than Obama… You think that a Trump victory would lie at the feet of the media (and Millennials Who Love Bernie), and that attacks and major criticisms of Hillary only come from the right and those who are sexist and deluded. You also persist in being unable to grasp even the difference between “implied” and “said” — which is not because you can’t read, or do not know the difference — but because you did not want to tell the difference. It’s more convenient for you to discredit me in your own mind than to understand the simple thing I was really saying, even after I explained it further.
And so, I would rather not waste my time continuing this “conversation” with you. I do not continue conversations with people who cannot even reply to what I am actually saying. It is also why I will ignore you in the future. Of course, you will still be welcome to view my report on my website, if you wish… to be published in a few months.
LikeLike
Other, more merciful commenting platforms have a “block” feature.
LikeLike
FLERP! Be sure to keep urging on Ed with more of his anti-Hillary hatred. It’s working really well and you can congratulate yourself when Trump wins and really shows us how misguided we were. No doubt you are another white person like Ed Detective who can say “no big deal” if Trump wins. I wonder if you’d feel that way if you were a Muslim citizen.
FLERP!, In my opinion this is too serious of an election for your snark. But you obviously disagree. I’m sure you can come up with at least a dozen new snarky things to reply to this post. We obviously don’t see eye to eye. You see no need to correct the record when people attack Hillary in a way that makes Karl Rove and Roger Ailes break open the champagne. Ed Detective is wrong — I am not telling him not to criticize Hillary as the type of politics as usual Democrat that she is, just like Obama was. I am telling him not to make her out to be a criminal the likes of whom the Democratic party has never seen.
But with your support, maybe he can convince a few more people of Hillary’s evilness. I’m sure Trump won’t be too bad, right? Unless you just happen to be one of the groups he decides to make the object of his wrath. I suspect you aren’t in any of them. So no doubt you will always be free to be just as snarky as you want.
LikeLike
To Ed Detective:
You sound very convincingly about bad deeds from certain politicians.
Please tell me that you can assess people through their family members’, circle of friends’, and advisers’ personality, attitude and character, cannot you?
I confirm that I believe the pass which is gone, is over, and is terminated. Also, the future is not yet coming with many possibilities of which the consequences can be predicted through the present.
Today, there is manipulation to people’s rationality like the phrase “What the hell do we have to lose?”
In social context, rationality is being “streetwise = weasel” to have your way at the expense of others.
In academe context, rationality is strictly being logical and scientific in FACTS over FICTIONS.
In civility context, rationality is
being humanitarian,
being wise
being pragmatic
being experience of being there and done that. Most of all,
BEING CONSIDERATE FOR THE WELFARE OF HUMANITY.
For instance, when I first came to Canada, I must work as a shampooer because I did not speak English well and did not have my own clients. I talked to two other shampooers that I gave all my tips to them so that they would be happy and friendly to leave me alone to do my job. Gradually, I gained confidence from owner to offer me to be hairdresser due to getting along well with his staff. To make a long story short, I did not want to be a hairdresser, but to be engineer or pharmacist. Temporary job is my way to encourage Canadian government to sponsor more immigrants into Canada.
In the same vein, whenever people want to commit to be politicians, they all obey their party’s rules. As you all know that TRADITIONAL Conservative Party is for people whose families are well established and are beyond the median income. These conservative people want to be in control and live in the lap of luxury at the expense of commoners.
On the other hand, TRADITIONAL democratic party is for people whose middle class income with opened mind and heart of being humanitarian to the unfortunate.
However, both rich and poor people take advantage of greed and naivety from Traditional Conservative party, as well as take advantage of blind faith, error-in-judgment from Traditional Democrat Party, to lead country into CHAOS.
In short, we CANNOT simply trust and believe in MEDIA which is controlled by the corrupted business tycoons. We must OBSERVE the character, personality, and attitude in leadership through his/her personal family members, friends, acquaintances, subordinates, superiors, and authority.
What do voters expect from leadership?
1) Patience = thinking through before acting and speaking
2) Compassionate = prioritize family and citizens’ well fare ahead of personal lust for desires in power and control.
3) Intelligence = knowledge in both Domestic and Foreign Policies
4) Diplomacy = the art of dealing with people in a sensitive and effective way.
Yes, definitely, Secretary Hillary Clinton has it all. Donald Trump completely is CROOK.
Since third party tries to go for a shortcut, and third party does not have its reps in all 50 states, it is a limbless power in passing any MEANINGFUL acts or bills. THERE IS A LOT TO LOSE if voters are being naive and manipulated by con-man.
Please do yourself a favor by asking an important question – HOW EVIL that MAN can inflict on humanity? Please go over documentary of SLAVERY, PRISONERS OF WARS (all wars) so that you can envision the lives of our MANY younger generations including your children, and grand children UNDER FASCIST and COMMUNIST leadership. May.
LikeLike
“In short, we CANNOT simply trust and believe in MEDIA which is controlled by the corrupted business tycoons. We must OBSERVE the character, personality, and attitude in leadership through his/her personal family members, friends, acquaintances, subordinates, superiors, and authority.”
I completely agree!
“What do voters expect from leadership?
1) Patience = thinking through before acting and speaking
2) Compassionate = prioritize family and citizens’ well fare ahead of personal lust for desires in power and control.
3) Intelligence = knowledge in both Domestic and Foreign Policies
4) Diplomacy = the art of dealing with people in a sensitive and effective way.”
I completely agree!
“Yes, definitely, Secretary Hillary Clinton has it all.”
I strongly disagree! Enough has been posted over the past year, by myself and others, that I am done arguing this point on this blog. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are two wonderful examples of people who should never be allowed to hold power over billions of people.
LikeLike
And how will a vote for a third party candidate keep Trump or HRC out of the White House?
Again, the rational choice is between bad and much badder.
The emotional choice is to vote for a 3rd party candidate like millions of voters did for Ralph Nader in 2000 handing G. W. Bush the White House.
We all know what happened in the next 8 years from 911 to wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and special forces teams invading 130 countries annually in secret and then slipping out again mostly un-noticed in addition to the 2007-08 global financial crises that cost 9 million Americans their jobs and 5 million families their homes and more than 15 trillion dollars in losses.
And that isn’t mentioning Bush’s TARP give away of $750 billion.
LikeLike
“And how will a vote for a third party candidate keep Trump or HRC out of the White House?”
It won’t, not without a fundamental change in electoral structures and campaign finance laws, which will not happen before November 2016. I have personally advocated for voting HRC in swing states, if your conscience allows it. I have many times said that I would place my bets on HRC as the less damaging option.
At the same time, I have advocated for the truth to be told about Hillary Clinton, so that we know what to expect, and that voting for her is not “good,” but at best, “less bad.”
I have also advocated for shifting the burden and the blame away from VOTERS, and onto Hillary Clinton and her campaign, the Democratic Party and DNC, the mainstream media, the billionaires and CEOs, and the entire political and economic establishment. Don’t just vote for “lesser” evil, demand change from Hillary Clinton and all these other parties that have created THE CONDITIONS for voters to be so angry and apathetic.
Don’t attack or guilt-trip third party voters, attack and guilt-trip the people with real power who are supposed to be “serving” the voters, but have not done so.
LikeLike
Ralph Nader spoiler argument
This has been addressed many times, including on this blog by various users, most notably Duane Swacker.
Ralph Nader says: “I was not a ‘spoiler’ in 2000. Jill Stein doesn’t deserve that insulting label, either.”
From the article:
“Were the Greens responsible for the absurd electoral college that threw an election? Mr. Gore won the popular vote handily. More than 300,000 registered Democratic voters in Florida voted for Republican nominee George W. Bush. Then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s administration unlawfully purged thousands of Democratic voters from the state’s rolls, and Palm Beach County used deceptive butterfly ballots. The Florida Supreme Court’s mandated recount was blocked by a narrow conservative majority on the Supreme Court that then selected Mr. Bush as president. Why blame the Greens for these and other sine qua nons — absent any one of which Mr. Bush would have been denied the presidency?”
If you want to blame voters, blame democratic voters. If you want to put the burden instead where it belongs, blame Gore, his campaign, the media, and material conditions of economics/politics at the time — which were fault of powerful elites who structure the economy/politics/society, and control the media — not the mass of voters.
LikeLike
I take your point, but the argument itself seems self-negating, or, at best, circular. The first part of the argument correctly calls out the problems with using but-for causation logic to assign “blame” for events that have multiple but-for causes. But then it turns around and assigns blame using the same but-for causation logic it just discredited.
If an event has multiple but-for causes, then there are three possible theories of blame: (1) none of those causes can be blamed for the event; (2) all of the causes can be blamed for the event; or (3) only some of the causes can be blamed for the event. The first two arguably lead to nihilism, and in any event, they’re politically pointless. And the third theory either must use a discredited logic of but-for causation, or come up with new criteria for what it means to be blameworthy.
LikeLike
FLERP, it is a paradox of where responsibility lies. You can just as well say that anyone and everyone who didn’t vote for Gore is responsible for Bush getting elected: You can blame Nader voters, you can blame Democratic voters who voted for Bush (more of them voted for Bush in Florida than Nader voters), or you can blame Republican voters (more of them voted for Bush in Florida than Nader voters). In all these cases, you would be “logically” correct — since if any of these parties voted a different way, there “could/would have” been a different president. And to further complicate things, blaming one person for their entire group’s actions is both correct and incorrect. YOUR singular vote didn’t elect or not elect someone; and at the same time, it did. So if you wanted to place all the blame on VOTERS, who are only PARTIALLY to blame, at most, (see next paragraph), it is not “Nader” voters who elected Bush. It would be the “fault” of Bush voters, AND Dems who voted Bush, AND Nader voters. Not simply “Nader voters.”
Just as all these accusations are “logically” correct, it is “most wise” to accuse those with the most power to set the structures of the elections and electoral system, and those who create the conditions for voters who simply voted their interest within a very limited set of “choices.” Blame the political and economic and media establishment. If they created a different set of conditions, in various ways, there “could/would have” been a different president. In a way, Bill Clinton’s administration is to some degree responsible for the rise of Trump — who is a response to conditions — some have said that Trump is only a “symptom” of the neoliberal disease. Would there even have been a Trump if people were happy with the economic and political situation in this country?
However you want to look at it, simply blaming “3rd party voters” for a Bush presidency (or a Trump presidency) is both irresponsible (because it places blame on a few citizens voting their conscience, rather than the majority who also have responsibility, and the powerful who especially have responsibility); and largely incorrect (in that “Nader voters” were only one small part of the truth of why Bush became president).
You know who I blame more than Nader voters, or Jill Stein voters? Those who have the power to implement ranked-choice voting, and have not done so. Those in the media who suppress and distort information so that people are not properly informed. Those in the DNC who did everything in their power to make sure Hillary, not Bernie, was the nominee. Those corporate executives who continue to stagnate and cut their payrolls. Those billionaires and millionaire venture capitalists who have sought to privatize everything and increase inequality. Those citizens who do not lift a finger to affect, or even care about, our epidemic of childhood poverty. And so on. Lots of blame to go around, if you must blame anyone. Best to blame those with most power who have acted irresponsibly in their use of power. And if you want to blame voters, everyone can look in the mirror.
LikeLike
“Those in the DNC who did everything in their power to make sure Hillary, not Bernie, was the nominee.”
More disgusting lies. You have no idea what “everything in their power” is. In fact, there was discussion of dirty tricks that were NOT used. So spare me your hyperbole. Right, the DNC is bad and corrupt, so that’s why you don’t have a problem with electing someone spouting fascist ideas.
Using everything in their power means using out and out lies to AND the ideas you claim to believe in. Even Bernie said that today. The MOST liberal plan in decades. But that isn’t enough.
You obviously believe Bernie is just as corrupt. No one will ever live up to your high standards, so why not just elect Trump and get it over with. Keep on with your out and out lies.
Your claim that the DNC did everything in its power is about the most naive understanding of what the dangers of power REALLY are. I fear that in your desire to see Trump elected, you will get a chance to see how people REALLY abuse power. Your naivety and attacks are unworthy of someone who calls himself an educator. Truly. If my kid was in your class, I would pull them out. I am sick of hearing you spout these things and excusing your own complicity in the rise of a terrible, terrible man who might win the election.
And you will blame EVERYONE but your own spewing of hatred toward Hillary. It goes beyond sense. She is worthy of all kinds of criticism, but not the hatred and ignorance you spew. I’m sorry but you sound like one of the SMUG Germans blaming the Jews for their own demise. And it’s disgusting.
LikeLike
“More disgusting lies”
No, that’s the DNC and your self-delusion about them, and your loudly expressed ignorance by choice.
I didn’t even read past the first sentence of your reply. Keep in mind when responding to me that I don’t care about anything you say anymore and will not even waste my time reading it.
LikeLike
Ed Detective in Response to Ed Detective: “Keep in mind when responding to me that I don’t care about anything you say anymore and will not even waste my time reading it.”
Huh! What’s going on. You can’t stand yourself? Have you heard of Dissociative Identity Disorder?
Wait, Ed Detective #1 and #2 might have just revealed that Trump is much more than a psycho, narcissist, bully, fraud, con man, serial liar, want-to-be dictator who has been documented lying more than any politician running for office in history. The unwitting revolution from our very own elementary detective is that Trump has Dissociative Identity Disorder and when he says Clinton started the Obama Birther movement and he ended it, Trump 1 believes what he says, because Trump #2, or #3, or #4, or #5 (etc.) was the one who really started the Birther movement. But Trump #1 doesn’t have the same memories the other Trumps have.
There are switches inside Trump’s head that turn on and off and we will probably never now what Trump is lying.
How can anyone accuse Trump of being the emperor of lives when he multiple personalities are dividing up the lies and one Trump doesn’t know what the other Trumps lied about.
I wonder how many Trumps are inside that freaks, cotton candy head.
LikeLike
I have no idea what you just meant to say, Lloyd, but it sounds like you are again projecting your own fears and insecurities onto me. Welcome to my troll list, right next to NYC public school parent.
LikeLike
LOL
I can’t take you seriously.
LikeLike
Ed Detective,
When you leave a comment, it helps if you include the name of the person you are writing to, because when Ed Detective is writing to Ed Detective it sounds like you’re talking to yourself and/or one of your other alleged personalities.
And you just added me to ‘your’ troll list because of what I wrote in a comment to a confusing comment you wrote. Internet trolls are narcissists, psychopaths and sadists. … Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response, just like the multiple Donald Trumps do repeatedly.
The next time anyone encounters a troll online, remember:
These trolls are some truly difficult people.
It is your suffering that brings them pleasure, so the best thing you can do is ignore them.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists
If Trump is elected president, the United States will have a troll for president.
LikeLike
Thank you Ed for your agreement and disagreement.
I completely agree with your conclusion in:
[start quote]
You know who I blame more than Nader voters, or Jill Stein voters? Those who have the power to implement ranked-choice voting, and have not done so. Those in the media who suppress and distort information so that people are not properly informed. Those in the DNC who did everything in their power to make sure Hillary, not Bernie, was the nominee. Those corporate executives who continue to stagnate and cut their payrolls. Those billionaires and millionaire venture capitalists who have sought to privatize everything and increase inequality. Those citizens who do not lift a finger to affect, or even care about, our epidemic of childhood poverty. And so on. Lots of blame to go around, if you must blame anyone. Best to blame those with most power who have acted irresponsibly in their use of power. And if you want to blame voters, everyone can look in the mirror.
[end quote]
In short, what is the solution? Isn’t there a back2basic method like to take time, to build foundation or grassroot, to cultivate conscientiousness in humanity, to make lemonade out of lemon = to unite all work forces with rationality in humanity context = eliminate Donald Trump at all cost + put third party on the side in 2016 = vote for HRC and put pressure on Bernie.
We can successfully fight Goliath in unity. May
LikeLike
Sanders supporters should vote HRC in swing states, if their conscience allows, and vote 3rd party in non-swing states to build pressure on the two major corporate-controlled parties. That is for Nov 2016. Beyond that, it will take reform of the electoral system and our entire way of doing politics.
Hillary is part of the “Goliath” we are fighting. The Goliath is “profit over people” and “big money in politics,” with Hillary supporting and representing these efforts over the years. She has been on the “side” of imperialism, big oil, big pharma, Walmart, Wall Street, etc. If Hillary is elected, we will have to fight her to enact what the Sanders campaign fought so hard to get on the Democratic platform.
LikeLike
Thanks, Ed. Thanks for recognizing that, as Bernie says, job number 1 is preventing Trump from becoming president. If Hillary is elected, we can fight her. If Trump is elected, the fight is over.
LikeLike