Does anyone believe Hillary is honest?

[The Rabbi]

Brett Stephens nails it perfectly in this AM's WSJ on Hillary.
Bret Stephens: The Hillary Metamorphosis - WSJ

First he mentions how she admitted her opposition to Bush's IRaq Surge was merely political, and she knew it would work all along. Then he nails her for a recent interview in which she recanted virtually everything she said as Sec.State.
So who is the real Hillary? I'd say the real Hillary is the one who will do anything to get elected and is totally without principle or scruple. And this is the shoe-in for the Democrat Party?

 

[chikenwing]

Bill is more honest soooo

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a tough call. Bill comes off as more honest. Or at least likeable. Hillary comes off as everyone's ex wife.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The real Hillary is the one who's been in politics most of her life. You might as well been looking for the real unicorn, you have as much chance of catching it.

Was the real Mitt the one before or after mandatory health insurance? Doesn't matter a damn actually so don't bother trying...

 

[The Rabbi]

The real Hillary is the one who's been in politics most of her life. You might as well been looking for the real unicorn, you have as much chance of catching it.

Was the real Mitt the one before or after mandatory health insurance? Doesn't matter a damn actually so don't bother trying...

Except she wasn't.
Why do you support someone who lies so openly? It can't possibly be because of any views she has, as her views are subject to change based on polls.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just like O, she never has accomplished anything.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The real Hillary is the one who's been in politics most of her life. You might as well been looking for the real unicorn, you have as much chance of catching it.

Was the real Mitt the one before or after mandatory health insurance? Doesn't matter a damn actually so don't bother trying...

Except she wasn't.
Why do you support someone who lies so openly? It can't possibly be because of any views she has, as her views are subject to change based on polls.

You need to learn the difference between a stance, a position, and a lie. Politics is not a child with a stolen cookie who says, What cookie? You treat politics like a child would, most here do...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just like O, she never has accomplished anything.

That must be why no one ever heard of her...

 

[boedicca]

Just like O, she never has accomplished anything.

Indeed. All she's ever done is shift her positioning to be in tune with the temporal emotions of her "base".

Hillary Clinton’s recent efforts to distance herself from President Obama’s foreign policy may be generating a lot of attention, but nothing she is now saying about foreign policy will matter in the future.

If history has taught us anything, especially when it comes to foreign policy, it’s that Clinton doesn’t have positions — she has positioning.

When she wanted to appear tough on national security in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton happily voted in favor of authorizing President George W. Bush to launch a war against Iraq. But once opinion of the war turned sour – especially within the Democratic Party – Clinton positioned herself as a long-time critic of the war. And she would have gotten away with it, if it weren’t for a young Illinois senator....

Nothing Hillary Clinton is now saying about foreign policy matters | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[The Rabbi]

The real Hillary is the one who's been in politics most of her life. You might as well been looking for the real unicorn, you have as much chance of catching it.

Was the real Mitt the one before or after mandatory health insurance? Doesn't matter a damn actually so don't bother trying...

Except she wasn't.
Why do you support someone who lies so openly? It can't possibly be because of any views she has, as her views are subject to change based on polls.

You need to learn the difference between a stance, a position, and a lie. Politics is not a child with a stolen cookie who says, What cookie? You treat politics like a child would, most here do...

When Hillary said she opposed the surge in Iraq and believed it would fail, she was lying. She admitted as much to Robert Gates.
When Obama said he believed marriage was beteeen one man and one woman, he was probably lying. Generously you could make a case that he "evolved" on the issue.
But how do you support people whose "views" and "principles" are dictated by this week's polling results?

 

[The Rabbi]

Just like O, she never has accomplished anything.

Indeed. All she's ever done is shift her positioning to be in tune with the temporal emotions of her "base".

Hillary Clinton’s recent efforts to distance herself from President Obama’s foreign policy may be generating a lot of attention, but nothing she is now saying about foreign policy will matter in the future.

If history has taught us anything, especially when it comes to foreign policy, it’s that Clinton doesn’t have positions — she has positioning.

When she wanted to appear tough on national security in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton happily voted in favor of authorizing President George W. Bush to launch a war against Iraq. But once opinion of the war turned sour – especially within the Democratic Party – Clinton positioned herself as a long-time critic of the war. And she would have gotten away with it, if it weren’t for a young Illinois senator....

Nothing Hillary Clinton is now saying about foreign policy matters | WashingtonExaminer.com

The Left doesn't care. They believe Hillary is one of them. And she sort of is. Until next week when she will sell them down the river because the majority wants something else.
How stupid do you have to be to support someone whose views are subject to change with polls?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The woman is in it for herself. She's dishonest and dishonorable. For the life of my I can't understand how anyone could want to make someone like that arguably the most powerful person on the planet, but then again, I'm also smarter than the average bear.

 

[g5000]

I think Hillary is as masterful at doublespeak as her husband. She learned well at the feet of the master. In some ways, she is quicker on the uptake than Bill ever was.

That is quite a skill.

You can take that any way you like.

But she is definitely interesting to watch when she is exercising that skill.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Except she wasn't.
Why do you support someone who lies so openly? It can't possibly be because of any views she has, as her views are subject to change based on polls.

You need to learn the difference between a stance, a position, and a lie. Politics is not a child with a stolen cookie who says, What cookie? You treat politics like a child would, most here do...

When Hillary said she opposed the surge in Iraq and believed it would fail, she was lying. She admitted as much to Robert Gates.
When Obama said he believed marriage was beteeen one man and one woman, he was probably lying. Generously you could make a case that he "evolved" on the issue.
But how do you support people whose "views" and "principles" are dictated by this week's polling results?

It's easy, because they all are, at least the ones who matter and can get shit done, not to mention that small fact of being electable. Stop treating politics like a child would.

We won't compromise, we won't compromise, we won't compromise. Senator, here's the bill. Great, what's the compromise? Fine, done, sign it...

 

[g5000]

I think people change their minds while other people seem to think no one should be allowed to.

 

[Billy000]

Brett Stephens nails it perfectly in this AM's WSJ on Hillary.
Bret Stephens: The Hillary Metamorphosis - WSJ

First he mentions how she admitted her opposition to Bush's IRaq Surge was merely political, and she knew it would work all along. Then he nails her for a recent interview in which she recanted virtually everything she said as Sec.State.
So who is the real Hillary? I'd say the real Hillary is the one who will do anything to get elected and is totally without principle or scruple. And this is the shoe-in for the Democrat Party?

It was Bush/Cheney that really set the standard of dishonesty and a complete lack of integrity.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The woman is in it for herself. She's dishonest and dishonorable. For the life of my I can't understand how anyone could want to make someone like that arguably the most powerful person on the planet, but then again, I'm also smarter than the average bear.

Not if you don't understand that we don't elect angels to the highest office, we elect devils we can live with. If you're really lucky, it's a devil from your team but it doesn't matter a hell of a lot even if it isn't...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just like O, she never has accomplished anything.

Indeed. All she's ever done is shift her positioning to be in tune with the temporal emotions of her "base".

Hillary Clinton’s recent efforts to distance herself from President Obama’s foreign policy may be generating a lot of attention, but nothing she is now saying about foreign policy will matter in the future.

If history has taught us anything, especially when it comes to foreign policy, it’s that Clinton doesn’t have positions — she has positioning.

When she wanted to appear tough on national security in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton happily voted in favor of authorizing President George W. Bush to launch a war against Iraq. But once opinion of the war turned sour – especially within the Democratic Party – Clinton positioned herself as a long-time critic of the war. And she would have gotten away with it, if it weren’t for a young Illinois senator....

Nothing Hillary Clinton is now saying about foreign policy matters | WashingtonExaminer.com

The Left doesn't care. They believe Hillary is one of them. And she sort of is. Until next week when she will sell them down the river because the majority wants something else.
How stupid do you have to be to support someone whose views are subject to change with polls?

The views of the bloody Supreme Court change with the polls. Society, and political positions, evolve. I know that's an idea you reject but it just happens to be reality...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Brett Stephens nails it perfectly in this AM's WSJ on Hillary.
Bret Stephens: The Hillary Metamorphosis - WSJ

First he mentions how she admitted her opposition to Bush's IRaq Surge was merely political, and she knew it would work all along. Then he nails her for a recent interview in which she recanted virtually everything she said as Sec.State.
So who is the real Hillary? I'd say the real Hillary is the one who will do anything to get elected and is totally without principle or scruple. And this is the shoe-in for the Democrat Party?

It was Bush/Cheney that really set the standard of dishonesty and a complete lack of integrity.

On the scale of American history, they were probably about average. They were just more obvious than most.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hillary is a politician. All politicians are dishonest.

It's axiomatic