And now..........Don's inevitable retraction. "I misspoke"

Here's the problem. I never said I don't have a problem with Hillary's lies. You are creating a straw man.

I have a problem with the false equivalency that donald's lying isn't far, far, worse than Clinton's, or just about any other politician I can think of.

While you are suggesting they are both the same in terms of lying and don't see the difference, I'm sure many do...which may explain why Clinton got about 3 million more votes than donald, despite a Russian led smear campaign and the FBI announcing it was reopening the email investigation just days before the election.

 

Yes they can. But kudos to you for admitting you were wrong. Only a small percentage of people will do that.

 

I would add to your list a decades long smear campaign by right wing media. It's not possible for so many people to believe so many lies about Hillary without a dedicated campaign of misinformation generated by domestic media entities well before the Russians began their propaganda.

 

Fair point. But I won't go so far as to say Clinton has never told some untruths. But her record is no worse than most other politicians, IMO, and not even in the same universe as donald.

 

Agreed. I'm not saying she never lied. I'm saying the distortion of truth believed in by the folks with Hillary Derangement Syndrome comes as a result of a concerted disinformation campaign that goes back to her days as the First Lady.

 

I don't need to justify Trump's actions. The OP doesn't believe people misspeak and I asked him if he believed Hillary misremembered, point being that the OP has a selective belief gene. Every time Obama spoke, there'd be a press conference the next day to tell us what he really meant to say.

 

People misspeak all the time. He didn't misspeak. His message was consistently the same during the entire press conference. Then his staff came up with a lame, transparent attempt to walk back his comments by pretending changing one word would change anything. It failed...........and everyone but Don's apologists knows it.

 

Disinformation? She wasn't fired from the Watergate investigation? She actually was dodging sniper fire? Chelsea was at the WTC during 9/11? She didn't blame a little girl for the girl's rape that got the rapist off? Travelgate never happened? The shenanigans at the Rose law firm never happened?

 

There are too many lies to respond to but let me just say you couldn't have provided a better example of lies about her if you tried. He's one.........

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-watergate/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-watergate-inquiry/?utm_term=.50eab1dfe42f

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122883&page=1

 

Hillary's Bold Lie: Her Omission That She Was FIRED From Her Staff Position on the House Judiciary Committee to Impeach President Nixon
As a 27 year-old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4540...e-judiciary-committee-impeach-president-Nixon

I'll take C-span over Snopes every time.

 

You don’t have to say it verbally; all you have to do is defend her lies by saying Trump is worse. No straw man to it.

 

The Snopes article goes in to quite a lot of detail in disproving your claim. Did you even read it?

 

...and now they are doing that with Trump..a little more often it seems. Ergo, all are the same ****ups.

 

The zombie claim that Hillary Clinton was fired during the Watergate inquiry

Finally, here’s the critical piece of evidence unearthed by Crites: the pay records of the Judiciary Committee. Note that Hillary Rodham is paid ($3,377.77) through Sept. 4; two of her more senior colleagues on the impeachment staff, associate special counsel Robert Sack and senior associate special counsel Bernard Nussbaum, were paid through Sept. 2 and Sept. 6, respectively. The committee’s impeachment report was published Aug. 20, and the staff’s work was done by early September.

Hillary Rodham Congressional Pay by GlennKesslerWP on Scribd

In other words, Clinton was not fired.

The Pinocchio Test
We know that it is all but impossible to stamp out these Internet memes. But whatever Zeifman may have said in one interview, he did not make this claim in either of his books. He also gave different answers in other interviews. It’s clear he disliked Clinton, but he also disliked many of the other people he worked with, including her actual supervisor and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Zeifman was not Clinton’s supervisor and did not fire her, as demonstrated by the committee’s pay records.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-watergate-inquiry/?utm_term=.bee405e0db86

 

Not to pick on you Sam, but this is illustrative of the issue many of us have with those on your side. I presented you with documentary evidence Zeifman did not fire Clinton. He wasn't even her supervisor. Yet I suspect you will go on believing in this myth about Hillary, just as you will continue to believe the other disproven, false accusations you listed.
Clearly the matter of false beliefs among conservatives goes well beyond things pertaining to Hillary. It's a bit of a crisis for the country that the two political sides can't stipulate to the facts in evidence.

 

Nonsense.

 

If this same conversation were flipped and I was talking to a RWer about it, you wouldn’t say the same thing, would you? Be honest.

If you have a problem with Hillary’s lies, would you say so?

 

Which time?

 

No. donald is objectively lies far more than Clinton. Even trying to compare the two shows your bias.

Depends on the context and the supposed lie. What lie are you talking about?

 

Well said,

The last part is the one the Trumpsters most want to forget. Because the Russian meddling is still going on, and the Trump Administration is doing nothing to prevent it (other than lying about their non efforts).

Of course, the investigations would still be going on, even if Trump weren't President. And Trump would be a Fox News contributor, talking smack and idiotic right wing slogans on tv. Just like he does now.

Because he expected to lose, he ran his campaign on that assumption. People who have nothing to lose don't think they have to worry about being caught or held responsible. Of course, Trump has never known what it is to be held responsible. (well, the bankers tried to hold him responsible for the debacle in Atlantic City, but daddy cosigned the bailout).

And Trump wanted to deliver as much as he could to his Russian creditors as possible before it was all over. He still is.

 

You’re talking about degrees. It’s like saying “this gang banger is okay because he’s only shot 2 innocent bystanders while your gang-banger is bad because he’s shot 20”. What you don’t get is that both are wrong.

Scroll up and read the Politifact link. Pick which lies you’re okay with.

 

Just wait until Trump's investigators report back from Hawaii with his oft-promised tax returns!

Hannity fears the prospect of becoming redundant. He needs to keep Glorious Leader where he is.

Putin's subverting elections in western democracies is calculated to further Russia's interests by sewing internal discord, weakening NATO, disrupting trade agreements, and instigating Brexit chaos among allies.

He has to be feeling pretty smug, succeeding on the cheap with a few geeks where the Red Army had failed.

​

 

Why must you continuously mis-characterize my statement? Where did I ever say it was "okay"? You're just making **** up.

Sure I agree that it's wrong. But its also wrong to say Clinton is comparable to donald as a liar, just as it would be wrong to say the guy who killed 2 people is just as much of a murderer as the guy who killed 20.

Here's the first one:

Hillary Clinton
"There have been more than 270 mass shootings in the United States in the last year alone. That’s where four or more are killed."

Clinton's statement is ruled false because she left out "or injured." Her statement would be accurate if she had not left that out and said "That's where four or more have been killed or injured."

OK. She should have included "or injured" and by not doing so here statement is not accurate. I'm I "OK" with it? No. She should have included "or injured" to make it accurate. Though 274 shootings where 4 people have been killed or injured is pretty terrible too, so IMO her failure to include "or injured" doesn't really undermine the point.

So, what's your point? That somehow makes her just as big a liar as donald is?

 

You didn’t read the link, did you? Why not? Because you don’t want to know? No worries. You are free to believe as you wish.

 

Where the hell do you think I got the quote from?

You didn't read the link, did you? Why not? Because you don’t want to know? No worries. You are free to believe as you wish.