Honesty


truth 2

 

One of the big issues in this campaign appears to be honesty.

Just looking at the facts, the answer is obvious.

As tracked by Politifact, Trump tells the complete truth only 3% of the time.  Clinton tells the complete truth 23% of the time.  It isn’t even that Trump is telling a nuanced truth.  60% of the things he says don’t have a shred of truth.  These aren’t just little lies either.  19% are pants on fire whoppers.

Here’s just a sampling.

Crime is rising.  It’s not.

“I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering” as the World Trade Center collapsed.    Trump appears to be the only person who saw this.

“Frankly, (Hillary Clinton) doesn’t do very well with women.”  She leads Trump with women by the largest margin in history.

The question has to be why some polls give Trump higher marks than Clinton on honesty when the facts simply don’t support it?

Some of it might be the fact that Clinton only recently clinched her party’s nomination.  Since that time her overall polling numbers have been going up.

But something else is going on here.

When we dig into the responses regarding Trump, what emerges is that some of those supporting Trump feel that he is more genuine that Clinton.  His willingness to speak in an unfiltered way causes them to assume that he is speaking from the heart.  Clinton on the other hand is a professional politician.  She is schooled in the sort of cautious speech that some people associate with fear of “telling it like it is”.

This is also reflected in the Trump’s assault on what he and his followers call Political Correctness.  His willingness to offend virtually every special interest group in the country for the entertainment of his white male audience wins him points for authenticity.

Perhaps this is how he actually feels.  It is also possible that he is sincerely expressing his unfiltered opinion, though that opinion appears to change based on the reaction that it generates.

IMHO nothing could be further from the truth.  His “authenticity” is an act.  It is the result of his talent as con man.  He built a following pointing out that the conservative working man has been duped by the Republican Establishment.  Trump, however, is also playing them for suckers by channeling Triumph the Insult Dog and letting them fill in the blanks based on their own fears and biases.

Those who support him, however, have such deep animus for Clinton, that they have latched onto to this difference to justify their support.  They say that he is just “Donald being Donald”.  That he doesn’t really mean all of the things that he says.  He will ultimately make “deals” that are in the best interests of the country.

Let’s look at some of those deals from the perspective of what is best for the country.

The most obvious is the Supreme Court.  Whomever is the next President will have at least two and perhaps three vacancies to fill.

Clinton will nominate liberal judges.  The result of that will likely be reversing the narrow Citizen’s United decision.  That will allow new limits to be placed on private money in elections.  Trump supposedly shares this interest.  He claims that his own personal fortune means he can’t be bought.  But the judges he has proposed nominating support the view that corporate money is free speech.

Instead Trump has promised that he will appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade.  Whether or not this is even possible, packing the court based on an abortion litmus test sets a very dangerous precedent.

Clinton has put forward solid policies to both reduce the debt and improve the job prospects for the very people who are supporting Trump.  Trump has only said that he will be the best job’s president the country has ever seen.  It also came out recently that he routinely fails to pay his own workers and contractors. 

None of this information will likely alter the minds of those who already have cast their lot with Trump.  They are so deep in their denial that there is little that Trump can do between now and the election to lose their support.  The rest of the country, however, who approach their job of picking the next President more analytically will discover that the Trump campaign is a sham.  They will reject the violence, xenophobia, and cult of personality that Trump has created and select Clinton because of her policies.

8 Responses to “Honesty”

  1. Keith says:

    Good afternoon Jeff,

    But Hillary continues to lie about her email and this isn’t a problem for you? She made her own rules? The IG found her to be willfully wrong, and that’s being kind! She willfully did this. You are not curious in the slightest bit about the Clinton foundation and money it received and her work at the state department? You are dismissing her years and years of behavior. Please read Peggy Noonan’s “The case against Hillary.” You find no truth in what the many women who have and are and more than likely will, come forward not to say what Bill did to them but what Hillary did? Etc etc etc…

    Jeff you are doing a great job a assassinating Trump, which is your right. But as a Christian in search of spiritual wickedness it REQUIRES a fair judgment. Proverbs 11:1 KJV A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.” Or said another way NIV – The LORD detests dishonest scales, but accurate weights find favor with him.

    You simply cannot look under every rock as it pertains to Trump and ignore the obvious with Hillary. If you are going to stand in judgment then you must stand in it completely. (I prefer not to judge)

    One could say “Those who support HER, however, have such deep animus for TRUMP, that they have latched onto to this difference to justify their support.”

    One could further say “None of this information will likely alter the minds of those who already have cast their lot with Clinton. They are so deep in their denial that there is little that Clinton can do between now and the election to lose their support.”

    Respectfully with no intention directed at your salvation, please remove the word Christian from the title of your blog.

  2. Keith says:

    When face with two unacceptable choices does one make an unacceptable choice?

  3. Jeff Beamsley says:

    But Hillary continues to lie about her email and this isn’t a problem for you? She made her own rules? The IG found her to be willfully wrong, and that’s being kind! She willfully did this.

    I’ve already posted Politifact’s finding on this lie. According to them it does not rise to the level of any of 30 “pants on fire” lies that Trump has told. Trump continues to peddle all of those lies too including the two basic tenants of his whole campaign –

    The US is letting in tens of thousands of terrorists into the country.

    There is no evidence that “tens of thousands” of terrorists are coming into the United States, much less that they are being “allowed” in on purpose. While there may be legitimate counter-terrorism concerns about refugee flows, Trump’s overheated rhetoric complicates rather than clarifies the situation. We rate the statement Pants on Fire.

    AND

    Dangeroud illegal immigrants are flooding into the country

    the Pew Research Center noted last month that “for the first time since the 1940s, more immigrants from Mexico are leaving the U.S. than coming into the country. The shift is due to several reasons, including slow economic recovery after the Great Recession that may have made the U.S. less attractive, as well as stricter enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, particularly at the border.”

    You are not curious in the slightest bit about the Clinton foundation and money it received and her work at the state department? You are dismissing her years and years of behavior. Please read Peggy Noonan’s “The case against Hillary.” You find no truth in what the many women who have and are and more than likely will, come forward not to say what Bill did to them but what Hillary did? Etc etc etc…

    I am certainly curious, but only if it is new news. I think it was you who objected to my posting similar history for Trump. Old news is just old news. The reality, at least for me, is pretty simple.

    Clinton will not try to deport 11M illegal aliens, close the borders to Muslims, or institute domestic surveillance on US citizens who believe in Allah.

    She will not attempt to renegotiate our existing trade agreements or threaten our bond holders with the prospect of default in order to extract better terms.

    She will appoint three liberal judges to the Supreme Court which will give us an opportunity to over turn Citizens United and again start the process of getting private money out of public elections.

    This is a choice between a pluralistic democratic society and an autocratic xenophobic society.

    The choice for me is pretty clear. Whether or not that is your choice is up to you.

    As far as the title of my blog, I like it. I think I’ll keep it. I’ve already provided my defense for that choice, so I’m not going to review it.

    I do appreciate the time that you spend sharing your opinions.

  4. Jeff Beamsley says:

    When face with two unacceptable choices does one make an unacceptable choice?

    Prayer generally works for me.

  5. Keith says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-everyone-looks-bad-because-bill-clinton-met-with-loretta-lynch/2016/07/02/a7807adc-3ff4-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

    Corruption, or the appearance of it, is always right around the corner.

    I am already tired of her too cute words, ” I volunteeringly meet with the FBI yesterday.” I never knowing sent or received and classified documents” after first saying “I never sent…..” She helped put end to the FBI prob by willingly turning over all her emails. (She didn’t turn them over willingly, she didn’t turn over all of them, she decided which ones would be and which wouldn’t etc etc etc. Huma now says they burned her itenararies by the way.

    And poor Loretta Lynch, her credibility is now called into question by these two. Do you believe it was coincidence, the meeting on the run way? That they talked about golf and grandkids for half an hour? It reminds me of the line of of administration people coming out after testifying in the Monica matter all saying individually, but in unison, that they had no knowlefedetc ext etc. WORD FOR WORD!!!!

    Jeff I could go on and on with her and Bills words over the last 24 years, but you know everything also. 4 to 8 years of what we already know in advance what they will put the country through.

    None of this information will likely change the minds of those who are steeped in their support for Hillary.

    There is no comparison to Trumps hyperbole and exaggeration to the clintons 24 year take record which shows no signs of retarding.

  6. Keith says:

    I found this cometary interesting. Would anyone else survive this? Would you? Would I? We know for a fact a few things Jeff, she didn’t turn over all emails. She destroyed emails. She lied about what she had or hadn’t done. This amount other things. Keep those few things in mind as you read.

    Consider this: If you very possibly violated one or more of the following statutes, do you suppose you would not be in jail or at the least out on bond by now?

    Clinton’s (possible) Sins by the numbers:
    1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
    2.)18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
    3.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
    4) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
    5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
    6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
    7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
    18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
    18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
    18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States
    8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

    Listen, if the AG goes forward with an indictment of Hillary (and hopefully Bill as well – criminal conspiracy vis a vis their slush fund foundation), that will be in effect punching Obama right in the nose.
    Why? Several reasons: first Obama, who is not suppose to intervene in criminal procedures, has clearly sent signals that all but the most obtuse received, that Hillary didn’t do anything wrong, never endangered national security – he endorsed her and he is going to campaign for her.
    Therefore, an indictment will put the process firmly in the hands of prosecutors and a grand jury. Not so much in Obama’s control.
    Obama can always pardon her for any and all criminal behavior – but that admits that she was guilty of criminal behavior – something she has denied since day one, and means he’s supporting a criminal for the office of POTUS. Even he might shirk at that kind of admission.
    Next, something I hadn’t thought of until I heard it on an interview: Hillary has clearly stated that “everybody” knew she was using a private email. That includes Obama, because she even emailed him on it…thus signaling that her first witness very well could be the POTUS to be questioned about his knowing she was breaking the law, the protocol and rules of HIS administration.
    It stretches credibility to the extreme to think Obama will allow this case to enjoy the full extent of our independent justice system.
    LikeReplyShare1

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Wow, you are WAY into the conspiracy right wing bubble.

    If you have a moment to come up for breath, let’s review the facts.

    1. The Bengazi Committee just released their FINAL report. There was NOTHING new. One of the longest and most expensive investigations in Congressional history and they turned up NOTHING (beyond a private email server). Here’s the NYT summary.

    Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.

    2. The Inspector General found that Clinton had broken rules regarding the preservation of public records. The Inspector General did not recommend that Clinton be prosecuted for the rules that she violated. The FBI could indict her if they felt there was some malicious intent, but so far that doesn’t appear the case. Here’s the Wash Post Summary

    Officials have told The Washington Post that FBI investigators have so far found little evidence that Clinton maliciously flouted classification rules. Clinton and her team have cooperated with the FBI, and officials have said they plan to interview Clinton about the matter soon.

    3. As the previous article said, Clinton has been cooperating with the FBI. She volunteered to talk with them three months ago. They finally took her up on her offer.

    That’s IT.

    If the FBI decides to indict her on one of the many charges you have listed, then she will likely step down as the Democratic nominee and Bernie will take her place.

    Meeting between the AG and Bill Clinton was stupid on both their parts. But the AG has already said that she will approve whatever recommendations the FBI provides. So if Bill was attempting to influence the outcome, he failed.

    So what are you going to do when the FBI ends up saying the same thing that EVERY other investigation has said regarding Benghazi and her private email server?

    Are you going to persist that all of the institutions of our government and the judiciary are corrupt because they disagreed with you and all of your loony tune right wing Hillary haters?

    Or

    Are you going to admit that perhaps you were wrong. She did lie about permissions concerning her private email server, but she didn’t willfully violate any laws regarding security or record preservation.

    As I mentioned at the beginning of this whole thing. Assuming the FBI doesn’t issue an indictment, this will be old news by November. The reason it will be old news is because Trump will not allow the spotlight to shine on Clinton for very long.

    He could win this election if he could just shut up for a while, but he can’t. This weekend we found out about the Clinton interview. If he could have kept his mouth shut, the media would have spent the weekend speculating about what was said.

    Instead, he tweeted an anti-Semitic image that either he or someone on his staff took from a white supremacist website. This is obvious dog whistle politics. His staff said that they just found it in someone’s twitter feed, but clearly they can’t be that tone deaf. So instead the staff just lied about it in the same way that Trump lied about not knowing David Duke.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/politics/donald-trump-star-of-david-tweet-explained/

    Media stopped talking about Clinton’s FBI interview and started taking apart all of the lies that Trump’s campaign threw out regarding this “oops” moment. When all they really wanted to do was send a little shout out to Trump’s white supremacist followers on their favorite holiday.

  8. Jeff Beamsley says:

    There is no comparison to Trumps hyperbole and exaggeration to the clintons 24 year take record which shows no signs of retarding.

    Yes there is a comparison and I’ve been happy to provide it to you. You are simply unwilling to accept it.

    1. I’ve already provided you the facts regarding honesty during this campaign. Politifact has a whole page on it.

    Trump tells the whole truth 3% of the time. 60% of the time his statements are SO wrong that they rate a “pants on fire” rejection. “Pants on Fire” means that this is a lie SO DELIBERATELY BAD that it has a rating all it’s own.

    Clinton tells the whole truth 13% of the time. 13% of her statements have earned the “Pants on Fire” designation. Her email server claims did not rise to that level of deception in the opinion of Politifact

    2. Pick anything out of the past 24 years of the public record of either Clinton that you feel disqualifies Hillary Clinton from running for President and I promise you that Trump has either done the same thing or worse.

    You have made an emotional decision that you don’t trust Hillary Clinton and now you are struggling to support that decision with facts. The problem is that those facts don’t exist in a vacuum.

    This election is about choice.

    So when you say that you won’t vote for Clinton because she lied about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, for example. You also have to hold Trump accountable for saying that he saw thousands of Muslims in NJ celebrating the collapse of the Trade Center Towers. Neither event happened. The difference is that Clinton campaign apologized for the misstatement in 2008. Trump has never backed down from his statement.

    When you say that you won’t vote for Clinton because of shady business deals, you also have to hold Trump accountable for a whole career based on shady business deals including most recently how he has been funneling his campaign funds into businesses that he and his family own.

    So please bring it on. Please list the terrible things that you feel uniquely disqualify Hillary Clinton and I can promise you that I will be able to match every one.

    My simple analysis remains.

    Clinton won’t build a wall.
    Clinton won’t spy on domestic Muslims or bar Muslims from entering this country solely because of their religion.
    Clinton will appoint Justices to the SCOTUS who will overturn Citizens United.
    Clinton won’t unravel our existing trade agreements or start trade wars with our largest trading partners.
    Clinton won’t unilaterally leave NATO and destabilize the balance of power in Europe.
    Clinton won’t unilaterally change our security agreements with Pacific Rim countries and force them into the arms of China
    Clinton won’t treat an international crisis like the Brexit vote as an opportunity to make more money for her own businesses.

    I could go on, but that’s not the point. If you have a similar list of your concerns regarding actions that Clinton might take, I’m happy to respond. But most of your objections boil down to the fact that you just don’t trust her. So I can appreciate why you might find it hard to provide a list.

Leave a Reply