Cross-posted on caucus99percent.com, to prevent censorship.
Before I begin, a word for our sponsor.
Markos… Will reality-based diaries like this get me banned on March 16th?
Concerned citizens would like to know……...
Lying is the act of both knowingly and intentionally/willfully making a false statement. Most people do so out of fear. Normal lies are defensive, and are told to avoid the consequences of truth telling. They are often white lies that spare another's feelings, reflect a pro-social attitude, and make civilized human contact possible. Pathological lying is considered a mental illness, because it takes over rational judgment and progresses into the fantasy world and back. Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.
There are many consequences of being a pathological liar. Due to lack of trust, most pathological liars' relationships and friendships fail. If the disease continues to progress, lying could become so severe as to cause legal problems, including, but not limited to, fraud.
Hillary Clinton lies… a lot.
This seems to be the alarming pattern, and it appears as if people on both the left and the right have been calling her on it for quite some time. Of late, two hashtags have gone viral which are demonstrative of this pattern and that the nation has noticed — the trending tags:
#WhichHillary & #HistoryByHillary
These are simply the facts.
What does this mean? What are the implications? What is the solution?
* DAILYKOS MEMBERS ANALYSIS *
Compiled in this diary are the opinions, observations and analysis of over 30 members of this community, both advocates of Hillary Clinton and critics of Hillary Clinton, and some, like Markos, the founder and owner of DailyKos, who are both.
Let us review what’s been said, as a community.
- DailyKos Owner — Site Founder: Markos Moulitsas (kos)
Flashback 2008
Markos’ opinion of Hillary Clinton was rather different 8 years ago than it is today, most notably was when he wrote of “the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies;” he wrote of how “the Clinton argument is so asinine,” and “insulting to people's intelligence,” and “in [Hillary’s] world, the only things that are important are things that support her, she'd ignore election results in favor of the one (outdated) poll that confirms her manufactured reality.”
[05/21/2008] One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.
[snip]
In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.
In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.
Markos’ character assessment of Hillary in 2008:
[05/08/2008] She's already ignored and belittled every state and voter demographic that doesn't support her. So it only follows that since in her world, the only things that are important are things that support her, she'd ignore election results in favor of the one (outdated) poll that confirms her manufactured reality.
Fast Forward 2016
And yet, apparently, today, Markos thinks the problem is just that “she’s had 30 years of bullshit flung at her from the right,” and that we, on the left, are doing nothing more than “maliciously shitting on our presumptive [prospective] nominee” and that it is nothing more than “right-wing tropes of sources.” (hmm...not sure if that’s correct grammar):
Markos thinks that the problem is us, not Hillary, and that our critical analysis — our critical thinking — is not “substantive, issue-focused and constructive,” when we make the case that one candidate has a history of being honest and the other has a history of lying — and that we should publish our analysis at Free Republic. Markos thinks it is merely that we are calling her “a sell-out corporatist whore oligarch.” Markos thinks we are resorting to cheap sloganeering when we use words “oligarch” or “warmonger” or “neocon,” as if it is our use of those words or phrases that is the problem, not Hillary. He wants us, on the left, to stop “maliciously attacking” Hillary, and if we don’t, he will ban us from from his site, DailyKos:
Markos does add that, “Constructive criticism from the Left is allowed.,” but he is “not interested in furthering the Right’s hate-fueled media machine.” And, while I realize and respect that this is Markos’ site, I also know that it is the duty of all Democrats — nay, all citizens of the United States of American — to responsibly evaluate candidates for their strengths and weaknesses, their honesty and trustworthiness, and determine their viability as a Presidential Candidate.
This process is called:
#VETTING
Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing personal.
Think of the primary as sort of a sparring session. It is practice. We get stronger when we can identify our weaknesses and fix them. You don't want to try and fix them in the general election.
— brooklynbadboy
What if the weakness is in Hillary, and what if that weakness cannot be fixed?
Will Markos or elfling let people flag me, or worse, will they ban me for asking this and these questions?
Over the past 9 months, and most acutely over the past week, there have been a rash of diaries which expose the lies, inconsistencies, and apparent hypocrisies of Hillary Rodham Clinton and her campaign.
Just this morning, DailyKos Member, HumanOfEarth, wrote:
- Nancy Reagan and AIDS
- Bernie Sanders and ‘90s Health Care Reform
- Bernie Sanders and the Clean Power Plan
- Bernie Sanders on Immigration
- Bernie Sanders and the Auto Bailout
- Hillary Clinton’s Emails and Her Sec. of State Predecessors
And while there is much I could quote from that informative diary, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, but first, to set the context:
“And I always get a little chuckle when I hear my opponent talking about doing it [health care reform]. Well, I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94, standing up to the insurance companies, standing up against the drug companies."
The picture is rather damning...
“To Bernie Sanders, with thanks for your commitment to real health care access for all Americans and best wishes.”’
And so is this pic, from DailyKos Member katchen’s diary:
Actually, I don’t think this lie is funny, not at all. In fact, I think it’s rather frightening in its implication.
“Well, I don't know where [Bernie Sanders] was....”
And the video...
As these photos and this video clearly indicate, Hillary has a lying problem.
However, DailyKos member csheila believes that Hillary is the victim (that we are “hunting” Hillary) ...and that we are “falsely accusing her of being a Republican” ...and that we are just like “Red State” ...and that we are merely “Hillary Haters” … “orgasmically calling her a liar” ...and that our analysis is merely “enthusiastic squeals” and that our analysis “feels like middle school when the cool kids circle the outcast.”
Stop the Hillary Hunting
Hillary Haters are out in force tonight. Diaries abound falsely accusing her of being a Republican, ogasmically calling her a liar, and claiming she single-handedly destroyed Honduras. Calls to blanket Social Media with these memes are met with enthusiastic squeals. It feels like middle school when the cool kids circle the outcast.
With all this who needs Red State?
DailyKos member mrules believes that it is nothing but sexist, misogyny, and that she doesn’t “find Hillary to be any more or less corrupt than our standard male politicians over the last two centuries.”
Progressive Men Suck Up All the Air in the Room...Again
The steady and at times, very ugly, dialogue that has developed into the Hillary Bad/Bernie Good freelance industry has been pulsing through the op-eds, comments and punditry on our side of the internet media since late last spring. The dialogue is mostly, like political journalism across the left/right media spectrum, a conversation among men (mostly white).
DailyKos Member Brysynner believes we are “demonizing” Hillary:
Why the demonization of Hillary is counter productive
Right now I've read Hillary is evil, a liar, a con artist, a corporate shill, a warmonger who wants to kill brown people, a Republican who's masquerading as a Democrat amongst other falsehoods. There is no way anyone with zero positive qualities should be winning a political race.
Conversely, I would suggest, for many of us, this is not about “demonizing” Hillary, but rather, this is about identifying a problem… vetting.
Obviously, the reason Hillary Clinton is “winning” might be because of (a) a virtual Media Blackout on Bernie Sanders for the first 8 months of the primary season in 2015, facilitated by, (b) Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s (DWS’) anti-democratic choice to help rig the election for her friend Hillary Clinton by scheduling only 4 debates prior to the first Primary, and (c) to schedule them on poor time slots, and (d) the ‘Clinton’ family name recognition, and most especially, (e) Hillary might just only be “winning” in the early states, and does not negate the fact that there might be a serious problem with Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate. Those factors which have been instrumental in her “winning” in the primary thus far, would not help her in the General Election where DWS’ corruption has no influence whatsoever. In other words, many Democrats are speaking up because we feel that:
“Houston, we have a problem.”
“Houston, we’ve had a problem.”
Are we wrong to be so concerned? Should our critical analysis be dismissed as Concern Troll? Are we seeing the evidence of a very real and very serious problem? Is the fact that Hillary is polling so poorly on “trust” and “authenticity” evidence that there is problem? Does Hillary have a serious problem that no one wants to call out, the proverbial “horses head” in the middle of the room?
The Empress Has No Clothes….
Compulsive Lying Disorder
A compulsive liar is someone who lies with ease and finds comfort in it. The person may even continue to lie when presented with the truth in cold, hard facts. Getting a compulsive liar to admit he or she lied can be nearly impossible.
Does it help when we make excuses or defend her for her as some of her advocates, like DailyKos Member melaka, have been doing?
melaka Mar 11 · 08:21:27 PM
I don't know, maybe it's because she was tired?
DailyKos Member MLWillis tells us that:
She “became acquainted with the Clinton’s and attended many [social] events they attended” and wants to be a “character witness for Secretary Clinton,” informing us that “Hillary was warm, gracious and funny. She always seemed to have a crowd of people around her laughing...” and “The times MLWillis spoke to her, she paid attention to what [MLWillis] said and she always remembered [MLWillis’] name and asked about [MLWIllis’] family.” And, “If there were children present. she played with them, joked with them and then spoke to them like adults. You could tell that she genuinely loved them and was concerned with their lives.” MLWillis says that she “does not recognize the person that people describe when they call her a liar and a corporate shill or a murderer.”
Hillary was warm, gracious and funny. She always seemed to have a crowd of people around her laughing and if Bill were not near her, he often glanced over and smiled. The times I spoke to her she paid attention to what I said and she always remembered my name and asked about my family.
If there were children present. she played with them, joked with them and then spoke to them like adults. You could tell that she genuinely loved them and was concerned with their lives.
I don’t know if Hillary would remember me. I no longer live in Arkansas. My husband died quite a few years ago and I do not have the means to travel in those circles anymore. But I remember her. I have the greatest regard for her. I do not recognize the person that people describe when they call her a liar and a corporate shill or a murderer.
Understandably, I believe, DailyKos Member icemilkcoffee expressed the following:
icemilkcoffee Mar 10 · 02:47:40 PM
“I met her socially and she seemed nice to me in social settings”. This is not a useful character witness [for President of the United States.]
Myself, and the following DailyKos Members agreed:
Dump Terry McAuliffe, qphilo, Nate Roberts, megisi, pleochroic, ZhenRen, output, Mudderway, nosleep4u, SoberGuy, cal2010, BradyB, The Angry Architect, jlalbrecht, 2andfro, Greg Hume, vivling, Dante3214 and myself, sensetolisten.
And apparently, 9 anonymous DailyKos members not only disagreed, but so strongly about their disagreement they felt that icemilkcoffee’s comment should be hidden…. i.e. censored, and presumably, by extension, they wanted to send a message to icemilkcoffee’s that if he continued to post comments of this nature, questioning their “Pro Hillary Clinton narrative”, he would be banned. Elfling agreed (and I must assume, by extension, Markos and the entire site admin staff agreed) with this censorship and apparently she felt so strongly that she went out of her way to defend and advocate on behalf of censorship, offering the following justification:
elfling sensetolisten Mar 10 · 09:53:00 PM
I think this is one of those cases that can be interpreted either way.
One thing that I dislike about this comment placed in this diary is that it seems to have been written mostly to intimidate the diarist and to make the diarist regret having written a lovely and interesting first diary simply because it had nice things to say about the opposing candidate.
Perhaps that wasn’t the actual intent, but that is how it came across, I suspect, to those who flagged it: as harassment of the diarist, and especially a new diarist.
When I first read icemilkcoffee’s comment, it was in fact hidden, i.e., CENSORED, and had 3 HR Flags and no Tips yet. I assume this means that icemilkcoffee had already been sent an automated warning message.
CENSORSHIP
1. a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
#Censor #Silence #Delete #Ban
b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
2: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
3: exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
For my part, I wrote elfling the following comment response:
sensetolisten elfling Mar 11 · 10:40:49 AM
elfling,
I. AM. NOT. BUYING. IT.
-
I do not buy this: I think this is one of those cases that can be interpreted either way.
-
I do not buy this: One thing that I dislike about this comment placed in this diary is that it seems to have been written mostly to intimidate the diarist.
-
I do not buy this: how it came across, I suspect, to those who flagged it: as harassment.
[snip]
DailyKos Member qphilo agreed with me, that the HR Flag was wrong.
qphilo icemilkcoffee Mar 10 · 04:13:09 PM
This is not an HR-able comment. A few social anecdotes about a candidate are just fine, as are disagreements with the extent to which that indicates character. I don’t see any abusive language, or personal attacks, or racism/sexism.
DailyKos Member Black Max defended the censorship and threat of banning, although, apparently, he claims to not have flagged it himself.
Black Max qphilo Mar 10 · 05:38:48 PM
Rule #1: DBAD. Major violation.
I challenged this DBAD rule and ruling:
sensetolisten Black Max Mar 10 · 08:23:36 PM
The DBAD rule is ill defined and as such, meaningless, and serves one an only one purpose, and that is to give people carte blanche to harass, bully and censor anyone who says anything that one doesn’t like. I call BS. I, for one, am tired of this sort of anti-democratic nonsense.
qphilo also challenged the DBAD ruling.
qphilo Black Max Mar 10 · 07:22:45 PM
Pardon me for saying, but I think you applied that rule too broadly in this case. One can disagree with the diarist. The rule as you applied it makes anyone who appears in a diary favorable to an opposing candidate into a DBAD. We can’t allow ourselves to slip that far.
qphilo qphilo Mar 10 · 09:32:15 PM
Without a reply, I decided to uprate. Flagging comments like the one above sets the wrong precedent, and stifles mere disagreement.
Black Max qphilo Mar 10 · 09:52:31 PM
I didn’t flag it. But it was a dickish thing to say.
If overzealous community moderation censors discussion about a serious and prevailing problem with a Presidential Candidate simply because we don’t like what we are hearing, this could be setting us up for a major loss in the general election, if Hillary Clinton’s lying problem is as serious as it appears to be.
Markos admonishes:
There’s a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. Do I need to spell it out? It’s the difference between “We need to put pressure on her to do the right thing on TPP” versus “she’s a sell-out corporatist whore oligarch.”
I am not sure how that admonishment applies to censoring discussion of the candidate’s character.
Markos also admonished:
If you are a Hillary Clinton supporter being a dick, you are immediately on notice. That means comments like this one are sanctionable starting this second. The March 15 transition isn’t about giving Clinton supporters a chance to celebrate, spike the football, rub the faces of their opponents in the mud. It’s about uniting toward a common purpose.
Does this or does this not signify that Markos supports this sort of censorship and justification for banning? Am I “being a dick” for mentioning that Hillary Clinton has a lying problem?
JUST THE FACTS, MAM, JUST THE FACTS.
Hillary Clinton lies. She lies a lot. She lies so much that it could be a problem and cost us the general election. Her lies are often unprompted, and they don’t even make any sense, so much so, that we do have to ask our selves, as responsible Democrats, if this actually might be the symptom of a serious disorder?
Lying as a Symptom of a Disorder
According to Psychology Today, people with psychiatric disorders lie for a variety of reasons.
- Admiration and Popularity
- Control and Manipulation
- Low Self Esteem
- Disguising Failure
As responsible Democrats, we need to be informed.
Signs of Pathological Lying
Understanding the signs of pathological lying will help you identify if someone you know is suffering from this type of lying disorder. Pathological liars are addicted to lying, and this type of regular deception is often associated with another mental illness. Using a list of common signs can help you identify someone with a real lying addiction.
Signs Someone May Be a Pathological Liar
- Individual Also Suffers from Mental Illness or Personality Disorders
- Lies Bring Attention to the Person
- Stories Are Impossible to Believe
- Lies Make the Person or Situation Look Better
- Lies Show the Individual as a Constant Victim
- Individual Has Poor Self-Esteem
Identifying a Pathological Liar
- Knowledge of the Individual's Personal History
- Understanding of Individual's Psychological Stability
Suggest Professional Help
If you suspect someone you love has a problem with pathological lying, seek help from a qualified therapist. If the person who compulsively lies will not seek help, set your own boundaries firmly in order to avoid being hurt.
“Set your own boundaries firmly in order to avoid being hurt.”
Dear Markos, elfling, csheila, mrules, MLWillis, et al.,
If Hillary is evoking hatred, or any other characterization, it is probably with good reason, because people don’t appreciate being lied to. Lying is a form of abuse. The notable DailyKos Member Dallasdoc wrote an excellent diary that speaks to this abuse.
We will always remember.
As the world knows by now, Hillary Clinton lit her credibility on fire yesterday in an interview with Mrs. Alan Greenspan:
“It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about H.I.V./AIDS back in the 1980s,” Mrs. Clinton, who was attending Mrs. Reagan’s funeral in Simi Valley, Calif., told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan – in particular, Mrs. Reagan – we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it. Nobody wanted anything to do with it.”
She then tried to minimize the furor her outrageous lie caused by claiming she “misspoke,” and pretended she had meant their work on Alzheimer’s disease and stem cell research. Which she also mentioned in the interview, unfortunately for her.
[snip]
Sec. Clinton has been widely criticized for this statement, as well as for the “apology.” She has been predictably defended by her partisans, citing irrelevant Clinton Foundation work, making insulting false equivalency charges against her opponent, claiming that the problem is really sexism (the last refuge of a cornered Clintonite), telling us we just mustn't speak of it, pleading for sympathy because she must have been "tired," and of course by simple head-up-the-ass denial. Outraged commentary is appearing in many quarters, elsewhere we find mystification. And of course some concerned folks are advising us to get over it.
Well, we will not just get over it.
Hillary is not the victim. WE ARE THE VICTIM. Hillary is doing the lying, so we are the victim, not her. Hillary Clinton lies, a lot. That’s just the facts.
Truth is not an attack.
Lying is a malicious attack. And since Hillary is the one who is lying, Hillary is the one doing the malicious attacking. (Will you, Markos, ban any DailyKos member who repeats Hillary’s lies, and thus is maliciously attacking our presumptive prospective nominee, Bernie Sanders?)
This is a serious problem.
We do the Democratic Party a disservice when we attempt to divert attention away from this problem, and yes, there is a problem, a problem with Hillary — a very serious problem.
It’s not me. It’s not us. It’s Hillary.
What we are seeing is inexcusable and bizarre, as DailyKos Member Tom Rinaldo notes:
Hillary is having a very bad weekend
Her comments about the Reagans having been leaders in opening up a public discussion on AIDS were inexcusable, but in some ways even worse; they were bizarre. As Dallasdoc pointed out in his extremely powerful Daily Kos Diary The Wound Has Been Reopened: " Imagine if Barack Obama had presided over 7 years of an Ebola plague which killed over 40,000 Americans without giving a speech on it — even now."
In order to do a fair clinical analysis of Hillary’s “pathology,” if it is accurate to call it that, we need to take a step back and take a broad view of her actions over many years to really see the overarching pattern. And no, I am not a trained Psychiatrist or Psychologist, but any who are, by all means, please do offer your own analysis, I am merely a Democrat attempting to vet a prospective Presidential Candidate, in the primary season, gathering the facts to assist in an analysis.
Please do HR Flag my Tip Jar.
Shooting the messenger is not the answer.
I am being a responsible Democrat by calling attention
to a problem during the primary season, before it’s too late.
THESE ARE JUST THE FACTS
Hillary’s actions, and her lies, speak for themselves. Many DailyKos members have been making note of this for years, most notably, apparently, Keith Olbermann. I really miss Keith’s sane honest candid voice during this election, don’t you? I wonder what Keith would have to say about Markos’ March 15th rule and Markos’ ”March 15 applies to everyone, and I mean everyone” hypocrisy?
How would Markos react? I wonder.
In any case, this study must obviously prominently feature Hillary Clinton’s most glaring lie, the Bosnia Sniper Fire Fairy Tale, because it does set the stage for so much of what we are seeing, I believe, and who better to expose the truth than Keith?
-
DailyKos Member: Keith Olbermann
Keith Olbermann shoots down Hillary Clinton's Bosnia sniper
...
How could a major public figure like the former first lady, think that such a transparent fabrication would go unnoticed? What does this suggest to you about her character? It’s a serious problem when a Presidential Candidate believes the fairy tales she has created in her mind. Most especially:
-
What kind of havoc might be wrought by a Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces who believes their own fairy tales?
I shudder to imagine.
Needless to say, there are other notable incidents of Hillary’s lies from the 2008 Primary season worth recounting, and I will cover them below in the context of a broader analysis, but first, let’s review the current news cycle to see what has prompted this diary today, because I do believe a notable Rubicon has been crossed worth noting. Over the past week there have been a number DailyKos members who have written diaries identifying Hillary’s lies.
As sponson rightly says, you really can’t make this stuff up.
You just can’t.
Hillary Clinton credits Reagans as a positive force on HIV/AIDS awareness
You can’t make this stuff up. And I did not make it up. See and hear for yourself. Reagan’s refusal to even say “AIDS” or “HIV” until the very end of his term is well documented. And here’s Nancy's Reagan’s record.
UPDATE: Hillary Clinton has issued a terse apology, devoid of explanation. Markos, will people be allowed to talk about this episode after next Tuesday, or will it be labeled a “right-wing trope?” I think the question is in order.
As jamess notes, Camp Hillary’s response is to make believe it never happened.
Take Two: Second time's the Charm on NBC
...what is perhaps even more amazing than that, is that after the public and twitter out-roar concerning that factually incorrect statement, NBC gave Ms Clinton a second try at the interview with Mitchell to get the story correct, before her out-of-touch mis-statement got totally out of hand.
This link has their updated new story labeled Nancy Reagan Laid to Rest After Funeral In California, but somehow inexplicably, Clinton now credits Nancy Reagan for her out-reach on Alzheimers research (instead of AIDS and HIV research) as she had said earlier…
[SNIP]
With NO Mention of the earlier faux pas given anywhere in the entire 3-minute piece.None.
……..
If I did not check the Stories here at the Daily Kos, I would have thought …
It’s just like — the faux pas never happened. Because according to NBC News — it hasn’t.
Newsflash
DENIAL OF THIS PROBLEM IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER!
As jamess’ diary also notes, in case there was any doubts…
NY TIMES: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first identified the disease in 1981, but Mr. Reagan, despite desperate calls for action and thousands of deaths, did not mention H.I.V. or AIDS publicly until 1985 and did not give a speech about the disease until 1987, when an estimated 40,000 people had already died of the disease and roughly 36,000 more had given a diagnosis.
- DailyKos Member: Phoebe Loosinhouse
Phoebe is correct, I think, it does genuinely appear as if Hillary really believes the lies she is telling; Hillary is living in a different reality than the rest of the world.
What We Might Conclude From Hillary's Reagan AIDS Gaffe
So Hillary Clinton lives in a different reality regarding AIDS than the rest of us do. If she said what she said as a conscious revisionism in an attempt to burnish the Reagan legacy or sign onto it, that is unconscionable, not to mention stupid because of the aforementioned witnesses who lived through the Reagan silence and disinterest saw people die around them.
But the other choice is that Hillary believed what she said when she said it. Is that more comforting? How could someone in her position of power and leadership be so completely, totally off-base in her recollections? Since we’re talking about Reagan here, she’s veering into territory that Reagan pioneered, when he offered up movie vignettes as his personal experience.
[snip]
Here’s the biggest problem: if you look at the tape of the interview , Hillary is earnest, commanding and authoritative about something we know to be completely, and objectively false.
As both Little and Phoebe note, and I do wholeheartedly agree, it is the earnest, commanding, authoritative conviction that is most troubling; no real Democratic candidate for President would say these things.
Is Hillary Clinton Running a Real Campaign?
You really have to watch her say it. It’s done with such conviction:
This cannot be a real Dem candidate for president. No real Dem candidate for president would ever say these words. This is the kind of thing that creates armies of extremely pissed off people — Dem people. (“AIDS” is near the top of the Twitter trending list right now.)
P.S. She’s already scrambling back.
- DailyKos Member: Crashing Vor
I emphatically agree with Crashing Vor.
It’s not about whether: Hillary Clinton is qualified TO BE President?
It’s about whether: Hillary Clinton is even qualified TO RUN for President?
So Tell Me, How Do You Make Up for a Move this Bad?
That a political pro could make such a terribly tone-deaf statement, one which instantly turned tens of thousands of supporters into angry opponents (check your Facebook pals if you doubt it), is more than worrisome.
How’d it happen? Who knows? And who cares?
[snip]
NOT because it was racist. Because it was stupid. And someone who could pull such a rookie move was instantly marked as politically incompetent.
There are plenty of posts up about the history of Reagan and AIDS, posts questioning Clinton’s sincerity, yadda yadda. This ain’t about all that. The point of this post is not to ask, “Can this person be trusted to be president,” but, “Can this person be trusted to run for president?”
I completely agree, fladem, she did not “misspeak,” this is not a gaffe, and silence on this is unforgivable.
Is the Front Page REALLY going to ignore what Hillary said about Reagan and AIDS??
For anyone who knew people who died from this disease, it is hard to describe how completely wrong Clinton is on this. What she said was a LIE. It covers up when can only be described as a crime the Reagan Administration committed.
She did not “Misspeak”. This is not a gaffe.
You may think we need to rally behind Clinton for the general. Fine, maybe I get that.
But silence on this is unforgivable.
Something I would add: I cannot imagine Obama saying anything like this.
The list goes on and on and on……...
-
DailyKos Member: subir
Obama and Sanders both called out Hillary campaign for "false attacks" that "distort the truth"
-
DailyKos Member: jfern
Shame on Hillary for implying Bernie opposed the auto bailout. He always supported it.
-
DailyKos Member: TomP
David Axelrod: Hillary "Misleading" in Attacking Bernie on Auto Bailout
-
DailyKos Member: NancyK
Forget Castro and the Minutemen, this is the one that angered me. (Politifact on Clean Power Plan)
-
DailyKos Member: yorlik7
Miami Herald On Dem Debate: HRC = mostly false; BS = mostly true
-
DailyKos Member: bobswern
“Responding to Clinton Barb, Sanders Blasts US Imperialism in Latin America” (“In a series of intermittently sarcastic tweets Wednesday night, investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill blasted Clinton and her supporters for taking a revisionist view of Latin American foreign policy.”)
-
DailyKos Member: geebeebee
Debate gotcha video of Sanders talking Castro taken out of context. Shocker!
-
DailyKos Member: riottapes
Glenn Greenwald eviscerates Clinton's human rights record.
(“Hillary Clinton, Stalwart Friend of World’s Worst Despots, Attacks Sanders’ Latin American Activism”)
-
DailyKos Member: awalen
The Hillary Who Didn’t Show Up To Debate
(“If the Democratic Party rejects her honest defense of her centrist policies, then she would go down having fought the good fight, laying the foundation for others to follow. But she didn’t say that or anything like it. Instead, she just reinforced the idea that she is dishonest.”)
- DailyKos Member: divineorder
RootsAction: "Hillary, Stop Lying About Single-Payer"
-
DailyKos Member: JusticeSeeker68
Bernie Sanders and Democracy's Finest Hour
(“Bernie Sanders is telling the American people the truth about the depravity of corporate capitalism, he's telling the American people the truth about the crimes of Wall Street, he's telling them the truth about the corrupt political and economic and banking and media systems, he’s telling them the truth about Hillary Rodham Clinton.”)
[NBC NEWS] Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, who struggles with perceptions of dishonesty in polls, said Thursday that she doesn't believe she has ever told a lie and vowed to do her best to be honest going forward.
...
"You're asking me to say, 'Have I ever [lied]?' I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will. I am going to do the best I can to level with the American people," Clinton told anchor Scott Pelley.
[snip]
“It is obviously troubling that people have questions about me, which I will do my best to answer," Clinton said. "So people are really asking, 'is she in it for herself or is she in it for me?' I've always been somebody who believed and raised in my family and my faith that I, with my blessings, had an opportunity and an obligation to do what I could to help others. And that's what I will do as president."
In 2008, Jed Lewison (The Jed Report), DailyKos Senior Policy Editor and Editor of Daily Kos TV. Former communications director for Sen. Maria Cantwell, put together the following 3m15s video of Hillary Clinton:
HILLARY CLINTON {thick southern accent ...wtf?}:
When we get to talk about character, we need to look at the whole person. And we need to look at the kind of way that he conducts himself.
Part of what I believe with all my heart is that voters are tired of people who lie to them. They’re tired of people who act like something they’re not.
HILLARY CLINTON: I am tired of people who act like something they’re not.
- In this next video, Hillary lies about Bernie’s support of President Obama, whilst she herself is the one who has been criticizing President Obama; and as DailyKos Member TomP notes in his diary below, Obama is none-too-please about it.
If the disease continues to progress, lying could become so severe as to cause legal problems, including, but not limited to, fraud.
So severe as to cause severe legal problems…???
Legal Problems ???
Well, everyone knows...
-
The FBI has 150+ Agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a Private Email server.
And while much can be said on both sides of this debate with regards to the FBI’s Criminal Investigation of Hillary’s use of a Private Email Server while performing her official duties as Secretary of State, (yes, Armando, “criminal investigation,” who are we kidding) that is not what I wish to discuss, here now today, because I could list a dozen diaries from both sides, but that is not what’s important. NOT TODAY. We shall all know soon enough the Director of the FBI, James Comey’s final recommendation and AG Loretta Lynch’s decision.
What is important is simply THAT exists.
Let me stress this: I am merely making mention of its very existence, which, in and of itself, is extremely troubling and highly indicative of a pattern
— a pattern of “legal problems.”
HILLARY CLINTON: When we get to talk about character, we need to look at the whole person. And we need to look at the kind of way that he conducts himself.
HILLARY’S 30 YEARS OF SCANDAL
AND THE ALLEGED
“VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY”
As we all know, Hillary’s history is riddled with legal problems, often dismissed as the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” and while Markos might not want us to promote the so-called “RW Tropes,” and I respect that (to the extent that it is truly or exclusively a RW Trope and not a criticism that we all share as US citizens), however, in the context of assisting in a Clinical Diagnosis, I would be remiss if I did not, at the very least, make mention of them, for they seem to be indicative of this troubling pattern.
This begs the question...
- If these legal problems that have plagued Hillary for over 30 years are not part of a “vast right wing conspiracy,” are they indicative of a pathology?
I am not qualified to make that sort of a clinical diagnosis, nor I am qualified to judge the merits of these old legal travails, I am merely making mention of the alarming number and frequency, which one must admit, is suggestive.
DISCLAIMER: The source for many of these are notably RW groups, (this cannot be avoided, Markos, and if you want to ban me for merely mentioning them in the context of this analysis, then ban me) and no, I will not include the outlandish and truly frightening ones, nope, you may look those up on your own:
(1) Clinton’s use of the IRS against opponents • (2) Covering Bill’s dirty deeds • (3) Looting the White House • (4) Filegate: FBI files on GOP enemies • (5) Chinagate: Sale of high-tech secrets • (6) Travelgate • (7) Whitewater • (8) Hillary's 'missing' law firm billing records • (9) Pardongate: Hillary Senate contributions • (10) Hillary's cash cows and 9,987 percent profit • (11) Hillary Iranian fundraising, etc.
The list goes on and on...
At what point do we start to question? Surely the independent voters in the General Election will weigh these, causing us to lose votes, particularly if they are the centerpiece in a Republican SuperPac multi-billion dollar media blitz.
2008 PRIMARY ELECTION:
CLINTON vs OBAMA
HILLARY CLINTON: “...we need to look at the kind of way that he conducts himself.”
Well, how did Hillary conduct herself in the 2008 Democratic Primary against Obama with respect to the Florida & Michigan delegates?
How did Hillary conduct herself in the 2008 Democratic Primary against Obama with respect to running a clean “honest” campaign?
Well, what about that “Obama is a Muslim” smear, you know… THE LIE !?!?!?
The Clinton campaign has been accused of smearing and spreading rumors about being a Muslim. In Decemeber two staffers from the Clinton Iowa office were fired for spreading Muslim email rumors. Again, as Recently, in Ohio there were rumors of her volunteers spreading Muslim rumors. These string of rumors are not accident. What we continue to see from the Clinton campaign is a pattern to deliberately undermine Obama as candidate. Hillary cannot go after Barack Obama on the issues, so she would rather resort to personal attacks. Here is what Los Angeles Times reporter Don Frederick discovered.
And how did Hillary respond when asked directly?
HILLARY CLINTON: “As far as I know...” ? WTF???
Diagnosis
Diagnosing pathological lying can be very difficult for the untrained person. Psychologists are trained to read between the lines and see the issues this diagnosis presents, as a disorder. It is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition. It is a stand-alone disorder as well as a symptom of other disorders such as psychopathy (sociopathy) and antisocial, narcissistic, and histrionic personality disorders, but people who are pathological liars may not possess characteristics of the other disorders. Excessive lying is a common symptom of several mental illnesses.
Several Mental Illnesses…???
#GiveItAName
HILLARY CLINTON: “We came. We saw. He died.”
PSYCHOPATH ~ SOCIOPATH
Psychopathy or sociopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior. It may also be defined as a continuous aspect of personality, representing scores on different personality dimensions found throughout the population in varying combinations.
Diminished empathy or remorse...?
NARCISSISTIC
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and often others.
Unable to see the destructive damage they are causing...?
Hillary Clinton's Assassination Remarks - Unforgivable.
.
- Hillary brings up the specter of the Kennedy Assassination during the Presidential Candidacy of the first black American to run, when Obama had been receiving more death threats than all previous presidents combined, and if that is not indicative of “diminished empathy,” then I don’t know what is.
HISTRIONIC
Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive attention-seeking emotions, usually beginning in early adulthood, including inappropriately seductive behavior and an excessive need for approval. Histrionic people are lively, dramatic, vivacious, enthusiastic, and flirtatious.
[snip]
HPD lies in the dramatic cluster of personality disorders. People with HPD have a high need for attention, make loud and inappropriate appearances, exaggerate their behaviors and emotions, and crave stimulation. They may exhibit sexually provocative behavior, express strong emotions with an impressionistic style, and can be easily influenced by others. Associated features include egocentrism, self-indulgence, continuous longing for appreciation, and persistent manipulative behavior to achieve their own needs.
If you suspect someone you love has a problem with pathological lying, seek help from a qualified therapist.
If the person who compulsively lies will not seek help...
...set your own boundaries firmly in order to avoid being hurt.
#DenyDenyDeny #Blameshift #MoreLies
