Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Fewer Voters Trust Hillary

In the latest polls, although she still leads, fewer voters say that Hillary Clinton is trustworthy:



  1. It goes to the integrity thing... Regardless of whether someone should be under oath or not... a president that willfully lies becomes a liar.... the Clinton's have proven their lack of intergrity time and again... yet, to call the them out makes you part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy. It is clear that people today have a rather high threshold of what they will accept when it comes to telling the truth... perhaps we are starting to find the publics honesty threshold....

  2. I read the article accompanying this post from the Scot. Lots of detail but no sign of how the questions were worded, Looking at the results overall I found myself asking my own question. What would be the results if the poll was taken on any of the football crowd of Republican hopefuls who have so far nominated?. The questions of course would need to be the same!.

    So far there appears to be a phony war;a bit like the first part of WW2,much noise and smoke but nothing lethal in the media. The debates will be enlightening and for the first time I have the ability to watch parts via my computer. I have almost given up on print media apart from the NYT. Lesser tomes such as Huffington Post do nothing to inspire confidence.

    What I have so far been unable to access is the advertising conflict between the major players. Not the radio and TV ads for local consumption but the colorful sloganistic posters which appear on walls and billboards.

    I guess in two years or so can say in retrospect: The moving finger, having writ, moves on!

    1. I didn't post the article as someone might suppose was done by a 'republican' attack dog but merely commenting on my longstanding belief that the Clintons in part and as a whole cannot be trusted any farther than a 3 year old child could throw them and why it is taking the world so long to come to this understanding is well beyond my comprehension.

      When lying under oath becomes acceptable, feathering your own nest with the foreign contacts made while running a state department in the name of the people, doesn't constitute a conflict of interest all the while openly and blatantly destroying evidence still garners support, one can only look on in astonishment at the value system our world has adopted. While you may see it as political rodeo, every story has an element of truth…. And there are A LOT of stories.

    2. I think Hillary has to have a conversation about this with the American people.


    3. T.S
      Perhaps you missed my recent post in which I admitted to being a life long Conservative supporter. As a guest on the thread I try to be apolitical. Failing that, If I give one side a walloping this week I shall without doubt "get stuck in" to the other mob next week.

      My response simply asked what if? I had no ulterior motive or axe to grind with either left or right. I suppose I suffer from too much old fashioned Englishness in that I like to see a fair fight in any sporting contest. Of course depending on your point of view, the present contest is hardly likely to be fought under the rules laid down by the Marquis of Queensbury. I wonder would Henry Newbolds poem Vitai Lampada be of any use to the eventual protagonists.
      Cheers from Aussie


    4. This is the word that year by year
      While in her place the School is set
      Every one of her sons must hear,
      And none that hears it dare forget.
      This they all with a joyful mind
      Bear through life like a torch in flame,
      And falling fling to the host behind --
      "Play up! play up! and play the game!"

      Sir Henry Newbolt

    5. From my point of view.... this ain't no cricket match and the Clintons haven't been playing cricket for a very long time.

      Fence riding, whether you attribute it to English sensibilities or some other irresolution does tend to have you feeling battered from all sides... best to take a position and defend it... given that this site is little more than time wasting opinion letting, ducking a positon by invoking some form of ‘guest’ status is funny….

      By the way… a slight bit unclear was my second comment…. I was saying that 1) I did not post the article, that honor goes to Mick and 2) I was merely giving my opinion of the Clintons even if you might have thought it was ‘winger Scott’ who posted it. My point of course was also apolitical…. A liar is a liar… is a liar.