March 28, 2016 at 8:34 pm #19118
The trendy knock on Hillary Clinton, even among those who acknowledge that she’s the most capable and knowledgeable of the 2016 candidates for President, is the accusation that she’s just not honest. Her opponents keep insisting that she can’t be trusted, that she’s not telling the truth, and that there is therefore no telling what she might do while in office. But whenever fact checkers look at what Clinton and her opponents are saying during this election cycle, she rates out as the most honest of the bunch.
The factual bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is the most honest candidate in the 2016 election. Bernie Sanders is a close second, making them the two most comparatively “honest” politicians in the race. In contrast, Donald Trump rates out as nearly a pathological liar, and Cruz doesn’t do much better. So much for the notion that Clinton is the one who can’t be trusted. This false perception is largely a function of her longtime status as the clear frontrunner and expected winner, causing the other candidates to take the most shots at her honesty out of desperation. But as the above numbers irrefutably spell out, when the others accuse Hillary of lying, it most often turns out they’re the ones who are lying.March 28, 2016 at 8:51 pm #19120radiodorkSpectatorMarch 28, 2016 at 9:06 pm #19121
Radiodouche: I’ll repeat my original link. You can choose to believe facts or believe garbage. The facts prove you believe in garbage. But then again, low earning and low information voters like yourself get suckered by garbage which is why you are low information and low earning. Funny how that works.March 28, 2016 at 9:42 pm #19123
I’ve never figured out how low earning translates into low information. Like having more money makes you smarter? I don’t see any correlation.
But I digress.March 28, 2016 at 10:00 pm #19124
It’s the other way around. Low information translates to lower earnings. The more you know the better your earning potential.March 28, 2016 at 10:10 pm #19126
Again, I don’t see the correlation. Then again, I guess we must define what is considered low information.March 28, 2016 at 10:16 pm #19127
Compare education and earnings between urban and rural areas. There is a big correlation.March 29, 2016 at 12:01 am #19129
I’d rather chew on cud.April 7, 2016 at 10:45 am #19280missing_kskdParticipant
I’ll just leave this here
😀April 7, 2016 at 11:01 am #19281mwdxer1Participant
Even with her faults, and they all have faults. There is never a perfect candidate. Hillary is probably the most experienced and knowledgeable to run our country. I like Bernie, but I still feel Hillary would be the best. But either of them would be far better than anything the GOP has to offer.
The GOP is always repeating over and over again that Hillary is not to be trusted and she is not truthful. Look who is saying it, the GOP. Does anyone think in a moment that either Trump or Cruz can be trusted? Neither one are liked by their own party. Neither one can be elected as President.April 7, 2016 at 1:19 pm #19282Alfredo_TParticipant
I’ve stayed out of these political discussions because I’m just an engineer. What do I know? Laboratory test and measurement techniques, mathematical formulae, and computer algorithms are incapable of solving political science questions.
However, I have to side with Chris. There are many people who are very well read, yet by personal choice and/or life circumstances, they do not make much money. I once knew a woman who had a personal collection of books numbering about 1000. She had a PhD in art history. She only worked for about five years, and then decided to travel and to live off the proceeds of selling the house that she had inherited from her mother. Her life story re-adjusted my thinking about life goals, success, and happiness. Unfortunately, she died about one and a half years ago.
On the flip side, there are many well-paid professionals who are extremely specialized in their thinking. These are people who spend long hours writing C++ code and are very good at it, but they don’t follow the news, they have little concept of how other cultures and societies operate, and they just don’t care.
In what geographic areas is one most likely to find higher information/more educated people? I would guess that it is neither in urban or rural areas; I think that one’s best chances would be in smaller communities that are built around universities.April 7, 2016 at 1:24 pm #19283missing_kskdParticipant
Great post Alfredo. I want to riff on it later when time permits.April 7, 2016 at 7:16 pm #19286
Sure, anyone can find an outlier. If you look at the bigger picture, it’s a proven fact that overall (but not all!) the higher the level of education the higher the level of earnings. And, if you compare urban vs rural on level of education and level of earnings, urban wins. This kind of data also explain why rural areas are conservative and urban areas are more liberal.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.