Lying Liars Who Lie: 2016 Edition

It was the picture that shattered all of our records.

Who_Lies_More.pngThe idea behind it is simple enough. Take the politicians who have been active enough on the national stage to get fact-checked by PolitiFact at least 50 times since the start of 2007. Look at all of their ratings and tally them. Place the tally in the chart. Not scientific by any means, but interesting. (Update 7/21/2016: Trump's "truthiness" rating, to use Nolan's criterion in his comment of "true" + "mostly true," currently sits at 11%, which is a small gain from the ~7% when the chart was made, but still well behind Michele Bachmann. Hillary's "truthiness" is at 51%, which is largely unchanged. Again, this chart is not scientific and the post is more about the response to the chart than the chart itself.)

We didn't create the graphic (the original image is here), but we shared it on our Facebook page. It promptly shattered all previous benchmarks for reach and engagement by a factor of at least 20. Almost a hundred people were so shocked by it that they hid it in their newsfeeds; twenty-seven decided they never wanted to see anything shared by MormonPress ever again; one person unliked our Facebook page.

Judging by the comments, the harsh response wasn't because the graphic claimed that Jeb(!) Bush and Joe Biden are relatively honest politicians. No, our commenters were infuriated that Hillary Clinton was rated as being rather honest. Many of the comments on the photo can be summarized as "Hillary's a lying liar who lies." One commenter suggested that Mormon "would not stand for [MormonPress's] lies." Well, I guess we'll have to ask him down the road.

But it's clear that there's something special going on regarding the public's perception of Hillary's honesty. Just today, the Blue Nation Review called out the New York Times for saying that Donald Trump (who lies constantly, particularly about being against the Iraq War) is "being creative with the truth" instead of "dishonest." I recommend reading the piece in full for the list of ways that attributes that are positives for male candidates ("experience") become negatives for Hillary ("old," "represents the past"). 

This tendency to read Hillary through a particular frame of "dishonest" isn't rooted in her record, especially not when one compares her to Donald Trump, the pretend successful. A journalist who has investigated Hillary claims that she is fundamentally honest. PolitiFact has gathered many truthful statements Hillary has made. 

So what's going on?

To put it simply: in America we teach our children that women are liars.

The argument is laid out well in this essay, which I very much recommend. The essay includes frank conversations about our tendency to disbelieve rape victims, the way our inability to trust women affects public policies regarding choice and contraception. But also think about how it plays out in everyday life. When we hear two sides of a couple's dispute, how quick are we to say "well, he's a good guy" or "she's crazy" or "she needs to give him another chance"? We're quick to think that women are dominating a discussion if women are speaking for 30% of the time (and men for 70%). Within the LDS community, there are struggles regarding how much women's voices are heard at the ward, stake, and Church levels, though there's been recent movement to include more women in the highest councils. 

For female candidates, there is a greater perception of honesty, but this is a double-edged sword. Women are held to a higher standard, and punished by voters to a greater extent for perceived failings -- this is laid out in detail here. Hillary has had to walk this tightrope of being a woman trying to get things done in public--in ways that challenged patriarchal norms even as those norms were changing--for a long time now. It shouldn't come as a surprise that she's paid a price in voter perceptions. 

One more example: In an earlier era of church history, at the height of the ERA struggles, Elder Hartmann Rector of the First Quorum of the Seventy explained to Mrs. Teddie Wood that if women were to receive the priesthood, "the male would be so far below the female in power and influence that there would be little or no purpose for his existence [—] in fact [he] would probably be eaten by the female as is the case with the black widow Spider." 

I presume that Elder Rector (who became an emeritus General Authority many years ago) was speaking from his own feelings when he hypothesized that women with power or authority are inclined to physically consume men. Yet, we see these anti-woman attitudes throughout the Trump campaign.



And it isn't just Trump's objectifying and belittling of women, particularly women who challenge him; it carries through the memes shared by the people he's invited to join him on stage in Cleveland. 

Trump's misogyny has roots in a long American tradition of misogyny. Read the essay on how we teach our children that women are liars, reflect on it, and think about how we can improve. Even if you decide that you can't vote for Hillary, that your vote is going to Johnson or Stein or whoever else, the essay is still worth the read.

After all, it was Mormon who told us to learn from the mistakes of the past, so we can be more wise than those who came before.


Showing 103 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2016-08-04 21:46:32 -0700
    Good one, Ho. We conservatives know it’s kist common sense and you don’t need science for that.
  • commented 2016-08-04 17:50:35 -0700
    I disagree, I was always taught that women are more honest than most men. You are taking an unscientific approach as far as I’m concerned. Maybe because you’re a liberal?
  • commented 2016-07-29 20:25:24 -0700
    I’d like to see where Gary Johnson ranks on this list. The ?only? third party on the ballot in 50 states..
  • commented 2016-07-27 14:40:11 -0700
    @gary Barton Payne… They do need a “like” button on this forum.
  • commented 2016-07-27 14:32:07 -0700
    Anyone who spends time analyzing politicians statements for honesty need a psychiatrist.

    Question #1 Do they endorse/ support/ agree with the constitution.

    Are they generous with other peoples money but stingy with their own.

    Have they ever earned an income apart from a government paid position.

    It is really not that complicated is it?

    I’ve never met a politician that I wanted to delegate making my life decisions to.
  • commented 2016-07-25 12:03:49 -0700
    I guess that Jeb Bush wasn’t so bad. What was surprising was that both Palin and Kasich made more “totally” true statements than President Obama. The President always seemed to be completely honest to me.
  • commented 2016-07-25 00:15:38 -0700
    “Appealing to authority (you mean respecting authority or deferring as I said?) is not a logical fallacy.”

    Yes, it is: “An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it.” –Wikipedia

    “We appeal to those with greater knowledge than us all the time.”

    Are you here for an intellectual debate, or to state your faith in someone else’s claims?

    “And ‘nothing is a foregone conclusion’ is not a logical fallacy either.”

    Yes, it is: Since the word “nothing” is absolute, all I have to do is show one example. I did that. Here it is again, reworded: It is a foregone conclusion that a banker would know to lock the safe, and it is a forgone conclusion that a Secretary of State would know to handle state secrets securely.

    “I’m not equivocating. I’m not using ambiguous language to conceal the truth and/or avoid committing myself.”

    Sure you are. You insinuated that my term “forgone conclusion” meant “guilty until proven innocent”, when it actually meant “proven”.

    “And red herring? I’m not saying anything to be intentionally misleading or distracting.”

    I don’t know your intent; all I know is what you write.

    “I can think of many reasons why a government official would abuse their power. But they’re all hypothetical. We aren’t dealing with hypothetical, nor are we dealing with generalizations. We’re dealing with the actual director of the FBI, who by all accounts, far and wide, left and right, is an honest and upstanding person. What reason would this particular government official have to not follow the law, i.e. abuse his power? What’s the gain for him were he to do so?”

    If you don’t like hypothetical, then why are you making huge and grand hypotheses about a government official? Let me put it this way: Which is more “hypothetical; that a government official should be trusted, or that a government official should not be trusted? If you think the answer is the latter, I have a certain Constitution for you to read.

    “I’m very untrusting of politicians and government as a whole right now.”

    Your trust in Comey betrays your claim.

    “But in my humble opinion, James Comey is an upstanding, honest, truthful person. I’ve watched over five hours of him speaking, and in no way whatsoever do I see him as a person who would abuse his power or try not to do his very best, his very impartial best, to adhere to the law in all it’s nuance. This is my judgment. His complete explanation of what happened, what he and his team did, and how they came to the conclusion not to recommend indictment makes sense if you look at it objectively.”

    You aren’t displaying objectivity (or distrust of government). You are displaying blind trust (faith) in what a government official led you to believe.

    “I am very cynical of government.”

    You are saying it, but not showing it.

    “James Comey makes me believe that there are people in government who are looking out for you and me, and I find comfort in that.”

    Exactly… faith provides comfort.

    “This has absolutely nothing to do with Hilary Clinton and everything to do with faith in the system and those very few in power who work with honesty and integrity, however fractured that system is.”

    You aren’t demonstrating faith in “the system”, but instead in a government official (who only CLAIMS to represent the system). Instead of deferring to what he leads you to believe, think for yourself; and answer how it’s possible that Hillary didn’t know not to flagrantly and blatantly and repeatedly violate prime directive number one.
  • commented 2016-07-24 23:07:22 -0700
    Appealing to authority (you mean respecting authority or deferring as I said?) is not a logical fallacy. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment. We appeal to those with greater knowledge than us all the time. And “nothing is a foregone conclusion” is not a logical fallacy either. I’m not equivocating. I’m not using ambiguous language to conceal the truth and/or avoid committing myself. And red herring? I’m not saying anything to be intentionally misleading or distracting. I’m dealing with the facts as stated. I’m having a hard time following your logic with these terms.

    “Anyone who can’t think of a motive for a government official to abuse his power is being intentionally naïve.”

    I can think of many reasons why a government official would abuse their power. But they’re all hypothetical. We aren’t dealing with hypothetical, nor are we dealing with generalizations. We’re dealing with the actual director of the FBI, who by all accounts, far and wide, left and right, is an honest and upstanding person. What reason would this particular government official have to not follow the law, i.e. abuse his power? What’s the gain for him were he to do so?

    At some point you, me, everybody has to make their own judgment. I don’t know how many other ways I can say this, but I’m not a Hilary Clinton fan. She’s sneaky, dishonest, arrogant, and careless. I’m not even a Democrat. I’m very untrusting of politicians and government as a whole right now. Our system is a total mess. The whole world can see it. More and more people everyday are looking to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson because they just can’t bring themselves, staying true to their conscience, to vote for either Trump or Hilary, for hundreds of reasons that everybody knows.

    But in my humble opinion, James Comey is an upstanding, honest, truthful person. I’ve watched over five hours of him speaking, and in no way whatsoever do I see him as a person who would abuse his power or try not to do his very best, his very impartial best, to adhere to the law in all it’s nuance. This is my judgment. His complete explanation of what happened, what he and his team did, and how they came to the conclusion not to recommend indictment makes sense if you look at it objectively. But people don’t want objectivity. They want information that proves their side. Confirmation bias rules. They want the facts to mold to their viewpoint other than letting their viewpoint be informed by the facts.

    I am very cynical of government. I think most politicians are in it for reasons other than what’s in the best interest of the average American. James Comey makes me believe that there are people in government who are looking out for you and me, and I find comfort in that. This has absolutely nothing to do with Hilary Clinton and everything to do with faith in the system and those very few in power who work with honesty and integrity, however fractured that system is.
  • commented 2016-07-24 19:54:56 -0700
    Ben you wrote:

    “But ‘no way she could not have known’ what? That what she was doing was criminal?”

    Yes. That is correct. How could she not have known?

    “Respectfully I’ll defer to expertise of director Comey and his team.”

    Then you merely appeal to authority. (See: ‘logical fallacy’.) Are you debating intellectually, or just stating your faith?

    “And nothing is a foregone conclusion.”

    That’s an absolute exaggeration; another logical fallacy – among the easiest to refute. Besides, I already explained why/how it’s a foregone conclusion. If you disagree, explain what part of my explanation you think is faulty. Hillary was supposed to be an expert in her field, and she failed at priority number one; of which she could not possibly have been unaware.

    “If that were true our entire justice system would disintegrate. There’s a reason it’s ‘innocent until proven guilty’.”

    You are either equivocating or dropping a red herring. Proof of knowledge (it was a basic fundamental, and she was an expert in the field) does not relate to, let alone dismantle, the concept of the presumption of innocence.

    “And again, I’m waiting for someone to give me a motive for director Comey other than doing his absolute best to follow and be true to the law all costs. And again, he’s a lifelong Republican appointed by Bush.”

    Anyone who can’t think of a motive for a government official to abuse his power is being intentionally naïve.
  • commented 2016-07-24 18:02:45 -0700
    Mark, I agree with a lot of what you said. But “no way she could not have known” what? That what she was doing was criminal? Respectfully I’ll defer to expertise of director Comey and his team.

    And nothing is a foregone conclusion. If that were true our entire justice system would disintegrate. There’s a reason it’s “innocent until proven guilty”. And again, I’m waiting for someone to give me a motive for director Comey other than doing his absolute best to follow and be true to the law all costs. And again, he’s a lifelong Republican appointed by Bush.
  • commented 2016-07-24 16:41:43 -0700
    Ben Roberts: A Secretary of State handling state secrets in a non-secure fashion is about as “negligent” or “incompetent” as a bank manager leaving the doors of the safe and the bank open 24/7 for four straight years. I’m no banker, but I gotta believe that security is the first thing taught in banking school – and for the job of Secretary of State. Therefore, for such an expert in the field, especially one like Hillary who was warned (didn’t even have to attend “Secretary of State School” in order to have knowledge), there’s no way she could have not known; and Mens Rea (a guilty mind / criminal intent) is a forgone conclusion.
  • commented 2016-07-24 15:23:34 -0700
    Ben Roberts: First of all, as to the story here, I cannot believe that anyone believes that Hillary Clinton lies less than Donald Trump. But you can twist data to fit whatever parameters suit you. (Not you, personally, but the people that made the graph. As far as the lack of prosecution of Hillary, yes, I watched her testimony, and the hearings with both Comey and Lynch. Lynch was useless, by the way. Comey, having had a lot of experience as a prosecutor, carefully parsed his words and answered most questions without really answering. But the facts he layed out, were very damning. The volume of transgressions alone should convince anyone that there was intent; however, intent is only required in this type of case if you CHOOSE to make it a requirement. Comey himself said that it was a practice of the Justice Department to only prosecute if they thought they could prove criminal intent…and they had only strayed from that policy once in o e hundred years. By choice. And they DID it. So, if you read the statute properly, you would understand the “intent” of the language was to prosecute gross negligence. When Congress wrote that law, they purposefully left out any language regarding intent.
  • commented 2016-07-24 14:17:35 -0700
    Matt, you seem to misunderstand my intentions. I don’t know why you’re posting links to articles about Hilary’s lying. I’ve not disagreed with that.

    As far as Comey, yes, ultimately his decision is his opinion, or his “judgment” as he referred to it. But it wasn’t just him. His entire team of ~15 top investigators were unanimous in the conclusion. They worked for over a year, scoured tens of thousands of emails, conducted interviews, and worked tirelessly in this investigation. Do you have a law degree? Neither do I, which is why we have to defer to the experts most qualified to make a judgment. Have you watched the testimony? Numerous Republican senators asked him about what you claimed about “other experts”, but Comey stated emphatically that no reasonable prosecutor would recommend indictment. When senators pressed, saying that others would, he added numerous times “not with what I know.” Comey is a career Republican appointed by Bush. I’m convinced he’s the most honest person of them all. Again, watch the testimony and tell me that any disagreement of his conclusion is based on anything other than partisan opinion of Hilary Clinton. Or rather, give me a reason why Comey would not recommend indictment based on anything other than the facts as he and his team determined. What motive would he have to not be truthful, when his entire career is lauded by many on both sides of being full of integrity?

    People seem to think that because I don’t want Hilary Clinton burned at the stake I’m defending her. As I’ve stated numerous times, Hilary Clinton is no saint, and has a lot of explaining to do, and could be in a lot of trouble. However, at some point I, just like everybody else, have to make a determination and defer to those with more knowledge than I. I believe, based on Comey’s testimony, that he has done his very best and acted truthfully and with integrity, and I honestly don’t see how anybody who watches the testimony can come to a different conclusion.

    My confidence in Director Comey is not mutually exclusive to my judgment that Hilary Clinton is a liar.
  • commented 2016-07-24 12:58:07 -0700
    Ben Roberts:
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/14/liar-liar-pantsuit-fire-27-hillary-fibs-obfuscations-lies/ http://nypost.com/2015/11/28/hillary-clintons-million-little-lies/ There are tons of stuff like this out there…I just grabbed a couple. As far as not charging Hillary for her crimes, 1) intent can only be proven with circumstantial evidence…Comey claims there wasn’t enough. Opinion. Other experts have argued otherwise. 2) I don’t believe mens rea must be applied to every law. What about Involuntary Manslaughter? “…unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act….” In the statute in question with Mrs. Clinton, intent is not even inferred. Gross negligence, which IS in the statute, DOES infer that intent is not necessary. And the statute also uses the legally compelling word “shall” in respect to prosecuting the infraction. It isn’t “may” or “can”, leaving it open for discretion. It says “shall”.
  • commented 2016-07-24 12:21:44 -0700
    Well done! I am not Mormon and have philosophical differences with LDS. However, this article is right to the point, thoughtful and well written. Thank you!
  • commented 2016-07-24 12:09:08 -0700
    Mr Blalock so is idea of complete cynical approach. So all moral a are retro-active?? So does that mean we can hold Hillarys mentor Robert KKK Byrd and her to their hypocritical morals lol
  • commented 2016-07-24 11:31:57 -0700
    Michelle, there is little disagreement with what you said. The DNC was blatantly in the tank for Hilary, and the lawsuit against them from Florida has a lot to stand on.

    J.B., there is an intent element of the law, and it’s a crucial component of criminal law, called mens rea, “guilty mind”, which has to do with what the person was thinking at the time of supposed criminal act. Gross negligence is not the threshold. It’s half of the equation. And if you’d watched Comey’s testimony you’d understand why recommending indictment is what would have treated her differently than the average American. Seriously, watch the testimony.

    Mark, Petraeus did not do far less, he did more. He knowingly gave classified information to his biographer. Again, mens rea. Hilary Clinton did not. Scream “incompetence” all you want, or “gross negligence”—of which Comey said there was plenty of—but that alone does not justify indictment. Comey was not nice to Hilary Clinton. He spoke very harshly of her actions. He divulged his findings in an unprecedented news conference. Nobody knew what he was going to say until he said it. Not Lynch, not Obama, not Hilary. No one. And he was very aware of the implications of his decision.

    And Matt, you can throw the “I don’t recall!” right back at Alberto Gonzales, Bush’s attorney general when he testified. His testimony was replete with that. Saying “I don’t recall” isn’t an automatic indicator of untruths. And I’m sorry, but the “Hilary has told more lies than Trump has in the last year” is laughable on it’s face. Please show me (not tell, show) how that is even remotely true.
  • commented 2016-07-24 08:26:32 -0700
    Did the people who rated the “truthiness” include every time Hillary opened her mouth regarding Benghazi? How about every time she lied, under oath by the way, her emails? How about all the times in that Congressional hearing a few years ago where she repeatedly answered “I don’t recall”? You can just take her latest speech, delivered like an over rehearsed robot, and find more lies than Trump has told in the last year! What are the requirements for identifying a “lie”? Something you disagreed with or didn’t want to hear? Thus graph isn’t even worthy of being called a joke.
  • commented 2016-07-24 06:43:38 -0700
    Comey’s testimony is flawed because he put an intent element into the law that doesn’t exist. The threshold is gross leglegence. And he failed to recognize her intent. She was ordered by Obama to not use a private server and she ignored it. ALL of her email went through that server, including top secret. Why? I don’t have a private server, but I know enough not to send proprietary information from my company through a private email. She has a lot to hide and just proved there are two levels of law. One for the elite politician, and one for the masses. She is an unendited felon. A gadianton robber.
  • commented 2016-07-24 04:51:49 -0700
    Ben Roberts don’t play the role of an innocent idiot! Hillary Clinton violated Federal law when she knowingly destroyed subpoenaed evidence! Anybody else would be in prison. She is NOT above the law. General David Howell Petraeus did far less and got kicked out of the Army. He should sue Obama and Lynch for an obvious double standard. And, again, critical thinking here… deception is as bad as lying. It is essentially the same thing and the Clinton’s are the masters of deception.
  • commented 2016-07-24 02:04:56 -0700
    This is NO BIG DEAL!! All of our politicians have been LYING to us for past 240 years… Even though George Washington was a SLAVE OWNER, he still managed to sucker-bait the majority of fools into voting for him to be our First President…
    …DON’T FORGET that America’s 1860 Cival War only freed a black man from the system of CHATEL SLAVERY… Today EVERYONE living under our modern system of CAPITALISM is now free to become WAGE SLAVES!
  • commented 2016-07-24 01:24:54 -0700
    The basic fact that the DNC relied on voter fraud to get Hillary as the Democratic candidate over shadows any “chart” trying to bolster Hillary’s image as an honest person. The Democratic party is in direct opposition to a Democratic vote when it came to nominating a candidate. I wish she was an honest person but she is bought and sold by corporate America. I cannot vote for someone who achieved her nomination by illegal and immoral practices by the DNC. This chart obviously false. There is no possible way that Hillary is more honest than Bernie Sanders.
  • commented 2016-07-24 01:01:17 -0700
    Bullshit, sorry!
    There is no “half true”.
    And where ist the source – the raw data?
    Please remember the basics – otherwise its wast of time!
  • commented 2016-07-23 20:34:15 -0700
    So she’s guilty because Mark Schwendau SAID SO? Do you have a law degree? Are you part of the FBI? Do you have access to all the documents the FBI looked through for over a year? Or is the FBI wrong because you disagree with their conclusion.

    And I’m honestly confused. I’m covering for Hilary Clinton because I agreed with the fact she’s lied and will possibly face perjury? How is that me covering for Hilary?

    You said you followed the law. But it appears that respect for the law doesn’t fall into that. Watch Comey’s testimony, and explain to me how his conclusion is faulty or invalid. Use those critical thinking skills you talked about. Don’t yell, explain. But if all you’re going to come back at me with is the world as Mark Schwendau thinks it should be, don’t bother. I use my critical thinking skills to evaluate information based on facts, not conjecture. Throw me some data behind your claims. If you have something that refutes me, fabulous. I will alter my position fittingly.

    And are we musing on whether Hilary Clinton is worthy of heaven? Not sure where you were going with that last bit.
  • commented 2016-07-23 19:15:45 -0700
    Ben Roberts you can put lipstick on a pig but she is still a Hillary. Make no mistake about it, anybody with any form of critical thinking skills knows the only reason why Comey and Lynch gave Hillary a free pass is if she is guilty, AND SHE IS, so is everybody who received or sent emails to her to that unprotected private email address – DUH! Try thinking before posting. No doubt Obama knew as did every other one at the top. Think about it, private emails are not encrypted and you can see where they were sent from and when.

    Don’t try to cover for Hillary Clinton. It makes you look almost as bad as she is!

    And by the way, Christians are only rewarded with Heaven if they, FIRST, believe in God the Father and His Holy Son (sociopaths think they are God and atheists, well they’re just atheists) and SECOND, are truly remorseful and repentant of the sins they committed!

    When have you ever seen a remorseful Hillary Clinton ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHEN OBAMA CLEANED HER CLOCK! LOL
  • commented 2016-07-23 18:34:37 -0700
    No Hillary and No Trump
  • commented 2016-07-23 18:12:37 -0700
    Good night, people. Listen to yourselves. All of you lambasting Hilary, congratulations! She’s a liar. That’s what Politifact found. But Politifact is biased! You can’t trust them! Okay, so then Hilary isn’t a liar?

    Politicians lie. That’s part of being a politician. Some just lie more than others, and that’s what Politifact found, and if you look at Politifact’s history, and follow their data, you can see that. They call out Democrats and Republicans alike.

    Donald Trump’s lies are so prevalent it’s absurd. And the claims here are easily verifiable. So are Hilary Clinton’s lies.

    But with all due respect, many on here aren’t interested in the truth. They’re interested only in numbers and data that support their side. This is confirmation bias, and it’s a huge problem, and a difficult problem. We all want the numbers and data to support our own opinions, but not all of us (myself included at times) have the maturity to accept new information that directly contradicts our opinions. That takes a better person than most of us portray and perhaps are.

    Democrats are liars! James E. Faust was a life-long democrat. So are you ready to say that James E. Faust was a liar?

    @mark Schwendau. Your parents taught you to side with the law. Fantastic. I’m sure you have wonderful parents. The FBI, headed by a career Republican who is lauded far and wide for his integrity by Republicans and Democrats alike, even by Jason Chaffetz (until the director’s findings weren’t what he wanted, and immediately turned on him claiming political bias), came to the conclusion that Hilary Clinton did not break the law. If your immediate response to this is to disagree, then do you really follow the law? On what basis do you (or anybody) claim that director Comey is wrong? Watch his testimony to Congress, all five hours, and then tell me that he’s wrong and you’re right. If you still claim that, then I have to concede that perhaps you really aren’t interested in respect for law. After watching Comey’s testimony, I have the utmost respect for him, and he gives me hope that there are people in government actually looking out for you and me. And I think you might agree with that, if ultimately not with his conclusion.

    And no, I’m not here to defend Hilary. She has quite a bit to answer for, and perjury might be part of it. But the point of the article is to indicate how much more dishonest some politicians are than others.

    I’m always amazed that the same members you see in church, testifying and praying and reading scripture and discussing the love and atonement of Jesus Christ are the same people who come on to places like this and spew such vitriol with such animosity. It’s sad, really. And incredibly hypocritical.

    The country is in a bad place right now, no matter how you look at it, but I would hope at least we can desist with all the blanket “Republicans are ____!” and “Democrats are____!” generalizations. They do no one good other than to pit us against each other in lieu of a civilized—civilized—discussion of the topics at hand, the pros and cons of each side, and possible solutions going forward, based on the best facts and data we can find, not our opinions.
  • commented 2016-07-23 12:40:59 -0700
    Actually, Jerry McIntire, there were actually scientific studies done years ago that found Republicans tended to be more honest, attended worship services more regularly and were more charitable, so yes, it is proven Republicans are more honest. And by the way, I am an Independent. Take a look through history if you don’t believe me. Most of the politicians busted for dishonesty and being sexual predators have been Democrats.
  • commented 2016-07-23 12:01:24 -0700
    @jerry McIntire Being a Democrat means being a liar – easily proven facts…
    -Democrats are the Party of Slavery
    -97% of Climate Scientist do not agree with the IPCC as claimed
    -Women doing the same work as men do not make 78% of what the man does
    -More US solders died under Obama’s first 4 years than all of Bush’s
    -Michael Brown never said “hands up don’t shoot”
    -The KKK was founded by the Democrat party
    -The Democrat party was against Integration and the voting rights act and for Jim Crow laws
    -The “racist” switch never occurred
    -Red is the color used by all other “socialist” parties throughout the world
    -Socialism is another form of Slavery
    -The plantation still exist in the Democrat designed inner city.
  • commented 2016-07-23 11:11:59 -0700
    Thanks Rob Taber for an excellent and brave piece.

Subscribe Share

connect

get updates