It Depends on the Meaning of Trustworthy

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly been caught lying about, among other things, her emails as secretary of state, yet 48% of Americans and 4 out of 5 Democrats describe her as “trustworthy.” Do they even know the meaning of the word?

11 thoughts on “It Depends on the Meaning of Trustworthy

  1. Who would have guessed that small American minds would need more than 140 characters to express the most complex thoughts of which they are capable?

  2. Wow, EVERYBODY’S still deep within denial.

    IT DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER! With this century’s E-voting machines, right along with just old-fashioned ballot-stuffing, IT AIN’T THE VOTERS WHO DETERMINE ANY ELECTION, instead it’s just the vote-counters. And they’ve all been corporatized.

    After all the corporations vote, if Hillary gets enough nods, only then will she serve as Emperor. Elsewize, we’ll just get another ‘publican clown-car candidate of corporate choice.


    • Only in the face of a revolutionary zeal not suppressible by state violence will the parties grant office to a non-billionaire endorsed candidate, and then only in a face saving, revolution suppressing concession, to let the people think, briefly, that they have won..

      Elections have nothing to do with holding government office.

      TPP is the secret Totalitarian Puppeteer Power that dictates the lines of the duopoly party puppets.

    • My in-the-know Mexican friends tell me that if what happened when Bush “beat” Gore had taken place in Latin America, the CIA would have deposed the “democratically-elected” president posthaste:
      1) The father of the “winner” was once head of an intelligence agency.
      2) The brother of the “winner” was governor of the state whose ballots were in question.
      3) The Supreme Court stopped the recount that was already legally in progress.

      Questions anyone?

      • No question but a comment:

        You are correct to the extent that
        1) the person who had thus stolen the election was not the preference of the Empire, or
        2) it was not the CIA, itself, that had repeated (or, perhaps, was practicing) the technique in Latin America to install an otherwise unelectable favorite of Empire.

      • It is my understanding that under the Constitution, the legislature writes the laws.

        How is it then that the legislature is not even allowed to read the legislation known as the TPP?

      • @ Glenn –
        Reports I have read indicate that Senators are allowed to read the text of the agreement in a “secret” enclosure, but they are forbidden from making notes or discussing the contents in public. (?)

  3. As has been pointed out by others … the “system”:
    1. Makes perfect sense
    2. Works quite well

    The system is designed to transfer as much wealth as possible to the fewest number of people. The “middle class” is now a term that the candidates will not use. Why? It has too many negative connotations. It’s too depressing. Thanks to technology, the very wealthy will, very soon, require almost no infrastructure. Drones will deliver the Amazon packages. Private helicopters will transport the titans of industry from summer home to office helipad to home in the gated community. The Internet will provide entertainment.

    Give it another 20 years. When the country looks like Brazil, with the wall of the slum going right up to the edge of the gated communities, when the number of people earning degrees is measured in the single-digit thousands, I think we will see a revolution. And I think it will be a remarkably rapid one. And the 1% will, honest to God, not believe it, even while they’re being lined up against the wall.

Leave a Reply