I could see that the Bush tax cuts benefitted the wealthy (of course Bob McIntyre at Citizens for Tax Justice helped, a lot) and I could see that he was lying about that fact. The people who either could not see it, or did not care, were wrong. That was not an assumption though. It was partly an observable fact (for those who could not see it) and a value judgement (about the selfishness and greed of the rich people who could see it and did not think their large benefits, nor the dishonesty with which the plan was sold were bad things).

In much the same way, I think it is clearly demonstrable that Hillary's tax plans largely benefit those above the median income, and that Bill's administration, which she touts as her experience, had a track record of throwing progressives under the bus, AND her IWR vote and statements on the war are a prime illustration of that. I don't think it's an assumption any more than I would think it's an assumption if I see a mate in two in a chess game. Heck, I watched a chess game where neither of the players saw a mate in ONE. I did not assume they were wrong though. I could clearly see it. Even worse I can remember two games where my opponents had devastating moves that they fortunately did not see either. Kasparov or even a master-rated player would see things that I could not, but once he/she demonstrated them or pointed them out, it would be wilfull ignorance to deny it.

Of course, life is much more complicated than chess, AND not everybody has the same value system. When there is a conflict in values, then no amount of logic or facts is gonna matter. Not everybody values people below the median income or honesty in a politician (or expects total honesty) for a couple examples. As Russell said, "unless you agree on the basics, no dialogue is possible."