POLL on who is more “believable”….Trump or Comey….???

[whitehall]

Last I heard Comey and Trump were on the same side and Comey said that Trump was not under investigation. What's left?

 

[Jackson]

who pads his numbers at a rally that the candidate who lied about top secret infiormation appearing on unsecured servers. See what I mean?

Well, you may be "correct".......Hillary Clinton gave out secret information which has caused the Russians to invade Alaska, have taken Palin prisoner....and are off to to eliminate the last US stronghold in Miami by the end of the month.
(and China has taken over Disney World.....)

Okay, now we have gotten to the point that you can't be taken seriously and the discussion ends.

 

[nat4900]

Last I heard Comey and Trump were on the same side and Comey said that Trump was not under investigation. What's left?

Hope you're OK....since you're sounding dumber than usual......If Trump was NOT under investigation PRIOR to his firing of Comey....he sure hell is NOW.....
heck, even Trump openly admits he is under investigation.....

(Do timelines baffle you so much???)

 

[nat4900]

who pads his numbers at a rally that the candidate who lied about top secret infiormation appearing on unsecured servers. See what I mean?

Well, you may be "correct".......Hillary Clinton gave out secret information which has caused the Russians to invade Alaska, have taken Palin prisoner....and are off to to eliminate the last US stronghold in Miami by the end of the month.
(and China has taken over Disney World.....)

Okay, now we have gotten to the point that you can't be taken seriously and the discussion ends.

No,NO....Please tell us about ALL that top secret information that Clinton gave out to our enemies......I am sitting on pins and needles with this horrible revelation.

 

[jillian]

Here’s some so-called “fake news” for Trump acolytes……

Forty-five percent of respondents say they are more likely to believe Comey's version of events from his June 8 testimony to the U.S. Senate, versus 22 percent who are more likely to believe what Trump has said. (WOW, I'm amazed: 2% of democrats actually believe Trump?)

View attachment 135444
A deeper dive into the poll has even worse news for Trump. For instance, when broken down by party affiliation, only fifty percent of Republicans said they believe Trump. Also, his overall disapproval shot up eight points since last month.

More Americans believe Comey over Trump according to a new NBC/WSJ poll

that's why rightwingnuts are such dupes... the fact that any of them would find the orange sociopath credible at all is a joke

 

[jillian]

Last I heard Comey and Trump were on the same side and Comey said that Trump was not under investigation. What's left?

Hope you're OK....since you're sounding dumber than usual......If Trump was NOT under investigation PRIOR to his firing of Comey....he sure hell is NOW.....
heck, even Trump openly admits he is under investigation.....

(Do timelines baffle you so much???)

his campaign was always under investigation. he was at the top of his campaign. any protestations to the contrary are insane

 

[nat4900]

that's why rightwingnuts are such dupes... the fact that any of them would find the orange sociopath credible at all is a joke

yes, but they are still adorable deplorables......LOL

 

[usmbguest5318]

What? To what ends might Comey "airbrush the truth?"

The "revenge" factor.

The one thing Trump's corporate and litigious experience have given him is deep experience with "airbrushing the truth."

Could be.

I'd, at this point, be thrilled were Trump to be truthful in any regard, including inartfully so.

I would agree with you. Some of the "lies" that are contributed to Trump are basic exaggerations that find their way into his image of himself. Many lies are somewhat of distortions of the truth. They aren't real lies because there is a basis in fact.

Take as an example, "his crowds circled a city bloock. Maybe it wasn't that particuar rally, but we saw that image enough at his rallies to know that he had great rallies with staggering numbers of people, expecially compared to Hillary.

When it comes to his truthfulness, I'll be concerned when I hear, "I'm not a crook!" That's when I'll pay attention.

Many lies are somewhat of distortions of the truth. They aren't real lies because there is a basis in fact.

As clandestine operatives will attest, the best and most easily believed lies are the ones that are wrapped with the truth. That said, such a statement is still a "real" lie because the intent of its utterance is to mislead/misrepresent matters with regard to its central point, and the truthful parts of the lie aren't the controlling focus of the statement (or set of statements, if we're talking about "paragraphs" worth of communication).

It's important to distinguish between lying and being mistaken. The defining difference between the two is intent, which becomes apparent by how the person handles the revelation that their statement was inaccurate in "spirit and/or letter." When mature people find they were honestly mistaken, they fully "own" their mistake, apologizing or not, and move on. They often enough also may explain how they came to make the mistake. Liars, on the other hand, try to defend and/or offer exculpations for the untruth, often blaming "something" about it on someone or something other than themselves; however and most importantly, they don't unequivocally "own" that they made the mistake and that was their own action/inaction that allowed that to happen.

I don't know when became popular that a half-truth somehow is better than and reflects favorably upon its teller than is/does their telling a "whole lie." The mere fact that one utters enough words/statements in an arrangement such that some of them happen to be truthful does nothing to diminish the fact that one nonetheless lied.

Take as an example, "his crowds circled a city bloock." Maybe it wasn't that particuar rally, but we saw that image enough at his rallies to know that he had great rallies with staggering numbers of people, expecially compared to Hillary.

• If it wasn't "that" particular rally, why did one not cite the particular one wherein that was so?
• If the crowd didn't circle the block, why not accurately describe what the crowd did do, or how expansive they indeed were?
• Why say something that is at once untrue and as precise as "circled a city block" when there are myriad other ways to describe the vastness, placement or movement of the crowds. For example:
  • "The crowd numbered in the thousands."
  • "The crowd seemed to me large enough to have circled a city block."
  • "The crowd lined the street for as far as I could see from where I was."
  • The crowd marched "such and such" a route.

Were the "crowd" statement, as you've written it, to appear in in someone's memoirs, I'd probably give it a "pass" on the "truth meter" because in that mode, place and time of imparting the information, one may use a bit of poetic license. The heat of real-time politics and information sharing, however, is not a context in which it's okay enough to "gild the lily," whereas in "after the fact" reflections, one can get away with doing so if one does it adeptly.

You are of course assuming that the statement is a lie. Considering tyhsat there are not people monitoring how long the line was, it could have been partially around a block, but it could have been around the block later than early. It's minutia really.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion, the blanket size of Trumps were very big when compared to Hillary's. That would encompass most of the rallies and be more meaningful in comparative terms.

And I would rather spend time on actual lies (for which think there were a few) that really makes a difference in his governing. We both know that Trump is boastful. It wouldn't surprise me if his tens of thousands were actually 8,000 people. Does it make a difference?

Let's wait until he lies about our forces around the world or what he promises to do as the leader of a great nation. If he lies about those things, I am on your side. Deal?

You are of course assuming that the statement is a lie. Considering tyhsat there are not people monitoring how long the line was, it could have been partially around a block, but it could have been around the block later than early. It's minutia really.

...The fact that it's minutia is precisely why not limiting the nature and scope of one's remarks to what one knows to be so rather than expanding them to be what one does not know for certain. I mean really. For a politician to lie over something petty is more disconcerting than is individuals in the listening audience finding fault over the petty lie. After all, it's the liar who catalyzed their reaction with the untruthful remark. Had he not made the remark, there'd be no reaction pertaining to the nature and extent to which it is a lie.

Don't you think that we should wait for an important error that would likely mean that he meant to misinfiorm the public of something important?

I don't like everything about Trump, but when comparing the two candidates we had to choose from. I would certainly take the candidate who pads his numbers at a rally that the candidate who lied about top secret infiormation appearing on unsecured servers. See what I mean?

Don't you think that we should wait for an important error that would likely mean that he meant to misinfiorm the public of something important?

As I already above discussed, lying and being mistaken, being in error, are not the same things, even though a lie necessarily contain errant information. And, no, we should not "wait for" people to make errors. That's essentially a feeding behavior of ambush predators, not conscientious humans working to improve or effect the/a common good. What we should do is point out people's errors so they can correct them so as to minimize the incidence of audience members drawing inaccurate/inappropriate conclusions and inferences based on the mistake.

 

[S.J.]

Not really.

Yes, its hard to shock folks like yourself when you're in a bit of a daze....

I would be shocked if you said something intelligent.

 

[nat4900]

I would be shocked if you said something intelligent.

See.....you should be grateful to me since one of your fellow nitwits thought that your response was a "winner"........LOL

 

[S.J.]

I would be shocked if you said something intelligent.

See.....you should be grateful to me since one of your fellow nitwits thought that your response was a "winner"........LOL

I would be grateful if you STFU.

 

[nat4900]

I would be grateful if you STFU.

Of course you would.......LOL

 

[S.J.]

I would be grateful if you STFU.

Of course you would.......LOL

Me, and everyone else here.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What? To what ends might Comey "airbrush the truth?"

The "revenge" factor.

The one thing Trump's corporate and litigious experience have given him is deep experience with "airbrushing the truth."

Could be.

I'd, at this point, be thrilled were Trump to be truthful in any regard, including inartfully so.

I would agree with you. Some of the "lies" that are contributed to Trump are basic exaggerations that find their way into his image of himself. Many lies are somewhat of distortions of the truth. They aren't real lies because there is a basis in fact.

Take as an example, "his crowds circled a city bloock. Maybe it wasn't that particuar rally, but we saw that image enough at his rallies to know that he had great rallies with staggering numbers of people, expecially compared to Hillary.

When it comes to his truthfulness, I'll be concerned when I hear, "I'm not a crook!" That's when I'll pay attention.

Many lies are somewhat of distortions of the truth. They aren't real lies because there is a basis in fact.

As clandestine operatives will attest, the best and most easily believed lies are the ones that are wrapped with the truth. That said, such a statement is still a "real" lie because the intent of its utterance is to mislead/misrepresent matters with regard to its central point, and the truthful parts of the lie aren't the controlling focus of the statement (or set of statements, if we're talking about "paragraphs" worth of communication).

It's important to distinguish between lying and being mistaken. The defining difference between the two is intent, which becomes apparent by how the person handles the revelation that their statement was inaccurate in "spirit and/or letter." When mature people find they were honestly mistaken, they fully "own" their mistake, apologizing or not, and move on. They often enough also may explain how they came to make the mistake. Liars, on the other hand, try to defend and/or offer exculpations for the untruth, often blaming "something" about it on someone or something other than themselves; however and most importantly, they don't unequivocally "own" that they made the mistake and that was their own action/inaction that allowed that to happen.

I don't know when became popular that a half-truth somehow is better than and reflects favorably upon its teller than is/does their telling a "whole lie." The mere fact that one utters enough words/statements in an arrangement such that some of them happen to be truthful does nothing to diminish the fact that one nonetheless lied.

Take as an example, "his crowds circled a city bloock." Maybe it wasn't that particuar rally, but we saw that image enough at his rallies to know that he had great rallies with staggering numbers of people, expecially compared to Hillary.

• If it wasn't "that" particular rally, why did one not cite the particular one wherein that was so?
• If the crowd didn't circle the block, why not accurately describe what the crowd did do, or how expansive they indeed were?
• Why say something that is at once untrue and as precise as "circled a city block" when there are myriad other ways to describe the vastness, placement or movement of the crowds. For example:
  • "The crowd numbered in the thousands."
  • "The crowd seemed to me large enough to have circled a city block."
  • "The crowd lined the street for as far as I could see from where I was."
  • The crowd marched "such and such" a route.

Were the "crowd" statement, as you've written it, to appear in in someone's memoirs, I'd probably give it a "pass" on the "truth meter" because in that mode, place and time of imparting the information, one may use a bit of poetic license. The heat of real-time politics and information sharing, however, is not a context in which it's okay enough to "gild the lily," whereas in "after the fact" reflections, one can get away with doing so if one does it adeptly.

You are of course assuming that the statement is a lie. Considering tyhsat there are not people monitoring how long the line was, it could have been partially around a block, but it could have been around the block later than early. It's minutia really.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion, the blanket size of Trumps were very big when compared to Hillary's. That would encompass most of the rallies and be more meaningful in comparative terms.

And I would rather spend time on actual lies (for which think there were a few) that really makes a difference in his governing. We both know that Trump is boastful. It wouldn't surprise me if his tens of thousands were actually 8,000 people. Does it make a difference?

Let's wait until he lies about our forces around the world or what he promises to do as the leader of a great nation. If he lies about those things, I am on your side. Deal?

You are of course assuming that the statement is a lie. Considering tyhsat there are not people monitoring how long the line was, it could have been partially around a block, but it could have been around the block later than early. It's minutia really.

...The fact that it's minutia is precisely why not limiting the nature and scope of one's remarks to what one knows to be so rather than expanding them to be what one does not know for certain. I mean really. For a politician to lie over something petty is more disconcerting than is individuals in the listening audience finding fault over the petty lie. After all, it's the liar who catalyzed their reaction with the untruthful remark. Had he not made the remark, there'd be no reaction pertaining to the nature and extent to which it is a lie.

Don't you think that we should wait for an important error that would likely mean that he meant to misinfiorm the public of something important?

I don't like everything about Trump, but when comparing the two candidates we had to choose from. I would certainly take the candidate who pads his numbers at a rally that the candidate who lied about top secret infiormation appearing on unsecured servers. See what I mean?

I don't like everything about Trump, but when comparing the two candidates we had to choose from. I would certainly take the candidate who pads his numbers at a rally that the candidate who lied about top secret infiormation appearing on unsecured servers. See what I mean?

I understand what you wrote, but I don't concur with and will never advance the rationale behind it.

I would sooner take the candidate who lied about a few things over the one who lies about damn near everything.

comparing the two candidates we had to choose from.

Following from my preceding remark, but with specific reference to the clause above....

You and too many millions of people fail(-ed) to realize there was a liberal and conservative alternative to the two major party presidential candidates and that basing one's vote on what one thinks "everyone else" will or won't do is irrational for that line of misguided thinking is but a variation on tu quoque. [1]

"Everyone else's" bad choice does not make any less bad one's own bad choice/rationale that matches theirs. Most parents teach the insufficiency of tu quoque rationales by saying rhetorically something like, "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?" Did yours not impart that pearl of wisdom to you? If they did, why have you tacitly invoked it here?

Note:

1. Every vote for someone other than the candidate one most disfavored was a vote that kept that disliked candidate out of the WH. The 2016 election was the one time there were understandable reasons for voting for neither of the major party candidates -- unless one genuinely wanted them in the WH, as opposed to wanting to keep out of the WH the other major party candidate -- made sense to do. It was a fine time to exercise independence of thought rather than following traditional/customary voting patterns. It was the one chance the electorate had to show they were not going to countenance the parties giving them generally poor candidates. And the American electorate "choked."
   
   That's doubly so for conservatives because the returning House would be controlled by conservatives. Thus, even if conservative candidates could obtain only a plurality of electoral votes, there'd still have been a conservative inaugurated in January 2017.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

More than 10 months of regressive media beating the guilt drum on Trump and you really think a poll like this has any relation to reality.

NO, NO....this polls is far from reality.........The WSJ is known for being a liberal rag, correct?........and, NO, Trump is still beloved by all the idiots who worship the color orange....Feel better?

It's so fun to see how that just galls you to no end.

Not only can you not control what others think (which is what you seem to be trying to do with your daily diaper dump of new threads), but you can't even play in the game.

Oh wait, you live in.....Canada.

Who really gives a rats rear what you think.

Just be grateful we don't decide to annex you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wow! An NBC poll with negative results for Trump. I guess Trump should start packing his bags, huh? LMAO

Wasted effort. The prison system will supply all his needs.

 

[S.J.]

Wow! An NBC poll with negative results for Trump. I guess Trump should start packing his bags, huh? LMAO

Wasted effort. The prison system will supply all his needs.

Dream on, snowflake.