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

[deannalw]

Are you denying that throughout the campaign the media and most polls did indeed favor Clinton and a Clinton win?

OF COURSE........they did, no sane person would have believed that there were so many right wing idiots who actually SWALLOWED the crap that Trump was spewing.......For example, evangelicals must also love ***** grabbing of women while one's wife is 8 months pregnant.....

Just say they're lyin sonsabitches.
It's OK.
Media and polls are lyin sonsabitches

 

[deannalw]

Just like Hitlery Clinton. And Bill Clinton. And Barack Obama. And Joe Biden. And John F. Kennedy. And....

Did Trump release his taxes yet as he promised...or are they still "under audit"??LOL

Ahhhh, those forms were released by Trump himself......The "fun" of his tax returns' scams started after 2005 when NO U.S. bank would lend him a nickel based on the number of declared bankruptcies.

Bullshit.

 

[nat4900]

The on again off again love affair between Comey and mentally unhinged left wing continues.

true....Beagle....How did Trump do AMONG republicans in that poll???
Did those people call themselves "republicans" but were really BLM members?
LOL

 

[Auld Phart]

Thank you Nat. I'll begin with which Birth Certificate... his ACTUAL one or the bogus one without a seal or doctor's signature?

Then to his tax forms. I believe he said he would release them after the audit. Sound familiar? I suppose he could release them but I'm not concerned about it. I know he makes more than I do. So what?

Well, you may be "correct" Birther-ism is still alive and well among right wingers still pissed that a dark-skinned Kenyan dared to sit in the oval office for 8 years......

And, YES, trump makes more than both of us....however, I have never received a ruble from a Russian oligarch.....have you???

however, I have never received a ruble from a Russian oligarch.....have you

Maybe you should offer your services to give a speech, or open a foundation to feed ?

 

[Auld Phart]

victory which was in reality an epic beatdown, you'd think the left would have learned their lesson

NEVER forget.......

Hillary Clinton Leads by 2.8 Million in Final Popular Vote Count

Heck, that's MORE votes than the population in bright red states like Utah, MS, Arkansas, Kansas, etc..... LOL

How many electoral votes was she ahead?

 

[eagle7_31]

The on again off again love affair between Comey and mentally unhinged left wing continues.

true....Beagle....How did Trump do AMONG republicans in that poll???
Did those people call themselves "republicans" but were really BLM members?
LOL

You can try passing that off as comedy for an SNL show if you want. The left wing is so full of useless hot air when it comes to Trump its funny.

 

[Jackson]

Now, let's be truthful about this. He said he hopes the investigation would end. He never asked for it to end. Big difference.

Inane.........That would be the equivalent of my grandfather saying to Saddam...."careful, we will invade your country...." versus GWB saying it.

No that is not the same.

 

[Jackson]

Just like Hitlery Clinton. And Bill Clinton. And Barack Obama. And Joe Biden. And John F. Kennedy. And....

Did Trump release his taxes yet as he promised...or are they still "under audit"??LOL

Ahhhh, those forms were released by Trump himself......The "fun" of his tax returns' scams started after 2005 when NO U.S. bank would lend him a nickel based on the number of declared bankruptcies.

link?

 

[Jackson]

Thank you Nat. I'll begin with which Birth Certificate... his ACTUAL one or the bogus one without a seal or doctor's signature?

Then to his tax forms. I believe he said he would release them after the audit. Sound familiar? I suppose he could release them but I'm not concerned about it. I know he makes more than I do. So what?

Well, you may be "correct" Birther-ism is still alive and well among right wingers still pissed that a dark-skinned Kenyan dared to sit in the oval office for 8 years......

And, YES, trump makes more than both of us....however, I have never received a ruble from a Russian oligarch.....have you???

Correction..."right wingers still pissed that a Kenyan dared to sit in the oval office for 8 years......"

 

[nat4900]

link?

The "link" is hidden in those tax returns that trump conned you into believing are ALL under audit.....

 

[nat4900]

Correction..."right wingers still pissed that a Kenyan dared to sit in the oval office for 8 years......"

Correction:.......Finding a NOT dark-skinned Kenyan is like finding caries in a hen's mouth......

Come out of the closet.......you have lots of right wing friends

 

[OKTexas]

victory which was in reality an epic beatdown, you'd think the left would have learned their lesson

NEVER forget.......

Hillary Clinton Leads by 2.8 Million in Final Popular Vote Count

Heck, that's MORE votes than the population in bright red states like Utah, MS, Arkansas, Kansas, etc..... LOL

More lies, all those States have more than 2.8 million.

List of U.S. states by population density - Wikipedia


.

 

[nat4900]

victory which was in reality an epic beatdown, you'd think the left would have learned their lesson

NEVER forget.......

Hillary Clinton Leads by 2.8 Million in Final Popular Vote Count

Heck, that's MORE votes than the population in bright red states like Utah, MS, Arkansas, Kansas, etc..... LOL

More lies, all those States have more than 2.8 million.

List of U.S. states by population density - Wikipedia


.

You got me, Tx......
How far was I off.....I mean, I did forget to include the cows and the alligators.
LOL

 

[OKTexas]

victory which was in reality an epic beatdown, you'd think the left would have learned their lesson

NEVER forget.......

Hillary Clinton Leads by 2.8 Million in Final Popular Vote Count

Heck, that's MORE votes than the population in bright red states like Utah, MS, Arkansas, Kansas, etc..... LOL

More lies, all those States have more than 2.8 million.

List of U.S. states by population density - Wikipedia


.

You got me, Tx......
How far was I off.....I mean, I did forget to include the cows and the alligators.
LOL

Not too good to lie, but too good to check the link, got it.


.

 

[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.

 

[Jackson]

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?

 

[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.

 

[Jackson]

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?

 

[radical right]

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?

Like when Trump said he put an aircraft carrier off the coast of North Korea, when t was actually 3,000 miles away, being photograhed in australisn joint exercises.

 

[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.....)