whitehall
Diamond Member
Last I heard Comey and Trump were on the same side and Comey said that Trump was not under investigation. What's left?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay, now we have gotten to the point that you can't be taken seriously and the discussion ends.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.....)
Last I heard Comey and Trump were on the same side and Comey said that Trump was not under investigation. What's left?
Okay, now we have gotten to the point that you can't be taken seriously and the discussion ends.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.....)
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
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???)
The "revenge" factor.What? To what ends might Comey "airbrush the truth?"
Could be.The one thing Trump's corporate and litigious experience have given him is deep experience with "airbrushing the truth."
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.I'd, at this point, be thrilled were Trump to be truthful in any regard, including inartfully so.
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.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.
- 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.
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?
I would be shocked if you said something intelligent.Not really.
Yes, its hard to shock folks like yourself when you're in a bit of a daze....
I would be grateful if you STFU.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
Me, and everyone else here.
The "revenge" factor.What? To what ends might Comey "airbrush the truth?"
Could be.The one thing Trump's corporate and litigious experience have given him is deep experience with "airbrushing the truth."
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.I'd, at this point, be thrilled were Trump to be truthful in any regard, including inartfully so.
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.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.
- 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.
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?
comparing the two candidates we had to choose from.
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?
Wasted effort. The prison system will supply all his needs.Wow! An NBC poll with negative results for Trump. I guess Trump should start packing his bags, huh? LMAO
Dream on, snowflake.Wasted effort. The prison system will supply all his needs.Wow! An NBC poll with negative results for Trump. I guess Trump should start packing his bags, huh? LMAO