Who's the most honest?

[Czernobog]

Trump has been demonstrably more dishonest than Clinton.

"More dishonest".


Ahhhh, that old timey moral relativism we have come to know and expect from liberals for so long.

The majority of Clinton's statements have been true, while the majority of Trump's have not. That is a demonstrable fact. You can dismiss it, if you like, that doesn't stop it from being a fact.

You only demonstrate what I said in my OP. You do not carte about the facts, or reality; only about the narrative that conservative media has very effectively crafted.

Less crooked. Not as evil. Doesn't lie as much.

Would you put any of that on your resume and still expect to be hired?

"I don't steal as much from the places I work for as Bernie Madoff did."

"More honest"

"Not evil"

"More trustworthy"

Yeah. I do think these are qualities worth noting. Particularly in a campaign where a proven liar is calling the honesty and integrity of a candidate into question.

 

[Czernobog]

Hillary is a serial liar that is established fact.

No. It's not. it is established narrative. There's a difference.

 

[g5000]

Hillary will bankrupt us more slowly than Trump will. It's all good!

Hillary is only lying half the time her lips are moving. It's all good!

 

[Redfish]

Trump has been demonstrably more dishonest than Clinton.

"More dishonest".


Ahhhh, that old timey moral relativism we have come to know and expect from liberals for so long.

The majority of Clinton's statements have been true, while the majority of Trump's have not. That is a demonstrable fact. You can dismiss it, if you like, that doesn't stop it from being a fact.

You only demonstrate what I said in my OP. You do not carte about the facts, or reality; only about the narrative that conservative media has very effectively crafted.

Less crooked. Not as evil. Doesn't lie as much.

Would you put any of that on your resume and still expect to be hired?

"I don't steal as much from the places I work for as Bernie Madoff did."

"More honest"

"Not evil"

"More trustworthy"

Yeah. I do think these are qualities worth noting. Particularlyh in a campaign where a proven liar is calling the honesty and integrity of a candidate into question.

"we landed under sniper fire"
"I never sent classified emails on my server"
"I always try to tell the truth"
"Ah aint no ways tarred"
"It was caused by a video"
"we left the whitehouse dead broke"
"all those women are bimbos"

 

[Czernobog]

Trump has been demonstrably more dishonest than Clinton.

"More dishonest".


Ahhhh, that old timey moral relativism we have come to know and expect from liberals for so long.

The majority of Clinton's statements have been true, while the majority of Trump's have not. That is a demonstrable fact. You can dismiss it, if you like, that doesn't stop it from being a fact.

You only demonstrate what I said in my OP. You do not carte about the facts, or reality; only about the narrative that conservative media has very effectively crafted.

you are just making a fool of yourself in this thread. Better quit while you are behind.

How? What have I said that is not accurate? Demonstrate how the statistical data provided in the OP is inaccurate.

sorry, but the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Simply posting a blog comment does not prove anything.

But, as I said, you are free to make a fool of yourself on this message board, go for it.

It wasn't a blog comment, it was an anaylsis of comments made by both candidates, and fact checked for accuracy, but that's okay. I get it. You have bought the narrative, so facts no longer matter.

Thanks for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How does one go from "dead broke" in 2001 to being worth $111 million in 2016 by being honest?

Asking questions, based on your own pre-conceived notions, does not alter the facts. Trump has been demonstrably more dishonest than Clinton.

Can't answer the question, eh? It's a legitimate one.

No, it's not. I don't know how. Because I am not a financial expert. You still have not explained how that question negates the fact that Trump has, statistically, been demonstrably more dishonest than Clinton.

Can you point us to this statistical study yu are referencing?

I did in my OP.

Ok.. got it. But, here's the rub. Obama said he'd been to all 57 states. That's wrong, but is it a lie? Certainly not. Trump claimed we're the highest taxed nation. Wrong again. But is he lying?

Hillary claimed that we have driven health care costs to their lowest point in 50 years. Lie or just wrong? Personally, that one sounds like a whopper.

 

[Czernobog]

Hillary will bankrupt us more slowly than Trump will. It's all good!

Hillary is only lying half the time her lips are moving. It's all good!

Actually once. She has made one single comment that was a lie. I get that she has been portrayed in the media as "lying all the time", but that's the narrative, not the demonstrable fact.

 

[hadit]

I think a lot of people can see that Hillary is two faced. It's not that inaccurate statements come out of her mouth as much as that they can't trust who she is. When the camera is off, there is no audience, Hillary is not the person she pretends to be. There's a difference between that and inaccurate statements, and it is fundamentally untrustworthy. Trump is more genuine. He may be telling a bunch of absolute falsehoods up there, but he is definitely being who he is. Hence all the screaming about his many, many statements...

Liberals don't mind liars, adulterers, or any other deviant who takes up the mantle of Progressivism.

All that matters is power.

Except that the "Liberal" candidate has been demonstrably more honest that the "Conservative" candidate. That rather flies in the face of your inaccurate observation, doesn't it?

It doesn't matter. Trump has tapped into the big reality of modern politics, which is that rumor and innuendo are a LOT sexier and stronger than cold facts. Democrats have known this for a long time, which is why they dig deeper into the sewer with each election cycle, and Trump is the first Republican in a long time who is willing to get right down in the sewer with them. Of course Hillary lies, frequently. You simply have to look at her standard progression of statements in every scandal.

1. I did absolutely nothing wrong.
2. I did nothing that can be proven wrong in a court of law.
3. I did nothing wrong that matters.
4. This whole thing is part of a conspiracy against me.
5. That was a long time ago, and you should forget all about it.

The funny thing is, her sycophants (you know who you are) allow her to get away with this over and over and take every proclamation to be the only one she ever made on the subject. Whether she's more truthful than Trump is irrelevant. She is NOT honest, and he's successfully hung that on her.

 

[g5000]

I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, but you have pancreatic cancer, which is incurable. But at least you don't have AIDS. So let's party!

 

[longknife]

Now I fully expect that this is going to rather quickly digress into "BENGHAZI!!!", and"But...the emails!!!". That, or a diatribe about how fact checkers aren't, and they just hate Trump, Republicans, and conservatives, in general. But, here it goes.

An article from Politifact. An interesting read. Now, Trump has been making a lot of political hay, at his rallies, and press conferences with "LYIN' Hillary!" But, who, since the beginning of the campaign has actually been caught in more lies by the fact checkers, Hillary, or Donald?

Well, according to politifact, after 650 fact checks of the candidate - 158 of them Trump, and 120 Clinton, so can't even claim that Hillary just hasn't been checked as much - Trump has made 65 statements that were false, and another 30 that were "Pants on Fire" outright lies. Meanwhile, 48 of Clinton's statements have been deemed "Mostly True", with another 16 that are true. Only 15 of her fact checked statements have been found to be false, and a whole whopping one was a "Pants on Fire" lie.

That's 60.13% of Trumps statements that have been either untrue (allowing for the possibility of an error, rather than intentional prevarication), or "Pants on Fire" lies, compared to Clinton's 13.33%.

Now, considering this information on who tells the most lies, the fact that 64% of likely voters still perceive Clinton as "Untrustworthy" in recent polls rather demonstrates how effective Republicans are at crafting the narrative. I mean, don't get me wrong. That same poll also indicates that 64% of likely voters think that Trump is untrustworthy, too. However, considering how much more demonstrably dishonest Trump is, there should be a rather large disparity in those trust perceptions. Yet, there isn't. That speaks volumes of the ability to shape the narrative of the Republicans.

I rather think Democrats need to find a way to change this, or it could be trouble down the road.

First, the question is who supports politifact? This is from THEIR website @ Inside the Meters: Who is PolitiFact? Who pays for Politifact? | PolitiFact:

We received a grant from the Democracy Fund that has assisted us in expanding to new states. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has supported the PolitiFact Global News Service, which fact-checks claims about health and global development. The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has supported our efforts to fact-check political content on the publishing platform Medium.

Just the fact that their donors appear to be left-leaning does not mean their reporting is biased. But, a Google Search reveals 7 articles just on page 1 citing its bias against the GOP.

So then, as to her honesty. All one can do is try to determine her character from the beginning and that doesn't look too good.

From then on, it's been one PROVEN instance after another! How anyone in their sane mind can determine otherwise is totally beyond my ken.

 

[g5000]

I would like to congratulate the Republican Party for FINALLY finding someone who can lie more than a Democrat. We are all in awe of this amazing achievement. One many of us thought impossible.

I know you cheated and brought in a ringer who is a former long time Democrat. Only another Democrat would have the necessary experience to win a lying competition, but it seems the Republican Party is willing to overlook this detail to achieve victory.

It took a lot of work, and many decades, but the GOP has a very strong work ethic and ultimately came through.

Well done!

 

[Czernobog]

Trump has been demonstrably more dishonest than Clinton.

"More dishonest".


Ahhhh, that old timey moral relativism we have come to know and expect from liberals for so long.

The majority of Clinton's statements have been true, while the majority of Trump's have not. That is a demonstrable fact. You can dismiss it, if you like, that doesn't stop it from being a fact.

You only demonstrate what I said in my OP. You do not carte about the facts, or reality; only about the narrative that conservative media has very effectively crafted.

Less crooked. Not as evil. Doesn't lie as much.

Would you put any of that on your resume and still expect to be hired?

"I don't steal as much from the places I work for as Bernie Madoff did."

"More honest"

"Not evil"

"More trustworthy"

Yeah. I do think these are qualities worth noting. Particularlyh in a campaign where a proven liar is calling the honesty and integrity of a candidate into question.

"we landed under sniper fire"

I REMEMBER - people have faulty memories all the time. That doesn't make them lies.

"I never sent classified emails on my server"

And she didn't send any classified e-mails at the time. The fact that the CIA has since classified some documents that were not classified, at the time, does not make her statement a lie.

CLINTON: "I did not send any classified e-mails.

CIA: "We are classifying these documents."

REPUBLICANS: "Ya did now!!!"

That is simply not how it works, sorry. She didn't lie.

"I always try to tell the truth"

And the data seems to support that claim.

"It was caused by a video"

That wasn't a lie; it was a statement made with the intel she had at the time. Even if you were to insist that it was a flat-out lie, I thought that was Obama's lie, not Hillary's?

"we left the whitehouse dead broke"

Yeah, okay. An over-the-top euphamism. Somehow doesn't seem worthy of the vitriol being thrown.
So, you got maybe one actual lie, and that was Obama's that Clinton repeated, doing her job. Oh, the horror! She's clearly unfit to be President!!![/QUOTE]

 

[Czernobog]

Asking questions, based on your own pre-conceived notions, does not alter the facts. Trump has been demonstrably more dishonest than Clinton.

Can't answer the question, eh? It's a legitimate one.

No, it's not. I don't know how. Because I am not a financial expert. You still have not explained how that question negates the fact that Trump has, statistically, been demonstrably more dishonest than Clinton.

Can you point us to this statistical study yu are referencing?

I did in my OP.

Ok.. got it. But, here's the rub. Obama said he'd been to all 57 states. That's wrong, but is it a lie? Certainly not. Trump claimed we're the highest taxed nation. Wrong again. But is he lying?

Hillary claimed that we have driven health care costs to their lowest point in 50 years. Lie or just wrong? Personally, that one sounds like a whopper.

Which is why the "untrue' statements give him a little leeway. He could just be wrong. Although that isn't much better. That makes him dangerously ignorant, and ill-informed. And that still does nothing to negate the 40 pants on fire outright lies.

 

[g5000]

You have to give Trump a break. He was a Democrat until recently, and so it is hard to break the lying habit. And being a personal friend of the Clintons didn't help.

He is also very competitive. He had a little over a year to catch up to 25 years worth of Clinton lies, and he hates to lose.

 

[Czernobog]

Now I fully expect that this is going to rather quickly digress into "BENGHAZI!!!", and"But...the emails!!!". That, or a diatribe about how fact checkers aren't, and they just hate Trump, Republicans, and conservatives, in general. But, here it goes.

An article from Politifact. An interesting read. Now, Trump has been making a lot of political hay, at his rallies, and press conferences with "LYIN' Hillary!" But, who, since the beginning of the campaign has actually been caught in more lies by the fact checkers, Hillary, or Donald?

Well, according to politifact, after 650 fact checks of the candidate - 158 of them Trump, and 120 Clinton, so can't even claim that Hillary just hasn't been checked as much - Trump has made 65 statements that were false, and another 30 that were "Pants on Fire" outright lies. Meanwhile, 48 of Clinton's statements have been deemed "Mostly True", with another 16 that are true. Only 15 of her fact checked statements have been found to be false, and a whole whopping one was a "Pants on Fire" lie.

That's 60.13% of Trumps statements that have been either untrue (allowing for the possibility of an error, rather than intentional prevarication), or "Pants on Fire" lies, compared to Clinton's 13.33%.

Now, considering this information on who tells the most lies, the fact that 64% of likely voters still perceive Clinton as "Untrustworthy" in recent polls rather demonstrates how effective Republicans are at crafting the narrative. I mean, don't get me wrong. That same poll also indicates that 64% of likely voters think that Trump is untrustworthy, too. However, considering how much more demonstrably dishonest Trump is, there should be a rather large disparity in those trust perceptions. Yet, there isn't. That speaks volumes of the ability to shape the narrative of the Republicans.

I rather think Democrats need to find a way to change this, or it could be trouble down the road.

First, the question is who supports politifact? This is from THEIR website @ Inside the Meters: Who is PolitiFact? Who pays for Politifact? | PolitiFact:

Aaand, there it is. Forget debating the facts; just attack the source. Fact checkers? We don' need no stinkin fact checkers! Our guy's got truthiness!!!!

 

[OldLady]

I think a lot of people can see that Hillary is two faced. It's not that inaccurate statements come out of her mouth as much as that they can't trust who she is. When the camera is off, there is no audience, Hillary is not the person she pretends to be. There's a difference between that and inaccurate statements, and it is fundamentally untrustworthy. Trump is more genuine. He may be telling a bunch of absolute falsehoods up there, but he is definitely being who he is. Hence all the screaming about his many, many statements...

Yes...he's genuinely dishonest. How do you reconcile "he is more genuine" with the fact that he demonstrably lies more than any other candidate? Isn't being honest a requisite for "being genuine"?

First, a lot of the "lies" Trump tells are exaggerated and sloppy statements, such as "We don't know who they are or where they come from" about refugees. We do know who the vast majority of them are and where they come from, through an exhaustive vetting process. He probably knows about the processes in place; he is exaggerating the number that may be entering without any proof of identity. Like swearing up and down that 'thousands' of Muslims in New Jersey were cheering the fall of the Twin Towers. Thousands were celebrating in the Middle East--he just kind of conflated where those people were. So there's a kernel of truth in his statements--and the first time he said it, he may well have believed it. The thing about Trump is, he can't admit a mistake, so when he does these things he has to keep defending himself, in light of evidence to the contrary. I don't call those statements "Lies" as in coldly and deliberately deciding to tell falsehoods to voters in order to get elected. I don't think he's doing that. That is much more Hillary's thing.
BTW, I can't stand Trump. I just see his "lies" as somewhat different from the walking talking breathing lie that is Hillary Clinton.

 

[OldLady]

That's like asking "which turd smells worse?"

EWWW!!

 

[BluesLegend]

Hillary is a serial liar that is established fact.

No. It's not. it is established narrative. There's a difference.

She's on video lying repeatedly idiot.

 

[Czernobog]

Hillary is a serial liar that is established fact.

No. It's not. it is established narrative. There's a difference.

She's on video lying repeatedly idiot.

Yup. It has nothing to do with narrative...

 

[Redfish]

"More dishonest".


Ahhhh, that old timey moral relativism we have come to know and expect from liberals for so long.

The majority of Clinton's statements have been true, while the majority of Trump's have not. That is a demonstrable fact. You can dismiss it, if you like, that doesn't stop it from being a fact.

You only demonstrate what I said in my OP. You do not carte about the facts, or reality; only about the narrative that conservative media has very effectively crafted.

Less crooked. Not as evil. Doesn't lie as much.

Would you put any of that on your resume and still expect to be hired?

"I don't steal as much from the places I work for as Bernie Madoff did."

"More honest"

"Not evil"

"More trustworthy"

Yeah. I do think these are qualities worth noting. Particularlyh in a campaign where a proven liar is calling the honesty and integrity of a candidate into question.

"we landed under sniper fire"

I REMEMBER - people have faulty memories all the time. That doesn't make them lies.

"I never sent classified emails on my server"

And she didn't send any classified e-mails at the time. The fact that the CIA has since classified some documents that were not classified, at the time, does not make her statement a lie.

CLINTON: "I did not send any classified e-mails.

CIA: "We are classifying these documents."

REPUBLICANS: "Ya did now!!!"

That is simply not how it works, sorry. She didn't lie.

"I always try to tell the truth"

And the data seems to support that claim.

"It was caused by a video"

That wasn't a lie; it was a statement made with the intel she had at the time. Even if you were to insist that it was a flat-out lie, I thought that was Obama's lie, not Hillary's?

"we left the whitehouse dead broke"

Yeah, okay. An over-the-top euphamism. Somehow doesn't seem worthy of the vitriol being thrown.
So, you got maybe one actual lie, and that was Obama's that Clinton repeated, doing her job. Oh, the horror! She's clearly unfit to be President!!!

[/QUOTE]


Ok, lets just address the one about classified emails.

its not the markings that make data classified, its the content. If I have classified data stored in my brain and then write it on paper, I have created a classified document, whether I mark it classified doesn't matter.

I held top secret and SAP clearances for years, If I did what she did I would be typing this from a prison cell. There is absolutely no doubt that she violated national security laws.