Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ummm...no. He constantly lies about what he is going to do. There have been numerous reports of him hiring a small company and refusing to pay them more than a small portion of what he owed them since he knew the small company couldn't afford the legal fees to make him pay what he agreed to pay.
Ask yourself why Franklin D Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Lech Walesa as equally so hated.
Then stop spamming the forum with crap.
only heard of one of them sorry. But I really kinda like him, he is blunt straight forward and forces people to do what they are suppose to.
I never heard him lie more then clinton he played the american gov for money and to pay less taxes oh well they all do. I think a more straight forward blunt force is what the world needs.
If clinton gets in I can see alot more people die asking for her help well she hits the ignore button, or someone could grab her cell and get nucular launch codes, I think most teens could pull of that hack.
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
Ask yourself why Franklin D Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Lech Walesa as equally so hated.
Then stop spamming the forum with crap.
only heard of one of them sorry. But I really kinda like him, he is blunt straight forward and forces people to do what they are suppose to.
I never heard him lie more then clinton he played the american gov for money and to pay less taxes oh well they all do. I think a more straight forward blunt force is what the world needs.
If clinton gets in I can see alot more people die asking for her help well she hits the ignore button, or someone could grab her cell and get nucular launch codes, I think most teens could pull of that hack.
...really? Only heard of one of them?
For the life of me, I will never understand how people keep confusing being rude, obnoxious, or straight-up racist with being 'blunt', 'telling it like it is', and 'not politically correct'.
I got halfway through typing out a list of how Trump has been wildly dishonest, but you know what? It's been done multiple times in these threads, and you can google it if you really care. I'm sure there's going to be half a dozen solid compilations as soon as you type in the words.
The world doesn't need Donald Trump's approach, because the world doesn't need to be nuked into a giant "T" to show those losers over in Alpha Centauri who's really in charge.
You honestly have to be delusional or ignorant to believe that Trump doesn't lie. The frequency of his lies is already bad enough, but he casually lies about stuff that is so easily debunked. The NFL letter is just one example out of hundreds.
d-usa wrote: You honestly have to be delusional or ignorant to believe that Trump doesn't lie. The frequency of his lies is already bad enough, but he casually lies about stuff that is so easily debunked. The NFL letter is just one example out of hundreds.
Not only that the helicopter full of money lie he actually walked back on
d-usa wrote: You honestly have to be delusional or ignorant to believe that Trump doesn't lie. The frequency of his lies is already bad enough, but he casually lies about stuff that is so easily debunked. The NFL letter is just one example out of hundreds.
Not only that the helicopter full of money lie he actually walked back on
Considering that he walked back on it, I wouldn't actually be surprised if it was true. Maybe he did see it, in one of his classified briefings, and was quickly reminded about what it is he saw.
So, who are we supposed to vote for? The one who spouts off like an imbecile or the one who's a pathological liar?
The pathological liar. At least they are consistent, you expect them to lie. You have no idea what the imbecile is going to do.
Considering Trump is both an imbecile and a pathological liar (way more than Clinton), I would choose the one that is just the pathological liar.
My read is this.
Trump's an imbecile and pathological liar (not as bad as Clinton imo).
Hillary's a much worst pathological liar, in addition a fabulist AND tendencies of quid pro quo activities with her Foundation.
You simply can't trust either, and just realize that we're boned... pray that the other two govt branch would keep a Clinton/Trump administration in check.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/06 18:38:51
So, who are we supposed to vote for? The one who spouts off like an imbecile or the one who's a pathological liar?
The pathological liar. At least they are consistent, you expect them to lie. You have no idea what the imbecile is going to do.
Considering Trump is both an imbecile and a pathological liar (way more than Clinton), I would choose the one that is just the pathological liar.
My read is this.
Trump's an imbecile and pathological liar (not as bad as Clinton imo).
Hillary's a much worst pathological liar, in addition a fabulist AND tendencies of quid pro quo activities with her Foundation.
You simply can't trust either, and just realize that we're boned... pray that the other two govt branch would keep a Clinton/Trump administration in check.
See I don't get how you can say Clinton is worse than Trump in the lying department. Trump lies multiple times in any given day. Clinton seems to lie much less often, but when she does, they either seem like they are bigger or get so much more play time. Perhaps that makes sense, since she does lie less often, each one seems bigger. Whereas with Trump, just keeping up with his lies is a full time job so maybe people just have gotten used to it.
Clinton is not a pathological liar. The lies, half-truths and economies with facts she uses are in pursuit of rational interest. Also she often tells the truth and doesn't lie all the time.
Trump lies a considerable amount. He seems to spout whatever serves his interest at whatever time he is talking. His revision of his claim about the thousands of dancers at 9/11, for example. The original claim was a lie and the revision is also a lie. Trump's missing tax returns no doubt conceal some lies about his financial status.
Is Trump pathological? I don't think so. I think he's a lot worse than Clinton, because he seems to lie about so many things, so easily, that it sounds like his normal mode of thinking, but I think he's doing it in what he thinks is his rational interest.
Objectively, her homebrew server is much worst than putting it in gmail's infrastructure.
... ...
Not necessarily, but anyway that isn't the point of OgreChubb's bizarre statement.
To get back to the topic, here are some thoughts concerning Clinton's and Trump's pattern of lying.
Let's look at one of Clinton's claims about the email server, that it was a screw-up by her technical staff. For whatever reason this turns out not to be true.
Leaving that point to the side, how does the lie sound as a piece of "truth"?
1. It's plausible.
2. It was unlikely to be found out, because the tech staff are beholden to and probably personally loyal to Clinton. She can look after them or frustrate their careers depending on how they support the lie. It broke down because the FBI got evidence on oath, which brings in a threat of criminal proceedings.
3. The motive is clearly rational, to explain away this aspect of the server complaints. and deflect attention from Clinton's role.
Overall it's a "good" lie if we ignore the moral dimension. If we bring in the moral dimension, Clinton was tryng to save herself, which is a very understandable motive.
Now let's look at Trump's claim that he saw thousands of people dancing in the streets to celebrate 9/11.
1. It's rather implausible of itself, partly because Trump never spoke of this alleged happening in the previous 15 years.
2. It got found out immediately as reliable police witnesses were able to refute it, and Trump has absolutely no hold over them.
3. The only clear motive is to provoke racial hatred against US Muslims.
Overall it is a really crappy lie, with a particularly nasty moral dimension, because Trump is generating danger for millions of fellow citizens purely to enhance his personal prestige.
As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.
And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.
So... there's two distinct issues with this... one, is her careless handling of classified information... the other, is her continued acts of deflection/lying to the public in order to protect her image- which highlights a lack of integrity and leadership.
Remember when I posted Trump's/staff's possible connections to Russia by author John Schlinder? If you're going to give credence to his Op-Ed's critical challenge to Trump, at least give him a chance to explain how Hillary's Emaigatte is a big fething deal:
https://20committee.com/2016/03/07/the-xx-committee-hillary-emailgate-reader/
But we and other fact-checkers found no evidence that thousands of people in New Jersey cheered the 9/11 attacks. What is true is that local and national news organizations tried to verify reports of celebrations in New Jersey cities and turned up little or nothing.
I am charitably going to assume that your incorrect remark
Whembly wrote:...there were reports of something to that effect of it in the media)
was an honest mistake, not a lie in support of Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/06 22:36:04
Of course it wasn't a lie to support Trump, it was a lie to attempt to further his argument of false equivalency. Big difference because, as we all know, he doesn't support Trump.
But we and other fact-checkers found no evidence that thousands of people in New Jersey cheered the 9/11 attacks. What is true is that local and national news organizations tried to verify reports of celebrations in New Jersey cities and turned up little or nothing.
I am charitably going to assume that your incorrect remark
Whembly wrote:...there were reports of something to that effect of it in the media)
was an honest mistake, not a lie in support of Trump.
All I'm saying he must of heard it from somewhere and I posted a youtube of a Newscast investigating that claim.
As to Clinton... so fething what she had to retract it. She has proclivities to be a Brian Williams fabulist.
This is in no way to defend Trump, I'm just tired of the "aw shucks, she ain't so bad" arguments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Of course it wasn't a lie to support Trump, it was a lie to attempt to further his argument of false equivalency. Big difference because, as we all know, he doesn't support Trump.
What was the lie?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/06 22:58:34
EDIT: the false equivalency is on KK's part as both statements WERE LIES.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: He must have heard it from somewhere, not bothered to check any facts, and blurted out a big anti-muslim hate lie to support his bigotted campaign.
As to Clinton, "so fething what that she had to retract it." She retracted it.
Aye, it was an "oops my bad that I couldn't fool you" retraction when she was shown irrefutable proof that it was a lie.
Trump is trying to retract his first very harmful bigotted lie with a second lie that smears a disabled journalist.
Yeah... he's a dick.
What a man!
Point being, both Trump and Clinton are lacking in that "integrity" department kk... and trying to rationalize the reasonings, in defense of Clintion, is fething dumb.
Simple stated, she's a habitual liar who'll lie to get her way.
Why on Earth do you support him?
Please show me where I support him... because there's a sizable dakkaroo group who has made a certain bet and you're playing with their hearts.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/06 23:11:39
The more you trot out the "they're just as bad as each other!!11!" malarkey, the more it seems like you support Trump. Sure, you can throw a hashtag out there every second or third post, but that doesn't really make anyone believe that you're not going to end up toeing the line like your regular "news" sources are going to tell you come October/November and vote for the party candidate. Lying to make them both seem as bad as each other really just seems like you're setting up for "well if they're both as bad as each other, I don't want to waste my vote on a Republican Libertarian candidate who won't get in, so I may as well vote for the one that isn't a "LIAR!!1! like Hillary".
That's why people keep saying you support/will support Trump.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
whembly wrote: Simple stated, she's a habitual liar who'll lie to get her way.
IOW, she's a politician. Your libertarian candidate would almost certainly lie to get his way if he (by some miracle) won.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
motyak wrote: The more you trot out the "they're just as bad as each other!!11!" malarkey, the more it seems like you support Trump. Sure, you can throw a hashtag out there every second or third post, but that doesn't really make anyone believe that you're not going to end up toeing the line like your regular "news" sources are going to tell you come October/November and vote for the party candidate. Lying to make them both seem as bad as each other really just seems like you're setting up for "well if they're both as bad as each other, I don't want to waste my vote on a Republican Libertarian candidate who won't get in, so I may as well vote for the one that isn't a "LIAR!!1! like Hillary".
That's why people keep saying you support/will support Trump.
3000
4000 
