3 Insights About Donald Trump’s Constant Lying

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
barfo

barfo

triggered obsessive commie pinko boomer maniac
Staff member
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
34,535
Likes
25,694
Points
113
Trump supporters: what do you think?

Link.

Even by the standards of those running for higher office, Donald Trump tells a lot of lies. Of the Trump claims that PolitiFact had checked as of late last week, a full 77 percent were deemed “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants on fire” — the corresponding percentage for Ted Cruz is 66, Hillary Clinton 28, and Bernie Sanders 29
Click to expand...

barfo
 
Yeah. You're absolutely right. The big white striped skunk smells so much much worse than the other skunks. But generally, I don't like the smell of skunks to begin with.
 
You want the title changed to "3 insights into Trump's constant winning?"

I'm sure I could figure out how to fit "whining" in, if you like.
 
ripcityboy said:
Yeah. You're absolutely right. The big orange striped skunk smells so much much worse than the other skunks. But generally, I don't like the smell of skunks to begin with.
Click to expand...

FTFY.

barfo
 
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinio...-government-b99696012z1-374014501.html?ipad=y

As we noted Tuesday, Republican front-runner Donald Trump is not one of those candidates. But neither is Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. Her horrible track record on transparency raises serious concerns for open government under a Clinton administration — so serious we believe they may disqualify her from public office. We hope Wisconsin voters give this issue the consideration it deserves when they go to the polls on Tuesday.
 
Pretty rough when the Milwaukee newspaper calls Hillarity an outright liar and advocates voters vote for someone else.

Timely, too. The Wisconsin primary is April 5.

They're spot on, too.

This is a state where unions twice tried to defeat the sitting governor and failed. Furious fight that it was anyway.

Not in the tank for Hillarity.
 
jlprk said:
The rule is that Hillary wins Southern states, and Bernie wins almost all other states. Even when he loses there, it's always something like 51-49%. See this chart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Let's see whether you're right....find Wisconsin on map...is it in the South...nooooo...so....you're right.
Click to expand...

Is Ohio in the south?
One could also say, based on the data, that Bernie wins caucus states and not much else.
Hard to say without more data, which version is true.
I'm expecting Bernie to get a win in Wisconsin, but narrowly.

barfo
 
Lets All vote for "None of the Above" thtrump3.jpg = thRed car nose dive.jpg
 
Can not vote for Hillary, can not afford Bernie!
 
Even by the standards of those running for higher office, Donald Trump tells a lot of lies. Of the Trump claims that PolitiFact had checked as of late last week, a full 77 percent were deemed “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants on fire” — the corresponding percentage for Ted Cruz is 66, Hillary Clinton 28, and Bernie Sanders 29

But Hillary has a credibility problem, don't ya know?
 
Much like bill tried pot but didnt inhale, hillary sucked dick but didn't swallow, so bill went else where, just like America should.

America. We invented mud tires, aluminum cans, and freedom. We dont vote for women. In 1776 uncle Sam and his pet bald eagle walked into them rockie mountains, found lady liberty, they knocked boots, and just like that, merica was born.

Back to back undefeated world war champs, didnt get that taking orders from a woman. Women shouldn't run countries, they should clean dishes and fetch me another cold one.
 
I'm sorry but the fucking email scandal trumps all. :drumroll:
 
Stevenson said:
Even by the standards of those running for higher office, Donald Trump tells a lot of lies. Of the Trump claims that PolitiFact had checked as of late last week, a full 77 percent were deemed “mostly false,” “false,” or “pants on fire” — the corresponding percentage for Ted Cruz is 66, Hillary Clinton 28, and Bernie Sanders 29

But Hillary has a credibility problem, don't ya know?
Click to expand...

Says a lot about the governing class, eh?
 
http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/31/clinton-investigation-dangerous-phase

The exception is Bryan Pagliano, the one member of Clinton's inner circle who, with either a written promise of non-prosecution or an order of immunity from a federal judge, began to cooperate with federal prosecutors last fall.

Pagliano has explained to federal prosecutors the who, what, when, how and why he migrated an open State Department email stream and a secret State Department email stream from government computers to Clinton's secret server in her home in Chappaqua, New York. He has told them that Clinton paid him $5,000 for his services.

He has also told some of the FBI agents assigned to this case that Clinton herself was repeatedly told by her own State Department information technology experts and their colleagues at the National Security Agency that her persistent use of an off-the-shelf BlackBerry was neither an effective nor an acceptable means of receiving, transmitting or safeguarding state secrets. Little did they know how reckless she was with government secrets, as none were apparently then aware of her use of a non-secure secret server in Chappaqua for all of her email uses.

We know that the acquisition and corroboration phase of the investigation has been completed because the prosecutors have begun to ask Clinton's top aides during her time as secretary of state to come in for interviews. This is a delicate and dangerous phase for the aides, all of whom have engaged counsel to represent them.

Here are the dangers.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) will not reveal to the aides or their lawyers what it knows about the case or what evidence of criminal wrongdoing, if any, it has acquired on each of them. Hence, if they submit to an FBI interview, they will go in "blind." By going in blind, the aides run the risk of getting caught in a "perjury trap." Though not under oath, they could be trapped into lying by astute prosecutors and aggressive FBI agents, as it is a crime—the equivalent of perjury—to lie to them or materially mislead them.

For this reason, most white-collar criminal defense lawyers will not permit their clients to be interviewed by any prosecutors or FBI agents. Martha Stewart's lawyers failed to give her that advice, and she went to prison for one lie told in one conversation with one FBI agent.

After interviewing any Clinton aides who choose to be interviewed, the DOJ personnel on the case will move their investigation into its final phase, in which they will ask Clinton herself whether she wishes to speak with them. The prosecutors will basically tell her lawyers that they have evidence of the criminal behavior of their client and that before they present it to a grand jury, they want to afford Clinton an opportunity blindly to challenge it.

This will be a moment she must devoutly wish would pass from her, as she will face a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dilemma.

Here is her dilemma.

If she were to talk to federal prosecutors and FBI agents, they would catch her in many inconsistencies, as she has spoken with great deception in public about this case.

...

Some Democrats who now understand the gravity of the case against Clinton have taken to arguing lately that the feds should establish a different and higher bar—a novel and unknown requirement for a greater quantum of evidence and proof of a heavier degree of harm—before Clinton can be prosecuted. They have suggested this merely because she is the likely Democratic presidential nominee.
 
Denny Crane said:
http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/31/clinton-investigation-dangerous-phase

The exception is Bryan Pagliano, the one member of Clinton's inner circle who, with either a written promise of non-prosecution or an order of immunity from a federal judge, began to cooperate with federal prosecutors last fall.

Pagliano has explained to federal prosecutors the who, what, when, how and why he migrated an open State Department email stream and a secret State Department email stream from government computers to Clinton's secret server in her home in Chappaqua, New York. He has told them that Clinton paid him $5,000 for his services.

He has also told some of the FBI agents assigned to this case that Clinton herself was repeatedly told by her own State Department information technology experts and their colleagues at the National Security Agency that her persistent use of an off-the-shelf BlackBerry was neither an effective nor an acceptable means of receiving, transmitting or safeguarding state secrets. Little did they know how reckless she was with government secrets, as none were apparently then aware of her use of a non-secure secret server in Chappaqua for all of her email uses.

We know that the acquisition and corroboration phase of the investigation has been completed because the prosecutors have begun to ask Clinton's top aides during her time as secretary of state to come in for interviews. This is a delicate and dangerous phase for the aides, all of whom have engaged counsel to represent them.

Here are the dangers.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) will not reveal to the aides or their lawyers what it knows about the case or what evidence of criminal wrongdoing, if any, it has acquired on each of them. Hence, if they submit to an FBI interview, they will go in "blind." By going in blind, the aides run the risk of getting caught in a "perjury trap." Though not under oath, they could be trapped into lying by astute prosecutors and aggressive FBI agents, as it is a crime—the equivalent of perjury—to lie to them or materially mislead them.

For this reason, most white-collar criminal defense lawyers will not permit their clients to be interviewed by any prosecutors or FBI agents. Martha Stewart's lawyers failed to give her that advice, and she went to prison for one lie told in one conversation with one FBI agent.

After interviewing any Clinton aides who choose to be interviewed, the DOJ personnel on the case will move their investigation into its final phase, in which they will ask Clinton herself whether she wishes to speak with them. The prosecutors will basically tell her lawyers that they have evidence of the criminal behavior of their client and that before they present it to a grand jury, they want to afford Clinton an opportunity blindly to challenge it.

This will be a moment she must devoutly wish would pass from her, as she will face a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dilemma.

Here is her dilemma.

If she were to talk to federal prosecutors and FBI agents, they would catch her in many inconsistencies, as she has spoken with great deception in public about this case.

...

Some Democrats who now understand the gravity of the case against Clinton have taken to arguing lately that the feds should establish a different and higher bar—a novel and unknown requirement for a greater quantum of evidence and proof of a heavier degree of harm—before Clinton can be prosecuted. They have suggested this merely because she is the likely Democratic presidential nominee.
Click to expand...

Or not.

barfo
 
barfo said:
What happens when you draw conclusions based on what you want rather than the facts?

barfo
Click to expand...
She's a serial liar. Her husband, too.

Those are facts.
 
So Trump isn't a liar because Hillary is.

or

It's okay that Trump lies because Hillary lies.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So Trump isn't a liar because Hillary is.

or

It's okay that Trump lies because Hillary lies.
Click to expand...

Or neither are a good choice because they are liars.

Because one lies, you shouldn't ignore that the other does too.
 
Denny Crane said:
Or neither are a good choice because they are liars.

Because one lies, you shouldn't ignore that the other does too.
Click to expand...

You start a thread a week about Hillary's lies. No need to spam this one also.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
You start a thread a week about Hillary's lies. No need to spam this one also.
Click to expand...

If you mean crimes, then i have started one a long time ago.

Lies? I just comment about her being pathological about it when it comes up.

A thread about a politician lying? It came up.
 
Here are the threads I've started this last month. Which ones are about Hillarity lying?

upload_2016-3-31_12-52-10.png
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/03/31/hillary-i-m-so-sick-of-bernie-lies.html

When confronted by a Greenpeace activist Thursday afternoon in New York, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton angrily condemned the "lies" of her opponent Bernie Sanders's campaign.

The unidentified activist asked Clinton about money she has accepted from fossil fuel companies, prompting the candidate to clarify: "I do not have that kind of money from people who work for fossil fuel companies." As the activist continued to press Clinton on the matter, the Democratic frontrunner became openly irritated, pointing at the woman and saying, "I am so sick. I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I'm sick of it."

It is unclear whether the activist had any link to the Sanders' campaign itself, which has not responded to a request for comment from The Daily Beast.

But the activist's sentiment is mostly correct. In July 2015, Clinton disclosed a list of lobbyists who were bundling contributions for her campaign. There were a significant number who have been tied to the fossil fuel industry, including Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, who have been registered lobbyists for Chevron for nearly ten years. Clinton has been insistent on her desire to regulate fracking practices, but earlier this month held a fundraiser with investors of the controversial practice. She did not sign a pledge that her Democratic opponents at the time—Sanders and Martin O'Malley—did while vowing not to accept donations from fossil fuel companies.

:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top