This fall Americans will decide what sort of liar they want as their president. Do they want a tiresome, hairsplitting, lawyerly liar, or a bold, flamboyant, spontaneous liar—the sort of liar who could keep surprising us even after years in office?
Last week Hillary Clinton gave us a preview of what life would be like with the first kind of prevaricator in chief. It was not fun.
In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Clinton doubled down on the devious defenses she has been offering since March 2015, when The New York Timesrevealed her use of an unsecured private email server as secretary of state. Last year, you may recall, she said there was no classified material in her electronic correspondence, or at least none that was classified at the time, or at least none that was marked as classified.
An FBI investigation found none of those statements was true. Yet when Wallace pointed that out, Clinton said FBI Director James Comey had in fact confirmed "my answers were truthful."
Given another chance to correct the record last Friday, Clinton repeated the same fallacious argument that earned her Four Pinocchios from Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler: Because she was not charged with lying to the FBI about her State Department emails, everything she told the public must have been true, even though it demonstrably was not. But Clinton also said she "may have short-circuited" her answer and suggested that "Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other."
To recap: After the email story broke, Clinton repeatedly offered assurances that turned out to be false. Then she said the FBI had validated those statements, which was also false. Then she falsely insisted her claim about the FBI was true, even while implying that it resulted from a misunderstanding—which also was not true, as anyone who watches the video or reads the transcript can see.
Untangling Clinton's lies is as tedious and unrewarding as untangling that unused mass of twine at the bottom of the tool drawer. When Donald Trump lies, by contrast, you really know you've been misled, and you have to be impressed by the sheer audacity of his mendacity.
I support Hillary Clinton but my God she is pathetically bad at splitting hairs, prevaricating and yes lying.
For some reason, lawyers think it's OK to misinterpret communications with other people. For instance, if you asked Joe (a lawyer) if he'd seen Jane, Joe would think it perfectly OK to say "no"—even though he'd heard (but not seen) Jane in the next room only moments ago. Most of us would understand that you were trying to find Jane and didn't care whether Joe's knowledge of Jane's whereabouts came from his eyes or ears. And yes, you'd have a right to be annoyed with Joe if you found out that Joe was splitting hairs about Jane's whereabouts. This is one reason why people don't like lawyers.
Hillary has that tendency to prevaricate. Apparently she thinks that she can thread a definitional needle or re-phrase a statement to her advantage without pissing people off. Notice her attempt to re-phrase FBI Director Comey's statement as excerpted above. Unfortunately, she's inept at this kind of thing and many Americans have been so conditioned to the right-wing's demonization of Hillary that many instances of her prevarications get turned into "Hillary lies again."
Is she the most honest politician? No. But the last paragraph in that Jacob Sullum excerpt that you posted—the one that I've boldfaced—puts things in proper perspective. Hillary is a shifty politician. Trump is a pathological liar and a narcissist with delusions of grandeur.
This fall Americans will decide what sort of liar they want as their president. Do they want a tiresome, hairsplitting, lawyerly liar, or a bold, flamboyant, spontaneous liar—the sort of liar who could keep surprising us even after years in office?
Last week Hillary Clinton gave us a preview of what life would be like with the first kind of prevaricator in chief. It was not fun.
In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Clinton doubled down on the devious defenses she has been offering since March 2015, when The New York Timesrevealed her use of an unsecured private email server as secretary of state. Last year, you may recall, she said there was no classified material in her electronic correspondence, or at least none that was classified at the time, or at least none that was marked as classified.
An FBI investigation found none of those statements was true. Yet when Wallace pointed that out, Clinton said FBI Director James Comey had in fact confirmed "my answers were truthful."
Given another chance to correct the record last Friday, Clinton repeated the same fallacious argument that earned her Four Pinocchios from Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler: Because she was not charged with lying to the FBI about her State Department emails, everything she told the public must have been true, even though it demonstrably was not. But Clinton also said she "may have short-circuited" her answer and suggested that "Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other."
To recap: After the email story broke, Clinton repeatedly offered assurances that turned out to be false. Then she said the FBI had validated those statements, which was also false. Then she falsely insisted her claim about the FBI was true, even while implying that it resulted from a misunderstanding—which also was not true, as anyone who watches the video or reads the transcript can see.
Untangling Clinton's lies is as tedious and unrewarding as untangling that unused mass of twine at the bottom of the tool drawer. When Donald Trump lies, by contrast, you really know you've been misled, and you have to be impressed by the sheer audacity of his mendacity.
Actually given the scale, I think we need a different meme from Dumpster Fire or Trumpster Fire. Something more grandiose (and suggestive of his hyperbole).
How about Casino Collapse?
I could only get through three minutes or so...
Here's a testament to Trump's warp-speed bullshittery and self-contradiction. I'm pretty sure he's lost track of where he stands on most issues:
(Someone has undoubtedly beaten me to this tag . When you're dealing with this much stupidity, there's a frenzy of creative insults).
Actually given the scale, I think we need a different meme from Dumpster Fire or Trumpster Fire. Something more grandiose (and suggestive of his hyperbole).
A good friend has hit the "nail" on the head, I think.
Trump speaks the language of abuse. It's not what he said; it's your interpretation and/or reaction that's the problem. Abusers feel entitled to do and say whatever they want without consequence. They escalate their tactics because they and their victims acclimate to the current level of abuse, and the abuser doesn't get a rush from it anymore. The twisted game ends when either the victims leave (possibly by dying in the case of domestic abuse) or someone with more power than the abuser intervenes. It's nauseating watching this play out on a national level.
Didn't everyone watch Revenge of the Nerds? Guys like Trump and the Alpha Betas may initially come off as funny and righteous, but are always revealed for who they truly are.
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
Aug 10, 2016 - 5:46am
From Dan Rather, citizen:
No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that “The Second Amendment People” can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?
Candidate Trump will undoubtedly issue an explanation; some of his surrogates are already engaged in trying to gloss it over, but once the words are out there they cannot be taken back. That is what inciting violence means.
yesh... this is the guy who should have control of America's nuclear weapons. Yeah.
Someone should set this to Pearl Jam's "Yellow Ledbetter" with an overlay of William Shatner reciting Trump's babblesong:
Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
Years from now, we'll all look back on this craziness with a wistful nostalgia. And younger generations will refuse to believe our tales of Trump.
The lunatic who would be king has - once again - gone WAY around the bend. When are his supporters going to realize what an unstable, unpredictable danger he is? Is this the guy we want to have the nuclear codes? Seriously!? SERIOUSLY!?
Hmmmmm, Donald's handlers have to once again (for the umteenth time) interpret for the press what Donald meant. Aren't we tired of hearing all these totally mindless statements come from Donald that he later claims were misrepresented by the "lying press" or he then further qualifies/backtracks/rewrites so that the initial statement is significantly altered?
Own it dude! Say what you mean and mean what you say! If too many times you are called to the carpet for your statements... and they have to continuously be clarified by you or your people... then it's clear that you are a poor communicator no matter what you may believe.
It was an honest mistake. Someone suggested he meant the 1st amendment.
. When you're dealing with this much stupidity, there's a frenzy of creative insults). 
