I would pick Bloomberg over Hilary and Trump

[PokerGuy]

What more basic question is there than "do you condemn the KKK?"

To my knowledge that question was not asked.

If you want to talk about not being able to answer even basic questions in a straightforward manner, looks like Trump is once again worse than Hillary, huh?

Nope, only in your mind. Let me know when he starts telling us about his being under sniper fire at an airport.

You claimed Hillary was willing to say or do whatever she thought was to her advantage and Trump is by all indications much worse than she is on that.

"by all indications"... uh, no. That's baloney. Certainly not any of the indications that I value.

I didn't list any virtues of Hillary, I was simply noting that by your own standards Trump is worse than Hillary.

And that's complete garbage. You take my standards, then come up your BS about how they measure up on those standards, and then conclude that based on my standards he's worse. That's complete nonsense of course. By MY standards, she's many times worse and has virtually no redeeming qualities. He's a blowhard but at least he has some redeeming qualities. Easy choice.

You said you didn't want an opportunistic liar and then said you preferred someone who lies more frequently than any person listed on Politifact's entire website and someone who has brazenly and opportunistically changed his positions.

What in the world makes you think politifact's numbers based on statements they select to evaluate mean anything at all? Worthless drivel, certainly not something I'd value as some sort of objective metric that proves anything.

As an example of how idiotic politifact "stats" are as a measure of who is more trustworthy, they count Trumps statement "when Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate, that was the end of Romney's chances to win" as "false". That's obviously a statement based on Trump's own political calculation, calling it "false" is plain stupid.

 

[Genx87]

But does he admit evil? Maybe cthulhu is just doing what he feels is right!

 

[zinfamous]

I like how people are basically supporting the Clintons when they claim that Trump is their man.

This shit gets funnier every day.

 

[zinfamous]

^Finally admits the truth. Hillary is a Wall St. puppet and Trump won't be one. I think Trump will be controlled by someone, but most likely not Wall St. This is a huge deal for bernie supporters who will most likely be Trump supporters shortly. Even Hillary supporters are more likely to switch sides to the Trump camp than Trump camp to Hillary (12 vs 7%, Rasmussen Polling).

/Hates Wall Street Puppets
/Cuts out the Middle Man and votes straight for Wall Street.

Makes sense...

 

[fskimospy]

To my knowledge that question was not asked.

The exact question was:

“Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?”

That is an incredibly straightforward question. He tried to get out of it by saying he didn't know who David Duke was, which was a lie, and then tried to lie about it again later by blaming his answer on a bad earpiece. The guy is so dishonest that he felt the need to lie twice when asked basically the easiest question on the planet.

Nope, only in your mind. Let me know when he starts telling us about his being under sniper fire at an airport.

Or I can let you know about him claiming that he watched thousands of people cheering in Jersey City for the destruction of the world trade center.

Or when he claimed that he had investigators in Hawaii that had uncovered amazing evidence about Obama's birth certificate.

Or when he claimed he wasn't in favor of the intervention in Libya despite his own website having a video from him talking about how he was in favor of intervening in Libya.

I can do this all day. For every thing you mention that you consider to be a lie from Hillary I can drop three from Trump. So tell me again why you're voting for him because he's more honest than she is? lol.

"by all indications"... uh, no. That's baloney. Certainly not any of the indications that I value.

If you have other ways in which to quantify who lies more or who changes their positions more opportunistically please mention them. I'm quite confident I can show that Trump is worse by whatever standard you use, so long as it is based on actual data instead of "because I say so". I doubt you will do this.

And that's complete garbage. You take my standards, then come up your BS about how they measure up on those standards, and then conclude that based on my standards he's worse. That's complete nonsense of course. By MY standards, she's many times worse and has virtually no redeeming qualities. He's a blowhard but at least he has some redeeming qualities. Easy choice.

Like I said I have no expectation of you actually changing your mind, as you'll do whatever is necessary to justify your opinion. I was simply showing you that by your own standards that you mentioned you should be voting for Hillary over Trump.

What in the world makes you think politifact's numbers based on statements they select to evaluate mean anything at all? Worthless drivel, certainly not something I'd value as some sort of objective metric that proves anything.

As an example of how idiotic politifact "stats" are as a measure of who is more trustworthy, they count Trumps statement "when Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate, that was the end of Romney's chances to win" as "false". That's obviously a statement based on Trump's own political calculation, calling it "false" is plain stupid.

Right, and they showed that there wasn't any evidence to support his calculation. I am not at all surprised that you would attack Politifact however, as it's telling you things you don't want to hear.

 

[SP33Demon]

/Hates Wall Street Puppets
/Cuts out the Middle Man and votes straight for Wall Street.

Makes sense...

Yes, because Trump answers to Wall St. Try harder.

 

[SP33Demon]

Eskimospy, what is your threshold for lies since all politicians do it? Because hillary's lies are just as bad as trump's. Would love to hear how you justify one candidate over the other based on this "lying" argument. You are most likely just like most everyone else in P&N: voting for an equally bad candidate but based on party affiliation. Both are awful, but this election will come down to whether you are an elephant or donkey.

 

[ultimatebob]

I vote for the candidate who is going to support the second amendment, not try and get rid of it. There's only one, kiddies.

Any candidate who spews ANY rhetoric about disarming Americans is automatically someone I cannot vote for under any circumstances.
Hillary's done it and so has Bloomberg.

If it's Trump vs. Clinton vs. Bloomberg, you're not going to have a real pro 2nd Amendment canidiate for vote for.

You noticed that the NRA hasn't endorsed Trump yet. They probably know how someone from NYC (probably the most gun hostile city in the US) really feels about gun control despite what they said to appease voters in their stump speech.

 

[fskimospy]

Eskimospy, what is your threshold for lies since all politicians do it? Because hillary's lies are just as bad as trump's. Would love to hear how you justify one candidate over the other based on this "lying" argument. You are most likely just like most everyone else in P&N: voting for an equally bad candidate but based on party affiliation. Both are awful, but this election will come down to whether you are an elephant or donkey.

Pokerguy was the one who claimed to have a threshold, not me. That being said, Trump does seem to lie considerably more frequently and more brazenly than other politicians. The reason I prefer Hillary over Trump is that her policies are better. Trump's immigration policy is both a bad plan and one that he couldn't possibly implement. Trump's tax plan relies on math so bad that a third grader could have done it. He is tempermentally unstable, he is held in contempt by virtually the entire world, and he is childish and vindictive. Those are the reasons I wouldn't support him.

Although I haven't voted since 2008 and have no plans to start again, I voted for Republicans in the past as recently as 2006, so exactly one election cycle before I gave it up for good. If you are planning on voting you shouldn't do it based on the party of the individual, and Trump is a particularly poor candidate. We should all feel okay admitting it.

 

[PokerGuy]

The exact question was:

That is an incredibly straightforward question. He tried to get out of it by saying he didn't know who David Duke was, which was a lie, and then tried to lie about it again later by blaming his answer on a bad earpiece. The guy is so dishonest that he felt the need to lie twice when asked basically the easiest question on the planet.

Yep, hadn't seen that, now he's short only a few million more to get to hildebeast level 🙂 For example, I could count every single time over the past decade that she's blabbered on about the gender wage gap as a lie. How many thousand times do you suppose she's perpetuated that lie? Thousands?

If you have other ways in which to quantify who lies more or who changes their positions more opportunistically please mention them.

I quantify the lies (and more importantly, the substance of the lie and the magnitude, and what the intent was etc etc) on what I am aware of, what I've seen/read/heard. I don't go by what someone else claims or decides, especially not when that source is laughably worthless for such a determination.

I'm quite confident I can show that Trump is worse by whatever standard you use

... and I'm quite confident you can not.

Like I said I have no expectation of you actually changing your mind, as you'll do whatever is necessary to justify your opinion.

Right back at you, it's no different for you.

I was simply showing you that by your own standards that you mentioned you should be voting for Hillary over Trump.

No, all you simply showed is that by YOUR measurements of my standards I should be voting for hildebeast. Not mine. Yours.

Right, and they showed that there wasn't any evidence to support his calculation.

Well duh. There doesn't need to be any "evidence", he made a statement that he believed it to be the case. There is no further fact needed, other than he said he believed that to be the case. End of story. Anyone who would use that as a "false" statement is obviously an idiot, thus showing how laughably dumb that "metric" is.

I am not at all surprised that you would attack Politifact however, as it's telling you things you don't want to hear.

Nope, I don't mind it telling me things I don't want to hear, in fact those are usually the best sources to look at because they challenge you to assess your own position. Pretending it's some wonderful objective metric to use for a political decision, on the other hand, is dumb.

 

[glenn1]

Pokerguy was the one who claimed to have a threshold, not me. That being said, Trump does seem to lie considerably more frequently and more brazenly than other politicians. The reason I prefer Hillary over Trump is that her policies are better. Trump's immigration policy is both a bad plan and one that he couldn't possibly implement. Trump's tax plan relies on math so bad that a third grader could have done it. He is tempermentally unstable, he is held in contempt by virtually the entire world, and he is childish and vindictive. Those are the reasons I wouldn't support him.

Although I haven't voted since 2008 and have no plans to start again, I voted for Republicans in the past as recently as 2006, so exactly one election cycle before I gave it up for good. If you are planning on voting you shouldn't do it based on the party of the individual, and Trump is a particularly poor candidate. We should all feel okay admitting it.

This is shaping up as a win-win election for the right. Either Hillary gets elected and she implements her "Rockefeller Republican, sold to the highest bidder just to win the office" brand of politics to the White House where she does basically nothing whatsoever to advance the course of progressive politics and her dishonesty and lack of principles probably tarnishes the Democratic brand.

Or you get Trump, who seems like he'll walk the GOP away from the stale "culture war" issues while not doing anything that heterodox on economic issues, takes away the 1% issue from the Dems by making some token noises against "the establishment," and as a bonus seems to make the left absolutely lose their minds with hatred against the guy to a level not seen since Reagan.

Either way we sure as hell ain't getting "a Democrat from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" as Howard Dean would put it. That's a win no matter what if you're a conservative type.

 

[PokerGuy]

If you are planning on voting you shouldn't do it based on the party of the individual,

That's something we can agree on. I don't care about the party, I care about the candidate.

and Trump is a particularly poor candidate. We should all feel okay admitting it.

Yes, he is a particularly poor candidate. The problem is that the alternatives are even worse.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, hadn't seen that, now he's short only a few million more to get to hildebeast level 🙂 For example, I could count every single time over the past decade that she's blabbered on about the gender wage gap as a lie. How many thousand times do you suppose she's perpetuated that lie? Thousands?

Oh, I was just counting them once. If you want to count all the times Trump has repeated the same lies as well I'm still very confident that I can find far, far more instances. You really don't seem to be aware of the sheer volume of lies this guy puts out on a daily basis.

I quantify the lies (and more importantly, the substance of the lie and the magnitude, and what the intent was etc etc) on what I am aware of, what I've seen/read/heard. I don't go by what someone else claims or decides, especially not when that source is laughably worthless for such a determination.

... and I'm quite confident you can not.

Right back at you, it's no different for you.

No, all you simply showed is that by YOUR measurements of my standards I should be voting for hildebeast. Not mine. Yours.

Right, and I notice that you conveniently deleted the rest of what I wrote. Your standard is quite clearly 'because I said so'. This sort of standard is worthless for actually communicating with other people, but it is highly useful for allowing you to justify whatever opinion you've already decided to take. This makes your choice not that surprising.

Well duh. There doesn't need to be any "evidence", he made a statement that he believed it to be the case. There is no further fact needed, other than he said he believed that to be the case. End of story. Anyone who would use that as a "false" statement is obviously an idiot, thus showing how laughably dumb that "metric" is.

Or they just live in reality. He said something that the evidence not only does not support, but contradicts. If he says that gravity is caused by Jesus pushing down on all of our heads that should also be labeled as 'false', despite the fact that he might genuinely believe such a thing.

I didn't realize you were from the 'it's not a lie if you believe it' school. George Costanza would be so proud!

Nope, I don't mind it telling me things I don't want to hear, in fact those are usually the best sources to look at because they challenge you to assess your own position. Pretending it's some wonderful objective metric to use for a political decision, on the other hand, is dumb.

It's the best metric I'm aware of, but I'm open to you supplying new ones. I imagine you'll stick with 'because I said so' though.

 

[PokerGuy]

Oh, I was just counting them once. If you want to count all the times Trump has repeated the same lies as well I'm still very confident that I can find far, far more instances. You really don't seem to be aware of the sheer volume of lies this guy puts out on a daily basis.

Except she's been doing it for decades in the public eye. He hasn't been a serious political candidate, so he hasn't been around doing the same stump speeches full of lies or press conferences full of lies over and over and over. He'd have to be capable of a truly impressive amount of lying over a relatively short amount of time to equal decades and decades of lies. On a sheer volume basis, she wins, hands down, no doubt at all.

Right, and I notice that you conveniently deleted the rest of what I wrote. Your standard is quite clearly 'because I said so'. This sort of standard is worthless for actually communicating with other people, but it is highly useful for allowing you to justify whatever opinion you've already decided to take. This makes your choice not that surprising.

As opposed to your standard, which is "because someone I agree with said so". Brilliant. Of course my standard is (and should be), the information I am aware of. I don't go by someone else's opinion when it comes to politics.

Or they just live in reality. He said something that the evidence not only does not support, but contradicts. If he says that gravity is caused by Jesus pushing down on all of our heads that should also be labeled as 'false', despite the fact that he might genuinely believe such a thing.

Wrong of course, as usual. Since there is no possible way of determining whether it was effectively the end of any chance of winning or not. Just because the polls didn't take an immediate nosedive doesn't mean that his political calculation that it was effectively the end of any chance to win was not correct. Only if you go with a narrow view that your single point of measurement (the polls at the time) are the only valid measurement. This is the kind of tripe that fits your view of "evidence"?

I didn't realize you were from the 'it's not a lie if you believe it' school.

The point goes woooshing over your head again. This isn't a precise science, and there is absolutely no way to objectively determine whether his statement was accurate or not. It's his political calculation. His political calculation may turn out to be wrong or right, but regardless it can't be "false".

It's the best metric I'm aware of, but I'm open to you supplying new ones. I imagine you'll stick with 'because I said so' though.

The same way you'll certainly stick to "because this group that I agree with said so". Congrats!

 

[SP33Demon]

I don't give a flying f about either candidate but do care about SCOTUS and obamacare getting chopped. That can only mean Trump, because Rubio and Cruz sure as shit ain't beating him. His lead is growing every day and it's going to come down to which groups have the highest turnout to win.

Will also be interesting to see how Nate Silver backpedals after he said Trump had almost no chance of winning in the summer. Trump seems to be breaking all conventional rules so don't be shocked if he upsets hillary. Conservatives are realizing how important it is to get a R into the White House.

 

[fskimospy]

Except she's been doing it for decades in the public eye. He hasn't been a serious political candidate, so he hasn't been around doing the same stump speeches full of lies or press conferences full of lies over and over and over. He'd have to be capable of a truly impressive amount of lying over a relatively short amount of time to equal decades and decades of lies. On a sheer volume basis, she wins, hands down, no doubt at all.

I know! That's what I'm telling you. By the way he's been bloviating on TV, radio, writing books, etc for years. So yeah, on a sheer volume basis he is probably running laps around Hillary.

As opposed to your standard, which is "because someone I agree with said so". Brilliant. Of course my standard is (and should be), the information I am aware of. I don't go by someone else's opinion when it comes to politics.

No, I picked an impartial truth determining website. As I said, if you have another standard you would like to use I'm open to it. I doubt you will do this.

Wrong of course, as usual. Since there is no possible way of determining whether it was effectively the end of any chance of winning or not. Just because the polls didn't take an immediate nosedive doesn't mean that his political calculation that it was effectively the end of any chance to win was not correct. Only if you go with a narrow view that your single point of measurement (the polls at the time) are the only valid measurement. This is the kind of tripe that fits your view of "evidence"?

The point goes woooshing over your head again. This isn't a precise science, and there is absolutely no way to objectively determine whether his statement was accurate or not. It's his political calculation. His political calculation may turn out to be wrong or right, but regardless it can't be "false".

Of course his calculation can be false. What post fact world do you live in? By your logic if he said Mitt Romney lost the election because he didn't wear his lucky jock strap that day we couldn't say it was false.

The standard for whether something should be considered true or false is not 'could there be any possibility whatsoever that it's true?'. He said something that the available evidence contradicts. That's what something false is. It doesn't matter if that's what his calculation is, because that's the whole point: his calculation was false.

The same way you'll certainly stick to "because this group that I agree with said so". Congrats!

I keep asking you for an alternative measurement and you keep refusing to supply one. I'm perfectly comfortable with not sticking to mine, but something tells me you're not comfortable with moving on from "because I said so".

Come on, do it. Give me your preferred way of figuring this out. I dare you.

 

[JD50]

PokerGuy, we get it, you don't like politifact. So what method are you using to determine that Hillary lies more than Trump? What is your unbiased source?

 

[SP33Demon]

PokerGuy, we get it, you don't like politifact. So what method are you using to determine that Hillary lies more than Trump? What is your unbiased source?

He lies moar! OMG! A politician lying. You guys are so silly. Back to work for me.

 

[sm625]

Bloomberg is Hillary. He would be just another establishment warmongering gun grabber passing out handouts to anyone with a yacht or a subsidized apartment in the inner city.

 

[PokerGuy]

PokerGuy, we get it, you don't like politifact. So what method are you using to determine that Hillary lies more than Trump? What is your unbiased source?

It's not that I don't like politifact, I like it just fine, it's that for something like "is a candidate trustworthy", or "how often does hillary lie" where there isn't much of an objective measure, it's not a particularly useful tool and there isn't a good metric.

I don't have an unbiased source because there's no such thing in politics. My source is (as I've previously stated) what I've observed/read/seen, as it should be for everyone else as well.

 

[PokerGuy]

I know! That's what I'm telling you. By the way he's been bloviating on TV, radio, writing books, etc for years. So yeah, on a sheer volume basis he is probably running laps around Hillary.

haha, for him to equal the lies she's told over decades and decades in the span of just a few months is quite literally impossible, considering that she's still telling them on a daily basis at least as fast as he is, if not faster.

No, I picked an impartial truth determining website. As I said, if you have another standard you would like to use I'm open to it. I doubt you will do this.

You picked the opinion of a site that you happen to agree with.

He said something that the available evidence contradicts. That's what something false is.

Think back to when Palin was selected as McCain's running mate. The polls certainly didn't immediately drop like a rock for McCain. It wasn't until much later that her weaknesses became apparent. If someone at the time said "I think that pretty much seals it, picking Palin means he can't win", would that be true or false? The correct answer is "we don't know for sure", and thus evaluating that statement as a metric of how "truthful" someone is would be stupid. It's a subjective political calculation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now if someone says "I did not have relations with that woman", and it can later be shown conclusively that he did, THAT would be an example of an actual lie. 😉

I'm perfectly comfortable with not sticking to mine, but something tells me you're not comfortable with moving on from "because I said so".

Just like you're not comfortable moving from "someone I agree with told me so".

Come on, do it. Give me your preferred way of figuring this out. I dare you.

Already did, you just don't like the uncomfortable truth.

I'll let you have the last word, I'm sure you'll find some way to twist reality to suit your political world view. That's OK, to each his own.

 

[fskimospy]

haha, for him to equal the lies she's told over decades and decades in the span of just a few months is quite literally impossible, considering that she's still telling them on a daily basis at least as fast as he is, if not faster.

You picked the opinion of a site that you happen to agree with.

Think back to when Palin was selected as McCain's running mate. The polls certainly didn't immediately drop like a rock for McCain. It wasn't until much later that her weaknesses became apparent. If someone at the time said "I think that pretty much seals it, picking Palin means he can't win", would that be true or false? The correct answer is "we don't know for sure", and thus evaluating that statement as a metric of how "truthful" someone is would be stupid. It's a subjective political calculation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now if someone says "I did not have relations with that woman", and it can later be shown conclusively that he did, THAT would be an example of an actual lie. 😉

Just like you're not comfortable moving from "someone I agree with told me so".

Already did, you just don't like the uncomfortable truth.

I'll let you have the last word, I'm sure you'll find some way to twist reality to suit your political world view. That's OK, to each his own.

I am 100% okay with basing my understanding of their relative truthfullness on any standard that you wish to tell me about so long as it is based in data and not your personal opinion. You on the other hand are desperately clinging to your personal opinion. Again, I dare you to provide ANY standard other than 'because I said so'.

So when you say you won't vote for Hillary over Trump what you actually should have said is that you weren't voting for her based on your personal emotions and how you feel. You made a mistake when you tried to claim she was less truthful than Trump, etc, because it's abundantly clear you're just pulling that out of your ass.

Just own your emotional basis for voting. Don't try to pretend you're doing something more than that.

 

[Fern]

/Hates Wall Street Puppets
/Cuts out the Middle Man and votes straight for Wall Street.

Makes sense...

Trump has nothing to do with Wall Street.

Fern

 

[glenn1]

I am 100% okay with basing my understanding of their relative truthfullness on any standard that you wish to tell me about so long as it is based in data and not your personal opinion. You on the other hand are desperately clinging to your personal opinion. Again, I dare you to provide ANY standard other than 'because I said so'.

So when you say you won't vote for Hillary over Trump what you actually should have said is that you weren't voting for her based on your personal emotions and how you feel. You made a mistake when you tried to claim she was less truthful than Trump, etc, because it's abundantly clear you're just pulling that out of your ass.

Just own your emotional basis for voting. Don't try to pretend you're doing something more than that.

So basically you're looking for him to say "Hillary is slightly less of a opportunistic lying sack of shit than Trump" and then you'll be happy?

BTW, your own heuristic device for deciding on candidates "I prefer Hillary over Trump is that her policies are better" is hardly some rigorous objective standard either. Indeed it seems like she'd be the kind of politician you hate since she's pro-austerity, isn't aboard the "climate change" bandwagon with her pro-coal plans, supports the mass incarceration of blacks, engages in direct quid pro quo actions to help wealthy and banks....

I could go on, but given even the small sample of things above, what is it about her that you like as your preferred Democrat candidate and/or future POTUS?

 

[SP33Demon]

So basically you're looking for him to say "Hillary is slightly less of a opportunistic lying sack of shit than Trump" and then you'll be happy?

BTW, your own heuristic device for deciding on candidates "I prefer Hillary over Trump is that her policies are better" is hardly some rigorous objective standard either. Indeed it seems like she'd be the kind of politician you hate since she's pro-austerity, isn't aboard the "climate change" bandwagon with her pro-coal plans, supports the mass incarceration of blacks, engages in direct quid pro quo actions to help wealthy and banks....

I could go on, but given even the small sample of things above, what is it about her that you like as your preferred Democrat candidate and/or future POTUS?

He won't admit it, but it's because she has a (D) next to her name. She is considerably to the right of obama and I bet that gets his goat.