Who is more trustworthy?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Trump by far

I don't see how the many who has been proven to have lied on everything he's ever said is more trustworthy.

Cause those aren't really lies, unlike Clinton's calculated lies.

By the way, who has proven that Trump lied many times?

He said that he saw Muslims cheering on 9/11. He said that he saw people asking for moments of silence for Micah Johnson. Those are just two of the grossest off the top of my head.

Are you sure he didn't see those two things?

Given that they didn't happen, yes.

[Ljube]

Trump by far

I don't see how the many who has been proven to have lied on everything he's ever said is more trustworthy.

Cause those aren't really lies, unlike Clinton's calculated lies.

By the way, who has proven that Trump lied many times?

He said that he saw Muslims cheering on 9/11. He said that he saw people asking for moments of silence for Micah Johnson. Those are just two of the grossest off the top of my head.

Are you sure he didn't see those two things?

Given that they didn't happen, yes.

How can you be so sure?

[Ljube]

Hillary Clinton may not mean what she says, but she at least knows what she actually means.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, may also not mean what she says, but it seems that he almost always doesn't know what he actually means, or what he is saying means, for that matter.

Which makes Trump more trustworthy.

[ProudModerate2]

Trump by far

I don't see how the many who has been proven to have lied on everything he's ever said is more trustworthy.

Cause those aren't really lies, unlike Clinton's calculated lies.
By the way, who has proven that Trump lied many times?

He said that he saw Muslims cheering on 9/11. He said that he saw people asking for moments of silence for Micah Johnson. Those are just two of the grossest off the top of my head.

Are you sure he didn't see those two things?

Given that they didn't happen, yes.

How can you be so sure?

Ljube, You are sounding silly.
How is it possible that Little-Hands-Donny can see "thousands and thousands" of Muslims celebrating, but everyone else missed them ?

[Human]

Hillary (sane)

The fact that some polls have shown that voters find Donald Trump more trustworthy than Hillary is terrifying and disturbing.

[ProudModerate2]

I would never "trust" that orange-haired clown to run our government as President. Period.

[Simfan34]

Hillary Clinton may not mean what she says, but she at least knows what she means. In other words, she may be lying, but she knows what she is doing.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, also does not mean what she says, but it seems that he almost always doesn't know what he actually means-- or what he is saying means, for that matter. He is not only being untruthful, but doesn't know what constitutes "the truth" is in the first place (in which case you can't really call it lying), or what being untruthful is supposed to achieve.

In short, I would much rather be led by a competent liar than an incompetent one. Trump has an seemingly pathological aversion to giving a straight answer on virtually anything, no matter how innocuous, far more than the worst careerist hack.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Trump by far

I don't see how the many who has been proven to have lied on everything he's ever said is more trustworthy.

Cause those aren't really lies, unlike Clinton's calculated lies.

By the way, who has proven that Trump lied many times?

He said that he saw Muslims cheering on 9/11. He said that he saw people asking for moments of silence for Micah Johnson. Those are just two of the grossest off the top of my head.

Are you sure he didn't see those two things?

Given that they didn't happen, yes.

How can you be so sure?

The Thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey never happened. There are literally no media or eyewitness reports of any such event happening. If it had, there surely would have been media coverage and photos and video of the event, especially given the atmosphere of heightened vigilance in the weeks right after 9/11, when even just a few Arab men talking was often cause for suspicion. It's impossible that Trump saw the event and nobody else, including hardened Islamophobes, did.

The moment of silence for Micah Johnson was literally one person on Twitter.

[Ljube]

Ljube, You are sounding silly.
How is it possible that Little-Hands-Donny can see "thousands and thousands" of Muslims celebrating, but everyone else missed them ?

It has become very difficult to argue with you people from the position of reason. You seem to be too PC conditioned to be able to realize that it could be possible for Trump to see something which was not reported.

The media with a globalist agenda would never report a group of American Muslims cheering the 9/11 attack. Trump may have seen that in New Jersey, while visiting there.

Why do you think it is impossible for American Muslims to be celebrating an attack on America?

[Seriously?]

Trump. No contest.

[ProudModerate2]

Ljube, You are sounding silly.
How is it possible that Little-Hands-Donny can see "thousands and thousands" of Muslims celebrating, but everyone else missed them ?

It has become very difficult to argue with you people from the position of reason. You seem to be too PC conditioned to be able to realize that it could be possible for Trump to see something which was not reported.
The media with a globalist agenda would never report a group of American Muslims cheering the 9/11 attack. Trump may have seen that in New Jersey, while visiting there.
Why do you think it is impossible for American Muslims to be celebrating an attack on America?

Ljube,
You are sounding just as foolish trying to defend trump's "thousands and thousands" comment, as Seriously was trying to defend that Melania's words were not plagiarized from Michelle's speech.

PS: Your use of "PC conditioned" is so 1980's already. Move-on to something more modern.

[Ljube]

Ljube, You are sounding silly.
How is it possible that Little-Hands-Donny can see "thousands and thousands" of Muslims celebrating, but everyone else missed them ?

It has become very difficult to argue with you people from the position of reason. You seem to be too PC conditioned to be able to realize that it could be possible for Trump to see something which was not reported.
The media with a globalist agenda would never report a group of American Muslims cheering the 9/11 attack. Trump may have seen that in New Jersey, while visiting there.
Why do you think it is impossible for American Muslims to be celebrating an attack on America?

Ljube,
You are sounding just as foolish trying to defend trump's "thousands and thousands" comment, as Seriously was trying to defend that Melania's words were not plagiarized from Michelle's speech.

PS: Your use of "PC conditioned" is so 1980's already. Move-on to something more modern.

Well, what can I say? I'm 42 years old.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Neither one, obviously

This. Although I think the funniest lie between the two of them is Hillary claiming she dodged sniper fire followed by Trump denying he ever criticized McCain for being captured. Mostly because the situations they lied about were filmed.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

per politifact, 52%of clinton's claims are true or mostly true, as compared to 15% of t***p's. there is an objectively correct answer here.

Quoting politifact, the Dem hack organization? You can't be serious.

i am serious. unless you have a different source claiming the opposite, you should probably drop it, to avoid looking like (more of) an idiot. not that that seems to have ever been a concern of yours.

[Virginiá]

per politifact, 52%of clinton's claims are true or mostly true, as compared to 15% of t***p's. there is an objectively correct answer here.

Quoting politifact, the Dem hack organization? You can't be serious.

Ah, the true Trumpian way. When an organization calls you out on something or says you lie, attempt to delegitimatize them!

[Ljube]

per politifact, 52%of clinton's claims are true or mostly true, as compared to 15% of t***p's. there is an objectively correct answer here.

Quoting politifact, the Dem hack organization? You can't be serious.

i am serious. unless you have a different source claiming the opposite, you should probably drop it, to avoid looking like (more of) an idiot. not that that seems to have ever been a concern of yours.

There is not a chance you could possibly omit an insult form a post of yours, of course.

[Enduro]

I dislike them both, and don't trust either of them.

[Ljube]

per politifact, 52%of clinton's claims are true or mostly true, as compared to 15% of t***p's. there is an objectively correct answer here.

Quoting politifact, the Dem hack organization? You can't be serious.

Ah, the true Trumpian way. When an organization calls you out on something or says you lie, attempt to delegitimatize them!

Why would I trust some organization with a not so hidden agenda?
If I want my facts checked, I'll check them myself.
I suggest you start doing the same. You will realize then how biased PolitiFact is.

[Joe Republic]

Why would I trust some organization with a not so hidden agenda?
If I want my facts checked, I'll check them myself.
I suggest you start doing the same. You will realize then how biased PolitiFact is.

You should start here.  None of those liberal-biased facts like they have at Wikipedia.

[Hermit For Peace]

I don't think talking about politicians and the word "trustworthy" should be used in the same sentence.

However, regardless of public perception, Hillary has shown by her actions that she is a worker bee and does every job in front of her to the best of her ability. That she is an advocate for people who are less fortunate than she is. That public perception of her likability goes up while she is actually in office doing her job. Easy to do research on and prove.

Trump, on the other hand, is not a public servant by any stretch of the imagination. Look at his actions. He's out to make a buck and plaster his mug all over the media. That's about it. Easy to do research on and prove.

By their actions alone, not their words, Hillary is a far better candidate for President. The proof is in the pudding.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

per politifact, 52%of clinton's claims are true or mostly true, as compared to 15% of t***p's. there is an objectively correct answer here.

Quoting politifact, the Dem hack organization? You can't be serious.

i am serious. unless you have a different source claiming the opposite, you should probably drop it, to avoid looking like (more of) an idiot. not that that seems to have ever been a concern of yours.

There is not a chance you could possibly omit an insult form a post of yours, of course.

i accept your concession.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Neither one, obviously

Because kind of, maybe fibbing about some emails is now equal to being a pathological liar.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Neither one, obviously

Because kind of, maybe fibbing about some emails is now equal to being a pathological liar.

Yes. The emails are clearly the only dishonest thing Hillary Clinton has ever done ever in the history of ever.

[Maxwell]

per politifact, 52%of clinton's claims are true or mostly true, as compared to 15% of t***p's. there is an objectively correct answer here.

[Ebowed]

The only thing I trust about Donald Trump is that the words coming out of his mouth are lies.

Like the contractors he ripped off, he lies to the public in an increasingly desperate attempt to gain power.  The biggest concern is not that he feels comfortable doing so, but that so many people apparently have no problem with it.  Everyone knows he's a liar - it's just plainly obvious from the way he speaks and changes his opinions through the middle of a sentence.  But people seem to think that this is OK, because at least he's "politically incorrect."  That says more about the people voting for him than it does about Donald Trump.

In an even more desperate attempt to say that Donald Trump isn't so bad, some will say that Hillary Clinton is even less trustworthy than Donald Trump.  Unless you are getting news from sources that are not grounded in reality, there is no way that such a claim can pass the laugh test.  Folks, Donald Trump has been a con artist for decades.  He thinks it's okay to egg on Russian hackers for his own political gain which means that he can't be trusted with the nation's security.  He fails the most basic test of responsible governing.  He can't be trusted.