This is bizarre


In a new poll, people rated Donald Trump as more honest than Hillary Clinton by a margin of 46-38%. This is ridiculous but it just shows the power of Trump repeatedly referring to her as ‘crooked Hillary’ like he referred earlier to ‘Lying Ted’ Cruz, thus shifting attention away from his own repeated falsehoods.

And he does this despite the fact that he is a serial liar who is absolutely shameless about the fact that his lies are easily documented. Here is a list of 101 of his greatest lies.

Recently he has denied that he had said that he knew Russian president Vladimir Putin. But here too there is an actual recording of a 2013 interview where he repeatedly boasts about it. Michael Isikoff reports that earlier Trump had denied associating with a racist mobster, despite the mobster’s daughter saying that they had a close relationship, but there too a recording has emerged that shows the two together.

None of this will faze his supporters, of course, but it is astounding that anyone would consider him honest at all.

Comments

  1. DonDueed says

    Honestly, I’ve already voted so it’s a relief to be able to tune out all election coverage for the next week.

  2. sonofrojblake says

    Not bizarre at all.

    it is astounding that anyone would consider him honest at all

    That wasn’t the question they were asked, or at least, that’s not how the answers are being reported. They don’t consider him “honest”. They consider him “MORE honest” than a lying shitweasel who’s under active investigation by the FBI. Woopy frikkin doo, I bet he’s ecstatic.

    Which would you least like to spread on your toast? Dog shit, or human shit? The headline here is “human shit rated more appetising”.

    It’s just more proof – if you needed it – that the only reason Clinton is in with ANY chance of winning this election is because she’s up against literally the worst most unpopular other candidate in living memory. And the exact same thing can be said of Donald Trump.

  3. deepak shetty says

    They consider him “MORE honest” than a lying shitweasel who’s under active investigation by the FBI.

    Yes we get that Hillary has told a few lies and half-truths – The comparison is still with Trump who lies more less with every statement

    that the only reason Clinton is in with ANY chance of winning this election is because she’s up against literally the worst most unpopular other candidate in living memory.

    Yawn. Most Republicans vote Republican irrespective of what their candidate spouts. I would guess that most Democrats would do the same. There is nothing to say that a Sanders v/s Trump or a Clinton v/s Cruz would be any different from the numbers you see right now.

  4. springa73 says

    I think this is probably a combination of people’s deep distrust of Hillary Clinton after more than 20 years of attacks (if you throw enough mud against a wall, some of it will stick), and Trump’s supporters’ belief that he “tells it like it is”, which to a more objective observer means that he is repeating their inner prejudices out loud.

  5. anat says

    The people who say Trump is the more honest of the 2 are the ones who want what Trump says to be true.

    deepak shetty, from memory, about 40+% identify as Democrats or lean that way, about 30+% as Republican or leaning. There is always the battle over the undecideds.

  6. sonofrojblake says

    There is nothing to say that a Sanders v/s Trump or a Clinton v/s Cruz would be any different from the numbers you see right now

    You make it sound like it doesn’t matter at all who the candidates are, in the teeth of the evidence that these two are the least popular people EVER to be nominated. The “numbers you see right now” are the numbers for the worst candidates anyone has ever seen, on both sides. You’re saying that neither party could have done any better? I find that hard to credit.

  7. John Morales says

    sonofrojblake, was there not a lengthy process whereby each party selected its candidate from a pool of nominees?

    (What you are saying is that both parties chose the worst possible candidate, after due process)

  8. sonofrojblake says

    What you are saying is that both parties chose the worst possible candidate

    Yes, that’s precisely what I’m saying. And your point is…?

    Exactly the same thing has happened to the Labour party here in the UK.

    Rationally, any party should choose the candidate who will get the most votes from the whole electorate. The problem is that they choose the candidate based who gets the most votes from a tiny, ludicrously biased extreme minority. Historically, there’s been no guarantee that the party members’ favourite candidate will have wider appeal. Usually, though, at least one of the parties is at least somewhere close. Not this time. Never before in my lifetime have those electing party candidates (Republican, Democrat and, in the UK, Labour) been so catastrophically out of touch.

  9. deepak shetty says

    The “numbers you see right now” are the numbers for the worst candidates anyone has ever seen, on both sides.

    You seem to think this necessarily represents that the candidates are in fact the worst , rather than a world that gets more partisan every day. I rem,ember an article which compared the republican nominees on various topics and Trump is only the most extreme on immigration. On all other matters , some of the republican nominees were more extreme than him.
    Can someone objectively state that Trump is worse than Cruz for example ?

  10. sonofrojblake says

    Can someone objectively state that Trump is worse than Cruz for example ?… Or why is Hillary worse than Bill ?

    The candidates objectively have the lowest approval ratings (or, if you prefer, the highest disapproval ratings) of any candidates in living memory. Both of them.

    It’s perhaps interesting to speculate whether Lyin’ Ted would be as heartily hated as is Trump, had he won the nomination. Much as I detest the very sight of him, I have to assume he’d not be fending off the kind of weekly scandals that Trump generates with his own mouth. And absent those scandals, he (or any other fundamentally dull politician) be killing Crooked Hillary in the polls. Those scandals are the ONLY thing allowing CNN (the Clinton News Network) to ignore what the FBI are up to. So yes – Trump is, (if you want a Republican victory), much worse than Cruz, Rubio, Bush or whoever. Pretty much anyone else would have the sense to focus on Clinton and let her hang herself.

    Hillary is worse than Bill because she had the bad luck to be running in 2016, rather than 1992. If you want a Democrat in the White House, which would you prefer as a candidate? A good-looking, 46 year old saxophone playing Rhodes scholar, good Southern child of a widowed mother (a nurse), a guy of whom there’s actual footage shaking hands with the sainted JFK? Or a haggard, ill-looking 68 year old who grew up well-off in Illinois and campaigned against JFK’s successor for Goldwater in ’64? Comparing those two is unfair. Apart from anything else, the nature of the news cycle is different – many of Hillary’s difficulties are to do with things that either hadn’t happened yet, wouldn’t have been found out about or even simply didn’t exist in principle in 1992.

  11. John Morales says

    sonofrojblake:

    The candidates objectively have the lowest approval ratings (or, if you prefer, the highest disapproval ratings) of any candidates in living memory. Both of them.

    But you’re not comparing them to the other nominees in this election cycle who lost via the primary voting process; you are comparing them to previous candidates who became so by virtue of winning the primaries.

    Again: you are saying that the worst possible candidates were elected via the voting process from the pool of nominees, which is equivalent to claiming that the nominees who objectively got the most votes were actually the most unpopular. Which is a weird claim.

  12. sonofrojblake says

    It’s not a weird claim. It’s a slightly complex concept, so I can understand why you’re having trouble with it.

    The nominees who objectively got the most votes were obviously the most popular among the limited electorate who choose candidates. What’s interesting in 2016 is that that popularity is not, in either case, replicated in the wider electorate. Both nominees are, to the whole electorate, objectively the least popular in living memory.

    It’s not a “weird claim” to speculate that basically any other nominee, on either side, would be doing better at this stage.

  13. deepak shetty says

    @sonofrojblake
    You seem to be using worse and unpopular as synonyms . I think the worse part is not clear at all – Any of the republican candidates are potentially as bad or worse than Trump in their areas. Was Clinton the worst of the current democratic candidates? perhaps. Was she the worst in near memory ? No – Bill was worse – he is guilty of everything Hillary is accused of and worse.
    For unpopular you are comparing the reality you are in with a hypothetical reality that doesn’t exist. And you are refusing to see that in a reality where 45%+ polled people say they will vote Trump , that Hillary’s unpopularity doesn’t matter. To me it looks like people are rationalizing why they are voting for Trump by using Hillary is so dishonest (otherwise they would simply vote 3rd party or not vote).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *