Comey's opening statement is out.

[*Nately120*]

(06-12-2017, 01:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wait, so after being shown to be liar you are saying you meant that Nately didn't see them...not that it didn't happen?  And relying on the qualifier of "probably"?

I'm not sure why he thinks the notion that I didn't see confederate flags at Trump rallies but just happened to predict that they would be there is a point for his side.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2017, 07:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not sure why he thinks the notion that I didn't see confederate flags at Trump rallies but just happened to predict that they would be there is a point for his side.

Total vindication.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-11-2017, 02:28 PM)Vlad Wrote: Amuse all you like. This is not an all out lie. Point to the evidence Trump colluded with the Russians in order to sway the election.

SEN. TOM COTTON, R-Ark.: Let's turn our attention to the underlying activity at issue here. Russia's hacking of those e-mails and the allegation of collusion. Do you think Donald Trump colluded with Russia?

JAMES COMEY: That's a question I don't think I should answer in an opening setting. As I said, when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump. But that's a question that will be answered by the investigation, I think.



I wonder why Comey couldn't answer, "No" in an open setting?

[GMDino]

[*michaelsean*]

(06-13-2017, 06:12 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Option 3?

"Comey better hope there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

[GMDino]

(06-13-2017, 07:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Option 3?

"Comey better hope there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

I'm sure those tapes are right under his taxes and that proof that Obama wasn't born in the US.


And that plan to end ISIS in 30 days.

And all that other stuff he was gonna do.

Any day now....

[*michaelsean*]

(06-14-2017, 04:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure those tapes are right under his taxes and that proof that Obama wasn't born in the US.


And that plan to end ISIS in 30 days.

And all that other stuff he was gonna do.

Any day now....

So you're sticking with the incorrect meme?

[GMDino]

(06-14-2017, 04:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So you're sticking with the incorrect meme?

In your opinion.

See the people who understood Trump before he was elected and don't have to cover for him 24/7 know that if he had anything that supported him he would have released it by now.


No leak...he would have had an audio file on Twitter immediately.

But some folks need to hang on to some belief that THIS time the POTUS isn't lying.  As if he has a long history of telling the truth...or not making wild claims that he never provides any proof for.

The list is long and it is proven.  

But "give him a chance".  He's still learning.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-14-2017, 04:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: In your opinion.

See the people who understood Trump before he was elected and don't have to cover for him 24/7 know that if he had anything that supported him he would have released it by now.


No leak...he would have had an audio file on Twitter immediately.

But some folks need to hang on to some belief that THIS time the POTUS isn't lying.  As if he has a long history of telling the truth...or not making wild claims that he never provides any proof for.

The list is long and it is proven.  

But "give him a chance".  He's still learning.

It's not an opinion. He didn't lie. He never said he had tapes.

[GMDino]

(06-14-2017, 04:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not an opinion.  He didn't lie. He never said he had tapes.

I'm going off "what was in his heart".

James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017

Unless you think "better hope there are no tapes" was something other than a veiled threat?  Another threat that Trump can't back up or he would have already.

It was Trump talking out his rear...again.

But I know the Trump fanboys need to cover for him so have at it.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(06-13-2017, 09:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: SEN. TOM COTTON, R-Ark.: Let's turn our attention to the underlying activity at issue here. Russia's hacking of those e-mails and the allegation of collusion. Do you think Donald Trump colluded with Russia?

JAMES COMEY: That's a question I don't think I should answer in an opening setting. As I said, when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump. But that's a question that will be answered by the investigation, I think.



I wonder why Comey couldn't answer, "No" in an open setting?

The question should have been asked differently.

Cotton asked Comeys opinion, not for facts. This hearing or whatever it was is to find facts and not what Comey "Thinks". I wouldn't have answered it either since I couldn't be sure one way or the other.

[Bengalzona]

(06-13-2017, 09:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: SEN. TOM COTTON, R-Ark.: Let's turn our attention to the underlying activity at issue here. Russia's hacking of those e-mails and the allegation of collusion. Do you think Donald Trump colluded with Russia?

JAMES COMEY: That's a question I don't think I should answer in an opening setting. As I said, when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump. But that's a question that will be answered by the investigation, I think.



I wonder why Comey couldn't answer, "No" in an open setting?

Here's why:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-russia-idUKKBN19538A?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5941eb5004d30174c0076dcb&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

So now Trump IS actually under investigation.

And the amazing part (for people who are normal or semi-normal) is that he would not be if he would have just kept his mouth shut. 

[GMDino]

(06-15-2017, 08:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Here's why:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-russia-idUKKBN19538A?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5941eb5004d30174c0076dcb&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

So now Trump IS actually under investigation.

And the amazing part (for people who are normal or semi-normal) is that he would not be if he would have just kept his mouth shut. 

Heck, the POTUS confirmed he is under investigation:

POTUS confirms he's under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice https://t.co/fEOkrKh8IV

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) June 15, 2017

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

[*michaelsean*]

(06-14-2017, 05:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm going off "what was in his heart".

.@Judgenap: Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 23, 2016

Unless you think "better hope there are no tapes" was something other than a veiled threat?  Another threat that Trump can't back up or he would have already.

It was Trump talking out his rear...again.

But I know the Trump fanboys need to cover for him so have at it.

It's not possible for that statement to be a lie.  I'm sorry your meme was stupid.

[GMDino]

(06-15-2017, 12:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not possible for that statement to be a lie.  I'm sorry your meme was stupid.

Weird...wrong tweet posted.

James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017

It will be another "made up" thing by the POTUS. You don't have to call it a lie if you don't want to.

The simple fact that he MENTIONED the POSSIBILITY of their being tapes is enough to know he was lying just to lie.

But if you think Trump has tapes and they back Trump up and he hasn't released them yet for some reason you are already living in an alternate reality so I can't help you understand it.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-15-2017, 01:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: Weird...wrong tweet posted.

James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017

It will be another "made up" thing by the POTUS.  You don't have to call it a lie if you don't want to.

The simple fact that he MENTIONED the POSSIBILITY of their being tapes is enough to know he was lying just to lie.

But if you think Trump has tapes and they back Trump up and he hasn't released them yet for some reason you are already living in an alternate reality so I can't help you understand it.

I know which one you meant. I don't think you understand the definition of a lie.

[GMDino]

(06-15-2017, 02:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I know which one you meant.  I don't think you understand the definition of a lie.

Making up something that isn't real.  

I'm sure that in this case Trump supporters want to be nuanced to think that Trump meant "Boy *I* don't know if here are secret tapes but if there are they'll prove I'm right and Comey is a liar!"

But just like his tweets about proof of Obama not being born in America, and just like his tweets about Obama "tapping" him, and just like his tweets about 3 million illegal voters costing him the majority, it is all made up stuff.  Right from some nether region of his body straight to his fingers and to the phone.

He lies all the time.

You're being very obtuse. 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-15-2017, 02:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Making up something that isn't real.  

I'm sure that in this case Trump supporters want to be nuanced to think that Trump meant "Boy *I* don't know if here are secret tapes but if there are they'll prove I'm right and Comey is a liar!"

But just like his tweets about proof of Obama not being born in America, and just like his tweets about Obama "tapping" him, and just like his tweets about 3 million illegal voters costing him the majority, it is all made up stuff.  Right from some nether region of his body straight to his fingers and to the phone.

He lies all the time.

You're being very obtuse. 

No he made a statement that can't possibly be a lie.  That's not an opinion.

[GMDino]

I share this knowing full well that it won't matter...which is exactly what the article says.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658

Quote:All presidents lie. Richard Nixon said he was not a crook, yet he orchestrated the most shamelessly crooked act in the modern presidency. Ronald Reagan said he wasn’t aware of the Iran-Contra deal; there’s evidence he was. Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman; he did, or close enough. Lying in politics transcends political party and era. It is, in some ways, an inherent part of the profession of politicking.

But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent. Nixon, Reagan and Clinton were protecting their reputations; Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true. (Compare that to the politician Trump dubbed “crooked,” Hillary Clinton: Just 26 percent of her statements were deemed false.)

Those who have followed Trump’s career say his lying isn’t just a tactic, but an ingrained habit. New York tabloid writers who covered Trump as a mogul on the rise in the 1980s and ’90s found him categorically different from the other self-promoting celebrities in just how often, and pointlessly, he would lie to them. In his own autobiography, Trump used the phrase “truthful hyperbole,” a term coined by his ghostwriter referring to the flagrant truth-stretching that Trump employed, over and over, to help close sales. Trump apparently loved the wording, and went on to adopt it as his own.

On January 20, Trump’s truthful hyperboles will no longer be relegated to the world of dealmaking or campaigning. Donald Trump will become the chief executive of the most powerful nation in the world, the man charged with representing that nation globally—and, most importantly, telling the story of America back to Americans. He has the megaphone of the White House press office, his popular Twitter account and a loyal new right-wing media army that will not just parrot his version of the truth but actively argue against attempts to knock it down with verifiable facts. Unless Trump dramatically transforms himself, Americans are going to start living in a new reality, one in which their leader is a manifestly unreliable source.

What does this mean for the country—and for the Americans on the receiving end of Trump’s constantly twisting version of reality? It’s both a cultural question and a psychological one. For decades, researchers have been wrestling with the nature of falsehood: How does it arise? How does it affect our brains? Can we choose to combat it? The answers aren’t encouraging for those who worry about the national impact of a reign of untruth over the next four, or eight, years. Lies are exhausting to fight, pernicious in their effects and, perhaps worst of all, almost impossible to correct if their content resonates strongly enough with people’s sense of themselves, which Trump’s clearly do.
***
What happens when a lie hits your brain? The now-standard model was first proposed by Harvard University psychologist Daniel Gilbert more than 20 years ago. Gilbert argues that people see the world in two steps. First, even just briefly, we hold the lie as true: We must accept something in order to understand it. For instance, if someone were to tell us—hypothetically, of course—that there had been serious voter fraud in Virginia during the presidential election, we must for a fraction of a second accept that fraud did, in fact, take place. Only then do we take the second step, either completing the mental certification process (yes, fraud!) or rejecting it (what? no way). Unfortunately, while the first step is a natural part of thinking—it happens automatically and effortlessly—the second step can be easily disrupted. It takes work: We must actively choose to accept or reject each statement we hear. In certain circumstances, that verification simply fails to take place. As Gilbert writes, human minds, “when faced with shortages of time, energy, or conclusive evidence, may fail to unaccept the ideas that they involuntarily accept during comprehension.”

Quote:When we are overwhelmed with false, or potentially false, statements, our brains pretty quickly become so overworked that we stop trying to sift through everything.

Our brains are particularly ill-equipped to deal with lies when they come not singly but in a constant stream, and Trump, we know, lies constantly, about matters as serious as the election results and as trivial as the tiles at Mar-a-Lago. (According to his butler, Anthony Senecal, Trump once said the tiles in a nursery at the West Palm Beach club had been made by Walt Disney himself; when Senecal protested, Trump had a single response: “Who cares?”) When we are overwhelmed with false, or potentially false, statements, our brains pretty quickly become so overworked that we stop trying to sift through everything. It’s called cognitive load—our limited cognitive resources are overburdened. It doesn’t matter how implausible the statements are; throw out enough of them, and people will inevitably absorb some. Eventually, without quite realizing it, our brains just give up trying to figure out what is true.

But Trump goes a step further. If he has a particular untruth he wants to propagate—not just an undifferentiated barrage—he simply states it, over and over. As it turns out, sheer repetition of the same lie can eventually mark it as true in our heads. It’s an effect known as illusory truth, first discovered in the ’70s and most recently demonstrated with the rise of fake news. In its original demonstration, a group of psychologists had people rate statements as true or false on three different occasions over a two-week period. Some of the statements appeared only once, while others were repeated. The repeated statements were far more likely to be judged as true the second and third time they appeared—regardless of their actual validity. Keep repeating that there was serious voter fraud, and the idea begins to seep into people’s heads. Repeat enough times that you were against the war in Iraq, and your actual record on it somehow disappears.

• 
  
  

Here’s the really bad news for all of those fact-checkers and publications hoping to counter Trump’s false claims: Repetition of any kind—even to refute the statement in question—only serves to solidify it. For instance, if you say, “It is not true that there was voter fraud,” or try to refute the claim with evidence, you often perversely accomplish the opposite of what you want. Later on, when the brain goes to recall the information, the first part of the sentence often gets lost, leaving only the second. In a 2002 study, Colleen Seifert, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, found that even retracted information—that we acknowledge has been retracted—can continue to influence our judgments and decisions. Even after people were told that a fire was not caused by paint and gas cylinders left in a closet, they continued to use that information—for instance, saying the fire was particularly intense because of the volatile materials present—even as they acknowledged that the correction had taken place. When presented with the contradictions in their responses, they said things like, “At first, the cylinders and cans were in the closet and then they weren’t”—in effect creating a new fact to explain their continued reliance on false information. This means that when the New York Times, or any other publication, runs a headline like “Trump Claims, With No Evidence, That ‘Millions of People Voted Illegally,’” it perversely reinforces the very claim it means to debunk.

In politics, false information has a special power. If false information comports with preexisting beliefs—something that is often true in partisan arguments—attempts to refute it can actually backfire, planting it even more firmly in a person’s mind. Trump won over Republican voters, as well as alienated Democrats, by declaring himself opposed to “Washington,” “the establishment” and “political correctness,” and by stoking fears about the Islamic State, immigrants and crime. Leda Cosmides at the University of California, Santa Barbara, points to her work with her colleague John Tooby on the use of outrage to mobilize people: “The campaign was more about outrage than about policies,” she says. And when a politician can create a sense of moral outrage, truth ceases to matter. People will go along with the emotion, support the cause and retrench into their own core group identities. The actual substance stops being of any relevance.

Much more at the link that the people who need to read it won't go to....

[GMDino]

(06-15-2017, 02:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No he made a statement that can't possibly be a lie.  That's not an opinion.

Of course not.  He also never said he fired Comey for his handling of the Clinton emails and because he had lost the support of the members of the FBI.

But while I wait to head out to the beach for the afternoon I'll ask you what you think he meant in that tweet.

Since you don't think he was lying...again.