>And Trump is a bastion of truth :)
A lot of the media feel the need to call Trump a "liar" when I don't think the label applies. For one example, about a year ago, Trump claimed that he had seen (on video) crowds of Muslims in New Jersey applauding and celebrating when the Twin Towers were attacked and fell in September 2001. This was called "a lie". But a "lie" is a deliberate falsehood. This statement, made in 2015, was about 14 years after the facts. People generally don't realize how unreliable human memory can be, including their own. (Mostly, I suspect, because there is usually nobody else challenging them on their memories. Few errors are corrected. The vast majority of errors remain uncorrected.)
Scientific studies have shown this to be true. Would it really be so surprising if Trump had simply mis-remembered what he saw? And so he didn't lie, he simply made an ERROR. But no, it's called a "LIE", because the news media have to have something to say to counter what Hillary's accused of: Repeated and proveable lying.
Further, September 2001 was about four years prior to the foundation of YouTube, which has become the standard storage facility for individual-generated videos, including copies from the media. It is fairly easily searchable. Prior to 2005, while individuals certainly had VCRs, recordings simply sat on videotape on their own shelves, and so others' video was not easily searched for and found. I am not suggesting that Trump was right, but even if he was right, evidence of that would almost by definition be very difficult to find. It might be in the archives of some news station or network somewhere, but that is not searchable by ordinary people. And, given that the MSM has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be 'in the tank' for Hillary Clinton, I strongly doubt that these commercial operations would take the time to search, or if they found something confirming Trump was right, they wouldn't publicize it. That would, if it occurred, me a TREMENDOUS coup for Trump.
My own opinion is that Trump was indeed probably wrong, but to me that clearly doesn't make him a "liar". "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I think that the people who CALLED Trump a "liar" are, themselves, "liars". They mischaracterize a very likely ERROR as if it were a "lie".
I think the main reason for the great over-use of the label the MSM puts on Trump, "liar", is mostly a schoolyard-fight-type reaction to the fact that THEIR favorite candidate, Hillary, is so thoroughly a liar. "So are you!" is the way it's often put.
>His stated policies on torture,
Yes, I don't like that. But do you think that will actually be translated into actions later, if Trump is elected? It happened during Bush 43's era, but it has become publicized and neutralized.
> gitmo,
If you don't like our invasion of Iraq (I don't either, and never did: Until early 2013 I hated Bush 43 more than Obama.), you will not find a need to capture and house people, possibly from the battlefield. I think the wisdom of the Afghanistan invasion is somewhat less challengeable, but again, some form of containment will be necessary. Of the type, location, and duration represented by Gitmo? I don't know. What are your objections to Gitmo? Is it that they are holding people, AT ALL? Or for how long they have held them? Or where they are being held? Or under what conditions?
>libel law,
American libel law has a serious ingrained problem, traceable to an early 60's case called New York Times v. Sullivan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan Sullivan sued, locally, and the NYT could have lost many millions of dollars. You know, southern local jury, etc. Libel suits are brought whereever the libel is published, which means for the NYT it would have been anywhere copies are sold and/or delivered.
The Supreme Court could have fixed the problem by ELIMINATING libel law, but it didn't have the courage to do that. Rather, it invented (perhaps adopted, taken from elsewhere) an exception, if the person was a "public figure" (a vague concept that has led to 50+ years of litigation: "What is a Public Figure") that person couldn't sue unless he could show "actual malice", what turned into a term of art: It didn't actually follow the common, or even the then-current legal, definitions of the words "actual" or "malice". It was simply a fictional construct designed to make it harder for suits of this kind to be filed and win. Prominent people who are lied about have been heavily victimized due to NYT v. Sullivan.
> use of nukes, etc somehow makes him less dangerous than HC?
Go back and find the ACTUAL quote. This one was widely misrepresented by the news media, which was and is in the tank for Hillary. As I recall, a large fraction of these kinds of controversies were based, in large part, on misrepresentations of what Trump said or did.
"They are none of them any good. There is no good choice. I don't think there's ever been a good choice."
Yes, but a lot of the criticism of Trump is utter biased, misleading NONSENSE. That still doesn't make him a "desireable" candidate, but Hillary's supporters are desperately grasping at straws to help her.
Jim Bell
I'm really floored about how disgustingly low Hillary (and her cronies) will go to criticize Trump. A few months ago, both were invited to see the Mexican president; only Trump went. When Trump returned, he was asked by the MSM (mainstream media) if he had discussed who would pay for the wall. Trump said that he hadn't.
For a few days, there was criticism of Trump for FAILING to negotiate this matter. That criticism re-surfaced within the last day or so (October 20), with Hillary claiming Trump had "choked".
Well, as radio commentator Paul Harvey would have said, here's the rest of the story. It turns out that there is an American Federal law called the Logan Act which prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomatic activity with foreign nations. It's been around for 200+ years, and violation is a felony...although there have never been any convictions and only one indictment in that entire time. It does not prohibit a person from merely meeting with a foreign government official, just engaging in diplomacy with him. (What amounts to "diplomacy" has not been tested, due to the virtual lack of prosecutions.)
Hillary Clinton is supposed to have at one point been a lawyer. Not a good lawyer, I have to conclude. In fact, she must have been a very bad lawyer. But she has now outdone herself for criticizing Trump...for Trump's FAILURE to commit a Federal felony! You see, she has actually claimed Trump "choked": That Trump DIDN'T negotiate this matter, apparently not to Hillary's satisfaction. So, indeed, Hillary is blasting Trump for FAILING to engage in diplomacy with the Mexican president: For FAILING to commit a felony!
And don't try to suggest that maybe, Trump did indeed secretly try to negotiate with the Mexican president, but simply failed to get an agreement. While such a hypothetical scenario might be called a violation of the Logan Act, at the same time it couldn't ALSO be called "choking": To raise the issue during the meeting, but to merely fail to get positive results wouldn't be a "choke", of course. So, by calling Trump's supposed actions (or lack of actions?) "choking", Hillary has essentially admitted that she DIDN'T believe that Trump had attempted to negotiate, and thus had not violated the Logan Act.
But others in the media were even more clueless. And it's not that I'm the first person to raise this issue: Do a Google search for 'hillary trump mexico wall Logan', and you can even find some articles within the first few days of Trump's Mexican visit, claiming that Trump DID violate the Logan Act. If Trump had actually said he negotiated, you can be sure that Hillary would have accused him of committing a crime. But no, he didn't, so now she's accusing him of, in effect, NOT COMMITTING a crime. Failure to negotiate as a private citizen with the President of Mexico. Failure to commit a Federal felony. How awful!
How cynical can a person be to try to prepare not one, but in fact TWO separate, and opposite traps for her opponent: If Trump tried to negotiate, she would accuse him of a crime. If Trump failed to try to negotiate, she would, and in fact did, accuse him of "choking".
Is it possible to engage in a more disgusting and devious fraud in front of the entire world, and not be called out on it? How dishonest can a person get?
To be sure, I'm still going to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, as I always do. But I feel I must challenge anyone who would otherwise vote for Hillary Clinton: Do you feel proud that your chosen candidate is such a massive liar, fraudster, influence-peddler, scam-artist, and deviously corrupt woman? "And those are her GOOD qualities", I hear her supporters fawning.
Jim Bell