Thought Experiment

Imagine all you have by which to judge a person is what they do and what they say.  Pretend you can ignore everything said about them by anyone else and don't compare them to anyone in particular.

If all you had to go on was the twitter feed and statements of Donald Trump from his own mouth, unadulterated by any biased media, mainstream or conservative or liberal, what would you think of him?  Would you trust him with money?  Would you defer to his judgment with the best course of action for [a business, a country/state, right living, investing, real estate (based only on legal and business documentation)].  Remember, don't compare him to all the bad things democrats have done, just go on his record and your own understanding of the human condition, the general idea of people you trust and respect.

Ask yourself, would you trust him on his own terms? How would you defend his actual, observed (not reported) behavior, in tweets, on screen, in rallys? Not compared to Hillary but in his own merits as a person.

If you were in the military (which a many of my friends are), would you put him in charge of important decisions? Would you believe him when he reported his actions?  Would you want him as your commanding officer?  Would you trust him to be loyal to the Constitution over his own interests?  Would you trust him to be loyal to the country over some influential person who did him a good turn?

If you were an investor, would you trust him to honestly handle your money without super-close supervision?  Wou

Comey is too honest

The evidence is clear. There was no right thing to do.  If he had kept the investigation of Clinton's latest e-mails (back in October) quiet, he would have been fiercely accused of playing politics to help her win. If you're conservative, you know that's true.  He erred on the side of transparency -- maybe being too honest and sided with the American people, if not the Constitution or the norms of his office.  And so he was, perhaps justly, accused of influencing the election away from Clinton.  (I'm not saying that it made an intentional or significant difference, just that he was accused of influencing the election).

But one thing is obvious. If there's one thing he's not, it's a liar.

On the other hand, the instigator of alternative facts, the person who elevates winning above all, who has even committed members of his own party unable to defend his claims and conservative pundits reminding people not to take what he says literally, if there's one thing Trump is, it's not honest.

There's also a PAC (which, if anything, are never honest whether conservative or liberal), trying to paint him as a show-boater.  Are you going to be believe a political PAC ad about anything, ever?  Not me.

So when it comes to who to believe, there's no question.