Wednesday, 16 March 2016 15:53
Who's most trustworthy? Trump, Clinton, Cruz, Sanders, Kasich?
Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

pinochioDonald Trump, the GOP-likely nominee, made his way into the hearts and minds of millions this past nine months (or) because he is a brash man, who exudes power and confidence, won’t back down or apologize and is willing to say what he means, about anything, at any time.

His likely opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, has a reputation for being overly-cautious with her words but she being trustworthy has not been her strong suit.  Poll, after polls, indicate her weakness has been, and is--not trusting Hillary.  Her email system is under federal investigation, many believe she has lied to the public regarding Benghazi.  Then, there is the hangover from her husband’s Lewinsky, Paula Jones and bimbo escapades and Whitewater and other remnants is still discussed on conservative talk radio as if it was today’s news.

This morning, I happened to perform a twitter scroll and saw a chart that provoked the following further investigation, this, from the Pulitzer Prize winner,


truth2 6












truth3 7










The results?  The politicians who appears to own the most truthful for statements made?  None other than Hillary, with 51% followed by Reublican Ohio Governor, John Kasich with 50%.  President Barack Obama, follows at 48% and the socialist Bernie Sanders sits at 38%.  The man, “The Donald” has labeled “Lying Ted” Cruz owns a 22% score.  Trump?  How about 9%, or, almost 16% of the score registered by “Honest Hillary”. 

The truth meter does not end there.  The “lying, lying, pants on fire” score?  Well, Sanders has a zero score (although the Hillary camp might differ).  Clinton follows with 1% of statements reviewed as being in “you must be kidding” zone.   For those wondering even further, Obama hits 2%, Kasich statements ranks at 5%, Ted Cruz is hot at 7% and, Donald Trump?  He owns a scorching 19% or, shall we say, one out of every five sentences investigated.

In fairness, one might say Trump’s words are being heavily scrutinized and maybe they are, as there are 113 statements.  Then, Hillary Clinton has been tested 174 times, by comparison.

Whether the scores make any difference to the candidates, their followers or their respective opponents depends upon the relative weight they attach to them.  However, since political parties, candidates, media and partisans always seem to cite the service, I would argue,  the site is reliable until, of course, your favorite gets a bad rating.  Then, it’s crackerjack.

I began wondering who else might be testing truths lately.  Another site that is frequently quoted all of the time by all suspects is  Those wanting to review the facts from this presidential campaign, here you go.  

Unquestionably, the Trumpers will claim these scores from Politicfact and other sites are “trumped up” by his enemies. Then, what would it matter?  He appears to relish in the opportunity to make statements that causes outrage and then, after being challenged, his polls soar upward.

Still, one can’t assume that when the campaign hits into general election territory, with his going full throttle against Hillary’s lack of credibility, his own credibility flank might be tender.  He seems to be in his own league.   This is from Politico:


“Certainly, many politicians stretch the truth – the practice of political fact-checking began long before the 2016 election cycle. Butnone so much asTrump. These untruths – strung together as they are in all of his speeches – have helped drive one of the most rapid ascents in modern presidential campaign history. Stephen Colbert once invented a word to define the political discourse of the time. “Truthiness,” the comedian declared on hisdebut episode in 2005, was the truth as felt in one’s heart and gut, not what was written up in reference books. A decade later, Trump has taken the idea and run (for president) with it.

The Trump campaign did not respond to attempts to get comment for this story or these individual instances of inaccuracies.


The big questions is—does it really matter?


Login to post comments
Powered By JFBConnect
  • Edwards gets Graves challenge on Louisiana flood relief money
  • Gov. Edwards's pugnacious state of union gave wrong Louisiana vision
  • Trump plus 80 days: Jim Brown, Bernie Pinsonat talk US, Louisiana politics
  • Trump should be like Reagan, not like Bush

graves c 3Shades of Katrina?

    Is political partisanship raising its ugly head again in the face of another Louisiana disaster?  Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards thinks so.

    Edwards got some rough treatment from a congressional committee in Washington, D.C. when he testified before it recently about the state’s response to flood problems.

Read More

jbeWith equal parts pugnaciousness and disingenuousness, Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards’ highly-politicized 2017 State of the State speech laid out a truly flawed vision for Louisiana going forward.

Read More

jim bernieIs Russia now our enemy, once again?

Did Donald Trump make the right move or was the latest attack, simply some wag the dog?

Read More

Iron nancy reagan 6n 1986, United States President Ronald Reagan authorized military aircraft to unleash a torrent of bombs in Tripoli, Libya to send a strong message to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The attack was in response to Gaddafi’s involvement in the terrorist bombing of a Berlin disco that resulted in the death of American soldiers. 

Read More

BB Menu


Sen. Appel talks budget, economy


Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1