“Trump makes falsehoods central to impeachment defense as incriminating evidence mounts,” ran a headline in yesterday’s Washington Post.

There’s a shocker. Donald Trump has resorted to lying.

Click through the link above if you want see some of the recent (alleged) falsehoods, pertaining mostly to those matters for which he’s likely to soon be impeached.

Don’t get me wrong. I think truth-squadding this president or any president or high-ranking public official is great. I always thought so. I grew up in an era in which the most basic rule of journalism was getting your facts right. If you got one wrong, and your paper had to run a correction, it was a huge disgrace.

The importance of getting one’s facts right was so deeply imbued in my brain, heart and possibly my liver and pancreas, that, when Donald Trump came along and started lying constantly, blatantly, provably, and when the fact-checkers started pounding him for it, I actually thought it would finish him in politics.

But – this just in – it didn’t.

It was hard for me to accept. Painful, too, because I had bought into not only the moral importance of getting one’s facts right, but into the political necessity of any candidate having to pay a huge, politically fatal price for getting a reputation as a serial liar.

I kept waiting for the day or week or month or year when Trump’s absolute commitment to mendacity would destroy, or at least damage, his candidacy, or his presidency, or his standing with the public. You know the old saying: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

But no.

The Trump years have been rough on me, almost spiritually rough because, although I didn’t think myself naïve — and I accept that a politician could get away with a certain amount of fudging and short-term fibbing, dissembling and even mendacity and prevarication for a while — I thought no one could just keep lying like a rug and get away with it in politics.

But I was wrong. Trump has taught me that honesty and factual accuracy are overrated, at least in terms of their value to a political career, at least in the case of one as handsome and charming as he. He’s been getting away with this his whole life, and, over the past four or five years, he’s been doing it in the full view of the nation under the glare of the fact-checkers of my benighted profession. And, well, he’s still president and I’m not.

The most recent look-back by the esteemed Washington Post Fact-Checker operation, published three weeks ago, was headlined: “President Trump has made 13,435 false or misleading claims over 993 days.”

I’m sure someone could quibble with the number (maybe too low, maybe too high), but no honest person with a critical thinking bone in his or her body could seriously dispute the point. Trump lies constantly and, if he has paid any price for it, it hasn’t prevented him from obtaining and maintaining a hold on the highest office in the land.

It’s true he has a dismal job approval rating, 41.4 percent as of Thursday morning, according to the average of many approval poll maintained by fivethirtyeight.com, but that’s roughly where it’s been throughout his three years in office. Do the Trump approvers think he’s a truth-teller? Do they think all politicians lie this much? Do they think honesty, or at least factual accuracy, is vastly overrated? I’ve been agonizing over these questions for years now.

But forgive me if I can no longer summon much surprise that after his first 13,000 lies, the last 435 haven’t cost him much support.

Join the Conversation

74 Comments

  1. The two things that allowed for the maintaining of an American democracy were the acceptance of the validity of an opposition party and the idea that the elected official should not put personal interests above those of national interest. These two items are exactly at the center of today’s disease.

    So now the opposition party is the enemy of America and complaints of personal gain are a big “so what”.

    It wasn’t perfect before, but it is obviously worse today.

    By the way, it is a criminal offense to unveil a “whistle-blower”.

    And, it is far easier to fool a person than to convince them that they were fooled.

    Trying to remediate the lies will leave a long trail through the next decade or so.

    1. The USA is currently more corrupt than Mexico was at any time during the stranglehold the PRI cheated to keep power.

      That party’s members gladly participated, but Mexico did not have the rules and institutions in place to shine the spotlight on the corruption that is currently happening in the USA. So they did not have to openly and brazenly scheme, lie and be Good Germans in order to facilitate the corruption.

  2. “Do the Trump approvers think he’s a truth-teller?”

    It varies. Some do, concluding that any evidence to the contrary is fake news, put out by the lying liberal media. Others will just shrug it off, with a bland “every politician lies.”

    The majority, though, don’t care either way. What they appreciate is that it makes liberals mad. I can promise you that there are right-wing readers here bouncing in their seats with delight at Mr. Black waxing indignant. They don’t give a hoot for policy, they just want to own the libs. It doesn’t matter how, and it certainly doesn’t matter that it does long-term damage to our Republic. As long as some kale-eating, Prius-driving, latte-swilling urban elitist gets hot under the collar, it’s time well spent.

    1. Agree with RB, these folks could care less about the country, corruption, national debt, truth, honesty, morality, integrity and its citizens, it is all about the entertainment and poking a stick in their neighbors eye. As the Gladiator would say “Ar e you not entertained” they love the blood fight, the hell with civility and your common man. But guess who will lose the most in the end, and blame everyone but the ones responsible?

  3. It’s instructive that your rant doesn’t include at least one example of a specific lie that has been told by the President. What the Washington Post story points to as examples of “lies” are differences in the version of events as told by Trump, who was there, versus the people the democrats have called to testify, who weren’t there. It boils down to not differing on the facts, but on differing opinions.

    Example: William Taylor (career diplomat) told lawmakers that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy.

    Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-NY: “You’ve never spoken to Mr. Giuliani?”
    Taylor: “No, no,”
    Zeldin: “Has anyone ever asked you to speak to Mr. Giuliani?”
    Taylor: “No.”
    Zeldin: “And if I may, have you spoken to the president of the United States?”
    Taylor: “I have not.”
    Zeldin: “You had no communications with the president of the United States?”
    Taylor: “Correct.”
    Zeldin: “If I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?”
    Taylor: “That’s correct.”

    It goes without saying that the above exchange was not reported on the evening news.

    And speaking of lies, the UK-Daily Mail documents six specific lies while under oath Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch told to congress when she denied her communication and coordination with a Democratic congressional staffer Laura Carey a month prior to the “whistle blower” filing his complaint. She used her personal email to try to cover it up but failed.

    Trump’s supporters have not left him (“49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove. Obama at the same point in his presidency – 45% approve.” What should be scary for democrats? “Nearly one-in-five Democrats are now more likely to agree with Trump.”

    Which explains Bloomberg’s recent move to rescue their party.

    1. “It’s instructive that your rant doesn’t include at least one example of a specific lie that has been told by the President.”

      Where would one start? It started with the size of the crowd on Inauguration Day, and just went on from there.

      “What the Washington Post story points to as examples of “lies” are differences in the version of events as told by Trump, who was there, versus the people the democrats have called to testify, who weren’t there.”

      You know it goes deeper than that, right?

      “And speaking of lies, the UK-Daily Mail . . .”

      Apropos of that, Wikipedia is no longer accepting the Daily Mail as a source. Something about their propensity for inaccuracy (Dr. Phil, however, still may be using them. You’ll have to check)

      I knew there was something dicey about that paper when “Paperback Writer” was the sing-along song on The Beatles cartoon back in ’66.

    2. OK DT, For your reading/viewing pleasure: :
      https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/
      The impeachment inquiry is underway, we will see where the cards fall.
      PS: Trump has zero right to face the whistle blower, that is a criminal case. Impeachment is not a criminal case.
      Perhaps however you would prefer the cease and desist he got today:
      https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/read-whistleblower-lawyer-letter-to-trump/index.html
      Or perhaps the Trump Self serving charity;
      https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/trump-charity-foundation-misuse-067411
      How about the self serving Trump University
      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/04/10/trump-university-settlement-judge-finalized/502387002/

      Evidently your USN veteran definition of values for a fine, law abiding, moral, ethical, upstanding American patriot is significantly different from this USN veteran. .

      1. “This is not normal,” he said. “… violates all recognized democratic norms.” Uh, that was kind of the point of Trump’s election.

        Here’s an interesting video on the kind of judicial activism Trump opposes:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLQebqVQKcc

        Note the audience reaction.

        1. Democratic norms include things like adherence to the rule of law, observance of constitutional limitations, and recognition of opposition as legitimate. Which of those would you care to abandon?

          You’re still quoting Newt Gingrich? Good Lord.

        2. Your point is what? That Newt, Trump, DT, etc. don’t agree with the law as it is interpreted by the judicial system, especially when it goes against their opinion? So the answer appears to be from DT’s side, lets elect a dictator/emperor/king, liar, morally bankrupt, corrupt president that rules the way I like them too, to hell with the laws and norms, as long as it screws the dem’s your for it, constitutional or not.

    4. Had you clicked the link to the wapost article counting his lies, you’d have seen that recent whoppers include his claim that the whistleblower complaint misrepresents the Ukraine call & his claim that Biden wanted Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for investigating Hunter. Like many of Trump’s prior lies (I don’t know Stormy Daniels), his story changes as the truth comes out. “There was no quid pro quo” turns into “quid pro quo is no big deal.” As Erik & others note, some people don’t seem to care that he lies. He’s their liar, and that’s all that matters.

        1. My kids have shown me both that you can learn a lot on you tube & that there’s a lot of utter nonsense. Alien landings? See youtube for proof!

        2. Biden got a prosecutor fired who was a major obstacle to cleaning up corruption in the Ukraine. It was done through the traditional carrot and stick approach often used in foreign policy to bring about reforms that the US would otherwise have no right to impose upon another sovereign country. That’s different from threatening to withhold foreign aid unless the country performs a “favor” (Trump’s word) for him. That’s not a “carrot and stick” but extortion. It’s tantamount to a demand for a political contribution or “something of value”- a virtual club he could use to bash Biden as a potential political opponent. It’s using the power of the Presidency to force foreigners to assist him in getting re-elected.

          This a red herring intended to distract the public from Trump’s abuse of power and the blatant violation of his oath of office. There’s nothing that remotely suggests that Biden got anything from his son Hunter’s appointment to Burisma or that he sought some sort of “favor” for his family.

          1. ” ..a virtual club he could use to bash Biden as a potential political opponent.” That’s giving Biden a bit too much credit – unless someone is going to keep him awake during the debates ?

        3. Your mind can be poisoned a lot on YouTube too.

          Anyone who uses YouTube as a major source of non-technical information is at a high risk of poisoned-brain syndrome.

          And I learned that on YouTube

    5. Thank you, Mr. Tester, for providing us with a fine example, in real time, of Neal Rovick’s line: “And, it is far easier to fool a person than to convince them that they were fooled.” RB Holbrook is also on-point. For true believers, of which you appear to be one, the facts – much to the dismay of Eric Black, myself, Mr. Holbrook, Mr. Rovick, Mr. Wagner, and numerous other commenters both liberal and conservative – simply don’t matter. I’ve read more than one study in which true believers dig in their figurative heels and refuse to accept any real-world events that contradict their cherished beliefs.

      That sort of thing happens to people on the left, too, but the Trump administration (I specifically include not only the President, a serial liar of the first order, but many – far, far too many – of his minions.) has provided current citizens and future historians with evidence of basic dishonesty so frequent and so egregious that it will take decades just to sort it out, much less explain why people would continue to support a political office-holder who has virtually never told them the truth about anything of substance.

    6. You seem to forget that there’s a verbatim -“word for word” transcript of the July 25, 2019 phone conversation between Trump and Zelensky which Trump had uploaded into a special server that is specifically for “classified” documents. That transcript has never been released. That was part of the whistleblower complaint and supports the suspicion of there being a “cover-up” by Trump. The “transcript” he had released was not a “word for word” transcript and another attempt to deceive Congress and the public about what he was saying and doing with the Ukraine. The purpose of the Congressional inquiry is to determine what Trump said there in that phone call and elsewhere through back channels like Rudy Giulliani. There should be no shame in admitting to having been deceived.

      1. It’s also hard to believe that an audio recording (rather than a rough transcript) is not made of all White House telephone conversations. On the other hand, that’s what did Nixon in.

        1. A transcript is not a recording of the actual call.
          At best it is an imperfect record; of course no one has seen it yet.

        2. He’s authorizing a transcript of a call in April, 2019 not the transcript of the July 25, 2019 call. What I expect these impeachment hearings will show is that this word for word transcript was marked “classified” purely for political purposes and to conceal the fact that he did make Ukraine’s investigation of Joe Biden a condition of release of the aid to Ukraine.

        4. What??
          You are unaware that this red herring is not just that?

          “Your honor, sure I can’t say where I was on the night of the 14th.
          But here is a picture of me, in Miami, on the 3rd! ”

          “Case closed. there you go, no stop this testimony-ridden, evidence-filled witch hunt!”

    7. Dennis
      Clearly you are trying to convince yourself more than other readers.
      Plus, your ending paragraph proves the first poster’s point.

      Your only actual argument against the content of Black’s post can be analogized as,
      “Sir! You only cite the past, and can personally only attest that for 18,645 days the sun has risen in the East. You have no proof it will do so tomorrow!

  4. In other news, undiscussed here so far, President Trump has been ordered to pay $2 million in damages for fraud by the Trump Foundation. Perhaps this fraud isn’t a “lie” per se, but it certainly fits a pattern of behavior. A court finding like this for any other politician would end their career. Yet for Trump it’s not even the most shocking event of the week. His supporters don’t care. Congressional Republicans don’t care. Instead, they’re still worried about HRC’s emails. To whom does this make sense?

    1. Note that he was ordered to pay the $2 million because he agreed that he had committed the fraud. Let that one sink in: the President of the United States admitted that he committed fraud.

      How many supporters do you think that will cost him? I’m guessing somewhere in the range of “none.”

    2. And then there’s the following from the Washington Post quoting the anonymous author, a senior administration member we’re told, of a book on Trump:

      Book by ‘Anonymous’ describes Trump as cruel, inept and a danger to the nation
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/book-by-anonymous-describes-trump-as-cruel-inept-and-a-danger-to-the-nation/2019/11/07/b6b6c6f2-0150-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

      “I’ve sat and listened in uncomfortable silence as he talks about a woman’s appearance or performance,” the author writes. “He comments on makeup. He makes jokes about weight. He critiques clothing. He questions the toughness of women in and around his orbit. He uses words like ‘sweetie’ and ‘honey’ to address accomplished professionals. This is precisely the way a boss shouldn’t act in the work environment.”
      …
      “As he ranted about federal courts ruling against some of his policies, including the 2017 travel ban, the author writes, Trump once asked White House lawyers to draft a bill to send to Congress reducing the number of federal judges.

      “Can we just get rid of the judges? Let’s get rid of the [expletive] judges,” the president said, according to the book. “There shouldn’t be any at all, really.””
      …
      “I am not qualified to diagnose the president’s mental acuity,” the author writes. “All I can tell you is that normal people who spend any time with Donald Trump are uncomfortable by what they witness. He stumbles, slurs, gets confused, is easily irritated, and has trouble synthesizing information, not occasionally but with regularity. Those who would claim otherwise are lying to themselves or to the country.”

  5. You don’t like him and you disagree with most of his policies. Fine. Don’t vote for him. Impeachment over policy differences and the ickiness factor will not go far in the Senate. Fine. It highlights the terror Dem leadership has over facing him in 2020.

    1. Do you still think the impeachment inquiry is just about “policy differences and the ickiness factor”?

      Thank you for proving my earlier point.

    2. Do you grasp why Black is upset with Trump based on the article? Did you read it? Is acceptable to you that a president lies constantly and that we can’t trust anything Trump says? Is this acceptable conduct in any public official, let alone a president? Does the truth matter to you?

    3. You do realize that the last impeachment was related to a lie about a sexual relationship between two adults.

      And that lie had absolutely no ramifications on governing policies or decisions and had no international political/military consequences?

      We’ve come a long way from that.

    4. I don’t like his policies and you’re right – that’s not grounds for impeachment.

      But encouraging a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political rival is the stuff that banana republics – with no history of democracy – do. Add to that the fact that he was told, by his own administration, that there was no truth to the right wing rumors. And add to that the fact that the leverage over Ukraine – an ally – was the foreign aid allocated by Congress.

      Now, sprinkle on that a healthy dose of “quid pro quo”. A – Trump halted the aid to Ukraine that was directed by Congress. B – Ukraine knew about the holdup. C – The aid was only released after the call and after pressure from McConnell and others. D – He asks Zelensky to look into spurious claims that Biden stopped the prosecution. E – All of this to be done on the “down low” via Guiliani.

    5. Well CJ, evidently you have a very high tolerance for the ickiness factor, as well as the corruptness factor,. Immoral factor, lying factor etc. etc. And I think this strikes to the heart of the article, Do Trump supporters have no limit? “A federal judge on Wednesday criticized President Trump’s repeated attacks on judges and legal decisions he dislikes, saying Trump has helped to undermine the principle of judicial independence and the public’s faith in the rule of law.” There are alarm bells going off everywhere, everyday about this presidents behavior, so the question becomes as a fellow Americans are folks like you really determined to risk or over throw the American system of checks and balances and why? What is so broken,or what is it you dislike/hate/think is unfair so much?

  6. You know that hotel magnate from Oregon who bought an ambassadorship from Trump with a million-dollar contribution to Trump’s inaugural committee? Ambasssor Sondland, to the European Union?

    Well, he blithely followed Trump’s example and lied about an important detail of his work with Giuliani to extort political investigations from the president of Ukraine in exchange for vital military aid, the old quid pro quo. When he saw in the news that multiple respectable figures, fro the State Department to National Security Council, were swearing to the opposite from what he’d testified to Congress, he scurried to “amend” his testimony. So he wouldn’t have to go to jail for lying to Congress, a felony that put Michael Cohen, for one, in prison recently. Sondland lied for Trump, at Trump’s behest (Sondland did talk frequently with Trump–no hearsay involved), but he’s apparently not willing to go to prison for Trump.

    Sondland foolishly thought the Trumpian culture and blatant practice of lie through your teeth with impunity would apply to him as well as to the Liar in Chief. But it doesn’t! Sondland, like many Trump aides and allies, would face prison time for lying.

    Some of us still care about the truth, Eric, and as many times as Donald Trump repeats “Read the transcript” and calls it “perfect,” those of us who HAVE read the [not a verbatim transcript] “summary” of the July 25 phone call–including Trump White House lawyers who hid the damn thing away in a top-secret computer system immediately–clearly perceive Trump’s plan to shake-down Zelensky.

    Among the honest? Many career folks in the State Department, who have the Justice Department beat by a mile, when it comes to integrity.

    Don’t lose your integrity, just because a bunch of Trump zealots want to stick it to the libs . History will not be oh the side of the Trumpites.

    1. “You know that hotel magnate from Oregon who bought an ambassadorship from Trump with a million-dollar contribution to Trump’s inaugural committee?”

      Ambassadorial positions have a long history of being filled with people that make big financial donations to campaigns. For instance, Obama rewarded well known Minneapolis DNC money man, Sam Kaplan with the job of Ambassador to Morocco. It’s just the way the game is played.

  7. I checked into the interview by Preet Bharara of Errol Morris on Stay Tuned, “Bannon & The F You Presidency,” If the cadre of complicitors aren’t frightening enough on their own grouped together as anti life nihilists they need to be put in check. The best they can do is offer something mimicking a plan in words only. There is nothing concrete except a burn it down destruction interior collective record. A firehose needs to be taken to them all. I am feed up with their anti matter and anti manner. As once happened….Out demons out ! The link https://podbay.fm/podcast/1265845136/e/1573117200

  8. Oh look, Eric Black is bashing Trump again. No surprise for this one song clown. I’m not a Trump supporter, but Black is beyond the pale.

    Minnpost (You who are supposedly all about supporting the 4th estate), you know what the most frightening and hyper hypocritical incident in the the couple of weeks (and that you’ve chosen to ignore) is the ABC News/CBS News actions of spiking stories about really rich pedophiles and the consequent firing of a whistleblower who had the courage to come forward.

    This is why free thinking citizens do not trust the media — National TV News, Newspaper media and news/blogs like Minnpost.

    Pathetic

  9. While Trump is happy to tell outright lies and twist the truth, the Truth of the Washington Post etc corporate media is mostly just maintenance of status quo economics that has eniched so few in America but impoverished so many.

    1. Well the republicans had the congress, are you saying that proves the point the the R’s do not like/want law and order are good with throwing the constitution in the toilet? Why didn’t they act? Last check they had the Senate as well.
      PS: Federalist not a good source of unbiased information, when they come out and say they are a source of conservative opinion, that should ring a partisan alarm bell.

      1. The link identifies instances where Obama went around the Congress, in clear violation of the Constitution. You may remember, Obama (in)famously said “when this Congress will not act, I will”.

        The Federalist cites their sources. Their choice of stories is biased, but not their reporting. They are the NPR of the right.

        1. Repeat, if it is a clear violation of the constitution (not an opinion) but a judgement, why didn’t the Republicans Impeach Obama? Again what is your point, the republicans were willing to let alleged high crimes and misdemeanors run wild in the white house, so the democrats should do the same today?

          1. There were several calls for Obama’s impeachment. I’m sure the pros and cons were weighed; Ryan concluded it didn’t make sense and he had more control over his caucus than Pelosi does over the lefty kooks running wild today. It’s all politics.

            The Democrats have offered articles of impeachment for 5 of the last 6 GOP presidents since Eisenhower (I guess everyone felt sorry for Ford). They’re all about it.

              1. I’m betting that’s what the Democrats said every time they offered articles of impeachment against the last 5 of 6 GOP presidents.

                Shakespeare said it best: Sound and fury signifying nothing. And that’s what will come of it this time; nothing.

                1. And
                  “‘Tis a tale told by an idiot….”
                  also sounds like someone we know.

                  1. And remember that Macbeth suffered the medieval version of impeachment: beheading.
                    Birnam Wood approacheth,

    2. You’re quoting the Federalist about the evils of Obama? Give us some credit, will you?

      Incidentally, I don’t understand why you have to be reminded that, not only is Barack Obama not President, there is no realistic scenario under which he could become President again (and no, sir, you are not allowed to use the word “hypocrisy”).

      1. Dissenting commentators here have learned that there are no sources that will satisfy the lefties when it contains information that doesn’t agree with the narrative. It’s the flimsiest of straw men, tbh.

        Do you care to refute any of the points made in the article, or the sources it cites?

        2. The “I made unsubstantiated points, debate me!” argument is old. How ’bout you get some actual sources, like from real people who know their stuff about the Constitution. Hint: don’t use The Federalist, HuffPo, The New York Post, or Breitbart. I could go on, but I’m not going to waste my time, and I’m going to trust that you get it, anyway. Please don’t prove me wrong.

          1. My citing the Federalist a is no different than a lefty citing NPR. Both do straight reporting on stories chosen to highlight a biased viewpoint.

    3. Another example of “what aboutism.” This writer’s personal opinion that Obama acted “unconstitutionally” even if true (and I would seriously dispute every one of his opinions) is irrelevant to whether the current holder of the office has committed/is committing “high crimes or misdemeanors”.

  11. “And that lie had absolutely no ramifications on governing policies or decisions and had no international political/military consequences?”

    Exactly. And that is the same argument I’ve been making with lefties. When Trump lies about how many people attended his inaugural, I just shake my head… it has no effect on anyone.

    But when Obama lied about Obamacare, the result blew up our medical coverage, when (Obama appointee) James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA spying it effected every one of us, and when Hillary lied about her home brew server, it, as Comey admitted, put our national security in jeopardy.

    When Trump tells a lie that has a deleterious effect on me and mine, I’ll express outrage. Until then, it’s just theater.

    1. What a wonderful illustration of why conservatives need to be kept far from any lever of power. You’ll support ANY depravity, so long as your own security is assured. I wonder, should Trump start publically executing political rivals public, locking up liberals, would you dissent, or stand by cheering, fearful of meeting the same fate? The cowardice of the self obsessed is always assured, I suppose.

      1. “You’ll support ANY depravity, so long as your own security is assured.”

        That sir, is patently false. I don’t support 90% of the Democrat platform, irrespective of any benefits I might accrue.

    2. So the wall? $Bl’s and depriving our military of what it deserves.
      How about our X-friends the Kurds (No ramifications)
      How about Trade wars are easy to win, again no ramifications?
      The $1.5T tax cut will put our economy in hyper drive, it isn’t?
      We will have a better healthcare plan and cheaper? Really? Show me
      And on and on and on and on.
      The word that comes to mind is blunderbuss, the morality that comes to mind is corrupt. Since we are quoting, how about da Vinci ‘So dark the con of man’
      As the article states. Hard to accept the 24-7-365 lying, probably as bad if not worse, the folks that not only defend it, put promote it and appear endorse more of it, no matter what the cost, they surely must despise a civilized society with norms, culture, laws….

      1. “So the wall? $Bl’s and depriving our military of what it deserves.”

        The US government blew more than a billion on the Obamacare website. California spends more than $30 billion per year catering to foreign nationals who are in the country illegally. Please don’t lecture me about depriving the military.

        “How about our X-friends the Kurds (No ramifications)”

        Looks like Pompeo’s trip to Turkey worked.

        “How about Trade wars are easy to win, again no ramifications?”

        “U.S., China Have ‘Fundamental Agreement’ on Trade”
        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-14/u-s-china-have-fundamental-agreement-on-trade-mnuchin-says

        Confronting China was perhaps Trump’s greatest achievement, after restoring balance to the federal judiciary and getting Mexico to help staunch the flow across the border.

        “The $1.5T tax cut will put our economy in hyper drive, it isn’t?”

        Our economy is roaring along quite nicely.

        1. “The US government blew more than a billion on the Obamacare website. California spends more than $30 billion per year catering to foreign nationals who are in the country illegally.” Those points do not address the argument. FACT: Trump is diverting funds from the military, funds Congress approved, to use for the wall. The points you made are irrelevant to that fact.

          “Looks like Pompeo’s trip to Turkey worked.” FACT: Trump gave the Kurds up to Turkey and only changed course when even GOP leaders were upset. Mike Pompeo’s visit to Turkey doesn’t right that wrong.

          “Confronting China was perhaps Trump’s greatest achievement…” FACT: Tariffs have raised prices and reduced economic growth. https://taxfoundation.org/tariffs-trump-trade-war/

          “Our economy is roaring along quite nicely.” FACT: Nope. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/05/27/3-charts-show-trumps-economy-is-weaker-than-people-think/#e02bc7062948

          As for restoring balance to the judiciary, that’s opinion, not fact. What is a fact is that Trump has nominated – and his GOP bootlicks have approved – five unqualified judges just because of ideology.

          Finally, regarding your claim that Trump has gotten Mexico to help with border crossings, it’s true. The numbers have gone down significantly since June. And oddly enough, it has nothing at all to do with the wall.

          1. “The points you made are irrelevant to that fact.”

            Not at all. My points put things in perspective. In addition, most reasonable people would agree that securing our borders falls as much within national security as any military program.

            “Mike Pompeo’s visit to Turkey doesn’t right that wrong.”

            We never told the Kurds we would assist them in their beef with Turkey. They joined us in fighting ISIS because it was in their own best interest. Pompeo got the Turks to stop bombing; I bet the Kurds appreciated that greatly.

            “Tariffs have raised prices and reduced economic growth.”

            Can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs. We all understand there may be short term sacrifice for the long term benefits. It’s working.

            You’ve used facts to warrant opinion.

            1. The 2 little examples, 1, “Trade wars are easy to win” Doesn’t sound like any sacrifice is required! The argument now sacrifice is required, 2, “Mexico is paying for the wall” no we are paying for the wall, is support for Erik’s original point, lying, over embellishing etc. is a 24-7-365 proposition with Trump and his supporters. The truth she hurts.
              To paraphrase a movie quote: “Some folks aren’t looking for anything logical and can’t be reasoned with, they just want to watch the world burn” In this case our democracy fail and our constitution burn.

              1. Sir, WIDR, you are jumping all over the place now. I don’t think anyone thought a trade war with China wouldn’t cause some pain anymore than anyone believed Mexico was going to cut a check.

                The points I’ve made are, China is making concessions. That’s more than any President since Nixon can say. And Mexico, for the first time, is helping us stem the invasion of our border.

                That’s pretty good stuff if you’re rooting for America.

                1. Please provide the details of the China deal, last check they are not available to the general public, would like to see all that” winning”,

                  1. I’m confident you can find the details just as easily as I can, if you are really interested.

  12. Here’s a new one to defend….

    Yesterday, Trump claimed that Ivanka has created 14 million new jobs (and going up every day).

    With a yearly job growth at 2 million (generously), 14 million would be at least twice what has really been created during his term.

    And Ivanka was responsible for it !

    Defend that !!

    1. Listening to the impeachment hearings, while Trump is a liar willing to make up any lie to fit any moment…his enemies including those “upstanding and forthright bureaucrats” simply repeat the very calculated and deliberate lies of Empire America.

      1. “upstanding and forthright bureaucrats” simply repeat the very calculated and deliberate lies of Empire America.
        Could you enlighten on what that means? Examples? Or is that an opinion of disagreement over US strategy and tactics?

        1. Most of what the “policy” bureaucratics say about Ukraine and by extension Russia is either a lie or an “untruth” or a partial truth meant to make Russia look evil and America good and pure. It is a narrative, not truth.

          A more accurate story: Ukraine was the route for natural gas from Russia to the EU. The EU was trying to get Ukraine to be part of the EU. Russia was trying to get Ukraine to be part of it’s trade union. Russia’s deal was better,so the

          1. Ukraine took the deal.

            America stepped in and set up a color revolution. The new Ukraine gov was full of neo-nazis who started threatening and perpetrating violence against the many ethnic Russias in east Ukraine. Russia stepped in to protect those Russian Ukrainian.

            Syria is like that. Iraq was like that. Libya was like that. That is most of American foreign policy. The narrative is what our gov wants us to believe, not the truth.

    2. Maybe she did. She famously uses manufacturing in countries where workers are, literally, a dime a dozen for her products.

Leave a comment