Here’s A List Of Every Single Trump Lie Since He Took Office

[Underhill]

Here’s A List Of Every Single Trump Lie Since He Took Office

Please discuss.

I don't believe it. That list isn't nearly long enough.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you remember why? People forget that Trump didn't & doesn't exist in a vacuum. He was one of 2 alternatives, both bad, but the other being worse.

I still see no support for that opinion. I'm assuming that its origin in years of incessant Hillary bashing from conservative political commentary media. My criticisms of Hillary are her trust of Bush and subsequent vote to go to war last decade, and her corporatism.

I just don't see the merit in condemning her for using an unsecured server, but not Trump for giving classified information directly to the Russians in the Oval Office.

Nor of objecting to the Clinton Foundation, but not the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

Nor to collecting fees for giving speeches, but not for using the White House to promote his personal business interests (emoluments).

Nor to a lie about being under enemy fire, but not about releasing taxes and the myriad lies listed in the link in the OP.

Nor for condemning her for Benghazi, which she could not prevent, but not Trump and the recent attempted baseball massacre, which he was equally powerless to prevent.

By pseudo-principle, I mean an idea that is wheeled out selectively. A bona fide principle is one that applies everywhere is can. If one objects to lying, by which I mean saying something known to be untrue or even failing to correct a misapprehension for a non-loving purpose, he should object to it in every instance. If he doesn't, then I don't believe that objects to lying as a principle, and that when he does object, it is for some other reason. Likewise with any of the principles being invoked by those who object to any of the other matters in the list above preceding "but not" while giving a pass to the ones following that phrase.

I don't know if you are guilty of that here or not since I don't know what your specific objections to Hillary are. But you might want to reflect on whether you have done that, and if so, do you consider it reasonable and consistent?

I have to say that the people that find Clinton more objectionable than Trump are not thinking critically, meaning that they have been indoctrinated. Sorry if that offends, but I just can't see how it is possible to come to the conclusion you have evaluating all of the available evidence impartially and open-mindedly. Bush is clearly an utter disaster for America. He's an intellectual and moral black hole as the OP's link begins to document.

How many more character flaws does he have besides pathological liar? He's a malignant narcissist, vengeful, a bully, stiffs his employees and contractors, a vexatious litigator, a bigot, a misogynist, a sexual predator, and a loose cannon.

What's your analogous list for Hillary?

It's too early to tell. But the results must be compared to the likely results of electing the other.

The likely result of a president Hillary would be similar what we saw with a President Bill and a president Barack.

It's one thing to disagree with Trump or those who voted for him,
but it's another to go off the deep end with anger & personal animosity.

I don't see anybody going off the deep end. The left's reaction seems commensurate with the offenses. The man is gutting the EPA, science research, health care for the poor and the working poor, and has no respect for church-state separation. Some of us happen to consider those things good things to have and damaging to the nation to trample on. They have a right and a moral duty to express vehement objection.

Anger is appropriate here, as is ridicule. Righteous indignation is a virtue.

 

[Augustus]

(But please notice an IMPORTANT distinction here - there was no evil intent on my part or @Sunstone 's part to deceive anyone. This is as opposed to trump, who absolutely intends to deceive.)

Hooray for you, you found one error in an article positively LOADED with factual claims, you get a gold star.

Way to miss the point...

I never mentioned anything about the article, anything evaluating Trump's honesty or lack thereof, or said anything about @Sunstone

I was replying to your post that said:

"I'm extremely happy that at the end of the article there was a graphic that showed that the population is losing confidence in trump."

Most narratives that are constructed based on political polls are simply noise. This is easy to identify.

At what point do journalists repeatedly constructing false narratives based on misunderstanding data stop getting the benfit of the doubt that they are just naive? At what point should you start holding people accountable?

As for "BS narratives", are you largely in agreement with the claim that trump has told a long list of lies? If so, then voter trend or no trend, I stand by my assertion that we cannot afford to let lying become normalized. trump IS a frequent liar. It's Orwellian. We cannot allow his steady steam of lies replace reality.

It's pretty obvious Trump frequently lies, not much to debate there.

When it comes to 'replacing reality', why are Trump's lies worse than false narratives though?

Intent is a question of ethics, but both serve to replace reality.

 

[icehorse]

When it comes to 'replacing reality', why are Trump's lies worse than false narratives though?

I would say that no generalizations could be made. Some lies are world threatening, some have only minor repercussions.

In general I think it's far more damaging when a president lies than when a columnist creates a slightly misleading graph.

 

[Revoltingest]

I still see no support for that opinion.

Of course not.
I covered in great detail before the election.
Now that it's over, justification is irrelevant.

I'm assuming that its origin in years of incessant Hillary bashing from conservative political commentary media.

Like NPR...my only radio source?
You assume wrong.
Conservatives & I disagree about weighing her various traits.

My criticisms of Hillary are her trust of Bush and subsequent vote to go to war last decade, and her corporatism.

Did you get that from conservative sources?
<snicker>

I just don't see the merit in condemning her for using an unsecured server, but not Trump for giving classified information directly to the Russians in the Oval Office.
Nor of objecting to the Clinton Foundation, but not the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
Nor to collecting fees for giving speeches, but not for using the White House to promote his personal business interests (emoluments).
Nor to a lie about being under enemy fire, but not about releasing taxes and the myriad lies listed in the link in the OP.
Nor for condemning her for Benghazi, which she could not prevent, but not Trump and the recent attempted baseball massacre, which he was equally powerless to prevent.

You mistakenly presume that what you see is what I see.
It's not something worth rehashing.
Just be advised that presuming you know my reasons, without even asking, prevents interesting discussion.

By pseudo-principle, I mean an idea that is wheeled out selectively. A bona fide principle is one that applies everywhere is can. If one objects to lying, by which I mean saying something known to be untrue or even failing to correct a misapprehension for a non-loving purpose, he should object to it in every instance. If he doesn't, then I don't believe that objects to lying as a principle, and that when he does object, it is for some other reason. Likewise with any of the principles being invoked by those who object to any of the other matters in the list above preceding "but not" while giving a pass to the ones following that phrase.

I don't know if you are guilty of that here or not since I don't know what your specific objections to Hillary are. But you might want to reflect on whether you have done that, and if so, do you consider it reasonable and consistent?

I have to say that the people that find Clinton more objectionable than Trump are not thinking critically, meaning that they have been indoctrinated. Sorry if that offends, but I just can't see how it is possible to come to the conclusion you have evaluating all of the available evidence impartially and open-mindedly. Bush is clearly an utter disaster for America. He's an intellectual and moral black hole as the OP's link begins to document.

How many more character flaws does he have besides pathological liar? He's a malignant narcissist, vengeful, a bully, stiffs his employees and contractors, a vexatious litigator, a bigot, a misogynist, a sexual predator, and a loose cannon.

What's your analogous list for Hillary?



The likely result of a president Hillary would be similar what we saw with a President Bill and a president Barack.



I don't see anybody going off the deep end. The left's reaction seems commensurate with the offenses. The man is gutting the EPA, science research, health care for the poor and the working poor, and has no respect for church-state separation. Some of us happen to consider those things good things to have and damaging to the nation to trample on. They have a right and a moral duty to express vehement objection.

Anger is appropriate here, as is ridicule. Righteous indignation is a virtue.

Dang....you just keep beating this dead horse.
Just accept that those who voted for a particular candidate have their reasons.
You don't get to claim that your reasoning should be adopted by everyone else.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Dang....you just keep beating this dead horse.

The horse isn't dead yet. I keep hearing it tell me how much worse a candidate Hillary was. I'm still looking for the reason why.

Just accept that those who voted for a particular candidate have their reasons.

That goes without saying. I'm trying to discern what those reasons are. What were people hoping for when they voted for Trump? What did they think would happen if they elected a person with his character and values? What specifically were they afraid of with Hillary?

I've never gotten an answer that I can understand. I don't expect to agree with the answer, but I do expect there to be one that I would agree with if I shared the answerer's values. I don't get even that. I hear things like the list of complaints I provided, but not why those things matter more than their Trumpian counterparts, which is why I listed several specific complaints about Hillary and juxtaposed them beside something worse coming from Trump. If one's values are that you don't like liars or people profiting from Foundations, then one should perforce reject Trump more emphatically.

My working hypothesis is that all such people are faith based voters. They really have no argument, just gut feelings. And I've already indicated where I think they come from.

This continual Hillary bashing is decades old now, and apparently even affected the thinking of Democratic voters. Do you recall that in 2008, once Obama passed Hillary in the polls, Rush Limbaugh requested that Republican voters to register Democratic and vote for her in the primaries? From Rush Limbaugh Explains Why He's Urging Republicans in Texas and Ohio to Vote for Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday 2

Limbaugh: "Texas is open. And I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura. This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it. As you probably know, we're getting all kinds of memos from the RNC saying not to be critical there. Mark MacKinnon of McCain's campaign says he'll quit if they get critical over Obama. This is the presidency of the United States you're talking about. I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses. So yes, I'm asking to cross over and, if they can stomach it — I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton — but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need."​

Were you aware of that?

The media had been pummeling and pummeling Hillary relentlessly under the assumption that she would be the Democrat's 2008 presidential candidate. They had all but ignored Obama. Suddenly, he, not she, was ahead in the polls. The Republicans had bloodied her so much that the Democratic voters were beginning to see her as tainted, although none could convincingly articulate why. Same phenomenon: indoctrination by continual repetition.

The Republicans now had a problem. They had hardly devoted any attention to trashing Obama. They needed Hillary back in the lead and running in 2008. What else could it be that would cause Limbaugh to behave like that? They began wheeling out all of the garbage they could as quickly as they could - Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers - but it was too late, especially given how badly Bush had trashed the Republican brand for eight years.

I don't believe that Obama would have gotten the nomination without the unwitting help of the Republicans, and I offer this as evidence that this indoctrination program is real and effective. If it affects liberals, who presumably are predisposed to resisting conservative propaganda, it certainly affects everybody else.

So, when I had the chance to ask you to explain your opinions, it was in the hope of seeing an argument that I could see would lead to the conclusion that Trump was the lesser of evils. You seem to be a relatively thoughtful, constructive, and honest person.

You don't get to claim that your reasoning should be adopted by everyone else.

I don't think I did. I was trying to find out what your reasons were, and I offered mine in the form of an argument that I had hoped you would address, and respond with a similar argument. Unfortunately, you declined. That's fine, but it doesn't do much to dissuade me from my working hypothesis named above.

 

[Revoltingest]

The horse isn't dead yet. I keep hearing it tell me how much worse a candidate Hillary was. I'm still looking for the reason why.

If the reasons given before the election were unconvincing, I'm sure that wouldn't change now.

 

[columbus]

If the reasons given before the election were unconvincing, I'm sure that wouldn't change now.

I read your posts Rev. I have read literally hundreds of them on the subject of the 2016 election alone.

You never really did this, and I was looking.

I heard a ton of vague references to rumors and discredited claims. You pilloried her for voting for the invasion of Iraq, but pretty much everyone was doing that at the time. You championed Trump all through the election. But you never actually said why you thought Hillary was so bad that a politically incompetent, dishonest, billionaire playboy was the better choice for the USA top leadership position.

When Trump got all Christian anti-abortion (to bring the evangelic vote on board) I kinda expected you to waver. I know you believe that abortion is a good thing. But you didn't. That surprised me.

So, answer or don't. I am not trying to refight the election. But you never said why you think Trump is better than Clinton. So I am asking you now, again.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I read your posts Rev. I have read literally hundreds of them on the subject of the 2016 election alone.

You never really did this, and I was looking.

Only "hundreds", eh.
"Championed Trump", eh.
Some advice:
At times it's best to be silent, rather than speak out & remove all doubt.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Lying has not only become socially expected, but also accepted. There's something called "justified dishonesty," which human beings have always engaged in. The difference now, is that it has permeated the social landscape on a consistent, massive scale, and the value of the truth has been diminished to the point that agendas and justifications always trump it (pun intended). We are, it seems, living in what pretentious people might call a "post-truth" era. I think the long-term ramifications of this are going to be more damaging than most people imagine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lying has not only become socially expected, but also accepted. There's something called "justified dishonesty," which human beings have always engaged in. The difference now, is that it has permeated the social landscape on a consistent, massive scale, and the value of the truth has been diminished to the point that agendas and justifications always trump it (pun intended). We are, it seems, living in what pretentious people might call a "post-truth" era. I think the long-term ramifications of this are going to be more damaging than most people imagine.

Does this kilt make my butt look big?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Does this kilt make my butt look big?

No, your butt is just making the kilt look small.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, your butt is just making the kilt look small.

I love the post-truth era.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I love the post-truth era.

It's got something for everyone.

 

[columbus]

Does this kilt make my butt look big?

I can't tell from here.
Come sit on my lap.

If you do, I'll show you a trick
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't tell from here.
Come sit on my lap.

If you do, I'll show you a trick
Tom

Does it involve pulling my finger?

 

[columbus]

Does it involve pulling my finger?

If you want it to.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

I would say that no generalizations could be made. Some lies are world threatening, some have only minor repercussions.

In general I think it's far more damaging when a president lies than when a columnist creates a slightly misleading graph.

What about the shock and outrage about various electoral results because people had been repeatedly told it was pretty much a foregone conclusion based on statistical illiteracy among journalists and bogus claims about the reliability of their polls from pollsters?

Now Trump and his fans can point to the media being wrong then as an excuse for any negative coverage of Trump.

The shock aspect of the result led to reactions becoming more partisan and hostile. As well as numerous other negatives.

I'd say that is more damaging than a lie about crowd size, wouldn't you? This is why narratives matter, even if you see them as 'slightly misleading'.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What about the shock and outrage about various electoral results because people had been repeatedly told it was pretty much a foregone conclusion based on statistical illiteracy among journalists and bogus claims about the reliability of their polls from pollsters?

I think we need to know more about the possibility of electronic voting machines being hacked. The machines are hackable, and we know that the Russians would likely hack them if they could. What would stop them?

That would also account for the disparity between the polling and the official counts.

 

[Augustus]

I think we need to know more about the possibility of electronic voting machines being hacked. The machines are hackable, and we know that the Russians would likely hack them if they could. What would stop them?

I suppose that should be a concern in every election, electronic voting is inherently problematic.

That would also account for the disparity between the polling and the official counts.

The nature of polling accounts for the discrepancy. The BS narratives constructed about polls accounts for our surprise.

Being pretty conservative, a poll showing a 50/50 dead heat could really be anything from 44-56% for either candidate.