This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

It’s True: Trump Is Lying More, and He’s Doing It on Purpose

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


By Susan B. Glasser August 3, 2018

"On Thursday, the Washington Post published a remarkable story on its front page revealing a recent spike in the number of “false and misleading claims” made by President Trump. In his first year as President, Trump made 2,140 false claims, according to the Post. In just the last six months, he has nearly doubled that total to 4,229. In June and July, he averaged sixteen false claims a day. On July 5th, the Post found what appears to be Trump’s most untruthful day yet: seventy-six per cent of the ninety-eight factual assertions he made in a campaign-style rally in Great Falls, Montana, were “false, misleading or unsupported by evidence.” Trump’s rallies have become the signature events of his Presidency, and it is there that the President most often plays fast and loose with the facts, in service to his political priorities and to telling his fervent supporters what they want and expect to hear from him. At another rally this week, in Tampa, Trump made thirty-five false and misleading claims, on subjects ranging from trade with China to the size of his tax cut.

These astonishing statistics were compiled by a small team overseen by Glenn Kessler, the editor and chief writer of the Post’s Fact Checker column, who for much of the last decade has been truth-squadding politicians and doling out Pinocchios for their exaggerations, misrepresentations, distortions, and otherwise false claims. At this point, Kessler practically has a Ph.D. in the anthropology of the Washington lie, a long and storied art form which has always had skilled practitioners of both parties. But Trump has challenged the Fact Checker, Kessler told me over coffee this week, in ways that have tested the very premise of the column. The President, for example, has a habit of repeating the same falsehoods over and over again, especially as they concern his core political causes, such as trade or immigration or getting European allies to contribute more to nato. What should Kessler do, he often asks himself, when Trump repeats a four-Pinocchio whopper? Since taking office, the Post fact-checking team found, Trump has repeated close to a hundred and fifty untruths at least three times. Kessler has instated a Trump-specific database in response. Initially, the Post planned to compile the database of Trump’s misrepresentations as part of a project for his first hundred days in office. But the numbers kept piling up; now, Kessler told me, he is committed to keeping it up for Trump’s full term, documenting every “untruth” (per Post policy, he does not use the label “lies” even for the most egregious Presidential whoppers). “We’re kind of doing it for history,” he said.

History books will likely declare the last few months a turning point in the Trump Presidency, and Kessler’s laborious work gives us metrics that confirm what is becoming more and more apparent: the recent wave of misstatements is both a reflection of Trump’s increasingly unbound Presidency and a signal attribute of it. The upsurge provides empirical evidence that Trump, in recent months, has felt more confident running his White House as he pleases, keeping his own counsel, and saying and doing what he wants when he wants to. The fact that Trump, while historically unpopular with the American public as a whole, has retained the loyalty of more than eighty per cent of Republicans—the group at which his lies seem to be aimed—means we are in for much more, as a midterm election approaches that may determine whether Trump is impeached by a newly Democratic Congress. At this point, the falsehoods are as much a part of his political identity as his floppy orange hair and the “Make America Great Again” slogan. The untruths, Kessler told me, are Trump’s political “secret sauce.”..."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-escalating-war-on-the-truth-is-on-purpose?mbid=nl_Daily%20080318&CNDID=14244234&utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20080318&utm_content=&spMailingID=13998479&spUserID=MTMzMTc5NTk4NDA0S0&spJobID=1460289947&spReportId=MTQ2MDI4OTk0NwS2

***************

View user profile
Still waiting for that $2500 premium cut on my health care ....   Laughing


View user profile
So when is bone spur going to release all those JFK files like he promised? Maybe he really did find out Rafiel Cruz Sr. was in on the murder.

View user profile
prospectively the Obama administration had numbers which corresponded with those so called lies. They were forecasts. They were faulty, but they were never a lie. Just bad analysis. Trump knows what he is saying is a lie because most of what he says is after the fact when the facts are discernible and not a forecast. Trump could get up and say I will get 4% average growth in 2018, this is not a lie. However, when he says that he has the highest economic growth of any President.....that simply is a lie. So the false comparisons are a carefully crafted propaganda technique to
Information overload
"Information overload can have the same effect as secrecy and certainly in the short term and for democracies today it might be considered more effective." "When information overload occurs, it is likely that a reduction in decision quality will occur." "The glut of information generated by modern technology [...] threatens to make its receivers passive. Overload prompts disengagement." Trumps lies are crafted to overload the public into indifference. The 30% are entirely brainwashed as to what is true by the shear volume of lies.

View user profile
Nah, I bet Daddy Cruz himself fired the bullets into JFK.

View user profile
It wouldn't take that many words to truthfully say he didn't lie... lol.

View user profile
45 lies and his sheeple swear by it.

View user profile
He did not lie. The whole attempt to make Bhengazi out as a lie was an abject failure as repeatedly the hearings did show that the demonstrators did cause violence and harm to the embassy. No lies, yet we heard for four years that the next hearing would catch somebody lying.....they did not. However, trump's intentional overload of lies is a propaganda technique which has a sinister fascist model to follow. President Obama did not cheat on his wife, his family, or his country......if only the same standards could be applied to Trump, but a serial liar and con man did not get rid of his well documented past of compulsive overload lying......throw out so much innuendo....." you know I hear people saying that I am the best president ever" I guarantee you that he makes up these straw people and did the same when selling condos.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote: ....  The whole attempt to make Bhengazi out ....

Doesn't matter.   The Republicans managed to make enough hay out of it to make Hilary suspect among just enough voters.

Perception is everything in politics. (Just ask Gov Gary Johnson Laughing )

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
2seaoat wrote: ....  The whole attempt to make Bhengazi out ....

Doesn't matter.   The Republicans managed to make enough hay out of it to make Hilary suspect among just enough voters.


Oh, I get it now: Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! is the new CCV*, shouted with great emotion every time Trump sticks it to them.

*Conservative Copulatory Vocalization, similar to the human Female Copulatory Vocalization but without the sincerity.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
2seaoat wrote: ....  The whole attempt to make Bhengazi out ....

Doesn't matter.   The Republicans managed to make enough hay out of it to make Hilary suspect among just enough voters.

Perception is everything in politics.  (Just ask Gov Gary Johnson Laughing )




You must mean Gary's Johnson, Lurch. Just ask Pat.












View user profile
Trump is rapidly coming unraveled. Now he's apparently bunkered up in the White House making people watch tapes of his rallies and prompting them to tell him how great he is, while he compares himself to P. T. Barnum with his skills at fooling the masses.

https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-replays-tivo-debates-rallies-white-house-23263995-4827-4ead-a29a-626603e2483c.html

For all his bragging, there’s nobody more insecure than this dolt. His ego is huge, but it's crippled. He needs constant reassurance that he’s adequate, he's got to be surrounded by sycophants who tell him he's great all so he can believe it. He has to have rallies to hear people cheer, and then he has to re-live the cheering and have other people witness it, just so he won’t be faced with his own fears about himself. Damn near every sentence out of his mouth is about how somebody likes him, somebody thought he did something good, somebody thinks he's the best. He's got to make somebody else believe it to help him believe it.

He’s a guy who’s never felt loved (and a lot of that is his psychopathic daddy’s fault), who doesn’t feel adequate, and compensates by holding up a front and clinging to every instance of approval he gets. If you pretend to like him, he’ll grovel to you. He did it with Putin and he's done it with Kim and, if the Iranians hold their noses and play their cards right, he'll do it with them, too. Say "nice things" and he'll roll over and show you his belly and fight anyone who tries to discredit you.

If you disapprove of him in the slightest, he'll blow up because a contrary word is threatening to a guy whose power is all a ruse. That's why he jumped on LeBron James this weekend -- LeBron didn't act impressed with him, so now he's got to try to discredit LeBron... and good fuckin' luck, buddy, when LeBron's building a school for the underprivileged. Trump knows LeBron is widely admired, so it hurts when someone famous and accomplished doesn't like him. Disapproval from the rich and powerful isn't just unflattering, it's threatening to him. If you don't love him, he has to make all his followers hate you. Otherwise he can't function.

Trump's all a big blustery front hiding a sorry little nothing, praying that he won’t be found out, living in fear that people will find out he's him. And the sad thing is, it's so easy to see through. All his covering up really just lays him bare, because his weaknesses are so easy to spot. He's so insecure he can't really function outside of a protective bubble of praise and reassurance that, yes, Donald, people think you're great, yes, Donald, you're getting away with it, yes, Donald, people are fooled, yes-yes-yes-yesyesyesyes.

He is truly one of the most pathetic, pitiful examples of a human being I’ve ever seen. His neediness is actually repellent... it's like finding a grubworm writhing in an apple, watching him try to praise himself just so he can make it through the next five minutes. I’d feel sorry for him if he weren’t so toxic and malicious. He needs to be medicated and kept in a rubber room, not given a seat of power.

Honestly, I think America, somehow, elected the person in the country who's least suited for office. It's Bizarro World.

View user profile
The bad news is, he's still the President!

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:The bad news is, he's still the President!

That's actually the GOOD news. And the better news is he is on track to handily win a second term!

Collusion? Phhhht! President Trump isn't going anywhere. Count on it


Here's some logic and truth.
Why the Trump Tower Meeting Shows No Collusion
COMMENTARY
By Peter J. Wallison
August 11, 2018


President Trump’s media and congressional opponents continue to see great significance in the now-famous June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. Since the meeting was revealed, over year ago, it has provoked Trump’s opponents to feats of overstatement previously achieved only by Trump himself. Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 running mate, called it “treason” and the New York Times and other media critics of the president have warned darkly that the meeting is evidence of the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia.

This is odd. If anything, the circumstances surrounding the meeting demonstrate that, at least in June 2016—less than two months before the FBI opened its investigation of the Trump campaign—there had been no collusion. And logic dictates there was none afterward, as noted below.

In its most recent iteration, Trump has put the story on the front pages by tweeting that his son had met with the Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, but he said that the meeting was perfectly legal and no information about Clinton was ever provided.

Nevertheless, the mere fact that the president admitted that the meeting had been held to get negative information on Clinton was significant enough for The New York Times to report in its front page story that “the meeting is being examined as part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russians to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”

Although this is not the inference the Times wanted its readers to draw, if the Mueller investigation is in fact looking closely at the Trump Tower meeting, it is doing so because the evidence is exculpatory.

Indeed, everything about the meeting demonstrates that, as of June 2016, the Trump campaign had no relationship with the Russian government. According to the Times report itself, a British entertainment publicity agent named Rob Goldstone, an acquaintance of Donald Trump Jr., sent him an email message that a Russian lawyer with Kremlin connections had negative information about Hillary Clinton and wanted to set up a meeting. Trump Jr. replied, in part, “if it’s what you say I love it.”

What is significant about this exchange is not Trump Jr.’s response but the fact that Goldstone, according to the Times, was writing on behalf of the father of a Russian pop star (apparently another acquaintance of Trump Jr.) who had heard from the “Crown prosecutor” of Russia (a nonexistent office) that the Russian government had documents that would “incriminate” Clinton.

This kind of introduction itself demonstrates that there had been no previous contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. If any prior contact had occurred, there would have been no need to use a third-hand intermediary to set up a meeting. Everyone in public life has had introductions like this—from a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend—and they occur because no one on the side that is trying to make contact has any other way to get in touch with the people he or she is trying to reach.

This, then, is strong evidence that at least in early June 2016, there had been no contact between senior levels of the Trump campaign and anyone representing the Russian government—at least no sufficient contact to establish a channel of communication.

A communication channel is an essential element of anything labeled “collusion” because the word means “cooperation” with a connotation of conspiracy and illegality. Thus, it implies two parties working toward a common purpose for which regular communication would be essential. If, in June 2016, the Trump campaign and the Russians were already in collusion, there would have been an existing communication channel and no need for someone like Goldstone to suggest a meeting to a senior figure in the Trump campaign.

Nor would it have been necessary for other top figures in the Trump campaign—Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner—to be lured to a meeting by the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton. That would have been a routine part of any collusive activity, and whatever information the Russians had would have been imparted through the communication channel already established. The fact that all the top figures of the Trump campaign came to the meeting shows that no such channel existed; they knew nothing at that point about any help the Russians might provide and were interested in finding out what it was.

The Times report says that an effort to get “help” from a foreign person in a U.S. political campaign is illegal, but if going to a meeting to find out what help the Russians could provide is illegal, how have the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee avoided prosecution? They paid $10 million for information about Trump Sr. from a foreign person—Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent.

Less than two months after the Trump Tower meeting, on July 31, the FBI opened its investigation of the Trump campaign on the collusion issue. It is of course possible that after June 2016 some form of communication channel between the campaign and the Russians was established, but if so it was unknown to Steele, who provided it to the FBI and was reputed to have excellent Russian sources.

Nor was it apparently known to the FBI, which used the information in the Steele dossier—as late as October 2016--to set up surveillance of Carter Page, a low-level adviser to the Trump campaign. If the FBI had found a communications channel, there would have been no point in surveilling Page. The communications channel itself would have been targeted. We know that Page, who would certainly have been interviewed by Mueller, was not the communications channel; he is walking around free, testifying to Congress under oath and otherwise acting as though he had no role in collusion, while Manafort, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos have been charged with crimes so they ostensibly could be offered lighter sentences in exchange for information about the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia.

Finally, the recently released version of the FISA application, even though it contains many redactions, gives no hint that the FBI or anyone else could confirm the creation of a communication channel between the Russians and the Trump campaign after the June meeting at Trump Tower.

Thus, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that no communication channel was ever established, and that there could not have been collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

It is therefore something of a mystery why the Times, other media opponents of Trump, and congressional figures like Adam Schiff continue to cite the June 2016 meeting as evidence of collusion when, if anything, it tends to prove the opposite.

Peter J. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He was White House counsel in the Reagan administration.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:The bad news is, he's still the President!

Yeah, but after November he'll be politically crippled and challenged at every turn. The thing I'm most worried about is him starting a war, all the rest of it is political puppy shit.

View user profile
ConservaLady wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:The bad news is, he's still the President!

That's actually the GOOD news.  And the better news is he is on track to handily win a second term!

Collusion?   Phhhht!   President Trump isn't going anywhere.  Count on it


Here's some logic and truth.
Why the Trump Tower Meeting Shows No Collusion
COMMENTARY
By Peter J. Wallison
August 11, 2018


President Trump’s media and congressional opponents continue to see great significance in the now-famous June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. Since the meeting was revealed, over year ago, it has provoked Trump’s opponents to feats of overstatement previously achieved only by Trump himself. Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 running mate, called it “treason” and the New York Times and other media critics of the president have warned darkly that the meeting is evidence of the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia.

This is odd. If anything, the circumstances surrounding the meeting demonstrate that, at least in June 2016—less than two months before the FBI opened its investigation of the Trump campaign—there had been no collusion. And logic dictates there was none afterward, as noted below.

In its most recent iteration, Trump has put the story on the front pages by tweeting that his son had met with the Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, but he said that the meeting was perfectly legal and no information about Clinton was ever provided.

Nevertheless, the mere fact that the president admitted that the meeting had been held to get negative information on Clinton was significant enough for The New York Times to report in its front page story that “the meeting is being examined as part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russians to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”

Although this is not the inference the Times wanted its readers to draw, if the Mueller investigation is in fact looking closely at the Trump Tower meeting, it is doing so because the evidence is exculpatory.

Indeed, everything about the meeting demonstrates that, as of June 2016, the Trump campaign had no relationship with the Russian government. According to the Times report itself, a British entertainment publicity agent named Rob Goldstone, an acquaintance of Donald Trump Jr., sent him an email message that a Russian lawyer with Kremlin connections had negative information about Hillary Clinton and wanted to set up a meeting. Trump Jr. replied, in part, “if it’s what you say I love it.”

What is significant about this exchange is not Trump Jr.’s response but the fact that Goldstone, according to the Times, was writing on behalf of the father of a Russian pop star (apparently another acquaintance of Trump Jr.) who had heard from the “Crown prosecutor” of Russia (a nonexistent office) that the Russian government had documents that would “incriminate” Clinton.

This kind of introduction itself demonstrates that there had been no previous contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. If any prior contact had occurred, there would have been no need to use a third-hand intermediary to set up a meeting. Everyone in public life has had introductions like this—from a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend—and they occur because no one on the side that is trying to make contact has any other way to get in touch with the people he or she is trying to reach.

This, then, is strong evidence that at least in early June 2016, there had been no contact between senior levels of the Trump campaign and anyone representing the Russian government—at least no sufficient contact to establish a channel of communication.      

A communication channel is an essential element of anything labeled “collusion” because the word means “cooperation” with a connotation of conspiracy and illegality. Thus, it implies two parties working toward a common purpose for which regular communication would be essential. If, in June 2016, the Trump campaign and the Russians were already in collusion, there would have been an existing communication channel and no need for someone like Goldstone to suggest a meeting to a senior figure in the Trump campaign.

Nor would it have been necessary for other top figures in the Trump campaign—Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner—to be lured to a meeting by the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton. That would have been a routine part of any collusive activity, and whatever information the Russians had would have been imparted through the communication channel already established. The fact that all the top figures of the Trump campaign came to the meeting shows that no such channel existed; they knew nothing at that point about any help the Russians might provide and were interested in finding out what it was.

The Times report says that an effort to get “help” from a foreign person in a U.S. political campaign is illegal, but if going to a meeting to find out what help the Russians could provide is illegal, how have the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee avoided prosecution? They paid $10 million for information about Trump Sr. from a foreign person—Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent.

Less than two months after the Trump Tower meeting, on July 31, the FBI opened its investigation of the Trump campaign on the collusion issue. It is of course possible that after June 2016 some form of communication channel  between the campaign and the Russians was established, but if so it was unknown to Steele,  who provided it to the FBI and was reputed to have excellent Russian sources.

Nor was it apparently known to the FBI, which used the information in the Steele dossier—as late as October 2016--to set up surveillance of Carter Page, a low-level adviser to the Trump campaign. If the FBI had found a communications channel, there would have been no point in surveilling Page. The communications channel itself would have been targeted. We know that Page, who would certainly have been interviewed by Mueller, was not the communications channel; he is walking around free, testifying to Congress under oath and otherwise acting as though he had no role in collusion, while Manafort, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos have been charged with crimes so they ostensibly could be offered lighter sentences in exchange for information about the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia.

Finally,  the recently released version of the FISA application, even though it contains many redactions, gives no hint that the FBI or anyone else could confirm the creation of a communication channel between the Russians and the Trump campaign after the June meeting at Trump Tower.

Thus, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that no communication channel was ever established, and that there could not have been collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

It is therefore something of a mystery why the Times, other media opponents of Trump, and congressional figures like Adam Schiff continue to cite the June 2016 meeting as evidence of collusion when, if anything, it tends to prove the opposite.

Peter J. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He was White House counsel in the Reagan administration.

Do you really think anyone on this forum will accept anything stated as fact by a white Christian Trumpion? You Jesus screwheads claim all your whacky beliefs as fact -- and we're to believe the earth is 6000 years old? You claim you're a Christian ... but obviously, that's a lie. Christians don't applaud kidnapping infants and young children from their parents, and then deporting the parents. I've been told your Jesus dude wanted his followers to do all they could to help the homeless and the poor, but that's not Trump's belief -- nor yours. Our climate's gone mad from too much carbon dioxide, and that's fact, not belief. As long as his favored oil companies continue to rake in billions in profits, Herr Twitler is willing to destroy the planet twenty years from now. And this orange-faced, misogynistic, white racist sex abuser and liar-King is your hero?

You hardcore Christians are all alike. It's good for us to know our enemies!!

View user profile
Deus X wrote: .... The thing I'm most worried about is him starting a war, ....

Yup.   Every great once in awhile you and I are in agreement on something 'Duece'

But I'd worry about that if Hillary had won too. Perhaps even more so than with Trump.  I never trusted her for one second to not be a war starting President given the chance.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Deus X wrote: .... The thing I'm most worried about is him starting a war, ....

Yup.   Every great once in awhile you and I are in agreement on something 'Duece'

But I'd worry about that if Hillary had won too.  Perhaps even more so than with Trump.  I never trusted her for one second to not be a war starting President given the chance.

There you go, 22 words into your post and it's: Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!

As Mike Ehrmantraut put it: "Is that all you got?"

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Deus X wrote: .... The thing I'm most worried about is him starting a war, ....

Yup.   Every great once in awhile you and I are in agreement on something 'Duece'

But I'd worry about that if Hillary had won too.  Perhaps even more so than with Trump.  I never trusted her for one second to not be a war starting President given the chance.

There you go, 22 words into your post and it's: Hillary!Hillary!Hillary!

As Mike Ehrmantraut put it: "Is that all you got?"

Do you disagree Hillary would have been a warmonger President? I betcha she'd have had us in Syria in a big way already.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:Do you disagree Hillary would have been a warmonger President?  I betcha she'd have had us in Syria in a big way already.  

I don't think about it. I try, as much as possible, to be here now.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:Do you disagree Hillary would have been a warmonger President?  I betcha she'd have had us in Syria in a big way already.  

I don't think about it. I try, as much as possible, to be here now.

Ah, okay. Well, it's a "discussion" board .... so I was just 'discussin'

But you just go on not thinking about things if you find that's what works for ya! Laughing

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:But you just go on not thinking about things if you find that's what works for ya!

And you can go on obsessing about hypotheticals if that works for you.

It's my experience that a lot of reactionaries would prefer to do that than deal with reality. That's probably treatable if you can find the right therapist but most conservatives don't understand how truly sick they are and never seek help.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:But you just go on not thinking about things if you find that's what works for ya!

And you can go on obsessing about hypotheticals if that works for you.

It's my experience that a lot of reactionaries would prefer to do that than deal with reality. That's probably treatable if you can find the right therapist but most conservatives don't understand how truly sick they are and never seek help.

Laughing

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:
   "Information overload can have the same effect as secrecy and certainly in the short term and for democracies today it might be considered more effective." "When information overload occurs, it is likely that a reduction in decision quality will occur." "The glut of information generated by modern technology [...] threatens to make its receivers passive. Overload prompts disengagement."  Trumps lies are crafted to overload the public into indifference.  The 30% are entirely brainwashed as to what is true by the shear volume of lies.

This is exactly what Trump is doing. The reporters and news commentators I watch most often mention feeling exhausted just trying to keep up with all the Breaking News generated by this WH. This is sometimes thought of as living the news in dog years. I've heard references to a report prefaced by the phrase: "Was it only last Monday that that happened?" meaning of course that it would have taken a month in a normal news cycle to have come up with as many big stories as we just witnesses in that week.

This is exhausting and as you point out, that is exactly the point. Fortunately Mueller and his team are not distracted and are persevering. Investigative reporters are also digging into the background and details of specific stories. Eventually we will have the full picture of what's going on. In the meantime it proves to be tiring and mind numbing, again as you point out, is exactly the point.

Just to add one more observation: the senior political reporter for CNN this morning on one of the talk shows mentioned that for true Trump followers whatever he says is what they take to be the truth. For that group, the group that has relieved themselves from the burden of thinking, these are wonderful times on the Trump Drug. Duh, whatever, ummm, right, MAGA, best ever, Duh...  

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum