Is there any consequence to lying?

We already knew this - but what is becoming clear is Trump's mastery of it.

The one point that stood out with the latest book was when Donny introduced Mary to Melania and saying she had overcome a drug problem (she never used drugs).

He seems to enjoy saying anything he wishes and doesn't care about facts.

We're seeing this more and more with Covid, he follows his own gut now over Fauci.

When it came to Isis, he stated that he knew more then the generals.

In California, he said there was a million fraudulent votes.

Windmill noises cause cancer.

Prior to last election he stated that they were about to pass a 10% tax cut to the middle class.

He stated we had no soldiers in Syria when we had 1,000.

Mexico will pay for it.

Then there's stupid stuff like this:

"Dishwashers -- we did the dishwasher, right? You press it -- remember the dishwasher, you'd press it, boom, there'd be like an explosion, five minutes later you open it up, the steam pours out, the dishes. Now, you press it 12 times. Women tell me. Again, you know, they give you four drops of water. And they're in places where there's so much water, they don't know what to do with it. So we just came out with a reg on dishwashers -- we're going back to you. By the way, by the time they press it 10 times, you spend more on water -- and electric! Don't forget. The whole thing is worse because you're spending all that money on electric. So we're bringing back standards that are great."

We're also flushing out toilets "10 times, 15 times".

----------------------------------------------

Projected lies.

First, Trump boasts building the greatest economy the world has ever known - "And we're going to do it again" - "the greatest comeback story".

He also promised a new healthcare system - better and cheaper then what we have now.  But to date there has been no info on it.  Only attempts to gut Obamacare.

----------------------------------------------

Has Trump ever told the truth?  Have we had any other president come close to lying as much as Donny?  On June 1st - the tally of false or misleading claim was at 19,127.  The funny thing is that he's probably proud of this record.

What is the current lie of the day - biggest lie of the week, month?

Besides Trump can some point to any prior candidate's rally speech that needed to be fact checked?  Trump's speeches tend to have around 20+ false or misleading lines in them.

jamie said:

Besides Trump can some point to any prior candidate's rally speech that needed to be fact checked? Trump's speeches tend to have around 20+ false or misleading lines in them.

Trump’s singular standing aside, are you asking whether any previous candidate, from the notoriously vicious presidential race of 1800 onward, made campaign speeches that contained untruths and exaggerations? Because ...

doesn't virtually any public speech need to be listened to critically and fact checked?  It's not as though if I saw Warren Buffet or some other CEO being interviewed on CNBC I'd uncritically believe everything he or she said.  A pretty good rule of thumb is that if someone has a substantial motivation to mislead, and thinks he/she can get away with it, the person is likely to be loose with the truth.

That said, the Donald is in a class by himself.  He's the person whose friend reportedly once said "If you ask Donald for the time, he'll lie to you just for the practice."

That's true.  Ok, let's say documented speeches - with video in the past 60 years?  Or even the last 8 presidents, can anyone point to one speech that comes anywhere close to what Trump is delivering as far as falsehoods?

At least lies in the past - people have been held accountable.  Trump lies so often, it's become normalized.  Fact checking has been pointless.  False claims are now readily acceptable - and parroted by his base.

jamie said:

That's true.  Ok, let's say documented speeches - with video in the past 60 years?  Or even the last 8 presidents, can anyone point to one speech that comes anywhere close to what Trump is delivering as far as falsehoods?

At least lies in the past - people have been held accountable.  Trump lies so often, it's become normalized.  Fact checking has been pointless.  False claims are now readily acceptable - and parroted by his base.

 Trump's lies are more brazen and obvious than any public figure I've ever heard.  He lies often, obviously, and even about things that he doesn't need to lie about.  

If you repeat a lie enough times - it becomes true. I believe this is Trump's way of life.

He understands perception more then anything.  The Apprentice taught him how to look rich and successful.  He's basically taken the same tactics on a national scale.  He a mixture of PT Barnum and L Ron Hubbard.

DaveSchmidt said:

jamie said:

Besides Trump can some point to any prior candidate's rally speech that needed to be fact checked? Trump's speeches tend to have around 20+ false or misleading lines in them.

Trump’s singular standing aside, are you asking whether any previous candidate, from the notoriously vicious presidential race of 1800 onward, made campaign speeches that contained untruths and exaggerations? Because ...

 are you kidding?

take a look kids - the normalized mind.

drummerboy said:

 are you kidding?

No. Because if that’s the question, yes, I can point to previous candidates whose campaign speeches contained untruths and exaggerations that warranted fact-checking. I’d just need some time to narrow the list down.

Or maybe you thought, despite my putting Trump’s singular standing aside, I was equating those others to him.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

 are you kidding?

No. Because if that’s the question, yes, I can point to previous candidates whose campaign speeches contained untruths and exaggerations that warranted fact-checking. I’d just need some time to narrow the list down.

Or maybe you thought, despite my putting Trump’s singular standing aside, I was equating those others to him.

 yes, of course that's what you were doing. Simply by putting them in the same sentence, that's what you did.

No wonder you think the Times is doing a fine job.

drummerboy said:

 yes, of course that's what you were doing. Simply by putting them in the same sentence, that's what you did.

I’m tempted to make a syntax-based argument, but instead I’ll just assure everyone I took care not to suggest any comparison.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

 yes, of course that's what you were doing. Simply by putting them in the same sentence, that's what you did.

I’m tempted to make a syntax-based argument, but instead I’ll just assure everyone I took care not to suggest any comparison.

you clearly have no idea how normalization works.

The fact that you even went where you did based on Jamie's question proves that. The difference between what Trump has done and every other Presidential candidate/President ever in the history of ever precludes you from having the thought that you did.

Yet you had it anyway.

jamie said:

We already knew this - but what is becoming clear is Trump's mastery of it.

I cringe a little bit every time I hear statements like 'Trump has mastered lying'.  For one thing, I'm sure Trump loves to hear this.  In public he will deny it, but in private he no doubt considers it a badge of honor.  This may be just semantic, but he is not a master of lies.  For that, his lies would have to be believable.  Noone believes a thing he says. 

But in response to the question about his biggest lie, I believe when you drill down to the most basic level, his biggest lie is " I love ______________" (fill in the blank).  He doesn't love (or care about in any way) anyone or anything. Not America, not the Flag, not Democracy, not Abe Lincoln, not Reagan, not the NRA, not the miners, not the police, not the bikers, or Ivanka or Melania or Barron or Pompeo or Barr or his sister or his accountant or the intern who delivers his Filet-O-Fish sandwich every day.  This simple fact explains his greed, incompetence, braggadocio, narcissism,  and on and on.  

Red_Barchetta said:

...
  Noone believes a thing he says. 

...

No. His base believes everything he says. That's the problem.

Red_Barchetta said:

I cringe a little bit every time I hear statements like 'Trump has mastered lying'.  For one thing, I'm sure Trump loves to hear this.  In public he will deny it, but in private he no doubt considers it a badge of honor.  This may be just semantic, but he is not a master of lies.  For that, his lies would have to be believable.  Noone believes a thing he says. 

But in response to the question about his biggest lie, I believe when you drill down to the most basic level, his biggest lie is " I love ______________" (fill in the blank).  He doesn't love (or care about in any way) anyone or anything. Not America, not the Flag, not Democracy, not Abe Lincoln, not Reagan, not the NRA, not the miners, not the police, not the bikers, or Ivanka or Melania or Barron or Pompeo or Barr or his sister or his accountant or the intern who delivers his Filet-O-Fish sandwich every day.  This simple fact explains his greed, incompetence, braggadocio, narcissism,  and on and on.  

I don't know that Trump even consciously knows he's lying.  He just says whatever he feels like saying without even bothering to know if it's true or false.  He talks to persuade other people to see the reality he's trying to create.  He's a con man through and through, and he's good at it.  Tens of millions of people completely buy into the reality he's creating.

In that way, he's not like any other politicians we've seen who generally try to at least have a grain of truth that they exaggerate into something bigger.  I'm not sure it occurred to anyone pre-Karl Rove that you could create your own reality out of whole cloth. But Rove certainly believed that his team created their own reality, and Trump being the con man he's always been, took the Rovian concept to its extreme.

Yes, they are buying into the reality he's creating:  Own the libs.  I don't think that's the same as believing his lies.  I think many of us say things like 'he doesn't even know he's lying' because we want to believe there is a shread of humanity and decency in him.  

Red_Barchetta said:

Yes, they are buying into the reality he's creating:  Own the libs.  I don't think that's the same as believing his lies.  I think many of us say things like 'he doesn't even know he's lying' because we want to believe there is a shread of humanity and decency in him.  

no, that's not it with me.  I don't think he cares if he's lying or not.  So in that sense, I doubt he's consciously lying.  He just says whatever he wants in the moment.  Sometimes he contradicts himself within a few sentences.  So he's not even a particularly good liar.  But certainly a shameless liar.

There was Bush's invasion of Iraq over WMDs

"When Clinton lied, no one died".

Far more have died as a result of Trump's lies about COVID 19 than even died from Bush and Cheney's lies.

STANV said:

There was Bush's invasion of Iraq over WMDs

"When Clinton lied, no one died".

Far more have died as a result of Trump's lies about COVID 19 than even died from Bush and Cheney's lies.

 I agree that more Americans died from Trumps lies.  If we count fatalities all over the world, I have to believe B&C would be more.  I suppose if it's Trump's base we are talking about, only Americans matter so your point is correct.  

"The lie was petty, even ridiculous; that was partly why it was so dangerous. In the 1950s, when an insect known as the Colorado potato beetle appeared in Eastern European potato fields, Soviet-backed governments in the region triumphantly claimed that it had been dropped from the sky by American pilots, as a deliberate form of biological sabotage. Posters featuring vicious red-white-and-blue beetles went up all across Poland, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia. No one really believed the charge, including the people making it, as archives have subsequently shown. But that didn’t matter. The point of the posters was not to convince people of a falsehood. The point was to demonstrate the party’s power to proclaim and promulgate a falsehood. Sometimes the point isn’t to make people believe a lie—it’s to make people fear the liar."

https://www.theatlantic.com 

Trump's niece recounts a vignette in which Trump introduces niece to someone, saying the niece had a drug problem (in front of her no less!). She remained silent during the exchange.

Thought this may be a good place for this news story:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.html

Sidney's defense is - how could anyone believe me?

Yet, millions of Trumpers believed the lawsuits she filed on behalf of T****.  Her actions must have consequences. 

Powell's attorneys write that she was sharing her "opinion" and that the public could reach "their own conclusions" about whether votes were changed by election machines.

"I'm just a common con-artist! It's not MY fault they believed the con!"

I am not a lawyer but I don't believe that defense will hold up in court, for one thing because of the precedent it would set. In a way these law suits are just test cases for these voting machine companies I believe. If the courts decide these suits are credible, they can just turn around and file the same suit against Fox News, the Trumps, Newsmax, the GOP itself, ...

It is one thing to sue Sidney Powell for $1.3 billion (she will just declare bankruptcy if she loses). It is quite another thing to sue people that actually have something to lose.

STANV said:

There was Bush's invasion of Iraq over WMDs

"When Clinton lied, no one died".

Far more have died as a result of Trump's lies about COVID 19 than even died from Bush and Cheney's lies.

 Even if Bush's claims had been accurate, invading Iraq was a stupid idea. It wasn't the lying the was the problem, it was the breathtakingly stupid decision to invade and occupy.

PVW said:

STANV said:

There was Bush's invasion of Iraq over WMDs

"When Clinton lied, no one died".

Far more have died as a result of Trump's lies about COVID 19 than even died from Bush and Cheney's lies.

 Even if Bush's claims had been accurate, invading Iraq was a stupid idea. It wasn't the lying the was the problem, it was the breathtakingly stupid decision to invade and occupy.

 Especially with the underwhelming force we sent in.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/blind-into-baghdad/302860/

ridski said:

PVW said:

STANV said:

There was Bush's invasion of Iraq over WMDs

"When Clinton lied, no one died".

Far more have died as a result of Trump's lies about COVID 19 than even died from Bush and Cheney's lies.

 Even if Bush's claims had been accurate, invading Iraq was a stupid idea. It wasn't the lying the was the problem, it was the breathtakingly stupid decision to invade and occupy.

 Especially with the underwhelming force we sent in.

we sent in 175k troops. You think results would have been "better" (whatever that means) if we had sent more?

Don't forget, the Bushies were expecting to be greeted as liberators.

drummerboy said:

ridski said:

PVW said:

STANV said:

There was Bush's invasion of Iraq over WMDs

"When Clinton lied, no one died".

Far more have died as a result of Trump's lies about COVID 19 than even died from Bush and Cheney's lies.

 Even if Bush's claims had been accurate, invading Iraq was a stupid idea. It wasn't the lying the was the problem, it was the breathtakingly stupid decision to invade and occupy.

 Especially with the underwhelming force we sent in.

we sent in 175k troops. You think results would have been "better" (whatever that means) if we had sent more?

Don't forget, the Bushies were expecting to be greeted as liberators.

From the long article I posted:

The war games run by the Army and the Pentagon's joint staff had led to very high projected troop levels. The Army's recommendation was for an invasion force 400,000 strong, made up of as many Americans as necessary and as many allied troops as possible. "All the numbers we were coming up with were quite large," Thomas White, a retired general (and former Enron executive) who was the Secretary of the Army during the war, told me recently. But Rumsfeld's idea of the right force size was more like 75,000. The Army and the military's joint leadership moderated their requests in putting together the TPFDD, but Rumsfeld began challenging the force numbers in detail. When combat began, slightly more than 200,000 U.S. soldiers were massed around Iraq.

Who knows if even 400,000 would have been enough, but that estimate at least began acknowledging the enormity of what they were trying to do. Going in with half that amount? Arrogance and naivete.

Seems to me that no number of troops would have been enough for a war run by those clowns.

Douglas Feith?

In response to the allegedly poor work of Feith's Office of Special Plans, General Tommy Franks, who led both the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq War called Feith "the dumbest f***ing guy on the planet".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_J._Feith

drummerboy said:

we sent in 175k troops. You think results would have been "better" (whatever that means) if we had sent more?

Don't forget, the Bushies were expecting to be greeted as liberators.

 Not "better". But As I've mentioned many times before, if you're going to choose to invade a country, you do it right and with overwhelming forces. It was only one of a thousand mistakes the Bush Admin made in that regard.

drummerboy said:

Seems to me that no number of troops would have been enough for a war run by those clowns.

Douglas Feith?

In response to the allegedly poor work of Feith's Office of Special Plans, General Tommy Franks, who led both the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq War called Feith "the dumbest f***ing guy on the planet".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_J._Feith

I still don't fully understand what they thought was going to happen. We still have troops in South Korea because whatever it was we thought we were doing back in the 1950s was only partially successful -- and North Korea is an isolated country on a peninsula. In what universe were we going to go in to a country smack in the middle of southwestern Asia, knock over a government, and see it magically turn into a stable American ally with few or no ongoing military commitments from the US?