Donald Trump

Tricky Trump: A Total Sleaze or Just Unbelievably Dishonest?

Donald Trump and the $6 million in contributions to veterans groups.

|

TrumpDreamstimeDanielRaustadt
Dreamstime: Daniel Raustadt

Yesterday, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican Party candidate for president, held a news conference where he spewed falsehoods and invective in response to questions from the press and the public about when donations to veterans he had promised earlier were collected and distributed. Way back in Iowa, a miffed Trump skipped a candidate forum sponsored by Fox News because he thought he'd been treated too roughly by its reporters in an earlier debate. Instead, he organized a January campaign rally as a fundraiser for veterans at which he declared $6 million had been contributed. Good for him had he done so, even despite his truculent cowardice in refusing to face Fox News reporters again. 

But had Trump actually raised that amount of money, and if so, to whom did it go? These are reasonable questions that many in the press and public were asking. It turns out that Trump either lied in January about the amount of money he raised at the time in Iowa, or alternatively, that he was quite lackadaisical about asking contributors to make good on their promises and distribute funds in a timely fashion.

Thanks to persistent efforts by reporters, the public now knows that Trump himself did not cut a check for his contribution of $1 million until May 24; only after a Washington Post interview that raised questions about his fundraising claims. As the Post further points out: "On the night of the [January Iowa] fundraiser, Trump said he "gave" $1 million of his own. Earlier this month, Trump's campaign manager said this money had already been distributed (though he would not say to whom). But this was false. Trump had not given the money."

As NPR notes, "At least $1.9 million of the donations to veterans groups that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reported on [yesterday] came in last week, after Trump began responding to intense media scrutiny of his earlier claims about raising in excess of $6 million for veterans."

Again, it's great that Trump finally fulfilled his fundraising promises to veterans, but it is certainly not unreasonable to wonder if he would have done so without media scrutiny. At the press conference yesterday, Trump said that he'd been reluctant to "take credit" for his philanthropy. Say what? Mentioning several times on the campaign trail in the hope of gaining votes that he'd raised $6 million for veterans is already taking credit.

At the press conference yesterday, Trump went after the news media, calling some reporters "unbelievably dishonest," "unfair," "nasty," and "a sleaze." Ever look in the mirror, Donald?

NEXT: A New Libertarian Moment?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ever look in the mirror, Donald?

    Round these parts, we call that projection.

  2. As NPR notes, “At least $1.9 million of the donations to veterans groups that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reported on [yesterday] came in last week, after Trump began responding to intense media scrutiny of his earlier claims about raising in excess of $6 million for veterans.”

    At least NPR is covering SOMETHING a politician has done that’s dishonest.

  3. “alternatively, that he was quite lackadaisical about asking contributors to make good on their promises and distribute funds in a timely fashion.”

    So, nothing.

    1. Nice handle, but I heard somewhere that you’re not Asian enough.

      1. It’s actually Da-Ni, but he was forced to Anglicize it because eurocentric patriarchy, or something.

  4. Yeah, Trump sucks. It’s important though that we vote for the sleazy, dishonest assholes in the Republican Party on the down ballot though. Those guys are ok.

    1. Since you’re a big fan of socialism then you have nothing against dishonest assholes as long as they lean left.

    2. They might be ok. I try to judge them individually.

        1. Um, everyone?

          1. No, I meant who do you think is worth a damn in the RP? I can’t find one I’d vote for.

            1. Not many frankly, and even they are often compromises. Or not in my area.

              I was really just saying that even though they may eventually prove to be risible, I give them the opportunity to prove it.

  5. Ron, if you could honestly say that you even had $1 million to do anything with, you’d know it takes a little time to collect it up. Sad!

    1. Bailey probably buys off the rack. I doubt he has a single bespoke suit.
      Cheap!

    2. It doesn’t take that much time and with a net worth of $4b he should have close to $1m in cash reserves.

      1. Look who doesn’t know anything about wealth management. You know what happens when you have cash just lying around?

      2. SKR has no class. I was talking to some very good people the other day…I know the best people, and SKR doesn’t even want America to be great. That’s why he won’t say radical Muslim. I’m going to have the best, some of my friends are Muslim, but SKR is just, sleazy, that’s what people are saying.

  6. Et tu, Bailey?

    Goddamn, must be a mandate that every Reason writer pen an anti-Trump diatribe.

    1. I suspect that Bailey just really doesn’t like Trump.

    2. Care to critique on the article on the merits rather than just bitch about Bailey being mean to your dear leader?

      1. Care to critique on the article on the merits rather than just bitch about Bailey being mean to your dear leader?

        Seems like much ado about nothing. Either Trump’s following through on dispersing said donation money to vet orgs, or he isn’t. Apparently he’s indeed doing the former (not that there was ever legit doubt otherwise). So this just looks like irrational persecutory hair-splitting on Bailey’s part.

        If he’s miffed about the way Trump talked to the press, I suppose that’s a different issue. I see the press largely as an enemy of the public which operates as a propaganda arm for vested political interests. So I can’t really empathize with whatever misplaced sense of indignation one might feel in response to them being called out for the lowlifes they are.

    3. YOU SHUT UP THEY CALLED HILLARY “HAUGHTY” DINDT THEY HUH? NOW WE CAN BALANCE THAT WITH 6 MONTHS OF TRUMPTICLES

      1. Mmmm….Trumpcicles….

      2. God, right-wingers who shill for Donald Trump on a libertarian website are the worst.

        1. Left-wingers who shill for Hillary/Bernie on a libertarian website are the best though, amirite?

          1. Yeah, I’m in the bag for Bernie because he opposed that fucking war in Iraq back when Reason mag was saying meh. Hillary? Not so much.

            1. BOOOOOOSH!!!!!!

        2. God, right-wingers who shill for Donald Trump on a libertarian website are the worst.

          Says the “american socialist” on a libertarian website.

    4. Dang, yesterday I wondered who would write “The Libertarian Case for Hillary”, now I realize the error of my ways.

      All the Reason writers are likely preparing their own versions of that story.

  7. A Total Sleaze or Just Unbelievably Dishonest?

    POR QUE NO LOS DOS?

    1. Because in English, “or” is commonly exclusive. As opposed to the inclusive “or” used in logic.

      1. Polish has XOR, there’s no reason we can’t either. If we can have “ze”, we can have “xor”.

        1. I don’t think people could handle it. I mean, just for fun I like to answer “or” questions with “Yes,” and some of the reactions are priceless. XOR is just not an American concept.

          1. These are the same people who are adamant that if you’re not “for Trump” then you’re “for Hillary” and vice versa. That they can’t wrap their heads around “yes” being a possible answer to an “or” question is not the least bit surprising.

            1. Or even “no” for that matter.

          2. If you want to be more precise, you should answer ‘true’.

  8. I’m sure the media will start asking questions about where the tens of million raked in by the Clinton Foundation go. How about all that aid to Haiti? My guess – you won’t hear a peep about it throughout the campaign.

    Trump’s claim to love/support veterans is obvious bullshit. The media is going out of their way to fact check one candidate, however. Trump is a snake oil salesman. Hillary is everything wrong with government. The media is really busy fact-checking this one, but heaven forbid they spent a little time digging on the shady donations accepted from foreign governments or the million dollar galas of Clinton.

    As for Trump, the dude is a draft dodger who made up a medical excuse not to go despite being a perfectly fit individual. But that’s an inconvenient attack point for many in the media who have used the Vietnam War as a pinnate over the years.

    1. I heard some slaves ran off plantations too. No respect for rule of law.

        1. So…the media thinks Vietnam is a feather? I’m so confused.

        2. Next post of substance you make around here will be a first, as far as I can tell, Heroic Mulatto. You can’t even make credible arguments on the few things you actually do take a stance on.

          1. Really? You’re that insecure that you take a comment that someone learned an interesting word via your probable phone’s autocorrect mix-up as a personal attack?

            Really?

            1. THIS HERE NIGGER FAGGOT DONT NO SHIT ABOT LIGNUISTIX AN SHIT

              1. I know enough about pragmatic language impairment to know not to engage in paronomasia with that guy again.

                And let’s be fair, he’s not a racist. It’s my Jewish half he hates.

              2. *Half-nigger. I don’t prescribe to the one drop rule.

                The funny thing is I actually like Heroic Mulatto’s comments. There’s nothing personal to it. The all-cap nonsense you spew fails on all levels. The third-party references to you are far more entertaining than anything I’ve ever seen you add to this place.

                1. Come on, follow the yokel playbook. You call me a meathead, then you complain about ad homs, then you say I’m not substantive.

                2. Warty’s still bitter about a yokel being the lone person to escape his rape dungeon.

          2. No. I really just wonder what you add to any discussion you take part in besides links to random, mildly-amusing-at-best nonsense. You keep throwing around that word insecurity, as well. Notice that I simply respond cordially to people who make good-faith arguments. You, meanwhile, seem to lack any self-awareness.

            1. No. I really just wonder what you add to any discussion you take part in besides links to random, mildly-amusing-at-best nonsense. You keep throwing around that word insecurity, as well.

              A nice, yet risible attempt at cognitive framing.

              Notice that I simply respond cordially to people who make good-faith arguments.

              No you don’t. When calmly confronted with incontrovertible fact based on citation from empirically collected Arbitron data, you response was to hysterically shout it down with spit-flecked, angry screeds supported by no evidence at all. Which makes this latest “quasi-formal/Victorian politeness” conversational register combined with your “I’m the only serious man in the room” pose you’ve adopted even more hilarious. Every word you type just beclowns you even further.

              Now, if you feel there is no value in engaging me, then don’t. As this is the 3rd time you’ve proven yourself to be a pompous, self-righteous twat I shall no longer interact with you on these fora. That sounds like a win-win situation to me.

              1. I really missed it when I presented myself as the serious man in the room.

                You then call responses pointing out that Howard Stern is paid more on a subscriber radio service a screed as if I belligerently assaulted you. Now, someone who had self-awareness would probably go look at the conversation and take notice that there was one person throwing around insults there, and it wasn’t me.

                Now you accuse me of pomposity. Pot meets kettle sort of thing to me. But I look forward to you telling me what I really mean when I use a phrase next time around, and assuming that I’m completely unaware of Howard Stern’s actual ratings on Sirius XM despite being a listener for the better part of my life while dismissing empirical data contradictory of your preferred narrative.

                1. I really missed…blah, blah, blah

                  You’re mendaciousness is stunning, by every definition. What response can one muster to someone who literally points at “green” and calls it “red”?

                  despite being a listener for the better part of my life

                  So that’s what it was all about!

                  dismissing empirical data contradictory of your preferred narrative.

                  Empirical data that did not address the original premise of your argument; instead, merely buttressing your attempt to shift the goalposts from number of listeners to some sort of vague definition of overall popularity regardless or media or income.

                  But I look forward to you telling me what I really mean when I use a phrase next time around

                  You’ll be waiting a long time. So there is no confusion, I reiterate this thread is the last time I’ll deign to interact with you.

                  1. Top does not = big as you tried to equate the last time you brought this up. More to the point, you never provided any reason for dismissing what the two were paid. You simply jumped immediately to calling me mendacious and throwing out other insults. You say it’s shifting the goal posts, but provide no explanation for why top draw equals biggest audience. It’s some arbitrary metric you chose.

                    More to the point, you continue to claim that you alone provided ’empirical’ data. As if what the two are paid for their services isn’t a form of empirical data.

                    You’ll be waiting a long time. So there is no confusion, I reiterate this thread is the last time I’ll deign to interact with you.

                    Fine by me. But I’ll just reiterate the obvious – the more wrong someone is, the easier it is to disprove them. You just want to pretend that you obviously and unequivocally won an argument the second you respond.

      1. You can pretend that draft dodging is some moral goal rather than self-preservation all you want. Young Donald Trump and Bill Clinton and other members of our political class didn’t dodge the draft out of some moral imperative. They did it because they were entitled little shits. Entitled little shits who have used the unpopularity of the war to get around admitting their own cowardice.

        Maybe some libertarians should learn there is a difference between principled rejection of the war/draft and excusing people who abused the system so others would serve in their place. Libertarianism is not an ideology for scoundrels to avoid consequences for their amoral/immoral actions.

        1. Self preservation is amoral? Dying for a war you don’t believe in and were forced into, is moral? I’m not actually sure what point you’re trying to make.

          1. FKKING DIE 4 UR CUNTRY U FAGGIT UNAMERKIN

            1. Can’t I just do a tweet for the troops or something?

          2. Self-preservation is neither amoral or immoral in itself. The motivating force of self-preservation can lead to things that various people can classify as good or bad.

            You pretend that the only options/outcomes available to conscientious objectors of the Vietnam War were death and lying. No, there were a range of other choices and potential outcomes. More over, you want to pretend that all draft dodgers in Vietnam were acting as conscientious objectors. You want to confuse very different issues. I would rather just point out that Trump doesn’t get to pretend to support veterans when he sent another young man off to fight in his place who very well may not have believed in the war, but lacked the means to get out of it. I would point out that Trump did nothing to help anyone else forced to fight the war. He drew no attention to the morality of the war, but then a generation later doesn’t even come out opposed to it. Trump’s position is still that he was physically unfit. No fault of his own.

            Your position is poorly thought out.

            1. I don’t pretend anything. It doesn’t matter the motivation for avoiding the draft. The draft is immoral. Draft dodgers didn’t send anyone in their place. The US government drafted someone else, because they don’t care who gets killed. No one owes any explanation for why they don’t want to be enslaved. Simple enough to follow?

            2. I would rather just point out that Trump doesn’t get to pretend to support veterans when he sent another young man off to fight in his place

              So not getting drafted is…taking, eh?

            3. The US government sent someone else. Trump was well aware of what would happen when he made his choice, and he obviously wasn’t bothered enough by that to influence his actions. I didn’t call it immoral – hence the amoral aspect.

              That still wouldn’t explain Trump’s current behavior and refusal to admit why he got that waiver. So, you are still confusing opposition to the draft to some morality you want to assign to dodging the draft. I don’t know how else to interpret your questioning my use of amoral.

              Some veteran Trump claims to support filled that draft slot. Period. He is then on record mocking a vet who was tortured. But you want to pretend that’s not grounds to attack him because you have some kneejerk reaction to this subject.

              1. Or Trump being an asshole and the draft are really two different subjects you are desperate to conflate.

                1. Staying alive is nothing more than human habit. It’s not moral or immoral. You can’t label it one way or the other without in turn justifying why the alternative isn’t true. I’m not mocking Trump for wanting to stay alive. I’m mocking Trump for continuing to push the narrative that he had no choice in the matter as the doctors ruled him ineligible. Now, none of you have responded to the difference there. You want to focus on the subject of the draft.

                  If Trump had principled opposition to the war, then why does he avoid making that argument now? Why does he pretend to have had a legitimate medical reason for not going? Why does it bother you so much to acknowledge that maybe everyone who dodged Vietnam didn’t do so for pure reasons?

                  If you conflate doing the right thing with the path that presents the least path of resistance, you guys have a point. I don’t think most people do that. There’s no libertarian grounds to attack Trump for dodging the draft. That isn’t to say that Trump’s behavior isn’t immoral.

              2. So, you are still confusing opposition to the draft to some morality you want to assign to dodging the draft. staying alive. FTFY

                1. The urge to stay alive is neither moral nor immoral. Law does not legislate morality. Acknowledging Trumps right to stay alive does not mean I have to endorse every action he took in doing so as a man.

                  If someone watched as a woman was raped out of fear for their life, I could both simultaneously argue against a law demanding their intervention and argue that they are a pathetic piece of shit. This isn’t an analogy to draft dodging itself, but to point out the ridiculousness of claiming that wanting to survive is in someway inherently moral. Morality isn’t the law, and judging one does not mean I’m judging the other.

                  Trump would be fine in my book for dodging the draft if not for his current stance and make-believe tough guy bullshit.

          3. I think that actually is his point. I dunno. He’s trying too hard to write like he thinks smart people write, so his writing suffers in clarity. But I think it’s basically what Los Doyers said, plus some thesaurus overuse.

            1. Well, it should be incredibly easy to debunk the argument, then, Warty. But you would never deign to do that, would you? Best to just stick to your poor attempts at all-caps yokel satire.

              Opposition to the Vietnam War/intervention has nothing to do with judging draft dodgers. And Trump in no way owns that he dodged the draft. He continues to play a public tough-guy role while pretending that some minor medical infliction prevented him from going. As if there were thorough medical screenings at the time.

              What’s funnier is you guys attacking me on a point where I’m mocking Trump.

              1. I’m attacking your non sequitur about draft dodging. Trump has plenty of other faults to attack. Self preservation and avoiding a quagmire are not the best points to attack. My personal favorite thing to attack him about is the way he can’t put together a coherent sentence.

              2. It should be incredibly easy to debunk an argument that I can’t parse? Is that really what you’re saying? For fuck’s sake, kiddo. Think harder.

                1. Warty, you just aren’t that bright. Yet, you try to pass off your safe, cosmotarian inclinations as the equivalent of intelligence. You are as close to a libertarian SJW as I’ve encountered. Others have said the same, so perhaps now you can accuse me of resorting to the yokel playbook you referenced above. You can’t really refute the point that you prefer to attack the person rather than the argument. It’s actually possible to do both, as well, so you really have no excuse. You’re just a mental midget.

                  1. Warty, you just aren’t that bright.

                    THERE IT IS

                    Tell me more about how much smarter than me you are. Please do.

                  2. Warty, you just aren’t that bright.

                    You’re just a mental midget.

                    Ummm….

                    That’s Dr Warty, to you.

                    1. That’s Dr Warty, to you.

                      Shhhhhhh. Let him think he’s smarter than me.

                    2. Well, now that he’s a doctor, it changes everything about what he brings to the table here. His all cap caricatures of people he disagrees with are brilliant! And I sure won’t question people with impressive titles anymore.

                    3. You may not agree with him. You may not find him funny.

                      But calling him stupid is simply ignorant.

              3. Brochettaward|6.1.16 @ 12:38PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                You can pretend that draft dodging is some moral goal rather than self-preservation all you want. Young Donald Trump and Bill Clinton and other members of our political class didn’t dodge the draft out of some moral imperative. They did it because they were entitled little shits. Entitled little shits who have used the unpopularity of the war to get around admitting their own cowardice.

                Maybe some libertarians should learn there is a difference between principled rejection of the war/draft and excusing people who abused the system so others would serve in their place. Libertarianism is not an ideology for scoundrels to avoid consequences for their amoral/immoral actions.

                I’m pretty sure this is what we’re attacking you on, because your comment sounds like a thinly veiled endorsement of war slavery, especially “You can pretend that draft dodging is some moral goal rather than self-preservation all you want.” I mean, isn’t not wanting to get killed a pretty strong moral imperative?

                1. Not wanting to get killed isn’t any moral imperative. Every human being having a right to life isn’t the same as making a moral judgement on the exercise of that right. Nor did I just attack Trump for dodging the draft. The point here is that Trump continues to deny what actually happened. At no point in time has Trump publicly acknowledged he could dodge said draft because of his family’s wealth. He does not admit he dodged anything, but claims that he had a legitimate medical reason for doing so while claiming to be a great athlete at the time and pushing a pro-troops tough guy persona.

                  1. So, you don’t know what a moral imperative is. And you are too arrogant to spend a few seconds trying to find out what it is in your need to spout off.

                    Interesting.

                    1. I fail to see how a desire to live in anyway equates to a moral imperative to do so. So, please explain it to me. Where is the moral imperative in Trump dodging the draft.

    2. Yes, I continue to wonder when the media and pundits will show equal curiosity regarding the Clinton Foundation.

    3. As I understand, Trump’s draft number never came up. Whether he made up the bone spurs or not makes no difference. Besides, as he points out in reaction to other complaints, he’s just using the law. It was congress that allowed college students to avoid the draft.

  9. Trump, Hillary… people already know that they’re liars. Powerful, wealthy liars who also said sweet words of succor. And no one lies all the time, surely.

    Liars are elected on the faintest hopes that this one time, they might have meant it.

  10. Trump, Hillary… people already know that they’re liars. Powerful, wealthy liars who also said sweet words of succor. And no one lies all the time, surely.

    Liars are elected on the faintest hopes that this one time, they might have meant it.

  11. DOJ fights order by federal judge for department lawyers to undergo ethic training.

    I can think of at least twenty who need a few lessons in ethics… and to revisit the Constitution.

  12. obviously far more grievous than the Crime Foundation donations that virtually no reporter is asking about. Yes, we know that Trump plays fast and loose with facts. Isn’t that why he’s running for office, since that’s the one profession where that ability is a requirement?

    1. WHYCOME REASON DONT NEVER TALK ABOUT CUNTIN AND HER FOUNDATIOn

      1. I hate reason so much, I come here everyday and read the articles!

      2. It’s always the same with the “hey look over there at what that asshole is doing… (not *my* preferred asshole)” people.

        1. you get that “trump of clinton?” can be answered with “no,” right?

        2. My asshole is pleasant and smells of baked bread.

          Your asshole has scabs and dingle-berries and smells of shame and despair.

      3. cs: You might take a look at this and this article in Reason in re Hillary Clinton. Just saying.

        1. totally balances out the Trumpathon, Ron. You don’t like him; got it. It’s not hard to come up with reasons to oppose him. But put together a list of articles on these two. I suspect they might look different.

          1. Are you such a pansy to the media that you are swayed by the number of articles that you read about a subject? Clinton is horrid but Trump is disastrous. Thus the discrepancy. You disagree? Start your own online mag where you can post a hundred articles explaining why and see if you can find any pansies to change the mind of. And let us know how that worked out for you.

            1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

              1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

            2. Not ‘swayed’ at all. Just noticing reality. And I never said Trump was wonderful so spare me the bullshit. I am hardly the first to notice Reason’s fixation on all the horribles that Trump might/maybe do, and perhaps he would. On the other side is a woman who embodies all that’s wrong with govt, with the track record to back it up. But that’s okay, miss the point and make shit up.

              1. “Just noticing” that Reason does more articles on the existential threat of Trump, compared to Hillary who is horrible but probably the country could survive? OK got it. Glad we can agree.

                1. Shriek derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Shriek is Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

                2. “existential threat”? Seriously? You may have just broken the Internet.

                  A blowhard is an existential threat; a woman who defies human nature by becoming even more horrible when given greater responsibility is something we can survive.

          2. I believe the burden for providing evidence lies on the challenger.

        2. Which one of those is an in-depth look at the Clinton Foundation, where the money comes from, under what circumstances, and where it goes? Because that was, I believe, what cs was making fun of.

        3. Wow, two pieces in a month and half!!

      4. Reason and most of the media don’t talk about the foundation. It was an obvious racketeering operation. It was treasonous. What’s more ridiculous is pretending that the anti-Trump vitriol stems from his lack of respect for the truth.

        Has any Reason writer called Clinton a liar yet? I mean, they talk about inaccurate or misstated facts. But they seem to dance around and dodge using the liar word at all costs. I see a lot of make-believe from the likes of Gillespie that they libertarianism is a centrist philosophy in the scope of American politics and that they can sway Democratic voters. It’s contradicted by the vast majority of articles they print.

        The cosmos who can’t construct arguments, and instead resort to hyperbolic-all-caps posts add nothing around here.

        1. As we used to say in grade school – BUSTED.

        2. THEM COSMO FAGS DONT WHUT BW NOT NO SRS ARGUMNTS

        3. Ron’s links above refer to Clinton as a liar multiple times. A search for Clinton and Lie produces multiple pages of results.

  13. Tricky Trump[/Clinton/Sanders]: A Total [fucking] Sleaze or Just Unbelievably [ugly and] Dishonest?

    Yes. They also smell funny.

  14. So? when is Reason gonna do a scornful expos? on the corruptive malfeasance of the Clinton Foundation, or speculate why Hillary got so much mystery $ giving ‘speeches’ to Goldman Sachs & other connected cronies? Even poor Bernie could never get an answer on that one.

    1. God, you bitch a lot.

    2. mfckr: See articles in my reply to cs above.

      1. Thanks, will do.

      2. Even in an article that disputes the NYT claiming Hillary is the most honest politician of our time, Ron feels compelled to add this: “So does that mean Hillary Clinton is the most dishonest major-party presidential candidate still in the 2016 race? I seriously doubt it; Donald Trump seems to have created brand new categories of WFT fabulism and chatbot-style misdirection.”

        So Hillary bad, but TRUMP must be EVEN WORSE!!!! Even an article allegedly exploring Hillary’s honesty issues contains an obligatory dig at TRUMP. Yet I’m sure noticing this double-standard somehow makes me a yokeltarian Trumpkin, even though I do not support Trump.

        1. Yet I’m sure noticing this double-standard somehow makes me a yokeltarian Trumpkin, even though I do not support Trump.

          You got it, Trumpkin.

          1. Thanks for proving my point, retard.

            1. Thanks for proving my point, retard.

              1. “Let us turn ours into a country of mushrooms by making mushroom cultivation scientific, intensive and industrialized!”

        2. Hillary’s been a known pathological liar for decades, so I perceive her as having the more fundamentally dishonest nature.

          She’d also tend to rule as a passive-aggressive totalitarian of the worst order.

    3. Something like this?
      https://reason.com/blog/2016/02…..-access-to
      or this? https://reason.com/archives/201…..lies-again

      What are you looking for?

  15. Bailey, does Suderman know you’re encroaching on his beat of mindless Trump concern-trolling?

    C’mon, you’re better than this.

  16. I’d rather see him not promise to ‘bomb the hell out of ISIS’ then we won’t get dragged into new wars and have lots more veterans to support.

  17. Trump University will be seen as a bigger scandal than anything Hillary has done and it will resonate with the multitudes of millennials with student loans from craptastic degrees.

    1. Funnily enough, the law firm that’s brought the case donated $675,000 to Hillary’s campaign.

      Also presiding judge Curiel is apparently a La Raza member, or some shit.

      1. Daddy said it, mfckr believes it and the rest of you can go to hell.

        1. Nah, came across it here I believe:

          http://lawnewz.com/high-profil…..-clintons/

          1. But Daddy believes it, right?

            1. Dunno, didn’t occur to me to ask my dad.

  18. Please remember to engage the vicious bullies in intellectual discourse interspersed with playful banter. This will keep you out of their crosshairs so they can focus their elaborate death fantasies on other victims. Another option is simply to stand back and say nothing in response to their vile insults, as long as it is directed at others, of course. Many victims of the Nazis and Bolsheviks did this and this strategy has been proven to extend the lives of many of them for several months, in some cases.

    1. I can already envision them descending upon some future Portlandia metropolis. In some glassy corporate high rise, xir is giving a presentation to xir’s gender fluid co-workers regarding a new line of artisanal shirazz for otherkin and organic kale enemas when the desks begin to shake. They look out upon the horizon?they’re coming? After a good long group cuddle cry they assemble a ten thousand strong twitter army for a candle light vigil protest / slut walk. There are no survivors.

      1. Hm… you forgot to call me ‘retard’. Are you feeling ok?

    2. Many victims of the Nazis and Bolsheviks did this and this strategy has been proven to extend the lives of many of them for several months, in some cases.

      Or, you could go the George Soros route and actively collaborate with the Nazis.

  19. Somehow all the pundits this year manage to be shocked — SHOCKED! that Trump is not squeaky clean and tries to hide his transgressions. What? Unlike every other politician ever?

    1. “They’re all sleazy cunts! So who cares?”

  20. So Bailey is mad because all the checks did not go out on day one. Fuck you Bailey it takes time to collect the money form those who make promises and maybe just maybe the Don was waiting for them to all come in so he’d know how much to cover himself. Reason’s TDS is getting worse by the day and if he wins will all your heads explode?

    1. Bailey doesn’t seem “mad,” he’s just doing his job in wondering why Trump lied his ass off instead of coming clean about the discrepancies.

      But keep whining about “[Insert Name Here] Derangement Syndrome” which is everyone’s favorite excuse when their candidate gets called out on something.

      1. yeah, he is not mad. He just called him either an unbelievable liar or a sleeze. Nothing angry about that.

  21. I watched the youtube video of the press conference to see what all the fuss was about.

    It seems reasonable to me that it took some time for the funds to be distributed. First, all the money was not collected on day 1 and it made sense to wait until most of it was in hand so he knew how much he had to distribute. Next, likely candidates for donation had to be searched out from the outfits calling themselves veteran’s charities. Finally, the candidates had to be checked out for proper paperwork with the IRS.

    Then, as far as timing, if I were a politician distributing charity money to veterans’ organizations, I would pick Memorial Day weekend to have my press conference announcing the gifts. I can’t believe anyone is surprised that he would wait for that weekend. Media pressure? Bullshit.

    And my heart bleeds not for the butthurt twits of the media who got called out for bias. Trump just said out loud what much of the country thinks of them. They could do with a bit of mirror looking themselves.

  22. I just had to watch the press conference – it did not disappoint. He calls a press conference specifically for the purpose of addressing the issue, gets up there and says some crap about how great he is and doesn’t say a single word about the issue. First question he gets is about the issue and he immediately goes off on the dishonest press but plays his “Aha!” card by mentioning that he knew somebody was going to be playing “gotcha” by bringing up this issue but he was too smart for them and came prepared with a list. (Of course, he’s got this phony drill sergeant that he “just totally accidentally” has up on stage that goes off on the press, too, but Trump’s so rattled that he makes the rookie mistake of repeatedly emphasizing that the guy’s totally not a plant instead of the more plausible casual lie about how the guy came to be there.) But the whole time, Trump’s berating the dishonest, unpatriotic, hater press who know full well how honest and transparent Trump’s been about this whole thing and how disgusting it is that they won’t take his word for it but insist on seeing the receipts. And nevermind the fact that the whole reason they’re not willing to just take his word for it is because they’ve been told several different incomplete stories about the money and where it went. But Trump’s in fine form twisting up some lie about how the press hates veterans and how dare they criticize him for raising a world-record 6 million dollars for charity.

    1. And the worst thing? Not one damn word about how I personally donated $20 million. Now, some people are so low that they would question my assertion that I donated $20 million, but c’mon – I’m the kind of guy who donated $20 million and you’re going to question me? How dare you! That’s just pathetic. That’s like questioning whether or not the Bible’s the inerrant word of God when it says right in the Bible it’s the inerrant word of God and how could it be the inerrant word of God if it weren’t the inerrant word of God? I said I donated $20 million and anybody that donated $20 million can be trusted to be honest about donating $20 million, so you can just go to hell.

  23. I’ve probably told this story before about my nephew: Back in the day he was dating this girl and things were pretty serious but he wanted to date this other girl so he did – and he got busted. So his girlfriend calls him up all pissed off and he’s trying his usual bullshit it’s not what you think, let me explain, that’s not what happened – and right in the middle of the conversation he hangs up on her. Waits a minute, calls her back and starts laying into her about how dare she hang up on him without giving him a chance to explain his side of the story and how hurt he is that she would think such things of him and how can he possibly trust her when she obviously doesn’t trust him and so on – and by the end of the conversation she’s apologizing to him about the whole “misunderstanding”. I was just like “holy shit, this is the most fucked-up awesome shit I’ve ever seen. My nephew is the fucking Anti-Christ.”

    And then there’s Donald Trump – gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and immediately starts attacking the sorts of dishonest low-life lying scumbag motherfuckers that would be watching the cookie jar just to see if they can catch somebody with their hand in it. And he fucking gets away with it! We are so fucking fucked if you people elect this guy Supreme High Overlord.

    1. I think your nephew dated my friend. Amazing what people can get away with without a conscience.

    2. Standard asshole negotiating tactics – flip the script, and put your opponent on the defensive. Because the best defense is a good offense.

  24. WHYCOME YOU REASON CUCK FAGS DONT TALK ABOT CLITON’S BAD STUF?

    /trumptard

    1. LOOKIT THIS HERE FAGGOT AND HIS AD HOMS HE NOT SMART AND SHIT

      1. So I hear you are a doctor. Good. I find I have need of some medical advice. I’ve got this pain in my rectum…

        1. I’ll refer you to my colleague Dr. Jesse…

  25. The newest thing is going after Trump for holding his campaign events in the Trump Tower lobby, which legally is a public space or some shit.

  26. I dont think Thumperdome is going to like that.

    http://www.Complete-Privacy.tk

  27. What a scumbag, raising 6mil for vets!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.