Donald Trump

Trump: The Art of the Lie

PolitiFact rates 76 percent of Trump's statements as lies

|

DonaldTrumpGageSkidmoreWikimediaCommons
Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Donald Trump is a liar. He doesn't shade the truth; he mercilessly murders it in plain sight. As I have argued earlier, Trump has enthusiastically embraced and practices Adolf Hitler's notion of the Big Lie:

…the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

Yes, Trump knows that even when he is proven a liar that his lies will continue to reverberate in the minds of the electorate. This what Boston University political scientist Emily Thorson calls "belief echoes." As Thorson explains:

The omnipresence of political misinformation in the today's media environment raises serious concerns about citizens' ability make fully informed decisions. In response to these concerns, the last few years have seen a renewed commitment to journalistic and institutional fact-checking. The assumption of these efforts is that successfully correcting misinformation will prevent it from affecting citizens' attitudes. However, through a series of experiments, I find that exposure to a piece of negative political information persists in shaping attitudes even after the information has been successfully discredited. A correction—even when it is fully believed—does not eliminate the effects of misinformation on attitudes. These lingering attitudinal effects, which I call "belief echoes," are created even when the misinformation is corrected immediately, arguably the gold standard of journalistic fact-checking. …

The existence of belief echoes provide an enormous incentive for politicians to strategically spread false information with the goal of shaping public opinion on key issues.

Strategically spread false information = lies. How much does Trump lie? Constantly and continuously. In his terrific "Lord of the Lies," column in todays' New York Times TImothy Egan totes up the statistics on Trump's lies. Read it and weep:

Professional truth-seekers have never seen anything like Trump, surely the most compulsive liar to seek high office. To date, the nonpartisan PolitiFact has rated 76 percent of his statements lies — 57 percent false or mostly false, and another 19 percent "Pants on Fire" fabrications. Only 2 percent — 2 percent! — of his assertions were rated true, and another 6 percent mostly true. Hillary Clinton, who is not exactly known for fealty to the facts, had a 28 percent total lie score, including a mere 1 percent Pants on Fire.

The Washington Post's Fact Checker has dinged Trump with 30 of its Four Pinocchio ratings — lying 70 percent of the time. Trump cares so little about the truth that when the Fact Checker reaches out to him for an explanation, he never responds, the paper noted.

TrumpLiesPolitiFact
PolitiFact

See Reason TV's disturbingly insightful and prescient interview with Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams discussing Trump's skill with "Linguistic Kill Shots" below:

NEXT: 'Hate Speech Is the Secular Equivalent of Blasphemy' & Other Truths

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. So, a lefty Dem Op outlet says Trump lies a lot. You’ll excuse me if I don’t take this at face value.

    First off, there’s a methodology issue – are they counting opinions they disagree with as lies? How do they define the kinds of factual statements that can even be lies?

    Secondly, what’s their percentage of lies by Hillary? If its not north of 50%, Ima say this is another partisan hit job destined for the memory hole after it does its bit to shore up confirmation bias and prejudice amongst the faithful.

    1. RCD: Can’t hurt for you to check out the PolitiFact site and see if you think that they’re the ones telling lies, could it?

      1. See below, Ron. Their very first entry under “False” is bullshit. And, for funsies, lets look at “Pants on Fire.” Second entry:

        “I wanted to keep it private, because I don’t think it’s anybody’s business if I want to send money to the vets.”

        Politifact’s response: He could have kept quiet, but didn’t.

        There’s two statements there, both relating to Trump’s internal state of mind or beliefs. Are they saying he doesn’t believe its anybody else’s business, or that he didn’t want to keep it private? The context is this:

        Trump scheduled the May 31 press conference after journalists, led by the Washington Post’s David Farenthold, asked questions about how much of the $6 million from the Iowa event had actually reached veterans charities over the next few months.

        So, he was responding to questions from journalists. That is 100% consistent with saying that he would prefer to keep it private, you know. But, faced with a direct question, he responded.

        Jeebus, Ron, this is weak sauce. Continuing down the “Pants on Fire” category, we say a mixture of outright falsities and things that are not quite so clear as Politifact would have you believe.

        1. BUT THEY USE NUMBERS, RC = ITS SCIENTISTIC

          1. What do you know? Are you a scientician?

        2. RCD: With respect, do you really think that Trump is not an unusually enthusiastic liar?

          1. Of course he is.

            But what Politifact does seriously misrepresents when he lies and when he doesn’t. They are “non-partisan” only for certain, very narrow values of the term (that is, they don’t explicitly state their partisanship).

          2. With respect = is “enthusiastic lying” not a reasonable definition of modern political campaigning?

            1. With respect = is “enthusiastic lying” not a reasonable definition of modern political campaigning?

              Ok, so I’m not the only one missing the ‘unusual’ part there.

          3. Ron Bailey: With respect, do you think Gary Johnson is a bigger liar than Hillary Clinton?

          4. Ron, you valiantly cover climate change liars all the time.

            Lying is the rule and not the exception, no?

          5. Ron,

            With respect, if he is such an enthusiastic liar, why do you have such a hard time coming up with real examples and instead rely on the junk examples that Politifact give?

            Further, given your known dislike for Trump and the subjective nature of a lot of political “facts”, how is your contention not just a reflections of your views and the confirmation bias that goes with them? Sure, someone saying Trump is truthful can be guilty of the same. it is almost as if the truth is more complex than simple declarative judgements or something.

            1. it is almost as if the truth is more complex than simple declarative judgements or something.

              No, logic is simple. The problem is when people try to apply it to non-logical judgements.

              is A greater than B? that question has a definite logical result.

              is apple greater than banana? completely subjective and there is no defined result.

              1. That is a great way to put it Wylie.

          6. Not on the Clinton meter scale of liars.

            1. All I can think of is a rigged carnival game and a desire to call shenanigans.

          7. With respect, do you really think that Trump is not an unusually enthusiastic liar?

            We’ve had impeachment proceedings for 2 presidents for lying in the last half century, and the other major party candidate not only participated in the lies relating to one of those impeachments, but is currently embroiled in an FBI investigation for an unrelated and ongoing series of lies, not to be mistaken for the congressional investigation into yet another unrelated series of lies that are directly responsible for getting 4 people killed. So no, I wouldn’t say that Trump is an unusually enthusiastic liar. You’re an unusually vapid piece of shit though.

        3. “The context is this:

          Trump scheduled the May 31 press conference after journalists, led by the Washington Post’s David Farenthold, asked questions about how much of the $6 million from the Iowa event had actually reached veterans charities over the next few months.”

          But that’s not the context. They give several examples below that, both in person and on twitter, of him bragging about how much he gave. Oh yeah, and a link to http://www.donaldtrumpforvets.com , which seems like the opposite of keeping his support for Vets quiet to me.

          But hey, I could just be brainwashed by that “partisan hit job.”

          1. Fuck off with the dead thread-fucking, Eric, trolling is so last year.

      2. Ron, the problem I have with that site is their lack of understanding of rhetorical tools. They don’t understand nuance and have no grasp of hyperbole and exaggeration to prove a point.

        That being said, trump is a liar. (Is it lying if you believe yourself because you are at that level of ignorance?)

      3. Trump certainly lies plenty. But Politifact’s ratings transparently reflect their political biases.

        Even if I am open to the idea that literally every Democratic candidate is more truthful than literally every Republican candidate, a quick dig into their articles quickly assuages that notion.

      4. Now, this is just sad. I used to have respect for Ron as a writer, butt hen a goddamn SCIENCE writer posts a story quoting the kind of bullshit methodology I wouldn’t let an undergrad get away with — and then goes defensive and all superior when called on it.

        Counting up the subjective ratings given by biased editors to cherry-picked statements is a valid way to generate statistics? Really? Politifact doesn’t randomize statement selection in any way: editors pick and rate whatever they want. Then, these cherry picked statements are subjected to a completely subjective rating system (do you think they might rate politicians they don’t like more severely than others, i.e. give Hillary a “Mostly False” and a rationalization for the same kind of statement they’d give somebody else a “Pants on Fire” for? They wouldn’t? Not even subconsciously?) Remember, writers at Politifact are free to explain away or “put in context” statements they like, and treat statements they don’t like without context and go for the least charitable interpretation they want.

        Then these subjective, non-random results are added up to create meaningless numbers to give the appearance of precision. Would you let a nutrition or climate change study get away with that? Then why drop all that skepticism to plug a political hit piece?

        Look, I know Trump lies like a rug. So does Hillary. That’s not relevant to the validity of the methodology. And this methodology is worthless.

        1. Politifact is itself an example of the Big Lie – the contextualization of so many of their judgement calls in deciding if something is “true” or “false” when really all they’re saying is “yeah, but what about…?” is just disgusting.

          1. Trump may have met his match in the Clintons in the brazen liar department, but it’s like I said elsewhere: Hiding in the shadows looks suspicious so if you’re going to run a scam you go big and bold because people are going to doubt their own judgement when you’re so open about what you’re doing. Case in point – Hillary’s server. She never tried hiding the fact that she was using her own server, all her e-mails had the domain on them, everybody knew where they were coming from. Now if she thought there was something wrong with using a private server, wouldn’t she have tried hiding it? No, she would not. If you’re going to be screwing a goat you don’t hide behind the barn where anybody who catches you knows you’re trying to hide what you’re doing, you screw the goat in the middle of town in broad daylight. Everybody can see you, but everybody knows if they were screwing a goat they wouldn’t be doing it in the town square in broad daylight so surely what they think they’re seeing isn’t really what’s going on. And if they do ask you if you’re screwing a goat, you just look them right in the eye and say, “If I was screwing a goat, do you seriously think I’d be stupid enough to be doing it in the town square in broad daylight?” and keep right on pumping away on that goat.

            1. Trump has screwed more goats than you could shake two sticks at and he’s screwing one right now.

              1. He screws goats like a dog.

                1. It really hurts the goat’s feelings when you’re thinking of another mammal during the act.

      5. Are there other times when you think, “I would like to have an informed opinion about this issue. Can’t hurt to read the conclusions of the 20 somethings at the Tampa Bay Times?”

        1. when i need an informed opinion I turn to youtube comments.

        2. Recall the Dutch 22 year old who just discovered rape is legal in Qatar.

          I can’t believe people under the age of 30 are allowed to have opinions.

    2. Not even close, I posted the link below. Looks like you’re correct.

    3. What is the percentage of Hillary’s statements that are lies? If you count the word salads she spews where she says nothing at all it is 100%. All of the dem issues from the war on women to global warming to gun control to ‘free markets are evil’ are either complete fabrications or outright lies. Anything else she says is to evade responsibility for the crimes she has committed. Essentially every word out of her mouth is designed to deceive; i.e. a lie.

      1. if we DONT count the word salad?

        /mathcheck

    4. The biggest lie is that PolitiFact is a non partisan fact checking entity rather than just another mouthpiece for liberal spin.

  2. 76% seems pretty low for a politician.

    1. Seriously? What’s the category-average?

      Also, you know what else is a “lie”? Politifact pretending that their methodology is scientific. Their hardest-hitting, 4-pinnochio “lies” are the things Trump refuses to clarify.

      And guess what? Everything he says is such an unspecific mush that it eventually falls into the “lie” category by virtue of his disinterest in greater specificity.

      Their scoring is far more based on what statements they choose to isolate and rate. Which is entirely at their discretion.

      And, just for the sake of example – more than half the statements which politifact chose to “rate” for Clinton?

      50% were ABOUT Donald Trump; 1 was in regards to ‘her reaction to the Inspector General report which contradicted dozens of statements she’d made about her email server’

      1. (the examples i took were “out of 16 statements from the month of may”)

      2. 1 was in regards to ‘her reaction to the Inspector General report which contradicted dozens of statements she’d made about her email server’

        WIthout digging into it, has Politifact rated everyone of those statements as False or Pants on Fire? If not, why not?

        1. Even if they did, if Politifact chooses to analyze 10 Hillary observations about Trump, and only one about email servers, But only chooses to analyze 1 Ted Cruz observation about Trump, and 10 about a more fungible issue, then it will appear as though Cruz is a bigger liar than Hillary.

          But comparing apples to apples, PolitiFact is far more likely to overlook imprecise language. In response to Gary Johnson’s declaration we are bankrupt, Politifact declared him a liar, since the country isn’t in bankruptcy court, which is absurd.

          Meanwhile, when Hillary Clinton claimed she released all of her emails, they claimed it was half true since she had released a portion of her emails. If she released a portion of her emails, it is a lie for her to claim she has released all of them. Her statement is empirically untruthful.

          Now, if they want to stick to the letter of the law, and call both claims false, fine. But they apply different standards based on their ideological proclivities.

          1. And don’t think for one second that this isn’t a specific and intentional strategy that they use. The lie is released to great fanfare, and when the lie is caught it’s either quietly corrected or they just gaslight the shit out of it.

            Republicans are factually wrong quite a bit, but at least they often have the fallback that they typically at least actually believe the things they say, they’re just incorrect. Leftists know damned well that what they’re saying is wrong, but they say it with the best of intentions to help us little folk because we’re just not smart enough to make the right decisions on truth alone.

            Leftist comedians and Amy Schumer in particular are masterful at this. They can say the most egregious things, completely aware that many of their minions will take it as an actual factual representation, then when they get called out about the lie, they say “oh, it’s satire, you can’t take it literally”, knowing full well that the initial impression of the lie will stick with their followers.

    2. Exactly.

      Curious, how many Pinuccio’s did Cankles get for her ‘ it’s the video stupid’ relating to Benghazi?

      1. They will tell you as soon as they finish counting.

  3. HILLURY IS TEH WORSER THO LIKE 99.8%

    1. G: The Times reports that Clinton lies 28 percent of the time. Why not check out the data at PolitiFact see if you disagree with their conclusions about Trump and Clinton?

      1. RONN WHYCUM YOU AKS GILMUR TO READ THEM WEBSITS

      2. MATH IS A TRICK USED BY TEH JERNALISTS TO TRY’N TRICK PEEPLE

      3. *apologies – Ron, this is what the kiddies these days call “A Meme”. The ‘all-caps yokel-retort’

        1. delete yer account

      4. Vote Hillary: 28% less lies!

      5. If they could just point out one time that Hillary has ever told the truth, I will be shocked. I seriously do not think the woman has ever told the truth in her entire life, at least not intentionally.

        1. ^This

          I challenge anyone to do so.

        2. Hillary is too busy dodging sniper bullits to worry about little things like truth and such.

          Hoi poi just doesn’t understand that it is important to look good in a $12.5K jacket when pontificating about issues dear to her heart like income inequality and minimum wage.

          1. “You’re saying I can dodge bullets?”

            “No, Hillary, I’m saying, when you’re ready, you won’t HAVE to.”

    2. YOU SOM KINDA FAG USIN NUMMERS AN DESAMUL POINTS!!

  4. Let’s just take the first entry under “False”.

    We’ve broken “by millions” the all-time record for votes in a GOP presidential primary election.

    He did get 1.4 million more votes than any other GOP candidate.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.co…..d-fashion/

    The “we” is also ambiguous. Could refer to the total Republican turnout, which was indeed millions more than it has ever been.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.co…..r_the_fall

    So, to call that statement “false” is, by my reckoning, wrong. Its either completely right (total turnout), or a slight exaggeration (“millions” v 1.4 million).

  5. Indistinguishable from Clinton in other words.
    When are people going to realize that there are no good guys?
    Both candidates are representatives of the absolute worst of the human species.
    Both are habitual violators of truth and all things good.
    Sufficiently bad things cannot happen to either of them, no matter how hard reality tries.
    There are no good guys in politics.

    1. SK: I hear you. Nevertheless, I am voting Johnson/Weld this year. Already made my first donation to their campaign.

      1. When you say ‘donation’ you mean in dollars and not orphans, right?

        1. I think he means this article.

      2. Even though Gary Johnson is a bigger liar than Hillary Clinton (apparently)?

      3. Because Obama isn’t running again?

  6. Beyond the issue of whether PolitiFact is biased, it is meaningless to compare it’s stats for Trump and Clinton since it doesn’t have sampling or coding procedures suited for the purpose.

    1. *its stats. Stupid phone.

  7. And while we’re Godwinning one candidate for using “the Big Lie” technique, I find it hard to believe the other major party candidate isn’t an equally enthusiastic practitioner, at a minimum.

    I’m wondering if Reason, or Ron, has an article in the works Godwinning Hillary?

    1. Godwinning Hillary is Judge Nap’s job – “Her emails exposed the secret drone program over Afghanistan which put American lives at stake! She might as well be lining us up for ‘showers’! Why do I end all sentences with an exclamation point?!”

  8. Yes Trump is a liar but his fatal mistake is that he fails to take Hitler’s advice: “Half measures availed us nothing.” He keeps saying things like “X is raping us. But we love X. Some of my best friends are X.” (Where X is muslims, immigrants, chinese, etc.) You can’t win that way. You have to pick one enemy and scapegoat it completely. Trump hasn’t zeroed in and at this point he can’t – he’s painted himself out of all the corners and sides and now is stuck in the middle. It will be fun to watch as his support fizzles. You could see it at his speech yesterday at the Christian conservative group – he got completely frazzled after the disruptions and it will only get much worse. Just a few good people can put a monkey wrench into the best laid plans of the wicked.

    1. Enough with the fricken Hitler already.

      Has Trump published his version of Mein Kempf? Some dope was advising people to read about the Kristallnacht to explain what Trump is up to.

      People today can’t even apply appropriate historical analogies properly mostly because they like shiny toys.

      That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it.

      1. Trump = (Hitler+Mussolini)^2

      2. As some who wants to see Trump win the election, I hope the keep up the Hitler talk. It just makes Trump’s critics look ridiculous and him more reasonable. If the entire major media were on his payroll, I am not sure they would act any differently.

      3. The Hitler talk is part and parcel of Trump’s popularity.

        People who urge others to read about Kristallnacht as it pertains to this or that politician should heed their own advice.

  9. A Poltifact search for “Hillary Benghazi” shows that they never even rated this statement:

    Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.

    A statement made the day after the attack. Who are these “some”? Did they actually justify the attack by reference to the video before she made this statement? On a quick Google, I can’t find anybody who isn’t an administration mouthpiece blaming the video before they did.

    And was it even a protest? I thought we were pretty clear that it was no such thing, but was an armed assault from the get-go.

    Yeah, this is a totally non-partisan, objective operation.

    1. Sorry, she was referring to the Cairo protest, and not characterizing Benghazi as a protest in this statement (although others did, and maybe she did as well).

  10. Umm…

    Hillary gets much higher rating for truth telling

    Yikes. There went any possibility of these guys being unbiased right out the fucking window. I guess HuffPo and New Republic are unbiased too.

  11. This handy graphic provides some insight into how Politifact sees the universe

    1. That looks very scholarly and well-researched (places arrow to appropriate place on truth-o-meter)

      1. very scholarly and well-researched

        its not meant to be. You can find examples in any random sampling from their output, where the same type of prevarication is treated wildly differently depending on the political party.

    2. It is non partisan Gilmore. They said so. Isn’t that good enough for you?

    3. Aaron looks like he just ate a Tweety bird.

  12. That is great. Of course politifact, the Washington Post and the New York Times are known liars with a long track record of lying and always lying for the benefit of the left. So, how is one supposed to make a judgement when a known liar calls someone a liar? Certainly it is possible for a liar to tell the truth but there is no reason to think they are.

    Politifact “non partisan”? Yeah Ron, big lies are a problem in this country. You got that right.

  13. The omnipresence of political misinformation in the today’s media environment raises serious concerns about citizens’ ability make fully informed decisions. In response to these concerns, the last few years have seen a renewed commitment to journalistic and institutional fact-checking.

    I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Emily Thorston is a moron. The problem is that politics is not science. It is all about perception and value judgements. Both sides of a political debate are necessarily interpreting and spinning the information available to support their side. That is what politics is. It is therefore very difficult to attach levels of truthfulness to either side. When someone does try to do that, the entire exercise becomes a rationalization for their particular point of view.

    Ron Bailey, being a science reporter, should of all people understand what fake science the stuff that people like Thorton practice. Politics is more than anything a class between people with different values and views on the meaning of the facts. Therefore, everything is a “lie” when viewed through the lens of the opposing side.

    1. Ron Bailey, being a … reporter, should … understand …

      nah

      1. Yeah. Good catch on that one. I am not sure how I typed that with a straight face.

  14. I consider Trump to be, shall we say, “consistently wrong”. Wrong about very nearly every single topic he addresses.

    But “wrong” not same as “lying”. Unless you are a True Believer, and equate difference of opinion with heresy.

    1. Exactly that Brooks. I don’t understand why people can’t be content with just saying someone is wrong and seem to always want to draw a moral dimension where none exists.

  15. Why Politifact is a bullshit partisan site, in one entry.

    They rated this Mitt Romney statement as a lie: “Right now, the (Congressional Budget Office) says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year.”

    Note that the CBO did say this, and Romney did say “up to,” but they rated it as a lie because it was the highest estimate and thus “cherry-picked”! Since when does quoting a high estimate, prefaced by “up to,” count as “cherry-picking? Does Politifact apply the same reasoning to global warming scenarios? I doubt it.

    1. Yeah, you have to be pretty deep in the Beltway Bubble of Epistemic Closure to retail the idea that Poltifact is “non-partisan”.

      1. Just about all of those so-called “fact checking” entities were created by liberal organizations.

        It is really nothing more than another propaganda tactic to advance leftist ideas and politicians and peddle the BS claim of leftists that reality has a liberal bias.

        There is no proof that these self appointed “fact checkers” are actually any authority on the facts. Their attempt to create a veneer of objectivity is merely part of the spin.

  16. One of the things Trump has going for him is his brazenness. After years of subtle, sophisticated, carefully-crafted lying by politicians, that’s sort of refreshing to lots of people.

  17. In his terrific “Lord of the Lies,” column in todays’ New York Times TImothy Egan

    Seriously, Ron? Egan?

    Speaking of consistently wrong; the guy’s a drooling imbecile.

  18. When they’re that laughably ridiculous, are they even lies or just nonsense? But I’m pretty sure Donald Trump seriously does believe he’s the greatest human being who’s ever lived.

    1. Possibly, but somehow he’s less scary than Hillary. A liar, con artist, and pragmatist who likes traditional America is less of a threat than a power-hungry idealist who wants to make America more like Denmark but will actually make it more like Latin America.

  19. Donald Trump will besmirch and demean the Office of the Presidency with conflicts of interest arising from his grubby profit-seeking business background,, but having the Clinton Foundation using the Oval Office as a satellite business office is perfectly legit.

  20. Luntz found what he termed a willingness of Trump supporters to live in “an alternative universe” in which any attempt by the media to point out inconsistencies in Trump’s record or position was seen as a politically motivated conspiracy.

    “When the media challenges the veracity of his statements, you take his side,” Luntz asked of his focus group. Only one person sat quietly, her hands in her lap, as 28 other arms shot up in agreement.

    The other interpretation of this is that Journalists themselves live in an alternate universe where they think their blatant bias doesn’t actually *show*…. and they think that Trump supporters are all ignorant rubes… rather than people who simply *don’t care* about Trump’s flaws, and are voting for him/supporting him because they hate the establishment political class, and the media, who both think their authority is granted to them by their inherent virtue and wisdom.

    1. Yup. And I’m sure Luntz would get the same results from Obama or Hillary supporters if he confronted them with their inconsistencies and lies.

    2. The logic of that post isn’t even internally consistent. Let’s check the bio

      Over 30 years of experience as a counselor, family therapist and nonprofit executive honed my skills as an original thinker who looks beneath the surface and challenges conventional wisdom. What began as an avocation 8 years ago when I started writing about politics at my blog Horizons, has become a vocation now that I have joined the staff at The Washington Monthly.

      That’s damn close to Peak Cat Lady.

      1. This is from her Horizons bio: “I’m a pragmatic progressive whose writing is influenced by a long journey out of conservative Christian fundamentalism, as well as my professional experience as a family therapist and nonprofit executive.”

        What’s a pragmatic progressive?

        1. One who lies about their true beliefs and goals in order to sucker useful idiots?

  21. Stop with the Trump and Hillary. Write about Johnson and Weld and do America a favor

  22. To date, the nonpartisan PolitiFact…
    The Washington Post’s Fact Checker…

    Thus endeth Ron Bailey’s credibility.
    R.I.P.

    I guess there were numbers in this bit of pants shitting hysteria about Trump, so they didn’t think Shika, The Hair, or Suderman were up to it. Sad to see Bailey go down the toilet with them.

    Note that Bailey hasn’t identified even a single white lie of Trump’s in his article. This is rather par for the course with Trump critics. No one actually makes arguments against him. It’s hysterical hyperventilating all the way down.

    See Mexican judge incident for details. Find me a single article that actually *argues* that the judge isn’t biased against Trump. Not gonna happen. Because the rational inference based on available data is that he is biased against Trump. The rational inference based *only on* his Mexican heritage and available statistical data about Mexican Americans is that he is biased against Trump. It’s trivially true. And we all know it. Indeed, Trump haters have been loudly proclaiming that Mexican Americans hate Trump all year. But if Trump says it about one Mexican American – Racist! Hitler! Nazi!

    1. ” Because the rational inference based on available data is that he is biased against Trump.”

      Trump’s gotta come up with something better than that if he wants this thing to fly. Trump is not the first man to come up against a judge who finds him contemptible. Why should his celebrity status entitle him to treatment any different than the rest of us?

  23. Politifact is an oddball source and uses strange methodology to measure “lies”. I won’t add to what others have said, but when the “lie of the year” was a facebook post about death panels made by some celebrity when stacked directly against the POTUS’s “you can keep that”, Politifact’s ability to gauge lies is pretty suspect.

    1. they did call “you can keep your plan” 2013’s lie of the year

      http://www.politifact.com/trut…..-lie-year/

      it was during the 2012 election season that they decided Obama spoke no falsehoods

      they rediscover ‘objectivity’ when it has no cost

  24. Did Politifact rate whether Trump accepted any money from foreign governments while he was the Secretary of State?

  25. I suspect the biggest lie is that Trump wants to be president.

  26. Most of this has already been said, but I’m gonna say my piece anyway.

    As to the Big Lie, the Clintons have been living this life since they hit the national stage. The first issue I remember was the draft. Every two weeks there was a new revelation that completely contradicted the prior version of events given by the Clinton campaign and Stephanopolis. And every single time they would say “this is old news. We’ve always known this… this is just a republican conspiracy.” And the major news outlets would parrot that, even though they were the exact people that told me the prior version of events.

    Then there is the sex stuff. “I did not have sexual relations…” Doesn’t get much bigger than that.

    But there’s all the continuing stuff too. Like “Bill Clinton balanced the budget”. Not only did he not balance the budget, he sent his budget director out to all of the Sunday talking head shows to tell us that balancing the budget was a bad idea and was not one of the administration’s priorities – hoping to preempt congresses attempts at balancing the budget.

    Or the Rose Law Billing records that defied court orders to produce them…. then magically appeared the day after the statute of limitations ran out.

    Today we have the abysmal performance in the Bengazi hearings, etc., etc…

    Trump isn’t a rounding error on the Clinton’s big lie.

    1. In fact, I’m not even sure that Trump can form the mens rea required to perfect the big lie. His “lies” tend to be of the “wow, that was spectacularly wrong….. in fact, it was so far from right it might be “not even wrong”.

      And Politifact has not been acknowledged as a non-partisan outfit by anyone outside the progressive movement for many, many years. Pretty much since shortly after they hit the scene. But then all “fact check” articles are hopeless.

      I remember an NPR feature on Bush v. Gore that tackled their abortion stances. Purportedly a part of a series of independent, down the middle reviews of the candidates stances, this piece said that Bush caved to the religious right when he became pro-life and was pandering for political purposes. Two sentences later they say that Al Gore’s recent conversion to pro-choice was a sign that he is open to listening to arguments and changing his mind when the facts warrant. They then followed that piece – immediately – with a plea for donations that included commentary on the balanced nature of the piece and claims that they get complaints from both sides, so they must be fair.

      Trump is a blowhard, not a liar. The reason I draw the distinction is that I don’t think he’s bright enough to formulate a real lie. He sounds to me like he just makes up reality as he goes along, to fit the world to his ego. So he doesn’t so much lie as he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    2. ” the Clinton’s big lie.”

      That’s not a big lie. It’s a career of lies. No, two careers of lies. Told by a couple of lawyers no less. Lying is their bread and butter.

  27. Trump = Hitler

    E tu Ron?!

  28. Any thinking person can quickly see that the so-called “lies” Politifact claims are nothing more than more nutty lefty propaganda. Every “lie” listed is a matter of opinion, not fact. And the context of Trump’s statements is avoided. These are political tactics not truth-finding. This article is a blatant LIE!

  29. Trump lies plenty, but attaching a number to it for comparison with anyone else is useless. Making that number the one from Politifact is more useless, because that is entirely tied to what they choose to analyze, which is usually a function of what they get requests to analyze from (essentially) internet commenters.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.