Hillary Clinton

Trump Trounces Clinton in the Lie Olympics

The Democrat's deceptions are tedious, while her opponent prevaricates with panache.

|

This fall Americans will decide what sort of liar they want as their president. Do they want a tiresome, hairsplitting, lawyerly liar, or a bold, flamboyant, spontaneous liar—the sort of liar who could keep surprising us even after years in office?

Last week Hillary Clinton gave us a preview of what life would be like with the first kind of prevaricator in chief. It was not fun.

In an interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Clinton doubled down on the devious defenses she has been offering since March 2015, when The New York Times revealed her use of an unsecured private email server as secretary of state. Last year, you may recall, she said there was no classified material in her electronic correspondence, or at least none that was classified at the time, or at least none that was marked as classified.

An FBI investigation found none of those statements was true. Yet when Wallace pointed that out, Clinton said FBI Director James Comey had in fact confirmed "my answers were truthful."

Given another chance to correct the record last Friday, Clinton repeated the same fallacious argument that earned her Four Pinocchios from Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler: Because she was not charged with lying to the FBI about her State Department emails, everything she told the public must have been true, even though it demonstrably was not. But Clinton also said she "may have short-circuited" her answer and suggested that "Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other."

To recap: After the email story broke, Clinton repeatedly offered assurances that turned out to be false. Then she said the FBI had validated those statements, which was also false. Then she falsely insisted her claim about the FBI was true, even while implying that it resulted from a misunderstanding—which also was not true, as anyone who watches the video or reads the transcript can see.

Untangling Clinton's lies is as tedious and unrewarding as untangling that unused mass of twine at the bottom of the tool drawer. When Donald Trump lies, by contrast, you really know you've been misled, and you have to be impressed by the sheer audacity of his mendacity.

This is a guy who asserts with a straight face that the "real" unemployment rate is not 5 percent but 42 percent and that President Obama plans to admit 200,000 refugees from Syria—20 times the actual number. This is a guy who promises to eliminate the $19 trillion national debt in eight years and to cut annual Medicare spending on prescription drugs, which totals $78 billion, by $300 billion.

This is a guy who repeatedly insists he saw "thousands" of Muslims in New Jersey openly celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center, despite a complete lack of evidence to support that claim, and denies that he mocked a newspaper reporter's physical disability, despite a video that shows him doing it. This is a guy who claims he always opposed the war in Iraq, despite a recording of him supporting it before the invasion.

"There's never been a presidential candidate like Donald Trump," writes Kessler, the Post fact checker, "someone so cavalier about the facts and so unwilling to ever admit error, even in the face of overwhelming evidence." And Kessler's list of Trump's whoppers does not even include the billionaire reality TV star's claim that he has read the Constitution, which seems quite unlikely given that Trump thinks that document has 12 articles, empowers judges to sign bills, authorizes presidents to rewrite libel law, and bans birthright citizenship.

According to a recent CNN survey, 66 percent of voters consider Clinton dishonest and untrustworthy, while 65 percent say the same of Trump. But those ratings do not capture the huge difference in entertainment value between the candidates. If you want a president who will not only prevaricate but prevaricate with panache, Trump beats Clinton hands down.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Paul Ryan Wins GOP Primary to Seek Tenth Term

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. She’s a witch I tell ya! I seen her castin spells from her serva!

    1. Eye of newt, and werewolf lard,
      Turn AddictionMyth into a fucking retard.

      1. It worked!

        1. also available in the latest edition of Magic For Dummies are spells for making water wet and turning the sky blue (though the latter only works during certain times of day).

      2. Pretty sure she wants to get her hands on more than just Newt’s eyes

      3. Aunt Clara ?

  2. For what it’s worth, I honestly do think it’s better to have a flagrant liar in power than a subtle liar, all other things being equal.

    1. I’d also prefer a liar who the media will investigate vs. a liar who the media won’t touch.

      1. no appreciation simply for having panache?

        President Panache 2016

        (use the phrase again, I dare you. it’s not that clever, except as my proposed band name, so knock it off)

    2. Is it just me, or is the subject matter of, and/or the reason for the lie not even more important?

      Trump grossly exaggerates. Sure that’s a lie, but that could just as easily be misquoting a statistic or figure, off the cuff, given the examples provided.

      Clinton lies about her criminal activity, and her potentially negligent or fraudulent actions.

      How is this even a discussion? Motive matters. Trump may be exaggerating to get elected, while Clinton is lying to stay out of jail and hide her disastrous reign as Secratary of State.

      I’m not a fan of Trump at all, but come on now. This comparison is ridiculous.

      1. I agree with you James, the motive matters.

        But we shouldn’t be picking a president based on their motives for lying, we should pick them (speaking as a libertarian) based on their policies to defend out freedoms. And how do you know their policies if they’re liars? You don’t!

        I even believe Trump really wants to make America great. But that doesn’t mean that’s what he’ll deliver. IMHO (since they’re liars and we really don’t know for sure) neither really defends our freedoms, nor will either of them be good for America. E.G., Trump wants to censor the internet (as does Clinton), he supports bailouts for the rich, he supports using eminent domain for the rich, and he’ll be treading on our freedoms when he starts penalizing companies for opening up shop overseas, or tries to force Mexico to build a wall by doing things to people in the US. And he’ll be working to prosecute the press for revealing government secrets. No thanks.

        I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson. To me, voting for Clinton or Trump is a vote for less prosperity.

  3. The “muslims cheering 9/11 in Jersey” item really ticks me off. I live in that area, and there were absolutely news reports, with video, on local TV of celebrations in Jersey. I saw it with my own eyes. Many locals saw the exact same thing. All the airbrushing from the MSM doesn’t change that fact. It’s disgusting to see history rewritten and all the supposed fact-checkers and supports of an independent free press should be ashamed of themselves for choosing to further a falsehood because it fits their political purpose. Disgusting.

    No, it wasn’t “thousands” and Trump is wrong on that. It was dozens. But, it is true that the reporting on local cheering often included broader coverage that also had the videos from Gaza where there were thousands. Trump’s mistaken, but he is not totally off base.

    1. He’s a candidate for president, not some guy talking about something. Why defend this? What was his point in saying it?

      1. What is your point in denying it?

        1. It’s Tony; he’s taken the gold in the lefty-lies competition many times.

      2. His point was that there are indeed Muslims in the US who celebrated on 9/11. They are a small minority of Muslims in the US, but they exist. And they are dangerously deluded and readily motivated by militant Muhammadism. It’s that simple.

        Of course, your ilk likes spin his mention of that fact into a narrative of Trump hating everybody who isn’t a cis-gendered white male patriarch.

        I loath Trump. But the simple facts about Trump are bad enough to make me loath him. I don’t have to concoct a bullshit caricature to buttress my loathing.

        1. To me it’s equivalent to Bush Derangement Syndrome. There was no call to attack him for being stupid and poorly spoken. He had enough policy issues that I disliked, and views that were incorrect that could be analyzed and discarded to attack him from that perspective. And honestly, one of the reasons I ended up voting for Bush in 2004 was the amount of lies and distortions the Democrats put out about him. The reason they don’t want to attack Trump’s policies is that a lot of the underlying assumptions are exactly the same for statist freaks of both parties.

        2. Exactly. He exaggerated the number, but he didn’t make the incident up out of whole cloth. Jersey City has long been a hotbed of Islamic radicalism, dating back to when the Blind Sheikh was preaching at a Jersey City mosque in the early ’90s. It makes perfect sense that there were some Muslims there who cheered the WTC attack.

          I’ve been saying your last point over and over again in the comments of Suderman’s hysterical Trump pieces – when there are a ton of serious policy grounds on which to attack Trump, why follow the Dem/media lead in harping on trite, silly remarks?

          1. he didn’t make the incident up out of whole cloth Server Sani-wipes

        3. I loath Trump. But the simple facts about Trump are bad enough to make me loath him. I don’t have to concoct a bullshit caricature to buttress my loathing.

          EXACTLY!!!!

      3. It is absolutely true that Muslims were celebrating in Jersey and thousands of local-news watching people can support this. But yet Trump is called a liar for saying he saw Muslims in Jersey cheering 9/11 on TV. that is BS

        His point in saying it? It was in a speech on immigration. His point was that even though we let Muslims into this country, they still hate us. This is the same speech where he proposed closing the borders to Muslims “until we figure out why they hate us”. It all meshes into the same topic….that we are blindly opening our doors to predators.

        Yeh, he’s over the top. yeh, feel free to disagree. Vote for Kodos or throw your vote away on a third party candidate. But he’s not lying and he’s not totally off-base. which is why this topic appeals to so many voters.

      4. What was Hillary’s point in lying about……..oh, forget it.

        Fuck off Tony.

    2. It’s disgusting to see history rewritten and all the supposed fact-checkers and supports of an independent free press should be ashamed of themselves for choosing to further a falsehood because it fits their political purpose. Disgusting.

      The main headline on cnn’s website right now is: “What Trump is Saying is Dangerous”.

      I’ve basically given up on the idea of “an independent free press”.

      1. thom,

        I wouldn’t put the ‘blame’ on the media.

        I’ll bet that CNN simply makes more money (perhaps not all directly from its viewers) when it’s biased. The same goes to most ‘news’ outfits.

        As long as the People have access to many sources of information, which they do, then CNN’s (or whoever) bias is probably an overblown ‘issue’.

        Now, trying to convince People that the idea of big government is a bad idea …. that’s a different story.

        1. ‘ll bet that CNN simply makes more money (perhaps not all directly from its viewers) when it’s biased.

          I doubt that. CNN is fighting for ratings in a smaller, crowded pool. They are doing this because they want to, not because it makes them money.

        2. You are absolutely right on the press. The problem is that they spend a significant amount of time arguing that they are unbiased and non-partisan.
          If they want to rake in the cash with 24/7 streaming double-plus goodspeak then more power to them, but don’t turn around and scream constantly “we’re fair! we’re unbiased! we speak truth to power!”.

        3. This would be a good point if people chose the profession of “journalist” to make money. They do it because they want to be in control of the story, to get their version of the truth out there.

    3. I thought the reports on TV were of Palestinians cheering.

      1. There was that too, but it happened with small groups throughout the Western world as well. Shoot, they didn’t so much as say it, but the Jordanian family that lived in my neighborhood turned in two of their relatives in 2006 for plotting to bomb CVG. Because everyone has a few nutty cousins.

  4. It is also sad that the vast majority of the article is based on WP stories from their Fact Checker, who himself is very very loose with what he interprets to be “accurate”.

    Real unemployment of ~20% was declare by Kessler to be false. ShadowStats however, is the one reporting that figure which is based off the old definition of unemployment before the feds decided to dumb-down the definition.
    A 5% unemployment rate requires us to accept that anyone who is on longterm unemployment is no longer actually unemployed.

    1. I can see the sense of counting only those looking for work as unemployed: if the unemployed have other means to live on and aren’t bothering to look for work, their predicament is less serious than the fired waitress who has nothing to fall back on.

      But it’s such a low hurdle to clear and says volumes about the priorities of the feds that we can only be bothered about the hardcore cases. It’s like cops slapping themselves on the back for catching a murderer while a dozen serial arsonists go unpunished.

      1. if the unemployed have other means to live on

        Independently wealthy? Sure.

        On welfare? Nope. Should be counted as unemployed.

        1. Like I said, it’s sensible in a very narrowly tailored sense, as in “not our problem.”

  5. This is a guy who asserts with a straight face that the “real” unemployment rate is not 5 percent but 42 percent and that President Obama plans to admit 200,000 refugees from Syria?20 times the actual number. This is a guy who promises to eliminate the $19 trillion national debt in eight years and to cut annual Medicare spending on prescription drugs, which totals $78 billion, by $300 billion.

    Um … 57 states?

    1. 57 includes American Samoa, D.C., Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad (Canada?) that also send delegates to the nominating convention(s).

      1. No no, Obama really believed there are 57 states and that is proof, in fact the only bit of proof needed in 8 years, that he is a moron.

        1. Did you know aluminum is not magnetic? I learned something today. – Barack Obama, Feb. 08, 2012

          1. Obama also thought Austrian was a language and thought corps, as in Marine Corps, was pronounced “corpse”.

            The guy gets quoted a lot, and sometimes he messes up, especially when his teleprompter isn’t working. That doesn’t make him a moron. He’s actually quite smart, but his politics are moronic.

          2. “Magnets – how do they fucking work?”

            —- Barack Insane ‘Clown Posse’ Obama

          3. Did you know stainless steel is not magnetic? Just a few chromium atoms in the soup and a magnet won’t stick to it.

            1. It depends on the amount of chromium. I have a lot of stainless steel in my house that is in fact magnetic. I tested it after first hearing this claim.

              Apparently I am too cheap for the “good” stuff. But I assure you that my kitchen sink does not rust. Nor does my dishwasher.

        2. I suppose he actually believed that if you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor and that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan under ObamaCare. And that he actually believed that it would reduce insurance premiums.

          Either he believed it, or he lied. Which is it?

          1. Why is it always a binary choice in every argument?
            Are the mental gymnastics for pondering a 3rd possibility just too daunting to contemplate?
            He hoped it. Remember the whole hope and change thing?

            1. How cute are the mental gymnasts?

            2. In recent years I’ve favored having everyone in charge shot, and then starting over.

          2. Obama believed in the ACA in same way Dubya thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

            1. Saddam Hussein also thought he had WMDs, so I’m actually willing to give W a pass on that one.

              GHWB was the asshole for getting us involved in the first place. There was no good way to let go the tail of that tiger.

              1. Hans Blix from the UN thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and even catalogued them in his inspections. He just didn’t believe it was worth going to war over.

                1. That was because a lot of people at the UN where making a killing from the oil for food scam. Not saying the war was right, but too many people today pretend they felt that they were always against it because they knew Boosh was a liar and everyone knew that, which is in itself the big lie.

                  1. /\ /\ /\

                    This. Everyone, included Hillary, fully believed there were WMDs in Iraq and that it was a risk worth invading for.

                    The French, Germans, and UN officials argued solely because of their own economic concerns.

                    Ridicule Bush for making a mess of things, but it was never a “Bush lied” thing. Progs are such idiots it is stunning.

        3. does he still believe in the Austrian language? Or a word called corpse-man? Or his alleged intelligence more alleged than real?

    2. Maybe it’s time to give that one a rest. He didn’t really believe that there were 57 states.

      There is plenty of real stuff that Obama is terrible and stupid about.

      1. Of course Obama meant to say 47 states. And Sarah Palin never said that she could see Russia from home. But in the post-fact world we live in those things are “known.”

      2. No, but he says dipshit things that any Republican politician would be excoriated for, and no one says a word. If Donald Trump said that they speak Austrian in Austria or pronounced the word corpsman as “corpseman”, what do you think the reaction would be?

        1. As I said, I hope Trump makes sure that Pence doesn’t spell potato with an ‘e’.

        2. + Two Corinthians.

      3. What about the time he talked about Austrians speaking “Austrian”? If Trump said something that Sullumn and Suderman would each have 10 posts ranting about it. It is different when Obama does it I guess.

        1. Suderman – “Donald Trump’s remark that Austrians speak “Austrian”, rather than German, demonstrates an ignorance of Europe is astonishing and unprecedented in American presidential politics!”

        2. I remember a blurb about Al Gore phoning WaPo (I think) because they printed a picture of the Earth from space with the Earth upside-down (which garnered next to zero media attention relative to ‘Potatoe’ or ‘I can see Russia’ despite being approximately equally stupid).

          I’ve always assumed this was par for the course. If all the jokes about Reagan’s Alzheimers were fair game, I fail to see how aggrandizing a gaffe like 57 states runs afoul of some moral code.

          1. When your photo is taken in space, upside down has no meaning, outer space doesn’t have reference planes We have up and down thanks to gravity. I get what you’re saying, but just am pointing out the Earth is a sphere, so it doesn’t really have a “top”, that’s just a visualization we have based on our shared experience. Free your mind to other views… 🙂

            1. (That’s the point)

          2. It’s not a moral code. It’s just stupid and it makes the person making the comment sound stupid. And it’s stupid when it’s about Bush or Dan Quayle or Reagan too. How about just calling everyone out on their stupid bullshit rather than joining in becuase the “other side” does it too?

            And it’s a distraction. People bitch about all the pointless Trump coverage here. Rightly so, because there is a lot of more important stuff going on. Yet people are going to argue with me for pointing out the ridiculousness of harping on some dopey comment Obama made years ago. How is that not far more idiotic than the 8th article about the dumb shit Trump said today?

          3. Back in the early 90’s like right after Bubba and Al went to work in the White House, there was video of them and their wives touring Monticello. The guide took them to Jefferson’s office, where Gore pointed to a bust of Jefferson and asked, “Who’s this?”

        3. So, I should base my reactions on what Sullum or Suderman would do if we were talking about someone else entirely?

          If you find that shit so annoying, why do you defend people doing the same thing? Two wrongs make a right?

          1. Two wrongs make a right?

            Um, of course? It’s like you don’t even politics bro.

            1. no, but three rights make a left

              1. Two lefts don’t make a right, but three do.

  6. “There’s never been a presidential candidate like Donald Trump,” writes Kessler, the Post fact checker, “someone so cavalier about the facts and so unwilling to ever admit error, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.” And Kessler’s list of Trump’s whoppers does not even include the billionaire reality TV star’s claim that he has read the Constitution, which seems quite unlikely given that Trump thinks that document has 12 articles, empowers judges to sign bills, authorizes presidents to rewrite libel law, and bans birthright citizenship.

    Um … penumbra?

    There is no short list of Donks who can find all sorts of things in the Constitution that simply aren’t there … including the Constitutional Scholar in Chief.

    1. The constitution does indeed had a qualification for birth right citizenship that one must be under the jurisdiction of the United States.

      “Born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction whereof”

      A and B

      Most folks quote A but ignore B. The ‘and’ means both must be satisfied.

  7. According to a recent CNN survey, 66 percent of voters consider Clinton dishonest and untrustworthy, while 65 percent say the same of Trump. But those ratings do not capture the huge difference in entertainment value between the candidates. If you want a president who will not only prevaricate but prevaricate with panache, Trump beats Clinton hands down.

    Personally, I prefer fanciful panache over purposeful, evil obfuscation.

    But that is just me.

  8. I think the word you are looking for is “hyperbole.”

    1. I think “making shit up” is more accurate.

      1. That’s what hyperbole is.

        Exaggeration for rhetorical effect.

        The distinction is that it is sufficiently big that anyone who relied on the details would be foolish.

        1. “The polar ice cap will be gone by 2016!”

          “The Himalayas will be snow free”

          1. “He will cool the earth and lower the seas”

  9. Well, Trump is a winner

  10. Untangling Clinton’s lies is as tedious and unrewarding as untangling that unused mass of twine at the bottom of the tool drawer. When Donald Trump lies, by contrast, you really know you’ve been misled, and you have to be impressed by the sheer audacity of his mendacity.

    This might be a personal preference, but to me one of those is definitely worse than the other.

  11. Pensive Trump photo.

    He’s gearing up for another word salad.

  12. Untangling Clinton’s lies is as tedious and unrewarding as untangling that unused mass of twine at the bottom of the tool drawer. When Donald Trump lies, by contrast, you really know you’ve been misled, and you have to be impressed by the sheer audacity of his mendacity.

    Untangling Clinton’s lies is unrewarding because you have to go against the entire propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, which also happens to be the industry where the journalists are employed. It’s much easier to untangle Trump’s lies — you feel so smart and brave and your employment options aren’t jeopardized.

    1. I am an habitual comment reader even on MSM news outlets. Calling CNN, the Clinton News Network, has legs even among a large portion of liberals. It’s all about don’t vote for Trump/Hitler now.

    2. Untangling Trump’s lies is just EASIER, which makes it more fun.

      Clinton’s lies are more of a challange. Not a task for the lazy or the easily bored.

  13. While I agree with the style points awarded to each side, I think the content and purpose of the lies counts for more. And on that front, I think Hillary is the clear winner(?).

    There’s also the challenge with Trump that to detect enough factual information in his word salads to call a lie, you generally have to interpret the hell out of it.

    But Trump seems to have lost his stroke since the conventions. He was inside the OODA of the DemOp apparat, but since Khan he’s been more reactive, on the back foot as they say. If he can’t get his mojo back, send out a few tweets directing attention toward, say, the new batch of emails showing the Department of State colluding with the Clinton Foundation to reward big donors, then I think he’s done, and we’re stuck with somebody in the White House who can be controlled by anyone running a competent hacking op during her SecState years and fighting off several lawsuits grinding away at her coverup.

    1. The good news is that Clinton’s conspiracies are relatively low budget. The US will be on autopilot for 8 years while she tries this one trick to get rich(er).

    2. Ya I’m with you. His handlers need to explain to him that he has only one opponent. Everyone else is a nobody.

      1. “he only has one opponent” … himself?

        1. “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

  14. If you are going to write an article about other people lying, you might try not lying yourself Sullumn. You say

    This is a guy who asserts with a straight face that the “real” unemployment rate is not 5 percent but 42 percent and that President Obama plans to admit 200,000 refugees from Syria?20 times the actual number.

    No. That is not 20 times the number.

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says the U.S. will accept 85,000 refugees from around the world next year, up from 70,000, and the number will rise to 100,000 in 2017.

    Aides to Kerry say that many, though not all, of the additional refugees would be Syrian.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli…..00-n430576

    I understand you are a journalist. So it is not like you know much. I mean we all learned to write in the second grade. It is just that most of us moved on to bigger things. So I am just going to assume you didn’t know the answer and were too lazy to find it and not that you are a lying sack of shit.

    1. So, Kerry plans to admit 185,000 refugees, many from Syria.

      That is totally different from 200,000 Syrians!

      1. The point is not that Trump wasn’t wrong. The point is that Sullumn was even more wrong. Sullumn is claiming that 200,000 is 20 times the actual number. No, it is not 10,000 it is going to be over 100,000. That doesn’t make Trump right. It does however make Sullumn wrong. If you are going to write an article accusing other people of lying, it is a good idea not to lie yourself.

        1. Not to mention 200,000 is likely on the low side by an order of magnitude if Obama were given his druthers.

        2. Hey leave Sullim alone, he’s just a high functioning retard getting the only work open to him, just like all the other journalists.

        3. I would call Trump “right” in this case. No one gives a fck whether it is 145k or 200k. Especially if you assume that these programs get larger, not smaller.

      2. Umm. Check the math there.

        many, though not all, of the additional refugees would be Syrian

        Additional refugees when you go from 70,000 to 85,000 is 15,000. And to get to 100,000 is another 15k. So that’s a total of 30,000 Syrians at the absolute most, going on those numbers.

        So maybe 10x, not 20x.

        1. It’s 85k plus 100k for 185k total refugees over 2 years.

          There are 5 million unsettled Syrian refugees according to the UN.

          So, I am going to go out on a limb and guess that a big chunk of those refugees would be Syrian.

          I think the 20x number comes from the prior announced goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees.

  15. Trump’s lies show he isn’t intellectually curious about the issues. He’s far too busy to sort out and remember the real facts, he just spouts off what ever he hopes will outrage his supporters (and, perhaps, has outraged him).
    Clinton, on the other hand, is a clever liar who knows she can get away with all manner of falsehoods because the media are her friends, and her experience is that most American voters don’t mind being lied to because they
    want a woman president at all costs.
    Do I care which one of these assholes will be president? One hopes that Congress will stand up to either one of them. If Congress doesn’t, then the American republican experiment is so far gone already that it hardly matters which asshole is president.

    1. It will be a lot easier for Congress to stand up to Trump. It takes too long to explain why Clinton is wrong about everything. Any pundit can slam Trump.

      1. The power of the left is the fact that it takes five paragraphs of genuine reason and evidence to refute five sentences of unfiltered leftist stupidity. It’s exceedingly easy to be a leftist. It’s much more difficult to rely on logical consistency, reason and evidence to inform your policy preferences.

        1. That old chestnut about truth getting on its boots is woefully outdated. Democrats tell lies that go to truth’s home and murders it in its sleep before setting out on a world cruise.

    2. One hopes that Congress will stand up to either one of them.

      this is a good point, so with which do you think this would be more likely?

    3. Can you imagine if the media were actually impartial and did their fucking job correctly, in stead of being in the tank for this vile treasonous bitch and her cronies? They would tear her apart.

  16. Clinton repeatedly offered assurances that turned out to be false. Then she said the FBI had validated those statements, which was also false. Then she falsely insisted her claim about the FBI was true, even while implying that it resulted from a misunderstanding?which also was not true, as anyone who watches the video or reads the transcript can see.

    Then:

    “There’s never been a presidential candidate like Donald Trump,” writes Kessler, the Post fact checker, “someone so cavalier about the facts and so unwilling to ever admit error, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    Potato, potahto.
    I’m not seeing any difference.
    Certainly the statement: “someone so cavalier about the facts and so unwilling to ever admit error, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.” applies to both equally, doesn’t it?

    1. Certainly the statement: “someone so cavalier about the facts and so unwilling to ever admit error, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.” applies to both equally, doesn’t it?
      ———————

      They are both bad choices for POTUS, but fortunately it’s not a binary choice.

  17. “The difference is this: Clinton lies like a lawyer. Trump lies like your drunken uncle Ernie telling fish stories. The former is more dangerous.”

    There you go, the whole article boiled down to its essence, thank you.

  18. Every time Trump says something that Sullumn disagrees with it is a “lie”. Clinton lies about the multiple felonies she has committed and it is just “tedious”. Too tedious and boring for Sullumn to take an interest in.

    1. Sullum quite unambiguously calls them both liars in the article. Then describes their respective lying styles. Which comes of as an argument in favor of Trump, if anything, to me. He will both be more entertaining and more likely to be called on his bullshit. Clinton is boring as fuck and the people who defend her will do so no matter what.

      1. Except Trump isn’t guilty of espionage and treason, and Hillary is guilty outhouse things. That’s a big fucking difference. That ANYONE considers Trump and Clinton to have any equivalency in that regard is astounding to me.

    2. LEAVE DONALD TRUMP ALONE!!!!!

  19. This is a guy who asserts with a straight face that the “real” unemployment rate is not 5 percent but 42 percent

    Well first off, 42% is wrong by any measure. But there is another measure called ‘real unemployment’, that your scare quotes seem to imply isn’t a real thing at all. And that number is at least double the official figure which mysteriously excludes those who are unemployed but aren’t seeking or work or don’t qualify for gubmint bennies. That’s why the measure which doesn’t exclude those people is called ‘real unemployment’.

    1. How come we never hear about the employment rate? How many people are there, and how many of them are employed?

      It does make sense to exclude children, retired people and some others when calculating unemployment. But excluding able bodied people of working age because they’ve given up (or more likely found under the table work of some sort) is ridiculous.

      1. I could see 42% (or more) being the ‘pure unemployment’ rate, but as you point out it’s not a terribly useful measure in that way.

      2. How come we never hear about the employment rate?

        After it fell below 7%, employment was “fixed.” Now it’s all about minimum wage and income inequality.

      3. see Shadowstats

  20. He’s a hugely successful reality TV producer and used car salesman writ large. She’s a massive crime syndicate all on her own. I think being “larger than life” and exagerating everything (or even outright lying) to seal the deal may have simply become habit for him after a lifetime of being successful with it. He must be annoyed and surprised to be called on it at this point. For her, having sold favours her whole political life, and being a massive crook, but never paying any sort of real consequences for it, I don’t think she worries about it very much. “Obviously, I’m invulnerable” is her call sign.

    What disgusting people.

    1. We can only hope her health problems are real and severe. Enough so that something really horrible befalls her before the election. Like a brand destroying stroke, or some other agonizing, crippling, vegetative inducing neuromuscular event.

      Hillary Clinton is truly evil.

    1. I’M WITH YOU!!!

      *shakes fist*

  21. OT: (by that I mean Off Trump) My nephew will be 17 in a couple of weeks. He’s a delusional knucklehead, even by 17-year old boy standards. He’s got this plan to move out of his parents’ house and he believes he can work part-time, have his own place, and still have about $300 to kick around every month. (The one job he took earlier this year, he just up and walked out of because “it was too hard”) My brother is at his wits end, he’s asking me for advice. Since I am not a parent, and I’m sure I’d make a terrible parent, I pass this question on to the smartest group of commenters I’ve ever had the pleasure of interacting with: what would you do with this kid?

    1. Let him do it. Life is a hard school, but a fool will learn in no other.

      1. Let him do it. Life is a hard school, but a fool will learn in no other.

        THIS!!!! 18 and gone — life will knock some sense into him.

    2. Let him try to go out on his own and fail, because that is the only way he will learn. He will fail at first, and therefore crawl back to his parents, who will hopefully be supportive. Reality is the only cure.

      1. I think they can be supportive while also letting him go out and fail, “We’re so proud of you for your independent spirit! Go get ’em!” Then when he realizes he can’t support himself on a part-time job, maybe he’ll look for a full-time one to avoid disappointing them.

    3. Not let him move back in when he realizes he’s wrong.

      (This is why I’m not a parent.)

    4. Tough love. People without a reliable safety, like say, parents with money, do not simply walk out of a job because it’s hard unless they legitimately have some better opportunity available. I have a nephew the same age with the same mindset. That fact that he is the way he is, is my sister’s doing, and most of that can’t be addressed unless my sister stops giving him what he wants all the time. She tries to lay down the law with him, but she always caves. I obviously don’t know your brother or his wife, but at least one of those parents is the enabler. The only thing that can be done is make him work for the things he wants. I know it sounds easier said than done, but if anything my sister what not to do as a parent.

      1. I threw a sandwich at my boss about 30 years ago. I was a delivery boy for a sandwich shop and this crazy boss repeatedly told me to go two or three places at once. I just threw a footlong sub at her chest and walked away. No place to go and no regrets.

    5. Animal and Crusty: That is what my brother’s instinct is saying to do, but the one sticking point is his age. He and his wife contacted the sherriff’s office and police department separately. One said he had to be 18 to be on his own, the other said 17. I said when in doubt go with the older age.

      1. Probably the wise move – let him wait a few months before life kicks his teeth in.

    6. OT: (by that I mean Off Trump)

      I chuckled

      what would you do with this kid?

      Don’t let the door hit you on the way out

      1. btw, all kids that age are delusional…but at least he aspires to be independent.

    7. Make sure no one in the family helps him. HE needs to sink or swim on his own efforts.

  22. OT kinda but not entirely: http://www.bloomberg.com/polit…..tion-links

    There are the lies that cause some head-shaking and there are the lies-covering-actions of a former Cabinet member.

    1. Who cares about this when Trump is out there punching babies and threatening to kill people? Priorities, man.

    2. She’s just one of those super compassionate types that needs her job linked to her charitable contributions because she can’t separate her work from her values
      /tries to keep a straight face

  23. Which one is ahead in the “murdering your enemies and people who know too much and want to talk to prosecutors” Olympics?

    1. And getting a bunch of people killed by being careless with intel – then lying more about it?

  24. I wouldn’t mind Trump’s lies so much if he lied in service of something rather than off the cuff and out of habit. That bit about watching pallets of cash being loaded was brilliant, or would have been brilliant, had he later deadpanned and told the media “I must have been thinking of some other cargo plane loaded with $400 million dollars in cash intended for a despotic, terrorist-funding regime in exchange for American hostages.” Instead he fecklessly walked it back. His flagrant and undirected lying serves, inadvertently if not deliberately, to paper over the utter shitshow that has been Democratic policy and the shitshow that is their candidate.

  25. Here is the thing, I don’t think Trump is lying most of the time.

    Remember, in order for something to be a lie you have to know that it is false when you make the statement and I think Trump is one of those people who has a relatively fluid grasp on objective reality such that he is capable of fully believing whatever he is thinking at that moment is true.

    Now whether a moron with a poor grasp of reality or a sociopath whe shrewdly lies to you is better or not is a matter of opinion but I’ll go with the moron because his lies are easier to spot and combat.

    1. This, and also because he holds his own voters in contempt. He’s rather like Obama and Clinton in that respect, but they think they know better than their chump voters. Trump merely wants their adulation and will say whatever it takes to get the rubes to cheer.

  26. Every Reason article should end with “and that’s why you should vote for Gary Johnson.”

  27. For the millionth time, talking about Trump like he’s some sort of boogey man misses the point. It’s what’s beyond Trump that’s lurking out there. Do people REALLY think that when Trump loses, and Hillary slithers in, and establishment circles their wagons (both Dems and Repubs) that this is over? It’s only just begun. Radicalization is here to stay, and it will until the bubble bursts. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Trump is the visible chancre of the hidden venereal disease. And all the establishment is going to do is ratchet up Big Con, pissing people off even more. There’s nothing but up arrows at this point. But all even Reason can do is trot out the same crap over and over and over? Where’s the insight? Where’s the realization beyond the MSM contrivance and connivance? For a libertarian site, and a hip “swagger”, it doesn’t seem to have much finger on the pulse of what is happening. They seem to be just as head-in-the-sand, and ultimately establishment. We need people warning of what’s going to happen very soon, not “if we all hold hands, everything will turn out ok. When the Big Meanie Trump goes away, then we can get back to normal”. Trump is just the tip of the iceberg. Hoisting the Wicked Witch of the Midwest? South? Northeast? isn’t going to change anything, and will make things worse. There’s a reckoning coming, and Trump is a high sign it’s coming. Ignoring it doesn’t solve the problem.

    1. It probably won’t end until either the rest of you completely puss out (hand wringing and pants shitting gets nothing done) or some of you grow a pair and start thinning the progressive herd. Just so I’m clear, I’m just answering your question, and not calling you out Toolkien.

  28. I am not why Sullum admitting he requires his subjects to entertain him before he does his job with respect to them is disqualifying to Trump. If Sullum is too bored by the ins and outs of document classification, then maybe he is in the wrong career. Maybe gossip reporting is more his speed

  29. HRC logic, the best I can make of it:

    Though I did fondle your bum, I was not criminally charged for fondling your bum, therefore I did not fondle your bum.

    Trump logic.

    I fondled your bum and will continue to do so. You’re a lovely person, God Bless You.

    1. You have the right of it with Hilary, I think. I am not sure why Sullum thinks that so difficult to parse.

  30. “There’s never been a presidential candidate like Donald Trump,” writes Kessler, the Post fact checker, ”

    Speaking of lies, one of the biggest around is that all these “fact checkers” are actual authorities on what the facts are.

  31. Trump speaks from the gut not caring if his words are actually true only that they express his emotion. Hillary carefully plans half truths that give the listener a mistaken belief about her plans, actions, and intentions. Of the two Trump tells more falsehoods and Clinton is less trustworthy.

  32. Shrillary does it in a $12K Armani jacket, but The Donald has real style.

    The only question is:
    Was that moment when he looked into the TV camera on The Apprentice and said:
    You’re Fired!;
    his Peter Principle Moment, or is he destined for greater things (if not better)?

  33. Shorter Sullum:

    Hillary may be a liar, but Trump is not our kind of liar.

  34. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  35. For me the relevant question is which candidate will be held to task for prevarication. That’s why I’m voting for Trump – he’s an asshole, no conservative, but at least he’s be under a microscope.

  36. Both of the major parties candidate offering to the American people are of the lowest of the low for public service.
    They both are hugely lacking in quality, but there are distinctions

    Trump’s problems go skin deep, he is a blowhard and an expedient, but I don’t believe he is corrupt to the core, at worst he is a buffoon and a figurehead whose deficits can easily be supplemented by the support people around him, most significantly Pence, who has governmental executive experience.
    Trump’s projected corruption, if any, will be simplistic and out in the open, and not sophisticated. Whatever he may do bad, will be obvious and insignificant in scope.

    Clinton however puts on a good face, a convincing mask of acceptability and respectability.
    But EVERYTHING we know about her, leads us to hidden agendas, corruption behind the scenes, manipulation of influence and power, ineffectual administration and duplicity in even that. Her false outrage and practiced emotions only serve her in form, and cover a scheming approach.

    So, Trump would be awful, but Clinton would be dastardly. Once in power she would hold all the strings, and be able to more effectively hide the things she has been caught doing.
    She would eat our executive branch from the inside out, with a fine veneer remaining, and we wouldn’t know about it until it was way too late.

    It is that much more of an easy choice this year, to

    Vote Gary Johnson:
    http://tinyurl.com/hul6dwk

  37. #1. If you use the broadest definition of unemployment, the Labor Department says that 40.6% of the population is unemployed.

    #2. April 22, 2016: In an interview published in Fortune magazine, Trump walked back his pledge to eliminate all of the national debt by the end of his second term.

    #3. Remind me when I see a group of people celebrating a terrorist attack to get the PRECISE number of people.

    #4. Do we know if Trump knew if the reporter was disabled? If we don’t know this then this is pure speculation on your part.

    #5. The recording of Trump “supporting the Iraq war” was from 2002 before we’d actually gone in. And in the recording, Trump gives the weakest response of “yeah I… guess… so, but I wish we’d done it correctly the first time”. It was tepid support at best. And, to be fair, as he likes to say – he was not a politician at the time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.