PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
....
Trump promised!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
....
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
Why Trump Keeps Making Up Lies About His Refugee Ban
Donald Trump insists that his Muslim ban, or extreme vetting that is definitely not a ban, or his ban of something but not Muslims, is going extremely smoothly. “It really is a massive success story in terms of implementation on every single level,” explained a senior administration official. And yet news has depicted scenes of chaos, confusion, and inhumane treatment of innocent people. The administration has thus been forced to supply a series of defenses:
1. President Obama did the same thing. “My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months,” insists Trump. Multiple fact-checkers have examined this claim and found it wanting. In response to intelligence linking two refugees from Iraq to a bomb attack on American forces there, the Obama administration slowed, but did not stop, its refugee-admission process in order to tighten its screening. A tightening of vetting procedures in response to specific intelligence about a single country is not the same thing as a sweeping halt in the absence of a reported breach.
2. Only 109 people were detained. It’s not clear where Trump got this figure, but the Department of Homeland Security announced that in the first 23 hours alone, 375 people were detained.
3. There were some big problems, but it was caused by Delta’s computer system.
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage,.....
5:16 AM - 30 Jan 2017
21,572 21,572 Retweets 80,752 80,752 likes
In fact, problems began Friday night, and Delta’s system went down Sunday night, and was fixed after a few hours.
4. The premier president loves surprises. Possibly the most interesting defense is that the administration was unable to use the normal interagency review process because it would have tipped off the terrorists. “What we couldn’t do was telegraph our position ahead of time to ensure that people flooded in before that happened, before it went into place,” said White House spokesman Sean Spicer. “If we had telegraphed that ahead of time, then that would have been a massive security problem.” President Trump, as usual, put the argument in pithier terms:
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!
6:31 AM - 30 Jan 2017
21,971 21,971 Retweets 96,095 96,095 likes
This defense suffers from two enormous flaws. First, it assumes that allowing agencies tasked with security to have input on a policy would be tantamount to publicizing the policy. The president is supposed to be able to discuss plans in confidence without assuming they will be leaked immediately. That is how the federal government works. If the only way to announce a foreign-policy move was to keep new policies a closely guarded secret within the administration, then this kind of amateurism would be standard. There is a long record of American presidents announcing surprise foreign policy decisions that were planned in advance by officials other than a speechwriter in his early 30s and a Breitbart lunatic.
The second problem with this defense is that it assumes terrorists were sitting around the world, planning to enter the United States to launch an attack, and able to enter at any time, but lacking any special urgency. (Perhaps they were waiting for the fares to drop.) An announcement of one week’s notice would have given them just the motivation they needed to hop on a plane.
This bears no relation to reality. People from the countries banned by Trump already face an extensive, 20-step vetting process that can take up to two years. None of them could have legally made it through within a week, or anything close.
And once you realize this, it becomes clear that Trump’s policy was not only bungled in its implementation but conceptually flawed. Trump originally proposed a “Muslim ban.” But he had to back away from this policy given that it is both unconstitutional and transparently unenforceable (how do you prevent a terrorist from lying about his religion?). This forced Trump to relabel his policy “extreme vetting.” But the reality is that vetting is already extreme. Trump has not identified any weak points in the vetting procedure. Indeed, there is no connection whatsoever between his policy and any terror incidents in the United States. Radicalized domestic American terrorists have all come from countries not on Trump’s list. His policy grows out of a need to take some kind of action.
In a way, it makes perfect sense that he would skip the normal interagency review — input from security experts would only reveal that Trump’s plan has no relationship to any security objective. The purpose of this policy is to retroactively justify Trump’s campaign fearmongering.
Donald Trump insists that his Muslim ban, or extreme vetting that is definitely not a ban, or his ban of something but not Muslims, is going extremely smoothly. “It really is a massive success story in terms of implementation on every single level,” explained a senior administration official. And yet news has depicted scenes of chaos, confusion, and inhumane treatment of innocent people. The administration has thus been forced to supply a series of defenses:
1. President Obama did the same thing. “My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months,” insists Trump. Multiple fact-checkers have examined this claim and found it wanting. In response to intelligence linking two refugees from Iraq to a bomb attack on American forces there, the Obama administration slowed, but did not stop, its refugee-admission process in order to tighten its screening. A tightening of vetting procedures in response to specific intelligence about a single country is not the same thing as a sweeping halt in the absence of a reported breach.
2. Only 109 people were detained. It’s not clear where Trump got this figure, but the Department of Homeland Security announced that in the first 23 hours alone, 375 people were detained.
3. There were some big problems, but it was caused by Delta’s computer system.
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage,.....
5:16 AM - 30 Jan 2017
21,572 21,572 Retweets 80,752 80,752 likes
In fact, problems began Friday night, and Delta’s system went down Sunday night, and was fixed after a few hours.
4. The premier president loves surprises. Possibly the most interesting defense is that the administration was unable to use the normal interagency review process because it would have tipped off the terrorists. “What we couldn’t do was telegraph our position ahead of time to ensure that people flooded in before that happened, before it went into place,” said White House spokesman Sean Spicer. “If we had telegraphed that ahead of time, then that would have been a massive security problem.” President Trump, as usual, put the argument in pithier terms:
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there!
6:31 AM - 30 Jan 2017
21,971 21,971 Retweets 96,095 96,095 likes
This defense suffers from two enormous flaws. First, it assumes that allowing agencies tasked with security to have input on a policy would be tantamount to publicizing the policy. The president is supposed to be able to discuss plans in confidence without assuming they will be leaked immediately. That is how the federal government works. If the only way to announce a foreign-policy move was to keep new policies a closely guarded secret within the administration, then this kind of amateurism would be standard. There is a long record of American presidents announcing surprise foreign policy decisions that were planned in advance by officials other than a speechwriter in his early 30s and a Breitbart lunatic.
The second problem with this defense is that it assumes terrorists were sitting around the world, planning to enter the United States to launch an attack, and able to enter at any time, but lacking any special urgency. (Perhaps they were waiting for the fares to drop.) An announcement of one week’s notice would have given them just the motivation they needed to hop on a plane.
This bears no relation to reality. People from the countries banned by Trump already face an extensive, 20-step vetting process that can take up to two years. None of them could have legally made it through within a week, or anything close.
And once you realize this, it becomes clear that Trump’s policy was not only bungled in its implementation but conceptually flawed. Trump originally proposed a “Muslim ban.” But he had to back away from this policy given that it is both unconstitutional and transparently unenforceable (how do you prevent a terrorist from lying about his religion?). This forced Trump to relabel his policy “extreme vetting.” But the reality is that vetting is already extreme. Trump has not identified any weak points in the vetting procedure. Indeed, there is no connection whatsoever between his policy and any terror incidents in the United States. Radicalized domestic American terrorists have all come from countries not on Trump’s list. His policy grows out of a need to take some kind of action.
In a way, it makes perfect sense that he would skip the normal interagency review — input from security experts would only reveal that Trump’s plan has no relationship to any security objective. The purpose of this policy is to retroactively justify Trump’s campaign fearmongering.
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
Donald Trump's dishonesty insults Americans and makes the world unstable
It is not OK to have a president who barely has a casual relationship with the truth.
In the first week of his presidency, Donald Trump, or those who speak for him, have lied about:
The size of the crowd at his inauguration (and he even pressured the National Park Service to lie, too).
The reason he didn’t win the national popular vote (“millions of illegals voting).
The reason the meeting with Mexico’s president was cancelled (it was because the Mexican president refused to come to the U.S., it was NOT by mutual agreement).
Getting the biggest standing ovation at the CIA since Peyton Manning won the Super Bowl.
That he didn’t have a feud with the national intelligence community; he did, big time.
Receiving awards for protecting the environment.
The Keystone pipeline creating “a lot of jobs, 28,000 jobs.” Estimates by those involved with the project say it would be 16,000 tops.
The murder rate in Philadelphia increasing. Actually, it’s declined significantly.
The fact (not to be confused with “alternative facts”) that presidential truthfulness is even being talked about, let alone a point of very grave concern, after the first week of a presidency is troubling.
Americans deserve a president we can trust to provide us with the truth – no matter how big or small.
There seems to be little concern among those close to Trump or from his Republican allies in Congress.
Worst of all, his closest aides, particularly Stephen Bannon, Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer – are the president’s primary enablers.
It is hard to fathom that they might share his warped view of reality. Perhaps they see it as a mere inconvenience and small concession for having a president who will rubber-stamp their judicial picks, pet projects and ideological missions as well as join in attacking their favorite targets.
Lying from the Oval Office carries far graver consequences than fibs from the penthouse at Trump Towers.
Presidential lies aren’t trivial quibbles over the size of the crowd at an event or how many votes won in an election. Imagined, or hoped-for facts cannot become the basis for policies and laws that have consequences beyond the stage-managed world of reality TV.
The lies and exaggerations are about which American citizens will be able to vote and what kinds of impediments will be placed in their way.
They are about whether American citizens who happen to be Muslim can come back into the United States after they travel abroad.
They are about life-and-death: which refugees will find safety when they flee their war-torn homes; which of our nation’s allies the U.S. will defend against foreign aggression and our nation’s armed service personnel will legitimately put into situations by a Commander and Chief who may require the ultimate sacrifice.
There can be disagreement – even big and divisive – over policies and programs.
Failure to deal with the truth leads to tyranny. It’s no late-night show punch line, it’s not hyperbole.
It is not OK to have a president who barely has a casual relationship with the truth.
In the first week of his presidency, Donald Trump, or those who speak for him, have lied about:
The size of the crowd at his inauguration (and he even pressured the National Park Service to lie, too).
The reason he didn’t win the national popular vote (“millions of illegals voting).
The reason the meeting with Mexico’s president was cancelled (it was because the Mexican president refused to come to the U.S., it was NOT by mutual agreement).
Getting the biggest standing ovation at the CIA since Peyton Manning won the Super Bowl.
That he didn’t have a feud with the national intelligence community; he did, big time.
Receiving awards for protecting the environment.
The Keystone pipeline creating “a lot of jobs, 28,000 jobs.” Estimates by those involved with the project say it would be 16,000 tops.
The murder rate in Philadelphia increasing. Actually, it’s declined significantly.
The fact (not to be confused with “alternative facts”) that presidential truthfulness is even being talked about, let alone a point of very grave concern, after the first week of a presidency is troubling.
Americans deserve a president we can trust to provide us with the truth – no matter how big or small.
There seems to be little concern among those close to Trump or from his Republican allies in Congress.
Worst of all, his closest aides, particularly Stephen Bannon, Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer – are the president’s primary enablers.
It is hard to fathom that they might share his warped view of reality. Perhaps they see it as a mere inconvenience and small concession for having a president who will rubber-stamp their judicial picks, pet projects and ideological missions as well as join in attacking their favorite targets.
Lying from the Oval Office carries far graver consequences than fibs from the penthouse at Trump Towers.
Presidential lies aren’t trivial quibbles over the size of the crowd at an event or how many votes won in an election. Imagined, or hoped-for facts cannot become the basis for policies and laws that have consequences beyond the stage-managed world of reality TV.
The lies and exaggerations are about which American citizens will be able to vote and what kinds of impediments will be placed in their way.
They are about whether American citizens who happen to be Muslim can come back into the United States after they travel abroad.
They are about life-and-death: which refugees will find safety when they flee their war-torn homes; which of our nation’s allies the U.S. will defend against foreign aggression and our nation’s armed service personnel will legitimately put into situations by a Commander and Chief who may require the ultimate sacrifice.
There can be disagreement – even big and divisive – over policies and programs.
Failure to deal with the truth leads to tyranny. It’s no late-night show punch line, it’s not hyperbole.
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
The PolitiFact scorecard
True15 (4%)(15)
Mostly True43 (12%)(43)
Half True51 (14%)(51)
Mostly False68 (19%)(68)
False118 (33%)(118)
Pants on Fire62 (17%
True15 (4%)(15)
Mostly True43 (12%)(43)
Half True51 (14%)(51)
Mostly False68 (19%)(68)
False118 (33%)(118)
Pants on Fire62 (17%
Trump promised to sue all the women he groped for saying out loud he groped them. He promised, waiting.....
Be clear folks, unless you are a Russian troll or a cheering Trumpette, call out the cowardly draft dodger, tax cheat, adulterer and liar every chance you get, what goes around comes around.
Keep track of President [sic] Trump http://thesixtyfive.org/home
"During his bizarre, albeit successful, campaign for the White House, Mr. Trump identified a variety of ‘problems’ (see: alternative facts, above), that he is now setting about to solve. This writer would like to assist the president to the best of his ability, and he believes that Mr. Trump is looking beyond the mark, and is not recognizing the real causes of some serious problems he is attempting to address today. So, this writer will attempt to identify those, and offer solutions that he feels certain Mr. Trump would embrace:"
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/27/solving-problems-trump-style/
Be clear folks, unless you are a Russian troll or a cheering Trumpette, call out the cowardly draft dodger, tax cheat, adulterer and liar every chance you get, what goes around comes around.
Keep track of President [sic] Trump http://thesixtyfive.org/home
"During his bizarre, albeit successful, campaign for the White House, Mr. Trump identified a variety of ‘problems’ (see: alternative facts, above), that he is now setting about to solve. This writer would like to assist the president to the best of his ability, and he believes that Mr. Trump is looking beyond the mark, and is not recognizing the real causes of some serious problems he is attempting to address today. So, this writer will attempt to identify those, and offer solutions that he feels certain Mr. Trump would embrace:"
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/27/solving-problems-trump-style/
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
'Alternative Facts': The Needless Lies of the Trump Administration
If the president and his aides will tell easily disproven falsehoods about crowd sizes and speeches, what else will they be willing to dissemble about?
One of the many things that is remarkable about the Trump administration is its devotion, even in its first days, to a particular variety of pointless falsehood.
Mendacity among politicians and the spokespeople hired to spin for them runs across eras and aisles, though it is true that some are more honest than others, and Donald Trump was a historically dishonest presidential candidate. But the Trump administration has displayed a commitment to needlessly lying that is confounding to even the most cynical observers of American politics.
No incident better summarizes this than a bizarre briefing by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Saturday. Speaking in the Brady Briefing Room, Spicer laid into the assembled reporters.
“Yesterday, at a time when our nation and the world was watching the peaceful transition of power and, as the president said, the transition and the balance of power from Washington to the citizens of the United States, some members of the media were engaged in deliberately false reporting,” he charged.
He then went on at length, attacking reporters, particularly one from The New York Times, for tweeting photographs comparing the size of the crowd at Friday’s inauguration unfavorably with Barack Obama’s first inauguration. (That image was retweeted from the National Park Service’s account, prompting a brief Twitter freeze at the Interior Department.)
“Inaccurate numbers involving crowd size were also tweeted,” Spicer continued, because the NPS did not count. (My colleague Robinson Meyer explained how crowd counts at events like the inauguration come about.) He incorrectly characterized ridership statistics provided by WMATA, D.C.’s transit authority.
Then came the big whopper: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration—period—both in person and around the globe.”
Spicer’s statement required dismissing all available evidence: ridership count, eyewitness testimony, independent crowd-counts, and Nielsen television ratings. Spicer cut his teeth at the Republican National Committee as the combative voice of a body often at odds with the media, but even by those standards, his furious insistence on assertions at odds with the evidence were peculiar.
They are, however, emerging as a hallmark of the administration. For days ahead of the inauguration, Trump aides insisted that the president-elect was writing his own inaugural address, without the aid of speechwriters. They went so far as to stage a photograph that purported to show him writing the speech—though the image showed Trump wielding a Sharpie, and some internet sleuths speculated that the desk he was using is typically used as a reception desk at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
On Friday, however, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Much of the speech was written by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, two of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, a White House official said.” Why mislead the public about who wrote the speech? After all, the news that Miller would be assisting in writing the address had emerged days ago, and there’s certainly no shame in a president employing speechwriters, nor has the practice dimmed positive reception for past presidential addresses.
Ahead of the inauguration, Trump threw a concert in front of the Lincoln Memorial. “This started out tonight being a small little concert, and then we had the idea maybe we’ll do it in front of the Lincoln Memorial,” Trump said in brief remarks. “I don’t know if it’s ever been done before. But if it has, very seldom.” That claim was also ridiculous, whether it was intentionally misleading or simply badly misinformed. There was a huge, widely covered concert at the memorial to kick off Obama’s inauguration festivities eight years ago.
These are only three examples of Trump and his aides offering statements that are not only provably false, but easily checked. (There are plenty more where they came from, like Trump’s claim that Russian hacking was not brought up before the election.)
There was a brief skirmish within the journalism world around the new year, when Wall Street Journal editor Gerry Baker professed wariness about how some of Trump’s statements had been labeled. “I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead,” he said. Baker took some heat for that statement in some more progressive parts of the press, but his distinction is real and important.
But how is anyone to view Spicer’s statement as stemming from anything other than a deliberate intent to mislead? The facts are clear, and given that Spicer did not take questions, his main purpose on Saturday must have been to spread falsehoods about crowd size.
Top Trump aide Kellyanne Conway appeared on Meet the Press Sunday morning, where Chuck Todd grilled her on the incident. “The presidency is about choices. I’m curious why President Trump chose yesterday to send out his press secretary to essentially litigate a provable falsehood when it comes to a small and petty thing like inaugural crowd size,” Todd asked. Conway first tried to deflect, saying, “I don’t think presidents are judged by crowd sizes, they’re judged by accomplishments.” Fair enough, Todd said—so why lie?
“You’re saying it’s a falsehood, and Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts,” Conway responded.
Todd was flabbergasted by the Orwellian turn of phrase: “Alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.”
There’s still no good explanation for Spicer’s statement, but it fits with a long-running mantra from Trump aides and supporters that there’s no such thing as an objective reality. The question for Trump and his aides is simple: If you’re willing to lie about stuff this minuscule, why should anyone believe what you say about the really big things that matter?
The Trump campaign made a winning wager that enough voters didn’t care that they could get away with that, and the nascent Trump administration seems to be going double-or-nothing on the gamble. Perhaps that’s a winning bet, and objective facts are a thing of the past. But that’s a claim that’s been advanced before, not that long ago, in American history, by a Republican administration whose top aides disdained the “reality-based community.” That administration left office amid an enormous economic recession, and Trump himself called George W. Bush’s war in Iraq “a big fat mistake.” It’s a strange precedent for Trump to adopt at the start of his presidency.
If the president and his aides will tell easily disproven falsehoods about crowd sizes and speeches, what else will they be willing to dissemble about?
One of the many things that is remarkable about the Trump administration is its devotion, even in its first days, to a particular variety of pointless falsehood.
Mendacity among politicians and the spokespeople hired to spin for them runs across eras and aisles, though it is true that some are more honest than others, and Donald Trump was a historically dishonest presidential candidate. But the Trump administration has displayed a commitment to needlessly lying that is confounding to even the most cynical observers of American politics.
No incident better summarizes this than a bizarre briefing by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Saturday. Speaking in the Brady Briefing Room, Spicer laid into the assembled reporters.
“Yesterday, at a time when our nation and the world was watching the peaceful transition of power and, as the president said, the transition and the balance of power from Washington to the citizens of the United States, some members of the media were engaged in deliberately false reporting,” he charged.
He then went on at length, attacking reporters, particularly one from The New York Times, for tweeting photographs comparing the size of the crowd at Friday’s inauguration unfavorably with Barack Obama’s first inauguration. (That image was retweeted from the National Park Service’s account, prompting a brief Twitter freeze at the Interior Department.)
“Inaccurate numbers involving crowd size were also tweeted,” Spicer continued, because the NPS did not count. (My colleague Robinson Meyer explained how crowd counts at events like the inauguration come about.) He incorrectly characterized ridership statistics provided by WMATA, D.C.’s transit authority.
Then came the big whopper: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration—period—both in person and around the globe.”
Spicer’s statement required dismissing all available evidence: ridership count, eyewitness testimony, independent crowd-counts, and Nielsen television ratings. Spicer cut his teeth at the Republican National Committee as the combative voice of a body often at odds with the media, but even by those standards, his furious insistence on assertions at odds with the evidence were peculiar.
They are, however, emerging as a hallmark of the administration. For days ahead of the inauguration, Trump aides insisted that the president-elect was writing his own inaugural address, without the aid of speechwriters. They went so far as to stage a photograph that purported to show him writing the speech—though the image showed Trump wielding a Sharpie, and some internet sleuths speculated that the desk he was using is typically used as a reception desk at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
On Friday, however, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Much of the speech was written by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, two of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, a White House official said.” Why mislead the public about who wrote the speech? After all, the news that Miller would be assisting in writing the address had emerged days ago, and there’s certainly no shame in a president employing speechwriters, nor has the practice dimmed positive reception for past presidential addresses.
Ahead of the inauguration, Trump threw a concert in front of the Lincoln Memorial. “This started out tonight being a small little concert, and then we had the idea maybe we’ll do it in front of the Lincoln Memorial,” Trump said in brief remarks. “I don’t know if it’s ever been done before. But if it has, very seldom.” That claim was also ridiculous, whether it was intentionally misleading or simply badly misinformed. There was a huge, widely covered concert at the memorial to kick off Obama’s inauguration festivities eight years ago.
These are only three examples of Trump and his aides offering statements that are not only provably false, but easily checked. (There are plenty more where they came from, like Trump’s claim that Russian hacking was not brought up before the election.)
There was a brief skirmish within the journalism world around the new year, when Wall Street Journal editor Gerry Baker professed wariness about how some of Trump’s statements had been labeled. “I’d be careful about using the word ‘lie.’ ‘Lie’ implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead,” he said. Baker took some heat for that statement in some more progressive parts of the press, but his distinction is real and important.
But how is anyone to view Spicer’s statement as stemming from anything other than a deliberate intent to mislead? The facts are clear, and given that Spicer did not take questions, his main purpose on Saturday must have been to spread falsehoods about crowd size.
Top Trump aide Kellyanne Conway appeared on Meet the Press Sunday morning, where Chuck Todd grilled her on the incident. “The presidency is about choices. I’m curious why President Trump chose yesterday to send out his press secretary to essentially litigate a provable falsehood when it comes to a small and petty thing like inaugural crowd size,” Todd asked. Conway first tried to deflect, saying, “I don’t think presidents are judged by crowd sizes, they’re judged by accomplishments.” Fair enough, Todd said—so why lie?
“You’re saying it’s a falsehood, and Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts,” Conway responded.
Todd was flabbergasted by the Orwellian turn of phrase: “Alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.”
There’s still no good explanation for Spicer’s statement, but it fits with a long-running mantra from Trump aides and supporters that there’s no such thing as an objective reality. The question for Trump and his aides is simple: If you’re willing to lie about stuff this minuscule, why should anyone believe what you say about the really big things that matter?
The Trump campaign made a winning wager that enough voters didn’t care that they could get away with that, and the nascent Trump administration seems to be going double-or-nothing on the gamble. Perhaps that’s a winning bet, and objective facts are a thing of the past. But that’s a claim that’s been advanced before, not that long ago, in American history, by a Republican administration whose top aides disdained the “reality-based community.” That administration left office amid an enormous economic recession, and Trump himself called George W. Bush’s war in Iraq “a big fat mistake.” It’s a strange precedent for Trump to adopt at the start of his presidency.
You provided the short list.
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
Space does not allow completeness...
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol.....BucKKKle still thinks he exists.....
Buckly J. Ewer
Racism Whistleblower
You do, Pimp...
It just is, no one notices a Trump racist anymore...
There are too many of you...
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
He'd have to let go of yours first though, wouldn't be?
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
He didn't.
And nobody in their right mind with a shred of honesty believes he did.
Stump seems to have some kind of mental illness when it comes to lying.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Nope. I'm not hung up on Trump like you two are. I know exactly who and what he is.
you are a stupid fuck, Obama lied his ass off and yours too
Whoever said Obama claimed Benghazi didn't happen was not playing word games, they were LYING!
Seriously, Trump has lied more and he has barely been president.
Mexico is going to pay for the wall.
My crowd was the biggest ever.
The executive order did not relate to people with Green Cards.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
you are a literal dumbfuck aren't you? If Mexico pays increased tariffs or we charge for wire transfers to Mexico, that is in effect paying for the wall.
They were talking about the social media crowd no necessarily crowds actually at the event. Liberals love to twist their own narratives.
Everyone with Green Cards are still coming, we know someone that had no issue with her green card.
Guess that makes you the dumbfuck.
Yet Obama told us we could keep our health plan and doctors, I lost both. He also stood on national and TV and said he went to 57 states. LMAO