“Trump lies” is kind of redundant

Don the Con lies every time he speaks.

‘It’s not magic and it’s not true’: MSNBC hosts gleefully blow up Trump’s boast he sent the stock market soaring
[Via Raw Story]

MSNBC business reporters Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle sarcastically tore apart President Donald Trump’s claims that he has set the stock market on a record path, saying his claims are easily disputed and absolutely “not true.” On MSNBC’s Velshi & Ruhle, the two hosts to…


Saying “ Did Mary trump?” or “Sam has been trumping all day” will be seen as a synonym for lying.

Image:  Gage Skidmore

3 thoughts on ““Trump lies” is kind of redundant

  1. I saw the link to this blog post on Facebook, so I thought I would reply here.

    The truth of falsity of any statement is independent of the source of the statement. Hypothetically, Trump could accidentally tell the truth while intending to lie and visa versa. There are millions of examples of well-intentioned politicians/activists/intellectuals/FB posters who are ideological Typhoid Marys. For example, while relentlessly attacking the hideous Stalin, Trotsky and his supporters worldwide continued to spread communist ideology and other falsehoods. Examples could be multiplied ad infinitum.

    I think you will agree with me that debate is mutual error detection and a great way to correct biases. In the spirit of debate, I offer to pay $250.00 to the charity of your choice if you debate a top libertarian intellectual for 1-2 hours (assuming I can arrange it). It does not have to be recorded. Subjects for debate might include: ACA, single-payer, social democracy, Keynesian economics, rule of law, the cause of the 2007 meltdown, etc.

    “Notwithstanding the many outrageous, mendacious things the president says and tweets, the press is aghast that his “fake news” tropes against mainstream-media stalwarts resonate with much of the country. Well, if you want to know why, this latest Obamacare coverage is why. What Trump has actually done is end the illegal payoffs without which insurance companies have no rational choice but to jack up premiums or flee the Obamacare exchanges. The culprits here are the charlatans who gave us Obamacare. To portray Trump as the bad guy is not merely fake news. It’s an out-and-out lie.”


    1. Debates are seldom about who has the facts on their side. They are about winning points. They are lawyerly processes not really designed to enlighten. This is why it is always idiotic for a scientist to debate an evolution denialist. The goal of the denialist is obfuscate with, not to understand, to hold onto things rather than move forward. They can use debating approaches that no scientist would think of. The best models of the world o not come from people counting coup.

      So no debate. I hace my models and you have yours. My view of the complex elephant is as incorrect as you view (well, I do think mine is better because I have a big ego;-) But we get to a better model by incorporating as many views of the elephant. Not by excluding all but one. My goal in life does not include convincing every libertarian they are wrong (In fact, I have written about some of the ideas some libertarians promulgate that I agree with.)My goal is to get as many people as possible to hear my viewpoint, provide some insights from their own and come up with new views that better describe the world around us.

      Not to score points at a debate.

      Finally, the quote you provide illustrates my point. It uses debataing approaches to win, not to inform (just look at the words chosen to see this). That is the writers job.

      For example, One man’s payoff is another man’s lifeline. He denigrates parts of a complex law that was designed to be a much a win-win for everyone involved. He attacks the motives of people who, by every measure, were trying to help. He arrives at a conclusion that is not supported by facts, using lawyerly tools to obfuscate how he arrives there. As the saying goes, he is pounding the table as hard as he can because he has no facts to stand on.

      The CSRs allowed me to have insurance with lower deductibles ($1200 rather than $6000), reimbursing the insurance companies for doing that. I fail to see how a reimbursement for the almost $5000 the insurance companies provided me is a payoff. The money provides a service. It substantially lowered my out of pocket expense. Should the insurance companies just provide that $5000 out of the kindness of their hearts). For someone to call that a payoff is someone who reveals that they do not want facts to interfere with their points, someone who is fine using rhetorical, lawyerly tricks to win a debate. They use words to misrepresent and attack, without regard for what actually happened. They do not care about the harm of their ideas, their misrepresentation of Obamacare or how it came into being nor how to produce something better. They care simply about winning.

      Because that is their job. If they do not win in the eyes of their employer, they lose their job. Some pundits win by providing facts, explaining them and helping create a view of the world. Others, such as this one, use words to attack, with no real regard for reality as long as they are seen to win.

      Anyone who describes the people who created Obamacare in order to help the situation as charlatans reveals themselves as someone who only lives to count coup for their side, not as someone who actually wants to make the world better.These sorts of debate never move us forward. Because a debate can be won by being totally destructive. And that is what the writer from the National Review is attempting with their words. To win a debate not so much with positive, forward-looking arguments but by pounding the table with their shoe, calling their opponents names, denigrating their point of view and twisting facts around.

      Not the tactics of someone with facts on their side. They may win with many, but that does not make them right. In fact, the bones of many societies that thought they were right litter humanity’s history. Wiiling a debate is nothing but getting the models right is. Because in the end, Nature always wins.No debate can overcome that.

  2. Richard,

    Thank you for your reply. My comments follow yours.

    Debate is mutual error detection. It’s about testing your ideas. Criticism is essential for finding the truth. That is the essence of Popper’s philosophy.

    The truth is what matters. Many views are false, so we would not want to incorporate falsehoods.

    I wish to hear your viewpoint. I often read the links you post on FB. On a rare occasion they are interesting. Unfortunately, 99% never seems to go beyond boring and predictable Democratic Party talking points. Your hourly obsession with Trump reminds me of this adage: Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.

    Debate is not about scoring points. Again, it’s about mutual error detection.

    It is easy enough to test his arguments/verify his facts. The style is irrelevant.

    You attack the GOP’s motives every day. You even attack “Koch money” like an old style Marxist. There are many sincere and acute critics of the ACA. As you are financially dependent on the ACA, it seems you are more likely to be biased than the critics. But what matters here is the truth, not motives. As for those who were “trying to help”, they still desperately need the reminder that the road to hell is paved with good intentions (and there are all too many historical examples). It’s also a reasonable assumption that the ACA is designed to pave the way to single-payer, which is what Obama always wanted (as do you). And, apparently, altruism involves deception (Gruber).

    But he did cite facts and he does make arguments. Your reply does not contain a refutation; it simply claims he has no facts.

    To be blunt, I do not think the entire insurance industry should be reconfigured to serve your interests even though I sincerely sympathize with your predicament. The problems with healthcare/insurance stem from massive government intervention. Unfortunately, you are unwittingly reaping what you have sown. No, I do not think the insurance companies should agree to suffer losses out of the kindness of their hearts. But the issue is whether or not these reimbursements were authorized by the ACA.

    Again, you are attacking him for the same behavior that you exhibit daily, i.e. impugning motives. Motives are irrelevant to the truth. Why would the insurance companies agree to support the ACA if they had to take losses? Looks like a payoff of sorts.

    Again, his motives are irrelevant. He could just as easily say you are self-interested, which would also be irrelevant (even if true!). The truth is independent of what any one believes.

    Socialists/Marxists once promised to make the world a better place but socialism was a nightmare. They also used to savage their liberal opponents as apologists for the bourgeois. You resort to similar ad hominems even though, as inconceivable as it may be, critics of social democracy might be right. As I recently posted on FB, the Labour Party/social democrats have acknowledged socialism is a failure/non-starter and embraced markets. Good intentions are not enough.

    Calling one’s opponents names? You mean like coward, liar, selfish, greedy, racist, misogynist, etc., etc., etc.? But still irrelevant. Debate is mutual error detection. As we are all biased, we need others to help us to detect our errors. Debates do move forward. Many people change their minds after being subjected to acute (but friendly) criticisms. For example, David Steele abandoned socialism after a friend explained Mises’ Economic Calculation Argument to him.

    It’s important to subject your model to criticism, especially when you plan to impose it on the entire society.

    Best wishes,


Comments are closed.