Old Dog

"THEY" say to be a good Politician you have to be a good liar.

"The Donald" is not a Politician and is not President for his own financial gain.

Hence, I believe any lie he has told he believes will ultimately be for the good of the American people.

After I get all the backlash I am sure I will receive I will post examples of what I mean.

Big dog

Sorry Old Dog, this dog ain't gonna argue with you.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Wow, the koolaide must taste better than I thought.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Nor will this old dog and old b***h. You are right on target, and deserve an extra MilkBone

NPP and SWMBO

Morgan

One definition of a politician~ a person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement within an organization. I'd say he's definitely one, now being president he is unequivocally one to the nth degree. We do live in the present, do we not?

But to justify any and all lies to be righteous, because you believe it to be for the betterment of the country, builds a foundation in deception and sand and aligns itself in corruption, sad you don't see that and to believe that such a man deserves your devotion and loyalty and speaks of your own moral conviction...lacking.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I'm still curious about what supposed lies Trump has told to the American People that have caused any harm, hardship, or of such magnitude they changed the direction of the country. Liberals should know these proven lies because they are the biggest liars in the world.

Kazudy

Well, you'll get a thumbs up from me.👍👍👍👍👍

bahmer

Good one.

Amen and Amen

Old Dog

This is just the reaction I expected from some and you answered it for me, "This is the present", so we should go forward instead of bringing the past into play on things that do not matter in going forward, only to obstruct the process of "Make America Great Again".

Even to you that does not mean all lies should not be uncovered such as all the ones on the table now but the ones like the "Stormy Debate" and any other trivial matter that tries to put "The Donald" on a slow pace.

If you can sort out the difference between a "LIE vs a lie" maybe we can get on the path to "Make America great again".

I thank you for your input for all to see.

moldyoldy

In trumps case, he tells so many lies that they all can not be evaluated. He may say something in the morning and deny saying it at lunch, while the news plays the video of both and his sycophants blame the news media.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Boisterous exaggerations are not out right lies. Still stupid because it gives his enemies fodder. I have asked you loons a number of times to please site a lie Trump has told that hurt Americans, our Country, or policy. Hint; Obama and his administration (you now the guys portrait you have painted on your ceiling) told lies that actually did real damage.

moldyoldy

American Foreign Policy in the Trump Era
By Keren Yarhi-Milo

Believe me.” U.S. President Donald Trump has used that phrase countless times, whether he is talking about counterterrorism (“I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me”), building a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border (“Believe me, one way or the other, we’re going to get that wall”), or the Iran nuclear deal (“Believe me. Oh, believe me. . . . It’s a bad deal”).
Trump wants to be taken at his word. But public opinion polls consistently indicate that between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans do not find him trustworthy. The global picture is no better. Most citizens of traditional U.S. allies, such as Australia, France, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, say that they have no confidence in the U.S. president.
In other words, Trump suffers from a credibility gap. This is, perhaps, unsurprising. According to The New York Times, Trump said something untrue every day for the first 40 days of his presidency. His actions speak even louder. Trump has sown doubt about some of the United States’ oldest and most important commitments, such as its support for NATO—an alliance Trump described as “obsolete” in January, before declaring it “no longer obsolete” in April. He has flip-flopped on policy positions, publicly undermined the efforts of members of his own administration, and backpedaled on diplomatic agreements, including the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal.
The United States does not derive its credibility from the words of the executive alone, but Trump’s behavior carries consequences. As the president undermines the nation’s credibility at home and abroad, allies will hesitate to trust American promises, and U.S. threats will lose some of their force. The risks of deadly miscalculation will increase. And to demonstrate its resolve, the United States may need to take more costly and extreme actions. Other sources of credibility, such as American military prowess and a general faith in U.S. institutions, may mitigate some of the damage wreaked by Trump. But there is no substitute for a president whose words still matter.
YOUR REPUTATION PRECEDES YOU
The Nobel laureate and nuclear strategist Thomas Schelling once wrote that “face is one of the few things worth fighting over.” For much of the twentieth century, policymakers believed that their own credibility was essential to making threats believable and to reassuring allies and adversaries alike that they could trust U.S. commitments. In the 1950s, for example, the United States entered the Korean War in part to demonstrate its resolve to actively counter the Soviet Union. A similar concern about reputation kept U.S. troops in Vietnam long after policymakers had concluded that the United States was losing the war. In the post–Cold War era, most American leaders have considered credibility essential to the task of maintaining the U.S. alliance system and the postwar liberal order. Such thinking played a role in U.S. interventions in Haiti, Kosovo, and Iraq. The rationale for these interventions varied, as did their outcomes, but in each case, leaders backed their words with action.
In international politics, an actor’s credibility is tied to its reputation, a characteristic that political scientists generally split into two varieties. What Robert Jervis calls “signaling reputation” refers to an actor’s record of carrying out threats or fulfilling promises. “General reputation,” on the other hand, refers to a broader range of attributes, such as whether an actor is cooperative or sincere. These two forms of reputation can affect each other: for example, sustained damage to a state’s signaling reputation may erode its general reputation for trustworthiness. However, a country’s general reputation can also be distinct. Before the Korean War, for example, the United States had made no specific commitment to South Korea. Choosing to intervene, therefore, did not affect the United States’ signaling reputation but may have contributed to a general reputation for resolve.
In international politics, an actor’s credibility is tied to its reputation.
Context can also affect credibility. For example, a president may not be perceived as trustworthy when he makes assurances to allies but may still be considered credible when he threatens military action. Or he may be seen as trustworthy on social or economic issues but not on foreign policy. Sometimes, a president’s credibility at home can affect his credibility abroad. In 1981, U.S. President Ronald Reagan followed through on his threat to fire more than 11,000 air traffic controllers after they had violated federal law by going on strike. A number of policymakers and observers—including George Shultz, who became U.S. secretary of state the following year, and Tip O’Neill, then Speaker of the House—reported that this move had significant, if unintentional, consequences for U.S. foreign policy: the Soviets learned that Reagan didn’t bluff.
Some scholars are skeptical that reputations matter. The political scientist Daryl Press argues that credibility has nothing to do with a leader’s record of following through on threats. Instead, adversaries evaluate the balance of military capabilities and the interests at stake. Press argues that during the Cuban missile crisis, for example, members of the Kennedy administration viewed Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s threats as highly credible, even though Khrushchev had repeatedly backed down on his ultimatum that Western forces withdraw from West Berlin. In Press’ view, Khrushchev’s credibility stemmed not from his signaling reputation but from Washington’s view of the nuclear balance of power and Soviet interests. Similarly, the political scientist Jonathan Mercer argues that, historically, backing down from a threat has not led countries to develop a reputation for weakness among adversaries, and standing firm has not led to a reputation for resolve among allies.
The empirical evidence these scholars have gathered is important. But their view by no means represents the scholarly consensus. According to the political scientists Frank Harvey and John Mitton, for example, a reputation for following through on threats significantly increases a state’s coercive power. Focusing on U.S. interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, they show that adversaries studied what the United States had said and how it had behaved in comparable situations to infer its resolve and to predict its likely actions. My work with the political scientist Alex Weisiger has shown that countries that have backpedaled in past crises are much more likely to be challenged again, whereas countries with good reputations for resolve are much less likely to face military confrontations. Other studies have documented how states that break their alliance commitments develop a reputation for being unreliable and are less likely to earn trust in the future. A good reputation, this body of work demonstrates, remains crucial for successful diplomacy.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-12-12/after-credibility

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

New York Times, bunch of Harvard professors and liberal policy so call experts. Nice try. Joke.

moldyoldy

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden in an opinion piece for the New York Times calls President Donald Trump a liar and says his repeated slights on the intelligence community have taken a large toll.
“We in the intelligence world have dealt with obstinate and argumentative presidents through the years. But we have never served a president for whom ground t***h really doesn’t matter,” says Hayden, who directed Intelligence under the last three presidents.

Intelligence work, says Hayden, is based on “gathering, evaluating and evaluating information, and then disseminating conclusions for use, study or refutation.”
Trump, though, reflects and exploits “post-t***h” thinking, “a condition where facts are less influential in shaping opinion than emotion and personal belief,” writes Hayden.

Specifically, Hayden criticizes Trump’s executive travel order banning immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries because he is “trying to fulfill a campaign promise based on exaggerated fears about immigrants and unfair criticism of the refugee vetting system,” his plan to end the Iranian nuclear deal even “in the face of intelligence that Iran has not committed a material breach of the compact,” and his characterization of the Russia probe as a “witch hunt.”

“The president only recently and grudgingly agreed to impose sanctions on Russians believed to have interfered in the American e******n, and he continues to characterize the investigation as a 'witch hunt' while relentlessly attacking agencies of his own administration,” writes Hayden.
The Trump campaign has also “normalized lying to an unprecedented degree,” and the president is more committed to carrying out campaign promises than listening to his intelligence officers, he said.

Trump, though, did get it right one time, Hayden added – his speech on Afghanistan last summer.
“These are truly uncharted waters for the country,” writes Hayden. “We have in the past argued over the values to be applied to objective reality, or occasionally over what constituted objective reality, but never the existence or relevance of objective reality itself.”

Read Newsmax: Hayden: 'Ground T***h Really Doesn't Matter' for Trump | Newsmax.com
l

JoyV

Saying, "believe me" is neither a lie nor the t***h.

Public opinion polls vary widely depending on 1) the demographics of those polled. 2) how the polls were taken (I.E. phone polls, online polls linked to either left wing or right wing sites, walk-in polls where the location of the polling site matters. 4) And most important HOW the questions are worded!!!! E******n polls taken by the left wing news organization certainly got it wrong on who would win.

A mature person changes their position when the situation changes. The NATO situation was lopsided at best when Trump took office. He said IF others did not start contributing, we would (paraphrase) review it for changes in our participation. I could take the time to look up the exact wording, but the left wing news reported that Trump wants to drop NATO. This reporting was NOT true. After he took office, NATO reviewed itself and other NATO countries began contributing. This is when Trump announced that we would not change our NATO contribution.

Trump is the first President in a long time who IS keeping his promises to foreign nations. Obama would say the least offensive things to the world while blaming our own country for most of the ills of the world (apologist). Or he say we were taking a stand such as drawing a red line in the sand but the world knew he would not stick to his word but would back down. When Trump says we will not stand for a thing, he does not back down. The world has soon come to realize he means what he says so don't ignore warnings. Yet he has also shown he is willing to negotiate if the other party is willing to seriously negotiate. The world seems much safer than when one belligerent after another was bribed to play nice, yet no consequences were attached to NOT playing nice after the bribe was taken. And no, Obama was not the only President to do so. But perhaps the only one to consistently do so.