Updated (in 2016) version of an old joke: George Washington could never tell a lie. Richard Nixon could never tell the truth. Donald Trump could never tell the difference.
I think it's to bring out the MAGA commenters and show they are the same crazies who oppose NS's views and defend Charedim. But is if that's the case then by the looks of the commenters here (so far) it hasn't really worked...
Great post, and absolutely valid point. I’ve seen similar ideas elsewhere, for example https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/opinion/trump-indictment-fraud.html, and anyone who’s been paying attention to Trump knows that this is how his mind works. He really does have a very odd and strangely tenuous relationship with truth and facts, different from most other people. He’ll believe things based solely on their underlying tenor, and on how they make him feel; and he’ll say the strangest things, often completely contradictory to himself, or say many contradictory things in succession, and yet somehow believe that it’s all sensical, that the facts that underlie words, and the contradictions between ideas and statements, are simply not germaine to anything.
The issue with the trials is that most (or all?) of the criminal charges have intent as an element and it must be proved in court in order to convict. That’s why a lot of the underlying facts in the indictments are about things Trump said that show he knew what he did was fraud, he knew he was lying, he knew he was committing a crime, etc. This is to establish the intent element for later in the case.
The problem with Trump though is that his mind is strange and it’s hard to say he has intent toward many of the things he does in the same way that most normal people do, since he often has contradictory ideas and intents for the things he does, or isn’t quite sure and makes up his mind as he goes along, or does or says things that don’t quite make sense all along the way.
The thing is though, that this argument about Trump can’t be a good legal defense, at least not to this extreme extent, because that would mean Trump can pretty much never be charged in any complex criminal case because of the strange and twisted and unusual way his mind works. Which would be an odd outcome. And if his mind really does work that way then he’s also arguably not suitable to be President.
It is really frightening that Trump might be the next president and he either knowingly lied about the election results (which is what the prosecution claim), or he was unable to determine what is true and what isn't based on solid evidence given by his own advisors (which is what his defense claim)
Even if his defense manage to prove their case in court - that he is simply unable to determine what is true and what isn't, that would make him possibly the least suitable person for any position of responsibility, let alone the "leader of the free world"
Until a few months ago I thought that there was zero chance that the GOP would select trump as a candidate, and on the off chance that they did, there was absolutely no chance that he would score more votes than he did in 2020 - I couldn't believe that there is a single voter who backed Biden in 2020 who would now vote for Trump.
However polls in recent months show that he is overwhelmingly the frontrunner in the GOP primaries, and is statistically tied in a Trump-Biden race (less than 4 points between them in every poll).
And we thought that we had problems with our leaders in Israel
IMO, there is no argument. That Trump is a sociopath and/ or a psychopath are quite clear. If, and there should be, there were a test for mental fitness to hold high office, he would never pass it without cheating. That so many Americans willfully echo his twisted mindset is the shanda and tragedy of our time.
The current President Joe Biden is a serial liar as well. Forgetting about politics, just about every personal story he tells is a lie. Here are a few examples.
1. He claimed he graduated in the top half of his class at law school. He was 76th in a class of 85.
2. His Amtrak story that he keeps repeating that a conductor congratulated him that his Amtrak miles had surpassed those he flew onboard Air Force Two would only have happened after the conductor had died
3. He claimed he used to drive an 18-wheeler truck. There is no evidence he ever drove a truck
4. He claimed as a youth he got arrested for protesting for civil rights. there is no evidence that Biden was actually arrested in either the legal sense or in how ordinary listeners would be likely to understand that term.
5. Joe Biden has recounted a story — three times in two weeks — about being arrested on his way to see Nelson Mandela. It never happened.
6. He claims that in 1961 when he and his father saw 2 men kissing his working-class Catholic father told his son, “Joey, it’s simple. They love each other”. Clearly didn’t happen.
7. He has repeatedly claimed that his son died in Iraq when he actually died of brain cancer 6 years after returning from Iraq.
8. Biden claims he was offered a job by an Idaho lumber company; they have no record.
9. He’s said he visited Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue after the 2018 massacre, speaking to the rabbi, when the synagogue says he’s never even been there.
These are examples off the top of my head that I remembered hearing about. There are many many more.
What this says about the US is quite disturbing. The top 2 candidates for president are serial liars. It’s quite sad.
Thank you for this. There are so many more lies. If the left media was honest and they would analyze biden like they did with Trump they would have also got to tens of thousands of lies. Furthermore the media nitpicks when it comes to trump and any and every comment is throughly analyzed. You could do that with any politician. But here are some articles that expose Biden's lies and show that they are actually more dangerous than Trumps:
The fact is that Trump talks a lot. He says more than he should. If you look at the first 100 days of office, trump told 17 false statements out of 29. Thats close to 60%. Biden told 2 false statments out of 4. Thats 50%. If biden spoke as much as Trump he also would have had thousands of lies since the beginning of when he took office. But as I said before the left media over analyzes anything trump says and mostly disregards anything biden says. So Trump is certainly right about fake news and the media are the biggest hypocrites in this regard.
"The fact is that Trump talks a lot. He says more than he should. If you look at the first 100 days of office, trump told 17 false statements out of 29."
He made only 29 total statements during his first 100 days? He must be a Buddhist monk or something.
"But here are some articles that expose Biden's lies and show that they are actually more dangerous than Trumps:"
As much as I dislike Biden, his lies do not lead people to riot and do not undermine the whole edifice of democracy. If your point is that Biden is full of it, we agree immediately. If you are saying that Biden's and Trump's lies are qualitatively comparable, then you are in desperate need for perspective. (Btw, some lies in your list are just conjectures, like what his father may have told him or not, and by putting stuff like this you undermine your own credibility)
I specifically only mentioned his non political stories. His political lies are very dangerous. Calling the Georgia voting law Jim Crow 2 was an egregious lie.
Every politician lies about something. With Biden and Trump it seems like lies are the rule and the truth is the exception. They just lie all the time.
“Back in September, my friend Donald had said he had his lawyers look at this every which way and said there was no issue there,” said Cruz, whose mother was born in the U.S. “Now since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed. But the poll numbers have.”
Trump admitted that he only recently started to play the “birther” card against Cruz as the Texas senator has risen in the polls.
“Now he’s doing a little bit better. Before I didn’t care,” said Trump, who vowed not to sue Cruz himself over citizenship questions but predicted that Democrats would should he win the Republican nomination. “There’s a big question mark over your head, and you can’t do that to the party.”
"... the only thing that mattered was their theological conviction that it was heresy. While they may have pretended to be interested in discussing the scientific arguments for or against, this was actually not at all relevant to them...."
This has also been shown of various prominent proponents of evolution.
I forget who coined the phrase relating to embracing their less than upright political office seeker : He may be a sonofabitch but he’s MY snofabitch.
Both Biden and Trump are detestable, but it’s the policies that his supporters think will be healthier for USA, that attracts them. It’s an awful choice. I wish they would both just go away.
Trump doesn't have many policies. Many of his followers are attracted specifically by his personality. (Though I think that Jews often perceive him as being very pro-Israel and that's the clincher for them.)
You seem unaware of the deleterious policies of our President Joe Biden against which Mr. trump is campaigning against. You seem unaroused regarding the invasion of illegal immigrants costing citizens $billions for law enforcement and much of our medical resources that should be expended for our citizens. And awful crime rates in our cities. The murder rate in the my nations capitol has increased 20% and my nations legislators are afraid to walk outside of a few blocks of the Capitol. The “woke” standards that are being implemented in our society. Mutilating children to conform to new transgender “rights”. These are a few of the policies with which Trump and his supporters are concerned. You seem oblivious to the concerns of at least 50% of American citizens. I just wish there were someone besides Mr. Trump who would be endeared to their concerns.
"Mutilating children to conform to new transgender “rights”."
Except this is hyperbole. Genital 'mutilation' of 'children' for gender dysmorphia is almost non-existent. Across the USA, any form of transitioning surgery for teens (with informed consent) is in the low hundreds (in a population of over 300m) and certainly 'children' are not 'mutilated'.
Now for some real tacheles - compare this to the tens of thousands of Jewish boys who are circumcised within weeks of birth. These are actual babies, whose parents decide to mutilate their children's genitalia with zero permission from the child or doctor and with zero medical basis for the procedure. This is an example of a real scenario where children are surgically altered for no discernable reason other than a religious requirement.
"These are actual babies, whose parents decide to mutilate their children's genitalia with zero permission from the child or doctor and with zero medical basis for the procedure."
Right, of course. It's mutilation. No wonder frum families have so few kids. The males have all been genitally mutilated. I can't imagine why I never realized that before. Must be all that ultra-orthodox indoctrination.
"These are actual babies, whose parents decide to mutilate their children's genitalia with zero permission from the child or doctor and with zero medical basis for the procedure."
I'll never forgive my parents for removing my umbilical cord thingie.
"The interviewer asked him whether he would retract his support if Trump were to publicly murder an innocent person. The man thought for a moment and admitted that he wouldn’t." This individual that you quoted represents the real danger of Trumpism. For too many of his legions of followers, Trump is now a cult figure. For many of them, he has even devolved into a religion. Scary.
I agree Cary. Another post post might be why the man interviewed likes him to the point where he maintains his fondness for Trump even in the murder scenario. What drives people to ignore appalling behaviour in others?
Perhaps cognitive dissonance? If you worship at the feet of the Almighty Trump, you are impervious to facts or rational argument. You simply retreat to the safety and comfort of your echo chamber, and only tune in to FOX "News" (or perhaps NewsMax or OAN) to get your "information".
I think the answer is more profane. They clearly wish for violence and crave the opportunity to murder their enemies and establish an autocratic, nativist state.
That certainly applies to the more extreme among his followers, such as the Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, Oath Keepers, etc. As for Trump himself, he does not particularly crave violence, or even establishing an autocratic state. That would require an ideology (even a twisted pathological one). Trump is not driven by any ideology. Trump is driven by narcissistic personality disorder.
"The outrage against the first steps in removing checks and balances in IL are not solely shared by an amorphous 'Left' but all tiers of IL society - inc. large parts of the defence & security community - who see what this is - a step towards a national religious ruling junta who can appoint felons & criminals such as Deri & Ben Gvir with impunity and effectively render all checks & balances moot."
Now, I might ask: 'But perhaps you are willing to at least offer some insight as to what value these discussions bring. How does Judaism benefit - let alone society?'
And I might note note that, 'Quite apart from what it might mean to those who indulge in such reasonings/debates - the parochial nature of these debates is depressing and pointless.'
Sorry are you comparing obscure sectarian debates within Judaism to the very real local & global impacts of the disruption of normal political discourse & process in IL & the US?
Trump was the most truthful president I've seen in my lifetime. While he told many mistruths (I think he often likely did believe them) but they were mostly harmless silly lies, bragging, or just a part of his grandiose manner of projecting power. Bush, Obama, Clinton, and now Biden were all selling America out to China and other countries, empowering our enemies, selling out to the large corporate interests, and lying us into expensive pointless wars (i.e. Iraq, Libya, Serbia). Trump's supporters don't care about these lies you mention because they pale in comparison to having a president that was watching out for America's best interest better then any president had in years. Having a president that wasn't pushing us into pointless foreign wars and empowering our enemies. Having a president, imperfect as he was, that was helping the people on the ground that had long since been forgotten and scorned by our government. Focusing on his mistruths (wether he believed them or not) when the media and majority of the politicians in Washington are much worse, much more frequent, and much more destructive liars than him is foolhardy and massively misguided.
No, I prefer a truth full person who has good policies. Trump was more truth full then all those other presidents, the press, a majority of other politicians, and he had much better policies. This is partly based on the fact that he did or tried to do much more of what he promised than the other presidents I've seen in my time. His greater propensity for truth is actually one of the hallmarks that makes him a better president then his predecessors. Was he perfect in this regard, far from it, bet he was a step in the right direction in his greater truthfulness and policies.
These are just a bunch of blind leftist that have fallen for the mainstream media lies. Iraq, they have wmds... Corona, naturally occurring virus from a wet market.... Michael Brown hand up don't shoot.... Treyvon Martin was just an innocent kid.... Kids should be encouraged to become trans... These are just some of the many many lies perpetrated by the media and other politicians that are wreaking havoc in America and the world. These are the lies that Trump's supporters are worried about.
I agree that there is a third possibility. However I disagree with Rabbi Slifkin about what that is. To better understand Trump and his supporters, you need to think about the concept of DOUBT. A skeptical person is not affirming the opposite. He is questioning the assumption. Trump and his supporters are not sure the election was rigged. They are doubting it's fairness though. They are questioning the assumption of a fair election.
And here's a thought: people who question the existence of an almighty G-d, will be honest to consider that the same questions can be applied to a "perfectly un-cheatable election" where no current evidence of fraud now means no evidence will ever be found. Did Science have evidence of evolution when Darwin suggested it? It was a theory. The evidence came later. People can be proven right or wrong over time, but nobody should be expected to know the answers instantly. On Jan 6 did YOU or anyone else know if the election was fair? How can you expect Trump or the thousands of people trying to stop the certification, to accept the results until a proper Investigation was conducted?
One more point to bring up: Trump voiced his concern numerous times that the coming election may not be a fair one. While some will say this shows he never was interested in accepting the results, I observed something else. Instead of addressing his concerns, asking: " OK so how should we ensure there will be no fraud?", "What can we do to safeguard the integrity of the election process and seal up the holes?", instead, the media flippantly dismissed them. That aroused my own suspicion.
Don't we all want a more secure election process? Let us make one moving forward! Like virus protection, we need updates to keep hackers and government agencies from getting the ability to interfere. Electronic voter machines intoduced a plethora of vulnerabilities to our democratic process. It is time we all get together to fix these weaknesses instead of focusing on Trump. That is the only way to restore Republican voter confidence in the election process. Harassing them as "election heretics" only supports their suspicions.
As a supporting argument, you state "Did Science have evidence of evolution when Darwin suggested it? It was a theory. The evidence came later." That is patently incorrect and shows that, forgive me, you have no concept as to how science operates. Darwin formed his work and drew his conclusions upon which his seminal work "The Origin of the Species" was based on his observations as the naturalist on the HMS Beagle as it explored the South American coastlines and especially the Gallapogos. The theorey of evolution, as it was coined, was further refined by scientific observation and experimentation.
As for Trump's ludicrous claims of election fraud, as in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendent to prove his innocence. Indeed, yu cannot prove a negative. Trump and his cadre of useful idiots have made numerous accusations of votor fraud and irregularities, without any substantiation, and they have all (over 60 in fact) been thrown out of court as whololy unsubstantiated, even by Trump Administration appointed judges. Indeed, there is no evidence of any significant votor fraud., except in Trump's mind.
The scientific method involves making a hypothesis and then testing it. While it isn't the reason it is referred to as a theory (Thank you Joseph for pointing that out), Darwin's theory of Evolution was still in the observation and hypothesis stage. Experimental data came later. If you claim to know how science works, you will consider a theory before experimental evidence comes in.
Observational evidence is used to form a hypothesis. Experimental evidence rules out other explanations for the observations. Nathan Slifkin can help us with this.
In our case, Trump's claim of organised election fraud falls into the "hypothesis" stage of our method. If we will follow through, we will test the theory by investigation, for that would be equivalent to conducting an "experiment". Does that sound fair?
In many, if not most cases, a theory is devised or conceived as an attempt to explain observed phenomenon. That was the case for Darwin and for Newton.
Trump's claims of widespread election fraud to not even remotely form the basis of a hypothesis. Wild unsubstantiated accusations do not meet the criteria for observable evidence. To warrant an investigation, you need facts, not wild accusations. Otherwise, there is no basis upon which to base an investigation, nothing to investigate. In short, there is no there there.
Of course there was evidence! He didn't win BIG! That means there must have been fraud. Because his rallies looked bigger than Biden's. I think that's not just observable evidence, that's a slam dunk case and they should throw Biden in jail. And Hillary, too. The only just result of this massive fraud is to crown Donald Trump emperor for ever and ever.
Oh course he won big. Nobody ever won bigger in the history of the world. Nobody ever had a more bigger, more gigantic win than him. He didn't just win 100% of the votes. He won 200% of the votes if not more. Nobody had a more humendous, if not humongus win. He should be awarded a Noble Prize for the enormous size of his win.
The word theory in scientific method does not mean the same as it does in common parlance. In common parlance the word is used to mean an incompletely developed or proved idea. In scientific method it means an overarching principle or set of principles that explains various underlying facts, like the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Gravity. Of course often when a theory is first proposed by its discoverer it is debated by others, and perhaps not yet fully proved, but that is not part of the definition of the word as it's used in science.
You hit it on the head. The courts did not and refused to rule on the election. There has not been any in depth investigation into serious instances of late ballots, misprinted ballots, violation of constitutional restrictions and legal restrictions to validate votes. The bald statement that there was no fraud in the elections is itself not true. Trump claimed there should at least be aninv
Shaul, it is nice that they ruled out that particular avenue of cheating. However, that would be elementary-level.
A recount just counts potentially fraudulent votes again. An audit is the same. It just ensures the count of the ballots themselves was fair.
If ballots were manufactured or falsified, if ballots were tampered with, if ballots from certain parties were destroyed, the hand count will not mend the issue.
Perhaps what would help is having all ballots supervised by camera and community volunteers at all times until the results of those ballots are hand counted, and publicly recorded. COVID-19 health and safety regulations did the opposite.
----
As far as an investigation into the past election, what would be satisfactory would be an appointment of a special counsel to conduct a thorough federal investigation; including subpoenas of all communications between party organizers and their staff, workers at the polls, etc. Republican and Democrat.
It is really detective work to uncover fraud if there was any, and an experienced investigator like Robert Mueller (former director of the FBI) for example, would know exactly what to check into. Such an investigation has not taken place.
---
In conclusion, a Rational Judaism thinker will avoid the temptation of affirming either side, and instead, admit that there is a possibility that cheating occurred. But it remains a possibility. How probable? That can be discussed.
Maybe Rabbi Slifkin can write about making an assessment of probability when it is hard to get the data. That is where people often mislead or lie to themselves.
"In conclusion, a Rational Judaism thinker will avoid the temptation of affirming either side, and instead, admit that there is a possibility that cheating occurred. But it remains a possibility. How probable? That can be discussed"
You're right. Maybe Hillary Clinton really won the 2016 election too. I guess we'll never know.
I will not enter into a discussion of Trump's mental state other than to say that he may well be diagnosable but that most, if not all, of the comments have been made by people not capable of diagnosing. It is also true that many of the leading political figures in American life are disturbed individuals who suffer from various personality disorders, including the majority of presidents in the last three decades.
The question of mental health is not, however, the primary issue in the question you raise. The first issue is whether the Trump claim is true or false, and we will almost certainly never know. There was an abundance of circumstantial (and harder) evidence at the time that could only have been addressed by thorough investigation and almost all the agencies and organizations that could and should have looked into the matter (with the exception of a few honest people like Justice Alito) punted. 2020 was not the first time that a presidential election might have been overturned by fraud (see, for example, JFK, etc.) but perhaps the first time that the claim was put forward so vocally and not ignored with a claim of the nation's good. There is certainly a possibility that a president less unpopular than Trump might have generated much greater pressure for an honest exploration of the claims and a president less disorganized than Trump might have been better prepared to investigate the evidence. It is a great national tragedy that we will probably never know the truth.
"There is certainly a possibility that a president less unpopular than Trump might have generated much greater pressure for an honest exploration of the claims and a president less disorganized than Trump might have been better prepared to investigate the evidence. It is a great national tragedy that we will probably never know the truth."
Other than *yet another* hand recount, *yet another* cyber-Ninja audit, *yet another* court challenge, *yet another* cringey documentary, what else would satisfy you?
"There was an abundance of circumstantial (and harder) evidence at the time that could only have been addressed by thorough investigation and almost all the agencies and organizations that could and should have looked into the matter (with the exception of a few honest people like Justice Alito) punted."
And Alito didn't 'punt on the question.' None of the Justices did. They told Ken Paxton and company that the state of Texas doesn't get to weigh in on how the state of Pennsylvania does their elections. Because they're- get this- different states. Alito (and Thomas) said that Texas ought to be given a chance to file their complaint and then have it go into the SCOTUS wastebasket, rather than having it dumped in the garbage before even getting there. But it was going into the wastebasket either way. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf "I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief"
As an aside, the notion that Mike Pence because had the authority to give the election to Donald Trump he was the sitting VP logically entails that Al Gore had the authority to hand the 2000 election to *himself *, because *he* was then the sitting vice president. Which sounds crazy, because it very much is. Which is why he didn't do it. https://www.c-span.org/classroom/document/?4173
It is kind of hard to ignore the current or former President of the United States--or a viable candidate for same. I think the Trump campaign is aware of this, and capitalizes on it.
You state: “Do they really, truly believe that there was a massive conspiracy involving Trump’s own appointees to falsify the election results?”
The election results in dispute were ALL from Democrat led states and counties. There were significant irregularities in the manner and outcome of the vote counts. It’s not clear to this American that the election was free and fair.
For the record, I would not vote for Trump if he murdered someone.
Of course all the disputed counts were from states that went to the Democrats. Why would Republicans investigate states where they won?
This would be the flip side to the successful ballot initiative in my home state of Michigan to remove the power of reapportionment from the (partisan) legislature to an independent commission. The initiative was filed by Democrats, because they were the ones suffering under the then current system. You could hardly expect the Republicans to challenge what for them was desirable. And if the parties' positions were reversed, no doubt the GOP would be starting that initiative--and rightly so.
Yes, I've noticed this phenomena in interactions with people with a certain personality type, namely narcissists (or tending towards it). They genuinely seem to process reality in a different way then normal people, that whatever happened was in a way that is most flattering to them, or puts them in the best light. Its really unbelievable to watch and took me a while to realize that they weren't consciously lying through their teeth.
The question is, does this give trump the right to plead insanity?
I think legal insanity involves "not knowing right from wrong". IMHO, "not knowing truth from falsehood" is in a similar category, but not quite the same.
Trump may not be a liar, but he could be "truthless" -- that is, nothing he says should be relied on, because he doesn't understand the difference between "truth" and "falsehood".
I recently had a pair of building contractors like that. They were so facile at lying that I got the impression they no longer saw any difference between falsehood and the truth.
Updated (in 2016) version of an old joke: George Washington could never tell a lie. Richard Nixon could never tell the truth. Donald Trump could never tell the difference.
You can't blame him. They start with the same three letters.
What is the point of this post ?
That's an excellent question. I'm not actually sure.
Now I have found an honest man. We love you for that.
I hope you've listened to Shushan Shpiel, where Achashverosh is played by Trump
Slifkin has to vent his animosity against people he doesn't like. Trump is a distant second to charedim, but he also gets some of it.
I think it's to bring out the MAGA commenters and show they are the same crazies who oppose NS's views and defend Charedim. But is if that's the case then by the looks of the commenters here (so far) it hasn't really worked...
Great post, and absolutely valid point. I’ve seen similar ideas elsewhere, for example https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/opinion/trump-indictment-fraud.html, and anyone who’s been paying attention to Trump knows that this is how his mind works. He really does have a very odd and strangely tenuous relationship with truth and facts, different from most other people. He’ll believe things based solely on their underlying tenor, and on how they make him feel; and he’ll say the strangest things, often completely contradictory to himself, or say many contradictory things in succession, and yet somehow believe that it’s all sensical, that the facts that underlie words, and the contradictions between ideas and statements, are simply not germaine to anything.
The issue with the trials is that most (or all?) of the criminal charges have intent as an element and it must be proved in court in order to convict. That’s why a lot of the underlying facts in the indictments are about things Trump said that show he knew what he did was fraud, he knew he was lying, he knew he was committing a crime, etc. This is to establish the intent element for later in the case.
The problem with Trump though is that his mind is strange and it’s hard to say he has intent toward many of the things he does in the same way that most normal people do, since he often has contradictory ideas and intents for the things he does, or isn’t quite sure and makes up his mind as he goes along, or does or says things that don’t quite make sense all along the way.
The thing is though, that this argument about Trump can’t be a good legal defense, at least not to this extreme extent, because that would mean Trump can pretty much never be charged in any complex criminal case because of the strange and twisted and unusual way his mind works. Which would be an odd outcome. And if his mind really does work that way then he’s also arguably not suitable to be President.
It is really frightening that Trump might be the next president and he either knowingly lied about the election results (which is what the prosecution claim), or he was unable to determine what is true and what isn't based on solid evidence given by his own advisors (which is what his defense claim)
Even if his defense manage to prove their case in court - that he is simply unable to determine what is true and what isn't, that would make him possibly the least suitable person for any position of responsibility, let alone the "leader of the free world"
Until a few months ago I thought that there was zero chance that the GOP would select trump as a candidate, and on the off chance that they did, there was absolutely no chance that he would score more votes than he did in 2020 - I couldn't believe that there is a single voter who backed Biden in 2020 who would now vote for Trump.
However polls in recent months show that he is overwhelmingly the frontrunner in the GOP primaries, and is statistically tied in a Trump-Biden race (less than 4 points between them in every poll).
And we thought that we had problems with our leaders in Israel
IMO, there is no argument. That Trump is a sociopath and/ or a psychopath are quite clear. If, and there should be, there were a test for mental fitness to hold high office, he would never pass it without cheating. That so many Americans willfully echo his twisted mindset is the shanda and tragedy of our time.
Those terms...I don't think you actually know what they mean.
Inconceivable!
Yes Ilene. Every day I try my best not to cry about the shanda and tragedy. I 'm sad and frightened of how my grandchildren's future looks.
Me too, Sara. I'm just trying to work out how to explain this travesty of humanity to them as they become older and more cognizant of life.
I hope that you are pointing out to them the shanda of the "other side" of American politics as well.
The current President Joe Biden is a serial liar as well. Forgetting about politics, just about every personal story he tells is a lie. Here are a few examples.
1. He claimed he graduated in the top half of his class at law school. He was 76th in a class of 85.
2. His Amtrak story that he keeps repeating that a conductor congratulated him that his Amtrak miles had surpassed those he flew onboard Air Force Two would only have happened after the conductor had died
3. He claimed he used to drive an 18-wheeler truck. There is no evidence he ever drove a truck
4. He claimed as a youth he got arrested for protesting for civil rights. there is no evidence that Biden was actually arrested in either the legal sense or in how ordinary listeners would be likely to understand that term.
5. Joe Biden has recounted a story — three times in two weeks — about being arrested on his way to see Nelson Mandela. It never happened.
6. He claims that in 1961 when he and his father saw 2 men kissing his working-class Catholic father told his son, “Joey, it’s simple. They love each other”. Clearly didn’t happen.
7. He has repeatedly claimed that his son died in Iraq when he actually died of brain cancer 6 years after returning from Iraq.
8. Biden claims he was offered a job by an Idaho lumber company; they have no record.
9. He’s said he visited Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue after the 2018 massacre, speaking to the rabbi, when the synagogue says he’s never even been there.
These are examples off the top of my head that I remembered hearing about. There are many many more.
What this says about the US is quite disturbing. The top 2 candidates for president are serial liars. It’s quite sad.
Thank you for this. There are so many more lies. If the left media was honest and they would analyze biden like they did with Trump they would have also got to tens of thousands of lies. Furthermore the media nitpicks when it comes to trump and any and every comment is throughly analyzed. You could do that with any politician. But here are some articles that expose Biden's lies and show that they are actually more dangerous than Trumps:
https://thecitizen.com/2023/03/21/from-the-lies-of-trump-to-the-lies-of-biden/
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3850219-the-seven-biggest-lies-biden-told-this-week/
The fact is that Trump talks a lot. He says more than he should. If you look at the first 100 days of office, trump told 17 false statements out of 29. Thats close to 60%. Biden told 2 false statments out of 4. Thats 50%. If biden spoke as much as Trump he also would have had thousands of lies since the beginning of when he took office. But as I said before the left media over analyzes anything trump says and mostly disregards anything biden says. So Trump is certainly right about fake news and the media are the biggest hypocrites in this regard.
"The fact is that Trump talks a lot. He says more than he should. If you look at the first 100 days of office, trump told 17 false statements out of 29."
He made only 29 total statements during his first 100 days? He must be a Buddhist monk or something.
"But here are some articles that expose Biden's lies and show that they are actually more dangerous than Trumps:"
Most of the examples in the Hill link aren't 'lies' by any measure. And the other link is a whiny letter to the editor which admits that what Biden said is technically true. Contrast that with these sorts of examples: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/16/politics/fact-check-dale-top-15-donald-trump-lies/index.html
As much as I dislike Biden, his lies do not lead people to riot and do not undermine the whole edifice of democracy. If your point is that Biden is full of it, we agree immediately. If you are saying that Biden's and Trump's lies are qualitatively comparable, then you are in desperate need for perspective. (Btw, some lies in your list are just conjectures, like what his father may have told him or not, and by putting stuff like this you undermine your own credibility)
I mean, he said America was systemically racist, and that belief led to riots that caused billions in damages and dozens dead in 2020.
I specifically only mentioned his non political stories. His political lies are very dangerous. Calling the Georgia voting law Jim Crow 2 was an egregious lie.
Do you know of any politicians who are NOT liars? (Perhaps Benny Begin, but I certainly can't think of any others).
Every politician lies about something. With Biden and Trump it seems like lies are the rule and the truth is the exception. They just lie all the time.
The difference is that when Trump lies, it's obvious. So at least it's an honest (!) lie.
I suspect that's part of his appeal. It's one thing to be lied too, it's another thing to be deceived.
LOL. Sometimes he even admits he's lying.
https://www.politico.eu/article/cruz-trump-republican-debate-free-for-all-primaries-elections-united-states/
“Back in September, my friend Donald had said he had his lawyers look at this every which way and said there was no issue there,” said Cruz, whose mother was born in the U.S. “Now since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed. But the poll numbers have.”
Trump admitted that he only recently started to play the “birther” card against Cruz as the Texas senator has risen in the polls.
“Now he’s doing a little bit better. Before I didn’t care,” said Trump, who vowed not to sue Cruz himself over citizenship questions but predicted that Democrats would should he win the Republican nomination. “There’s a big question mark over your head, and you can’t do that to the party.”
Where do you see an admission here?
He said he changed his tune about a constitutional question because Cruz was closing in on him in the polls.
"... the only thing that mattered was their theological conviction that it was heresy. While they may have pretended to be interested in discussing the scientific arguments for or against, this was actually not at all relevant to them...."
This has also been shown of various prominent proponents of evolution.
I forget who coined the phrase relating to embracing their less than upright political office seeker : He may be a sonofabitch but he’s MY snofabitch.
Both Biden and Trump are detestable, but it’s the policies that his supporters think will be healthier for USA, that attracts them. It’s an awful choice. I wish they would both just go away.
Trump doesn't have many policies. Many of his followers are attracted specifically by his personality. (Though I think that Jews often perceive him as being very pro-Israel and that's the clincher for them.)
Rav Slifkin,
You seem unaware of the deleterious policies of our President Joe Biden against which Mr. trump is campaigning against. You seem unaroused regarding the invasion of illegal immigrants costing citizens $billions for law enforcement and much of our medical resources that should be expended for our citizens. And awful crime rates in our cities. The murder rate in the my nations capitol has increased 20% and my nations legislators are afraid to walk outside of a few blocks of the Capitol. The “woke” standards that are being implemented in our society. Mutilating children to conform to new transgender “rights”. These are a few of the policies with which Trump and his supporters are concerned. You seem oblivious to the concerns of at least 50% of American citizens. I just wish there were someone besides Mr. Trump who would be endeared to their concerns.
"The murder rate in the my nations capitol has increased 20% and my nations legislators are afraid to walk outside of a few blocks of the Capitol."
At least they're safe *inside*.
While us, peasants, not so much.
Oh, and having obscene parties at the White House plus encouraging perversions for our our young as well as pressing woke ideals on foreign countries.
You forgot to mention Biden - bringing the world closer to nuclear disaster, creating environmental disasters, creating high inflation.
"Mutilating children to conform to new transgender “rights”."
Except this is hyperbole. Genital 'mutilation' of 'children' for gender dysmorphia is almost non-existent. Across the USA, any form of transitioning surgery for teens (with informed consent) is in the low hundreds (in a population of over 300m) and certainly 'children' are not 'mutilated'.
Now for some real tacheles - compare this to the tens of thousands of Jewish boys who are circumcised within weeks of birth. These are actual babies, whose parents decide to mutilate their children's genitalia with zero permission from the child or doctor and with zero medical basis for the procedure. This is an example of a real scenario where children are surgically altered for no discernable reason other than a religious requirement.
Whatever xzhou say.
https://www.cnn.com/us/neopronouns-explained-xe-xyr-wellness-cec/index.html
"These are actual babies, whose parents decide to mutilate their children's genitalia with zero permission from the child or doctor and with zero medical basis for the procedure."
Right, of course. It's mutilation. No wonder frum families have so few kids. The males have all been genitally mutilated. I can't imagine why I never realized that before. Must be all that ultra-orthodox indoctrination.
"These are actual babies, whose parents decide to mutilate their children's genitalia with zero permission from the child or doctor and with zero medical basis for the procedure."
I'll never forgive my parents for removing my umbilical cord thingie.
Lol, "perceive".
"The interviewer asked him whether he would retract his support if Trump were to publicly murder an innocent person. The man thought for a moment and admitted that he wouldn’t." This individual that you quoted represents the real danger of Trumpism. For too many of his legions of followers, Trump is now a cult figure. For many of them, he has even devolved into a religion. Scary.
I agree Cary. Another post post might be why the man interviewed likes him to the point where he maintains his fondness for Trump even in the murder scenario. What drives people to ignore appalling behaviour in others?
Perhaps cognitive dissonance? If you worship at the feet of the Almighty Trump, you are impervious to facts or rational argument. You simply retreat to the safety and comfort of your echo chamber, and only tune in to FOX "News" (or perhaps NewsMax or OAN) to get your "information".
I think the answer is more profane. They clearly wish for violence and crave the opportunity to murder their enemies and establish an autocratic, nativist state.
That certainly applies to the more extreme among his followers, such as the Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, Oath Keepers, etc. As for Trump himself, he does not particularly crave violence, or even establishing an autocratic state. That would require an ideology (even a twisted pathological one). Trump is not driven by any ideology. Trump is driven by narcissistic personality disorder.
You wrote similar things over here:
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-fox-the-skeptic-and-the-politics/comment/21477855
"The outrage against the first steps in removing checks and balances in IL are not solely shared by an amorphous 'Left' but all tiers of IL society - inc. large parts of the defence & security community - who see what this is - a step towards a national religious ruling junta who can appoint felons & criminals such as Deri & Ben Gvir with impunity and effectively render all checks & balances moot."
But you complained about my flippancy here.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/pity-the-zealots/comment/21924595
Now, I might ask: 'But perhaps you are willing to at least offer some insight as to what value these discussions bring. How does Judaism benefit - let alone society?'
And I might note note that, 'Quite apart from what it might mean to those who indulge in such reasonings/debates - the parochial nature of these debates is depressing and pointless.'
Just saying.
Sorry are you comparing obscure sectarian debates within Judaism to the very real local & global impacts of the disruption of normal political discourse & process in IL & the US?
I'm saying that your bombastic claims about US and Israeli politics are wildly accurate.
Trump was the most truthful president I've seen in my lifetime. While he told many mistruths (I think he often likely did believe them) but they were mostly harmless silly lies, bragging, or just a part of his grandiose manner of projecting power. Bush, Obama, Clinton, and now Biden were all selling America out to China and other countries, empowering our enemies, selling out to the large corporate interests, and lying us into expensive pointless wars (i.e. Iraq, Libya, Serbia). Trump's supporters don't care about these lies you mention because they pale in comparison to having a president that was watching out for America's best interest better then any president had in years. Having a president that wasn't pushing us into pointless foreign wars and empowering our enemies. Having a president, imperfect as he was, that was helping the people on the ground that had long since been forgotten and scorned by our government. Focusing on his mistruths (wether he believed them or not) when the media and majority of the politicians in Washington are much worse, much more frequent, and much more destructive liars than him is foolhardy and massively misguided.
"Trump was the most truthful president I've seen in my lifetime."
No need to redefine truth. Just say you prefer a liar who has good policies. It's more....truthful.
No, I prefer a truth full person who has good policies. Trump was more truth full then all those other presidents, the press, a majority of other politicians, and he had much better policies. This is partly based on the fact that he did or tried to do much more of what he promised than the other presidents I've seen in my time. His greater propensity for truth is actually one of the hallmarks that makes him a better president then his predecessors. Was he perfect in this regard, far from it, bet he was a step in the right direction in his greater truthfulness and policies.
"His greater propensity for truth is actually one of the hallmarks that makes him a better president then his predecessors."
Okay, I give up. Stuff like this https://www.thedailybeast.com/lyin-donald-trump-feigns-fear-of-reporter-michelle-fields and this https://theintercept.com/2017/01/09/trumps-lie-watching-celebrations-911-lurks-beneath-mockery-reporter/ aren't marks of truthfulness.
Make Donald Drumpf again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ
These are just a bunch of blind leftist that have fallen for the mainstream media lies. Iraq, they have wmds... Corona, naturally occurring virus from a wet market.... Michael Brown hand up don't shoot.... Treyvon Martin was just an innocent kid.... Kids should be encouraged to become trans... These are just some of the many many lies perpetrated by the media and other politicians that are wreaking havoc in America and the world. These are the lies that Trump's supporters are worried about.
Whatever. You have the best words. They just don't fit together into anything meaningful.
I agree that there is a third possibility. However I disagree with Rabbi Slifkin about what that is. To better understand Trump and his supporters, you need to think about the concept of DOUBT. A skeptical person is not affirming the opposite. He is questioning the assumption. Trump and his supporters are not sure the election was rigged. They are doubting it's fairness though. They are questioning the assumption of a fair election.
And here's a thought: people who question the existence of an almighty G-d, will be honest to consider that the same questions can be applied to a "perfectly un-cheatable election" where no current evidence of fraud now means no evidence will ever be found. Did Science have evidence of evolution when Darwin suggested it? It was a theory. The evidence came later. People can be proven right or wrong over time, but nobody should be expected to know the answers instantly. On Jan 6 did YOU or anyone else know if the election was fair? How can you expect Trump or the thousands of people trying to stop the certification, to accept the results until a proper Investigation was conducted?
One more point to bring up: Trump voiced his concern numerous times that the coming election may not be a fair one. While some will say this shows he never was interested in accepting the results, I observed something else. Instead of addressing his concerns, asking: " OK so how should we ensure there will be no fraud?", "What can we do to safeguard the integrity of the election process and seal up the holes?", instead, the media flippantly dismissed them. That aroused my own suspicion.
Don't we all want a more secure election process? Let us make one moving forward! Like virus protection, we need updates to keep hackers and government agencies from getting the ability to interfere. Electronic voter machines intoduced a plethora of vulnerabilities to our democratic process. It is time we all get together to fix these weaknesses instead of focusing on Trump. That is the only way to restore Republican voter confidence in the election process. Harassing them as "election heretics" only supports their suspicions.
So let us not dwell on the past.
The future is much too important.
As a supporting argument, you state "Did Science have evidence of evolution when Darwin suggested it? It was a theory. The evidence came later." That is patently incorrect and shows that, forgive me, you have no concept as to how science operates. Darwin formed his work and drew his conclusions upon which his seminal work "The Origin of the Species" was based on his observations as the naturalist on the HMS Beagle as it explored the South American coastlines and especially the Gallapogos. The theorey of evolution, as it was coined, was further refined by scientific observation and experimentation.
As for Trump's ludicrous claims of election fraud, as in a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendent to prove his innocence. Indeed, yu cannot prove a negative. Trump and his cadre of useful idiots have made numerous accusations of votor fraud and irregularities, without any substantiation, and they have all (over 60 in fact) been thrown out of court as whololy unsubstantiated, even by Trump Administration appointed judges. Indeed, there is no evidence of any significant votor fraud., except in Trump's mind.
The scientific method involves making a hypothesis and then testing it. While it isn't the reason it is referred to as a theory (Thank you Joseph for pointing that out), Darwin's theory of Evolution was still in the observation and hypothesis stage. Experimental data came later. If you claim to know how science works, you will consider a theory before experimental evidence comes in.
Observational evidence is used to form a hypothesis. Experimental evidence rules out other explanations for the observations. Nathan Slifkin can help us with this.
In our case, Trump's claim of organised election fraud falls into the "hypothesis" stage of our method. If we will follow through, we will test the theory by investigation, for that would be equivalent to conducting an "experiment". Does that sound fair?
In many, if not most cases, a theory is devised or conceived as an attempt to explain observed phenomenon. That was the case for Darwin and for Newton.
Trump's claims of widespread election fraud to not even remotely form the basis of a hypothesis. Wild unsubstantiated accusations do not meet the criteria for observable evidence. To warrant an investigation, you need facts, not wild accusations. Otherwise, there is no basis upon which to base an investigation, nothing to investigate. In short, there is no there there.
Of course there was evidence! He didn't win BIG! That means there must have been fraud. Because his rallies looked bigger than Biden's. I think that's not just observable evidence, that's a slam dunk case and they should throw Biden in jail. And Hillary, too. The only just result of this massive fraud is to crown Donald Trump emperor for ever and ever.
Oh course he won big. Nobody ever won bigger in the history of the world. Nobody ever had a more bigger, more gigantic win than him. He didn't just win 100% of the votes. He won 200% of the votes if not more. Nobody had a more humendous, if not humongus win. He should be awarded a Noble Prize for the enormous size of his win.
The word theory in scientific method does not mean the same as it does in common parlance. In common parlance the word is used to mean an incompletely developed or proved idea. In scientific method it means an overarching principle or set of principles that explains various underlying facts, like the Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Gravity. Of course often when a theory is first proposed by its discoverer it is debated by others, and perhaps not yet fully proved, but that is not part of the definition of the word as it's used in science.
Thank you, Joseph. I appreciate you calling me out on this; you are absolutely right.
You hit it on the head. The courts did not and refused to rule on the election. There has not been any in depth investigation into serious instances of late ballots, misprinted ballots, violation of constitutional restrictions and legal restrictions to validate votes. The bald statement that there was no fraud in the elections is itself not true. Trump claimed there should at least be aninv
Please. Trump claimed he won. By a lot. Repeatedly. Ad nauseam. He wanted an investigation the same way he wanted Mike Pence to 'do the right thing.'
....at least be an investigation.
They had multiple hand recounts. And audits. And hearings. What sort of investigation would satisfy you? Be specific.
Shaul, it is nice that they ruled out that particular avenue of cheating. However, that would be elementary-level.
A recount just counts potentially fraudulent votes again. An audit is the same. It just ensures the count of the ballots themselves was fair.
If ballots were manufactured or falsified, if ballots were tampered with, if ballots from certain parties were destroyed, the hand count will not mend the issue.
Perhaps what would help is having all ballots supervised by camera and community volunteers at all times until the results of those ballots are hand counted, and publicly recorded. COVID-19 health and safety regulations did the opposite.
----
As far as an investigation into the past election, what would be satisfactory would be an appointment of a special counsel to conduct a thorough federal investigation; including subpoenas of all communications between party organizers and their staff, workers at the polls, etc. Republican and Democrat.
It is really detective work to uncover fraud if there was any, and an experienced investigator like Robert Mueller (former director of the FBI) for example, would know exactly what to check into. Such an investigation has not taken place.
---
In conclusion, a Rational Judaism thinker will avoid the temptation of affirming either side, and instead, admit that there is a possibility that cheating occurred. But it remains a possibility. How probable? That can be discussed.
Maybe Rabbi Slifkin can write about making an assessment of probability when it is hard to get the data. That is where people often mislead or lie to themselves.
"In conclusion, a Rational Judaism thinker will avoid the temptation of affirming either side, and instead, admit that there is a possibility that cheating occurred. But it remains a possibility. How probable? That can be discussed"
You're right. Maybe Hillary Clinton really won the 2016 election too. I guess we'll never know.
The probabilities are different though. But I'm not opposed to considering it if you are sincere.
Dear Natan,
I will not enter into a discussion of Trump's mental state other than to say that he may well be diagnosable but that most, if not all, of the comments have been made by people not capable of diagnosing. It is also true that many of the leading political figures in American life are disturbed individuals who suffer from various personality disorders, including the majority of presidents in the last three decades.
The question of mental health is not, however, the primary issue in the question you raise. The first issue is whether the Trump claim is true or false, and we will almost certainly never know. There was an abundance of circumstantial (and harder) evidence at the time that could only have been addressed by thorough investigation and almost all the agencies and organizations that could and should have looked into the matter (with the exception of a few honest people like Justice Alito) punted. 2020 was not the first time that a presidential election might have been overturned by fraud (see, for example, JFK, etc.) but perhaps the first time that the claim was put forward so vocally and not ignored with a claim of the nation's good. There is certainly a possibility that a president less unpopular than Trump might have generated much greater pressure for an honest exploration of the claims and a president less disorganized than Trump might have been better prepared to investigate the evidence. It is a great national tragedy that we will probably never know the truth.
Melech Press
"There is certainly a possibility that a president less unpopular than Trump might have generated much greater pressure for an honest exploration of the claims and a president less disorganized than Trump might have been better prepared to investigate the evidence. It is a great national tragedy that we will probably never know the truth."
Other than *yet another* hand recount, *yet another* cyber-Ninja audit, *yet another* court challenge, *yet another* cringey documentary, what else would satisfy you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
"There was an abundance of circumstantial (and harder) evidence at the time that could only have been addressed by thorough investigation and almost all the agencies and organizations that could and should have looked into the matter (with the exception of a few honest people like Justice Alito) punted."
The thing is, none of this is actually true. You can watch Gabriel Sterling dismantle Trump's nutty claims about Georgia one by one. You can listen to Trump's call to Brad Raffensperger to hear how unhinged his claims are: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/full-phone-call-trump-pressures-georgia-secretary-of-state-to-recount-election-votes-98732101751
And Alito didn't 'punt on the question.' None of the Justices did. They told Ken Paxton and company that the state of Texas doesn't get to weigh in on how the state of Pennsylvania does their elections. Because they're- get this- different states. Alito (and Thomas) said that Texas ought to be given a chance to file their complaint and then have it go into the SCOTUS wastebasket, rather than having it dumped in the garbage before even getting there. But it was going into the wastebasket either way. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf "I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief"
As an aside, the notion that Mike Pence because had the authority to give the election to Donald Trump he was the sitting VP logically entails that Al Gore had the authority to hand the 2000 election to *himself *, because *he* was then the sitting vice president. Which sounds crazy, because it very much is. Which is why he didn't do it. https://www.c-span.org/classroom/document/?4173
Trump is much more of a fixation in the minds of the media - of which this blog is an example - than the actual voters themselves.
It is kind of hard to ignore the current or former President of the United States--or a viable candidate for same. I think the Trump campaign is aware of this, and capitalizes on it.
Whatever. Commenting on politics makes about as much sense as writing blog posts about it.
You state: “Do they really, truly believe that there was a massive conspiracy involving Trump’s own appointees to falsify the election results?”
The election results in dispute were ALL from Democrat led states and counties. There were significant irregularities in the manner and outcome of the vote counts. It’s not clear to this American that the election was free and fair.
For the record, I would not vote for Trump if he murdered someone.
Of course all the disputed counts were from states that went to the Democrats. Why would Republicans investigate states where they won?
This would be the flip side to the successful ballot initiative in my home state of Michigan to remove the power of reapportionment from the (partisan) legislature to an independent commission. The initiative was filed by Democrats, because they were the ones suffering under the then current system. You could hardly expect the Republicans to challenge what for them was desirable. And if the parties' positions were reversed, no doubt the GOP would be starting that initiative--and rightly so.
Yes, I've noticed this phenomena in interactions with people with a certain personality type, namely narcissists (or tending towards it). They genuinely seem to process reality in a different way then normal people, that whatever happened was in a way that is most flattering to them, or puts them in the best light. Its really unbelievable to watch and took me a while to realize that they weren't consciously lying through their teeth.
The question is, does this give trump the right to plead insanity?
I've also seen it in person with such types. You described it perfectly. It's incredibly disturbing.
I'm not sure where the legal definition of insanity begins.
I think legal insanity involves "not knowing right from wrong". IMHO, "not knowing truth from falsehood" is in a similar category, but not quite the same.
Trump may not be a liar, but he could be "truthless" -- that is, nothing he says should be relied on, because he doesn't understand the difference between "truth" and "falsehood".
Tricky distinction!
The Halachik red line is in Chagiga 3b-4a and SA CM 35. And there're cases that either under- or over-qualify.
Part of his pathology is that he would never admit it, or allow his attorneys to make such a claim.
I recently had a pair of building contractors like that. They were so facile at lying that I got the impression they no longer saw any difference between falsehood and the truth.