Was he lying then or is he lying now?

When a person tells two diametrically opposite stories, you know one of them is a lie. You may not know which one is a lie, but you know the person is a liar.

We already knew Hillary Clinton is a liar. The FBI said as much:

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?
COMEY: That’s not true.

Now, Donald Trump has proven himself to be a perverted liar or a lying pervert.

In 2005 Trump was caught on tape saying:

“You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. … And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything.”

Then nine women came forward and attested to that very behavior by Trump, but at the debate Wednesday night Trump said:

“Well, first of all, those stories have been largely debunked. Those people — I don’t know those people. I have a feeling how they came. I believe it was her campaign that did it. …

“I would say the only way — because those stories are all totally false, I have to say that. And I didn’t even apologize to my wife, who’s sitting right here, because I didn’t do anything. I didn’t know any of these — I didn’t see these women.

“These women — the woman on the plane, the — I think they want either fame or her campaign did it. And I think it’s her campaign. …



“Nobody has more respect for women than I do. Nobody.”


Reminds me of a Tommy Makem tune:




17 comments on “Was he lying then or is he lying now?

  1. Vernon Clayson says:

    The election should not be about sex, no one has the piety market cornered, maybe Bill Clinton, remember him leaving church with his white bible? The women coming forwared now alleging Trump abused them are like former altar boys saying a priest abused them 30 years earlier, they wanted recompense, not revenge. It’s the same with the women, all faded roses, it’s doubtful that any of them are cleansing their soul this late in the game.

  2. Steve says:

    The winner of all three debates

    Chris Wallace.

  3. John G Edwards says:

    Great moderator. Same old mendacity and vicious comments from the two candidates. Las Vegas did it’s part to make it a miserable event. While CNN advocates from both sides analyzed the debate, some buffoons tried drown out the CNN commentators by yelling continually. I don’t know where the clowns in the side show came from, but I trust they were not the same people who hung the Jesus sign behind the CNN table.

  4. They both have lied, however this is about much more than unfortunately their character. We ended up with Trump because the media tried to push Bush in the beginning, who also has problems. Until the party can put forth a unified front with a true conservative candidate we will not have a winner. The Republican party needs a complete overhaul or another party needs to emerge because progressives have infiltrated the party at a levels, they are called RINO’s.

  5. Steve says:

    RINO or DINO
    This is symptomatic of the problem.

    People who cannot support the party they currently register with find themselves looking for something else. The other party seems to offer what they were missing in their current party and more. So they jump ship and join the other party.
    Instead of welcoming the new blood, the other party pushes them away calling them (D/R) INO
    What should be happening is a search for what brings those people into the party and an amplification of those issues over the more divisive ones.

    But, I guess we really can’t live unless we can make mountains out of molehills and create a bunch of false narratives accompanied by controversy.

    The “spoilers” are not third party. The “spoilers” are the major parties themselves who cannot seem to come to the logical conclusion that they need to offer candidates with appeal to the majority of the whole populace instead of the exclusive extreme in their own base.

  6. Conservatism is not extreme. Moderates used to be Democrats and now with the progressive movement they are coming into the Republican party, but they do not embrace the official Republican platform. They are welcome to come but should respect the platform. I liken it to a Californian moving to Idaho and then telling the locals how to think and vote Californian. It does not go over well.

  7. Steve says:

    My post is aimed at both sides.
    New blood comes with new ideas, when common, those ideas are what strengthen the party. Limiting the party only to ideas “accepted” by party faithful ensures party failure.

    We are seeing that in this election cycle.

  8. Barbara says:

    I agree with Sheepherders. The party platform should reflect the principles of the members and how they will govern. What we have seen in the Republican party is a disregard of the platform when it comes to governing. It is only when campaigning that Republican candidates run on limited government, economic freedom, and constitutional principles because the people who comprise the party believe in these principles. If they ran on expanding government, raising the debt, granting amnesty, delegating power to the Presidency or the courts or bureaucracy, they would all be voted out of office.

    If the people are to remain sovereign, it will take an Article V convention to pass amendments limiting the power of the federal government and returning it to the states as originally envisioned by the Founding Fathers. We cannot elect enough senators and congressman who believe in constitutional principles above all else to effect change. Change must be forced on Washington by the States.

  9. Linda Sanders says:

    I thought you were going to point out that Trump’s wife had just done an interview and said that he’d apologized to her and that she expect/accepted his apology (pause) and now we move on. Trump’s statement at the debate struck me as odd after having just heard what she’d said.

    To me, what is most disturbing is the lack of character with all this lying. A sad commentary on the condition of America.

    Bill Clinton made lying obvious; good example for all. To be fair….it’s part of the wickedness in the human heart…..God hates it!

  10. Rincon says:

    Two parties can only have two sets of beliefs. I suspect the beliefs of most of us don’t fit conveniently into either one and yet there is no reasonable chance of forming other parties. Proof that the elites have the power locked up.

  11. deleted says:

    The Republican Party is dead. There is no such thing anymore.

    What currently exists is tearing itself apart.

    Trump is the symptom of the sickness of the Republican Party, but the disease is inherent in the make up of a group that despises the things that make groups sustainable, mostly a willingness to compromise for the overall good of the group.

    The “conservatives” within the Republican Party sure aren’t interested on compromise, the Evangelicals within the Republican Party aren’t interested in compromise, the richest of the rich who fund that party aren’t interested in compromise and so it’s left with a bunch of disperate factions all of whom aren’t willing to compromise anything for the good of the group.

    The great thing is, as a liberal, because all those groups form the antithesis of what I believe this country should be,, their loss is the country’s gain.

  12. Vernon Clayson says:

    Chris Wallace played his part, that’s being the star of his own show, to him Trump and Clinton were a bickering sideshow, Trump doing his best to show a serious executive-like mien, Clinton with a smug self-satisfied smirk/grimace similar to the painted villians of the old Batman TV show. One or the other will become president to further downgrade the long respected office, regardless of who occupied it. We need go no farther than look at the last three presidents to see how far the position has been reduced in any thinking person’s opinion. And the Congress is of lesser worth.

  13. Steve says:

    Well, Patrick, you liberals sure do as much as you are able to force out any marginalized conservatives who might consider your party for its occasional fiscal conservatism.

  14. Bill says:

    I have watched the two major parties for more years than I care to remember and have heard prognosticators solemnly announce the death of both. Thins really haven’t changed that much over the years. The fringe elements in both parties denounce their own party members or leadership for their lack of ideological purity. . Over the years minority parties or splinter parties have emerged, challenged and then have been absorbed or died.

    As has always been the case, within our two major political parties there are divergent groups, individuals and ideologies, each clamoring that their position is the only true position.

    It reminds me of religion. The different religious groups fight and insist that their particular brand is the only path to salvation. There are those within the parties who are not unlike religious zealots.

    Often, in their fervor the forget the purpose of political parties. Simply put, the purpose of political parties is to elect candidates. There is no other primary function.

    The D’s have learned this better than the R’s.

    At election time, members of political parties need to coalesce and elect the Party candidate.

    All politics is about numbers.

    If you have the most votes you win. That applies to the election of candidates. It applies to passing laws. It applies to Supreme
    Court nominations. If you don’t have the votes you don’t have the power. If you don’t have the power, you lose.

    The genius of Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party at the time was that they articulated a philosophy that was essentially conservative (whatever the hell that means) but still pragmatic enough to provide the big tent beneath which various groups could shelter. And, Reagan also preached adherence to the 11th Commandment.

  15. Trump has lied, but compared to Obama and the Clinton’s he is middle school compared to their pro-bowl status. The entire point of this election is Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court; those three potential Justices. To paraphrase Obama, Hillary is saying, “If you like your Constitution, you can keep your Constitution.” And what do we know she is…?

  16. Rincon says:

    Great. You want a Supreme Court that follows in the footsteps of the one that defines corporations as individuals and money as free speech. At this time, 41% of all super PAC money comes from 50 megadonors and their relatives. 50 people who have enough “free speech” to drown out that of millions. BTW, I just read one of the many ways the ultra rich escape taxes.

    According to the Economist, 10/8/16, p. 27, “Investors can generally claim that nonresidential property is depreciating over 39 years, even if its market value in fact rises. In theory, any capital gain is taxed later, when the property changes hands. But investors can avoid such a charge by replacing any building they sell with another of a “like kind”. When the investor eventually dies and passes on his portfolio, the capital gains are forgotten.”

    The reason for these kinds of laws and regulations is easy to guess when one considers the amount of “free speech” for which the rich willing to pay.

  17. Steve you forgot one…MINO, which aptly describes our retiring crooked Senator from Searchlight…pertaining to his religious persuasion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s