Forum Post: Why is this website mocking Rоn Раul by changing his name to "Ron Lawl"?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 11:29 a.m. EST by ScrewyL
(809)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It's childish, biased, does not represent the opinion of Occupy Wall Street, and has no place in mature discussion of serious political issues such as the fate of a nation.
It has been stated that it is because this forum does not wish to endorse a particular candidate, which is the right of the forum's owners, however:
Mocking Rоn Раul by employing argumentative tactics honed on 4Chan, while failing to do so to the other presidential candidates, lays bare that disingenous excuse as a deception and evidence of bias.
An empirical test, shall we? The list of presidential candidates below was compiled from the wikipedia page:
wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
And, by posting it here, we will once-and-for all be able to identify precisely which candidate or candidates is/are prohibited from mention within these forums (i.e. censored)
Note that, for each potential candidate, I used precisely the spelling and ordering from the wikipedia page. Let's see what happens:
=====
Barack Obama
Darcy Richardson
Vermin Supreme
Randall Terry
Warren Mosler
Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Gary Johnson
Ron Lawl
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
Tim Pawlenty
Jack Fellure
Stewart Greenleaf
Fred Karger
Andy Martin
Thaddeus McCotter
Jimmy McMillan
Buddy Roemer
Jonathan Sharkey
Kent Mesplay
Jill Stein
Stewart Alexander
Bill Still
R. Lee Wrights
James Hedges
Roseanne Barr
Robert Burck
Terry Jones
Joe Schriner
Virgil Goode
Roy Moore
Jesse Ventura
Robert Wells
=====
So, what happened? What does this prove?
It does discredit the movement for sure..As does other forum rules.
In response to the statement made by OWSmoderator
The Federal Reserve is NOT a Government Agency. Where are you getting your facts from? Do some more research if you think the FED is a Government Agency.
I also disagree with your stated opinion that "we" as in the 99% want to end capitalism. That is not true and does not represent the views of the 99% correctly.
I think we want to end corruption in politics, we want to have an equality based tax system ending the loop holes for the rich. We want to create a new political party to express the views of people and not the agendas of the Elite bankers and Multi-National Corporations.
I think it is a big mistake to not associate this movement with a political agenda. The Occupy movement has been great to bring about awareness to the issues of inequality and corruption.
But there needs to be a next step to this movement and I think that next step is to OCCUPY THE VOTING BOOTH.
I won't tell you or anyone else who to vote for. I just want you to vote for who you feel represents your political views the best. 50% of the American voters don't even vote.
Unless you're promoting a revolution by force and violence there is no other way effect change other than voting and supporting the economic system in areas that help and represent the people.
Saying "we" want to end Capitalism isn't going to get anything done. Again I will say that "Occupying" is great a creating awareness. But it is not really hurting the 1%. In fact it is hurting the local economies of each city much more than the Global elite with no ties to a specific location. The rich can get up and move anytime they want to. The amount of money being spent to police these encampments is only hurting your local infrastructure. Taking away money from schools, hospitals, fire depts. and other agencies and projects. You're hurting your own people not the 1%.
You will be wasting the opportunity to get World wide support for a political movement that stems from Occupy protests. Don't make that mistake please. OCCUPY THE VOTING BOOTH
Peace and Happy Thanksgiving to all.
I am just guessing here but this forums Rules prevent discussing any candidate or website which speaks the truth about the Private Federal Reserve
Hmmm Alex Jones acts like Hitler while delivering a speech and his and Ron Lawl followers act like the SA.
In 1921 Adolf Hitler formed his own private army called Sturm Abteilung (Storm Section). The SA (also known as stormtroopers or brownshirts) were instructed to disrupt the meetings of political opponents and to protect Hitler from revenge attacks. Captain Ernst Roehm of the Bavarian Army played an important role in recruiting these men, and became the SA's first leader.
Are you saying that the owners of this website consider Dr. Paul to be a "political opponent"?
--Because, if that were the case, then this website would be at odds with a vast majority of the OWS protestors who have actually stated that they do NOT consider Ron 'Paul' to be an enemy at all.
Furthermore, that is not the rationale given by the owners of this website on their comment rules page. They do not actually give any reason for mangling Dr. Paul's name, but merely state that they have removed election campaign spam for numerous political candidates.
-- Or is that merely what /you/ consider? CAN you answer the question which I asked in the OP?
I'm just a poster here and I clearly see what Alex Jones, Ron Lawl and the cultists are trying to do. You are just like the SA trying to force your beliefs on others. Go away start your own site or better yet go back to prison planet.
I'm not going "away", I am not a "cultist", and you have yet to answer why the owners of this site have singled out a particular political candidate, namely Dr. Paul, and mangled his name in a mockery of civilized discussion about the future political direction of this country.
I ask that you reply only if you can shed light on those reasons, which was my original question. If you cannot, then there really is nothing productive for you to say on this page.
You haven't said anything productive since you arrived here.
False;
I explained and demonstrated that capitalism cannot be "stomped out." as is the stated goal of the author of this website on his or her github.com page: github.com/jart/occupywallst
I took a consensus feeler-poll-thingy of the OWS commune (on this site!) regarding their opinion of Dr. Paul, and discovered that the better portion of them support Dr. Paul and disagree with the censorship here.
I schooled you six or seven times already, and will continue to. In fact, I think it even turns you on.
I answered the questions of numerous posters here who said they did not know who is in charge of this site.
I have corrected the misguided notions held by some as to the importance of maintaining the ability to defend themselves against government and majority encroachment through retaining their means of voice, legal protection, and self defense.
I have discussed solutions to the problems which OWS collectively protests, namely: Ending the Federal Reserve, criminally prosecuting the perpetrators of the frauds, including people like George Soros and Barack Obama.
Indeed, I think we're making quite speedy headway here, despite that you and a few others may be lagging behind the class a little.
Meanwhile, I think I have seen you do little more than:
Incorrectly call me a 'Paulite'
Call me a 'Troll'
Tell me that I 'look like shit'
And I ask you, comrade, what have you produced for all your labor?
You mean that you logged off and then logged back in with a different name to add to your worthless poll? Yay you!!! Academically sound!
You are a Paulite and a troll that seeks to wear victimhood. Here is the kicker, you have made no attempt to actually contact JART. Have you? That would have been too easy, eh?
Not, you. You have drama queened the whole damn thing. :D Lulz.
All Paulites seek to wear victimhood, Friday.
Give me a break, I haven't played the victim at any point in these debates, yet Occupy Wall Street is FORMED around victimhood, and they rightly blame Wall Street.
Your tribalism is misplaced. I am not against you, and I am not for Ron 'Paul. I want improvements to government just as you do, but we disagree as to how.
While I am busy discussing that eventual how, you and a select few on here can't think of anything more constructive to say than "You're a Troll and Paulite and we hate you".
-- Because I would defend a man's right to run for President, and the right of his supporters to discuss him, you would assume I want to have his babies...
GROW UP. You are not suited to establish a movement for the correction -- or even the elimination of -- government. You lack the cognizance to do so.
YOU are fascists, plain and simple. Not OWS, because OWS on the whole does not agree with you.
Ok. Whatever you say. We're waiting for your big ideas in the meantime.
They get that act from that idiot Alex Jones, he even put out a video the other day about how he has been banned for OWS even though he and Ron Lawl has called the movement Commie bums looking for more handouts SMH!!!
Ah, that explains a lot.
No, I took the poll using this name, ScrewyL, and it is the only name I have created, used, or intend to use on this site.
On what basis do you make the accusation that I used a sock puppet?
Yes, yes, we established that you think i'm a 'paulite' and a 'troll' and that I 'look like shit' -- but do you have anything ELSE to say?
--And yes, as a matter-of-fact, I HAVE contacted Justine at the e-mail address jtunney @ lobstertech.com with a number of questions, but have not yet recieved a reply
What do you mean by "drama queened"? In what way could I have addressed the issue which you would not have characterized as "Whining" and "Drama Queening" ?
--Because, you'll note, I have simply stated the facts as they are evident. So then, why are you so adamant to silence my valid questions and ridicule what you assume is my political viewpoint?
Oh, on the basis of your academic poll taking there. :D
You are here to promote Ron Paul, your favorite little candidate. AND whine. Whining about how you are being censored and how unfair it all is. You don't have any valid questions. You do nothing but repeat the same thing with another 700 threads that are identical.
You know exactly what I mean when I say: drama queen. You could have just sent the message and waited or contacted a moderator and found out if you were truly interested. But that isn't what you are about. That would have been proper protocol.
I do not support Ron 'Paul', and never have. Why would I promote him? Where did you get that idea?
I am not "whining that I am being censored." I am illustrating that the OWS movement needs to hold the operators of this website to a higher standard of impartiality if the voice of 'The 99%' is to be heard and taken seriously, and I have given evidence that attempting to "Stomp out capitalism" is futile, despite that being the stated intent of the author of this site (Justine Alexandra Robert Tunney) on his or her github page which hosts the source code to this website, the link to which can be found in the bottom right of this very page...
I don't know how to contact the moderators, and there is no 'protocol' of online discussion which requires that I "sit and wait" for Justine to reply to me.
I doubt that Justine even has the time to do so, much less the interest. With his or her e-mail out there, chances are LOTS of people have e-mailed Justine.
Furthermore, with such statements as "Stomp out capitalism", Justine has more than made their agenda clear -- I do not require any clarification on that point in order to begin my rebuttal.
YOU, simply, will employ any device, argument, tactic, or wedge you can muster in order to get me to go away and/or shut up, and you will be unsuccessful, I assure you.
You are so full of shit. :D
If I wanted you stalking me all over the web I would refer you to numerous postings of mine where I explictly argue against the election of Ron 'Paul', in no uncertain terms.
I do NOT support Ron 'Paul', and never have.
--Finally, you realize... you have been... hoisted by your own petard.
Mmmm......that makes it believable.
Ah, well. I have kept your vile attempts to troll contained for a good hour. Now, I am seeking actual conversation. :D
Because you are all very childish. That is why polls are taken down and threats of removing Paul from debates occur. It's all due to your cult like actions plain and simple. But like spoiled children all of you blame others for you own behavior.
You mock a presidential candidates name, only one, and you blame the "Paulites" for your choice.
That is the essence of "blameshifting".
Mockery is not moderation. If you wanted to remove all references to RonPaul, your software could have done that.
No, you wanted to mock him, and so you did. I do not buy the "once upon a spam" anecdote.
And before you make a fool of yourself as Friday did, realize that I do not support RonPaul, and never have. I have been utterly clear about that since the first time he ran for President.
However, I will not idly sit by while a handful of OWSers make a mockery of the entire movement. I do not believe in censorship at any level!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ZrngCbvX4&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuaRGtIrM9U
This partisan movement wants to be taken care of from cradle to grave by massive government and Dr. Paul is the only one in that list who is a threat to that mindset.
I found it offensive that "OWS Corporate" decided to do this. The belive in sorta kinda free speech that is approved. Oh wait... that is not free speech it is?
You can get arround it by typing Ron.Paul, "RonPaul", and I think RonPaul works.
From the Rules:
We do not support an election campaign for 2012. At all. We have removed election material for Obama, Paul, Warren, Paul, Cain, Paul, Perry, Paul, the green party, Paul, Nader, Paul, and did I mention Paul? The spamming by the Ron Lawl 2012 fan club was getting out of hand. We will continue to remove such material and any call for the Paul 2012 campaign will, at this point, be considered spamming. End of. We're tired of hearing about it. Main street debates are also largely off topic.
I do not want to get around it. I want to know why Justine Alexandra Roberts Tunney of New York, who is the author of the software running this website, crafted it in such a way as to insult a presidential candidate.
I think it exposes the hypocricy of the OWS Corporation.
It is kind of sad since he is the only candidate that defended them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqau48Wz4O0&t=0m5s
Because if you google her name and read her google+ page she is a declared "anarchist communist". No Joke
Because she doesn't like him?
That would make quite a bit of sense, except Justine has not stated that is the reason. Infact, Justine has only implied that the reason is because of campaign spam, and has not actually explaiuend the rationale behind mangling Dr. Paul's name.
I'd say she's using that as a crutch to further her own ends whatever they may be.I'm not surprised,OWS people tend to be rather arrogant.
That seems to support all of the evidence.
How can this further her own end?
People have talked more about Ron Paul because of this censorship then for any other reason at all! I don't even know who the guy is. The only thing Ron Paul posters write about is the censorship issue. Oh.. wait... right... Justine realized it would change the topic to something useless and that Ron Paul supporters would stop talking about Ron Paul's platform, but, instead, talk about the censorship. Got it! Wait! Who cares? Any advertising is good advertising. Ron Paul should change his campaign motto to: Not Ron Lawl, Ron Paul!
[Removed]
the market will always find a way around prohibition.
Ron Paul
And networks always route around censorship.
In case you noticed --- OWS is apparently against gasp free speech. If you oppose them you will be censored.
because this movement has been hijacked by marxist commies and socalist. they hate freedom and liberty
He supports and backs this movement. Why badmouth the only one that is consistent? geez I'm outta here. Not interested in the OWS.
Awww. Wounded. You are so abused. Po' wittle thang.
Thanks for your list and I will list the changes
Darock Obawma
Darcy Dickson
Vermin Supreme
Mandall Jerry
Warren Moslester
Michele Jachmann
Herman Pain
Masive lizzard
Bon Buntsman
Gary Dickson
Ron Lawl
Dick jerry
Pitt Romney
Rick smelly Santorum
Tim Pawlenty
Jack Faillure
Stewart Meenleaf
Fred Jarger
MAndy Martin
Thaddeus Mcsnotter
Jimmy McBillan
Buddy Hoemer
Jonathan Sharkey
Kent Jestplay
Jill Pein
Stewart Alexander The grape
Bill Still not hear
R. Lee Wrong
James Hedgefunds
Roseanne Jarr
Robert BJurck
Jerry Jones
Moe Schriner
Virgil Bade
Roy Less
Jesse adVentura
Robert Sick
Masive lizzard no other mangle could be better for that guy.
Ayn rand should be mangled to Some Laddy.
You forgot to mangle "Vermin Supreme." Might I suggest "Honorable Gentleman" ?
"Vermin Supreme" is already mangled.
You don't have to come to these forums. If you babies want to talk about Pon Lawls there is like one other website that you can go to. OWS has NO PLACE FOR PON!!! He wants to cut off welfare and give tax cuts the 1%. He is a white trash raciest who will set America back 200 years. Stop trying to destroy my America with him! We are human and humans needs laws to survive. If you don't like OWS then go back to your failed Tea Bagging parties! This is not the place for Republicans so gtfo, and take Pon Lawls with you!!!
Even the mods agree that their is no place for you Pon Lawl pricks here! Please GO AWAY, WE DO NOT WANT YOUR SUPPORT! We get enough support on our own!
Mods can you change the first letter from a 'R' to a 'P' please... Thank you!
Moderators:
Is that the answer? Is that why you have done this? Because that isn't what the comment rules page says.
Infact, while the comment rules page describes the removal of campaign spam, it does not say anything about the willful mockery of a presidential candidate by misspelling their name
Furthermore, I thought you didn't want to alienate any potential supporters...?
Note:, take another look at this page:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/moderating-policies-will-be-reposted-somewhere-pro/
They have REMOVED any mention of banning Alex Jones, David Icke, or LaRouche, etc.!!!!
However, they still list Dr. Paul at least 9 times. Why is that, OWS?
Some people are for free speech as long as they agree with it.
The site should invite open debate and not oppress it.
The first amendment was created to protect unwanted speech.
You don't need to protect speech that most agree with it is the speech people don't want to hear the needs protection.
Yes and no. For example, Ron Lawl's (or at least Rand Paul's) trouble isn't really that he's a racist --- that's clearly not his motivation to end affirmative action --- rather, there is no place in his ideology to recognize a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Affirmative action does need to be reevaluated - there are cases, such as college admissions of women, where it seems to have become unnecessary, and others, such as employment of Native Americans in proximity of reservations, where it has completely failed to accomplish its task. I think that Obama's recent effort to subsidize hiring of veterans represents a smarter approach that would do better to solve the problem overall, if extended to minorities and other groups with high unemployment, and (at lower levels) to all workers - funded by increases on corporate tax that affect those companies that make profit while hiring few workers.
[Removed]
It is childish. There used to be more engagement here from people with libertarian sensibilities who generally appreciate RonPaul. Other voices here drove them off. At least that's how i see it.
I support and oppose OPP for president.
Thats because in the early stages of the movement Ron Lawls campaign was spamming the form constantly. i guess they never change things as the movement grew.
I think we may have to admit, this OWS group is not for freedom.
What freedom are you referring to ? the freedom of banks to use my money to gamble with ? the freedom of big oil to pay no taxes? the freedom of Corn farmers to get a fat welfare check from uncle sam? one mans freedom is another mans bailout package. it's a stupid statement ,as stupid as saying we got attacked on 911 because they hate our "freedom" A Fox news soundbite waste of air time.
Censoring Ron.Paul = No freedom of speech
While Alex Jones is not your friend i think if you investigate what David Ike says even if you don't believe it you will see him as a friend.
I agree, the autoedit brings unnecessary focus subjects to Ron Lawl
Stephen Colbert
Stephen Colbert's Plot to Co-opt Occupy Wall Street Foiled by Ketchup and Justin
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ketchup-and-justin-foil-colbert-optation/
Micheal Moore
Triumph the Insult Comic Dog unleashed on Occupy Wall Street
http://digitaljournal.com/article/313932
What do you mean, you agree "it brings unncessary focus"?
That is not the case I was making. I stated that it is childish and out-of-place to mangle Dr. Paul's name; and that it demonstrates a bias against him because the other candidates are not similarly insulted.
and as a result, Ron Paul supporters start countless threads about Ron Paul
the human is being granted name recognition
Yes, but you said "I agree", in reply to me -- but that wasn't the case I was making, so how could you be agreeing with me?
Do you mean, that you agree that: "It's childish, biased, does not represent the opinion of Occupy Wall Street, and has no place in mature discussion of serious political issues such as the fate of a nation."
If so (that is what you agree with) then why suffix your agreement with "it brings unneccessary focus"?
I extended the case
It is childish and bias in favor of Ron Paul
<3.
I don't think so. I think that if we changed every reference made to you to read "MattLNocock", that you and your supporters would find that offensive and counterproductive.
It's So Easy Not to Try (Return of the King)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cGijkIwsco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEwjVRxxGE
Please do not reply to GirlFriday. She is trying to bait me because of a previous debate she and I had (which she lost repeatedly), and she will contribute nothing to the question presented by this posting.
Don't feed the trolls! I've said everything I possibly coudl to her, and I don't want her coming back here and distracting. Thank you.
you are the troll. You are a Paulite that does nothing more than try to disrupt actual conversation with your contrived victimhood. And you still look like shit. And everyone can see it.
Ain't no ties keeping you here. Twit!!! You seem to need OWS way more than they need you.
I respectfully request that you stay on topic and refrain from any further personal attacks.
Request denied.
his real name is Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul Rue Paul
It's Rue Paul Rue Paul
How old are you?
1.........................
Amen.
Ron Paul is demonized because he speaks of great truths.
Along with great lies.
like?
1913 wasn't a very good year. 1913 gave us the income tax, the 16th amendment and the IRS. Ron Paul
A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. Ron Paul
All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Ron Paul
Another term for preventive war is aggressive war - starting wars because someday somebody might do something to us. That is not part of the American tradition. Ron Paul
As recent as the year 2000 we won elections by saying we shouldn't be the policemen of the world, and that we should not be nation building. And its time we got those values back into this country. Ron Paul
Back a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces. Ron Paul
Believe me, the next step is a currency crisis because there will be a rejection of the dollar, the rejection of the dollar is a big, big event, and then your personal liberties are going to be severely threatened. Ron Paul
Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. Ron Paul
Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon. Ron Paul
Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers. Ron Paul
Ads by Google Agree with Ron Lawl? Understanding RPs economics Why Keynesian theory fails www.AxiosPress.com
Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts. Ron Paul
Have you noticed the debt is exploding? And it's not all because of Medicare. Ron Paul
Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty. Ron Paul
How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution. Ron Paul
I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card. Ron Paul
I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas. Ron Paul
I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest. Ron Paul
I will always vote what I have promised, and always vote the Constitution, as well as I will not vote for one single penny that isn't paid for, because debt is the monster, debt is what's going to eat us up and that is why our economy is on the brink. Ron Paul
If you like small government you need to work hard at having a strong national defense that is not so militant. Personal liberty is the purpose of government, to protect liberty - not to run your personal life, not to run the economy, and not to pretend that we can tell the world how they ought to live. Ron Paul
In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. Ron Paul
;)
Pretty good copy and paste.
That proves what, exactly?
They are quotes. What do you expect? lolllllll
As I've said before, I agree with some of what he says.
The rest I vehemently, disagree with.
I also believe he does even those desirable things for all the wrong reasons.
I don't trust him.
Well I started out like you...liking his foreign policy. I have the advantage of having access daily to constitutional debate. Unless you understand the Rule of Law, people do not understand how he comes to his conclusions but when you finally do...it is a huge AHA moment ;)
The constitution is not the Bible.
There is no "invisible hand".
You are damn right it is NOT the Bible!
but it IS THE SET of PRINCIPLES that is SUPPOSED to guide us and WITHOUT it we have NOW arrived at Fascism!
You libertarians ought to occupy the SCOTUS then.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749
He lies about his newletters and being a 911 truther...
He's quite the liar.
The scary part? His minions think he's infallible.
An "honest" politician, even. yeah, right!