Trump's exaggerations stand in stark contrast to Democrats' actual lies

The media tell us regularly about President Donald Trump's exaggerations and overstatements.  Some keep count on what they call "lies," and they number these in the thousands.  Trump's hyperbole is well understood, especially when he claims to be the "best" or "greatest" on any subject (such as the crowd at the inaugural).  However, these kinds of statements are not material lies that adversely affect policy or citizens (such as President Obama's assurance that we would be allowed to keep our doctors or insurance plans).  The same cannot be said about statements from many of the Democratic opposition.  Unfortunately, the media's prejudice is demonstrated by their lack of reporting on these issues.

Let's start with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is rising in the polls.  The latest inconsistency in her campaign involves her telling audiences that when she was 22 and newly married, she faced job discrimination based on being pregnant: "By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principals did in those days: wish me luck and hire someone else for the job," she claimed.  The implication she has given is that she was fired "in those days" because she was pregnant.  But in 2007, while in California, she gave a different version of events.  Then she mentioned that she was on an emergency certificate since she did not possess education training credits.  She had decided to go to graduate school for these over the summer.  During that time, while pregnant, she decided to pass on this opportunity and become a stay-at-home mom for a few years.  Records show that she was rehired, though.  This is a material contradiction (lie). 

Warren's phony concern for women is more problematic elsewhere.  She was instrumental in the silicon breast implant case.  However, she did not represent the injured women.  Instead, she represented the defendant, Dow-Corning.

Warren claimed Native American heritage until the genetic test she took showed very little evidence of it.  Yet she did use this to her advantage in Texas and in academia.  To an objective observer, her résumé demonstrates a pattern for prevarications that a Democrat could expect the media would ignore.

The most brazen falsehoods come from the House Intelligence Committee chair, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).  Schiff promised evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians in 2016 and failed to produce any.  Then, in the "official" impeachment inquiry hearings, Schiff opened the "show" with a fabricated account of the discussion between Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky.  Worse still, Schiff failed to admit that the "whistleblower" had contact with his staff prior his formal complaint — he actually lied about it.  Schiff has since promised that the CIA agent cum whistleblower would testify, and so far, he hasn't produced that, either.  When and if this person does, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats will support their factually challenged partisan, which is not the Republican way.

The hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton is almost amusing.  She decried the statement by Trump during their 2016 debate that he might withhold acceptance of the election outcome if there was not fairness in the process.  Now she appears everywhere she can to tell us Trump is an "illegitimate" president.  Soon after her defeat in 2016, some of her staff helped fabricate the false Russian collusion narrative with willing Deep-State FBI/intelligence agents.  What a sore loser!  Maybe this is her opening salvo for another attempt to become president, wherein she is selected after no clear victor is found in the Democratic primaries.

Joe Biden was found to plagiarize a speech from a British politician years ago.  This is his third try for the presidency.  With lackluster effort, his name recognition and support from African-Americans helped him become the frontrunner.  At 76 years of age now, his energy is lacking, but his anger is pronounced when fending off questions concerning his son's dealings with Ukraine and China.  But what about his son's efforts to trade on his political influence?  Is there any hypocrisy when he accuses Trump of nefarious activities?  Where are the media and their curiosity?  They act more like the publicity arm of the Democratic Party.

The exaggerations and selective leaks from the White House bureaucracy demonstrate that some members of the Executive Branch are "Deep State" operatives.  The media have for the most part decided to highlight damaging material against the administration.  The rather skimpy information regarding the good economy and international successes from the standard press is also telling.  The swamp includes Republicans, but most participants have found their future tied to their progressive views.  They are unaffected by the transfer of manufacturing jobs to foreign countries.  Poor trade agreements have jeopardized our national security (as we now have to import parts and material for military equipment) far more than any questionable discussion with the Ukrainian president.  But then this hyperbole exceeds any coming from Donald Trump.

The media tell us regularly about President Donald Trump's exaggerations and overstatements.  Some keep count on what they call "lies," and they number these in the thousands.  Trump's hyperbole is well understood, especially when he claims to be the "best" or "greatest" on any subject (such as the crowd at the inaugural).  However, these kinds of statements are not material lies that adversely affect policy or citizens (such as President Obama's assurance that we would be allowed to keep our doctors or insurance plans).  The same cannot be said about statements from many of the Democratic opposition.  Unfortunately, the media's prejudice is demonstrated by their lack of reporting on these issues.

Let's start with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is rising in the polls.  The latest inconsistency in her campaign involves her telling audiences that when she was 22 and newly married, she faced job discrimination based on being pregnant: "By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principals did in those days: wish me luck and hire someone else for the job," she claimed.  The implication she has given is that she was fired "in those days" because she was pregnant.  But in 2007, while in California, she gave a different version of events.  Then she mentioned that she was on an emergency certificate since she did not possess education training credits.  She had decided to go to graduate school for these over the summer.  During that time, while pregnant, she decided to pass on this opportunity and become a stay-at-home mom for a few years.  Records show that she was rehired, though.  This is a material contradiction (lie). 

Warren's phony concern for women is more problematic elsewhere.  She was instrumental in the silicon breast implant case.  However, she did not represent the injured women.  Instead, she represented the defendant, Dow-Corning.

Warren claimed Native American heritage until the genetic test she took showed very little evidence of it.  Yet she did use this to her advantage in Texas and in academia.  To an objective observer, her résumé demonstrates a pattern for prevarications that a Democrat could expect the media would ignore.

The most brazen falsehoods come from the House Intelligence Committee chair, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).  Schiff promised evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians in 2016 and failed to produce any.  Then, in the "official" impeachment inquiry hearings, Schiff opened the "show" with a fabricated account of the discussion between Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky.  Worse still, Schiff failed to admit that the "whistleblower" had contact with his staff prior his formal complaint — he actually lied about it.  Schiff has since promised that the CIA agent cum whistleblower would testify, and so far, he hasn't produced that, either.  When and if this person does, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats will support their factually challenged partisan, which is not the Republican way.

The hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton is almost amusing.  She decried the statement by Trump during their 2016 debate that he might withhold acceptance of the election outcome if there was not fairness in the process.  Now she appears everywhere she can to tell us Trump is an "illegitimate" president.  Soon after her defeat in 2016, some of her staff helped fabricate the false Russian collusion narrative with willing Deep-State FBI/intelligence agents.  What a sore loser!  Maybe this is her opening salvo for another attempt to become president, wherein she is selected after no clear victor is found in the Democratic primaries.

Joe Biden was found to plagiarize a speech from a British politician years ago.  This is his third try for the presidency.  With lackluster effort, his name recognition and support from African-Americans helped him become the frontrunner.  At 76 years of age now, his energy is lacking, but his anger is pronounced when fending off questions concerning his son's dealings with Ukraine and China.  But what about his son's efforts to trade on his political influence?  Is there any hypocrisy when he accuses Trump of nefarious activities?  Where are the media and their curiosity?  They act more like the publicity arm of the Democratic Party.

The exaggerations and selective leaks from the White House bureaucracy demonstrate that some members of the Executive Branch are "Deep State" operatives.  The media have for the most part decided to highlight damaging material against the administration.  The rather skimpy information regarding the good economy and international successes from the standard press is also telling.  The swamp includes Republicans, but most participants have found their future tied to their progressive views.  They are unaffected by the transfer of manufacturing jobs to foreign countries.  Poor trade agreements have jeopardized our national security (as we now have to import parts and material for military equipment) far more than any questionable discussion with the Ukrainian president.  But then this hyperbole exceeds any coming from Donald Trump.