Last Night's Festival Of Deception And Lies

On Thursday night Trump spoke for an hour, closing out his 2020 nominating convention. The media rushed to count the lies and put them all into context. Glenn Kessler's fact-checking team at the Washington Post dubbed his speech "a tidal wave of tall tales, false claims and revisionist history" and listed 32 lies-- 25 from Señor Trumpanzee himself and 7 from his handpicked Thursday speakers. You're welcome to read them all here.

The Big Liar Ends The RNC With Big Lies About Himself And Biden was how Ed Kilgore introduced the topic for New York Magazine reader. He wrote that the "entire convention, reflected perfectly in Trump’s own acceptance speech, accepted the challenge of building up the incumbent and tearing down his opponent with big, audacious lies, repeated so monotonously as to seem less remarkable. And the Big Liar himself, described incredibly as an inveterate truth-teller by his wife on the second night of the convention, put an exclamation report on every lie. How many times did we hear that prior to the China Virus Trump had compiled the most stunning record of accomplishment of any president, who kept absolutely every promise he made in 2016? This is the president who, with partisan control of both Houses of Congress, could boast just one significant legislative victory in his first two years, a reactionary tax cut package that helped buy Republican loyalty. After his party lost the House, the Trump legislative agenda basically died with the exception of occasional deals to end or avoid government shutdowns he had triggered or brought near. We are still waiting on his health-care plan and his infrastructure plan...How often were we assured of Trump’s deep and abiding compassion for the downtrodden, those suffering from injustice and poverty and poor health? This is the president with a lifelong habit of sneering at hurting and vulnerable people as 'losers,' who struggled almost visibly during his daily coronavirus briefings to treat the pandemic as anything other than an annoyance that threatened his reelection."

For people who view truth-telling as a matter of bedrock values, it was most remarkable how often we heard of Donald Trump as a man of deep religious convictions, surrounded by the most sectarian of conservative Christians. This is the president who once confessed he had never done anything that require divine forgiveness, and who needs a coterie of religious advisors to keep him from laughable indications of his scriptural ignorance and spiritual poverty.

So often had his record been lied about that by the time Trump rose to praise himself, such amazing statements as this didn’t even seem out of the ordinary:

I have done more for the African-American community than any president since Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president.

More than Ulysses Grant, who fought for Reconstruction against the men honored in neo-Confederate monuments that Trump has defended? More than FDR, whose New Deal began chipping away at Black poverty? More than Eisenhower, who forced the desegregation of schools with the deployment of federal troops? More than LBJ, who pushed through Congress the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the legacy Trump’s Supreme Court appointees are working to undermine? Trump’s arrogance is unsurprising, but that his allies let him say this in public is simply terrifying.

The Big Lies about Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, however, match those about his own record as exercises in chutzpah. Perhaps Trump can be forgiven for attributing trade agreements, globalization policies, immigration legislation, and overseas adventures mostly championed by and entirely supported by members of his own party to Biden; Trump has attacked Republicans for them as well. But it probably took three days of speaker after speaker lying through their teeth in saying that Biden and all Democrats favor “defunding the police” for Trump to get away with this assertion:

Make no mistake, if you give power to Joe Biden, the radical left will Defund Police Departments all across America. They will pass federal legislation to reduce law enforcement nationwide. They will make every city look like Democrat-run Portland, Oregon. No one will be safe in Biden’s America.

And it got worse:

Biden is a Trojan horse for socialism. If Joe Biden doesn’t have the strength to stand up to wild-eyed Marxists like Bernie Sanders and his fellow radicals, then how is he ever going to stand up FOR you?

...If the left gains power, they will demolish the suburbs, confiscate your guns, and appoint justices who will wipe away your Second Amendment and other Constitutional freedoms.

That is what is known as a pack of lies, uttered in such close succession that it’s tough to process them all. Bernie Sanders is not a “Marxist.” The suburbs are rapidly becoming a Democratic base, not places they want to demolish. Nobody in the Democratic Party has talked about “confiscating” guns, or even regulating them unless they are assault weapons. And all the attacks on Biden and Democrats for allegedly defending late-term abortions (only in very limited cases where there is a medically established threat to the woman’s health) might be fairer if Trump and nearly all Republicans didn’t support outlawing all abortions from the moment of conception.

Perhaps the biggest lie of all was the twinned assertion that Biden is a prophet of darkness and division, compared to a president who embodies national unity and absolutely owns patriotism (as illustrated, presumably, by the cavalier way in which he appropriated the White House as a campaign staging area, complete with giant Trump-Pence signs). As Mike Pence boldly claimed in his gesture of maximum loyalty on night three of the RNC, Trump’s enemies are fundamentally un-American, while the 45th president loves real Americans. Yet at the same time, Trump is running against the “anarchy” in “Democrat-run” cities, for which her is somehow entirely blameless, and against which he darkly threatens to rain down fire.

The question remains: will it work? It seems unlikely. As noted above, very nearly a majority of voters have probably already decided to vote against Trump, and it’s unlikely many of them tuned into a convention so clearly tailored to MAGA tastes. Trump is unlikely to make it until November 3 living up to the image on Mount Rushmore this convention projected for him, and Biden isn’t going to live down to the bizarre caricature of him as a sort of communist fellow traveler who hates his country. Most of all, the biggest lodestone on Trump’s reelection campaign, his mismanagement of COVID-19, isn’t going to miraculously go away, even if his acceptance speech doesn’t turn out to be a super-spreader event.

Perhaps through his impressive willingness to lie and inspire others to lie, Trump can put himself into a sufficiently competitive position to lose the popular vote but either squeak out another improbable electoral college majority, or more likely, to muddy the waters on Election Night and hope through chicanery and perhaps a Supreme Court ruling he can turn defeat into victory before January. It’s the hand he has dealt himself, and if all else fails, he has enjoyed at least one more egregious White House display of the power he craves and the glory he believes he deserves.

CNN's review: "Taken in total, the speech felt like a mash-up of a State of the Union address and an opposition research dump. And one that you'd seen and heard before."

Politico: "It wasn’t a terribly effective address. The speech lacked structure and thematic discipline. The president swerved between topics, some of which felt beneath the occasion, and appeared so drained by the marathon effort that he failed to punch through what should have been the most impactful moments. ('Really needed to be edited down and reorganized. A lot of stuff that could've been left on the cutting room floor diluted the powerful parts,' tweeted Scott Jennings, the conservative CNN commentator and Trump supporter.)... This hodgepodge of oratory was wrapped around a warning to America-- that Joe Biden, 'a Trojan horse for socialism,' would destroy this country as we know it... [D]espite the statements and overstatements, Trump’s speech was most notable for what it lacked. Call it humility. Or self awareness. Or introspection. What the president failed to do Thursday is what he's refused to do throughout his presidency: acknowledge the thing that makes so many people dislike him."

Can Trump Be Sued By People Who Lose Loved Ones Because Of Trump's Pronouncements?

Today Bernie called for a moratorium on evictions, foreclosures and utility shutoffs, as well as lending for small and medium-sized businesses, during the coronavirus outbreak... "We have a major, major crisis and we must act accordingly." A couple of days ago, Trump campaign spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany-- who does live events for the campaign that violate social distancing recommendations from the CDC herself-- told Stuart Varney's Fox Business News' audience that Trump is continuing to do rallies-- despite National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases head Anthony Fauci’s clear statement that holding large public gatherings like Trump rallies is exactly how outbreaks turn into epidemics, in this case an epidemic that is tanking the economy and is likely to cause millions of deaths. The imbecile said that Señor Trumpanzee "is the best authority on this issue. He takes into consult the words of everyone around him, that would include Alex Azar, that would include Dr. Fauci, that would include others."

So suppose your grandma is at her regular Wednesday afternoon bridge game and her friend Janelle's horrible sister-in-law, Hilda, is in town and Janelle brings Hilda along. Hilda was just at a Trump rally where she sat between two slobs who were coughing and sneezing all night but who guaranteed her they just have colds. Hilda dies a horrible death the following week, but not before she gives the disease to all her friends-- all Trump fanatics, so... whatever-- but also to Janelle, who rubbed her eye before washing. Can you sue Trump for the death of your grandmother?

If I were the judge... Wait and let's look at some of the evidence of how Trump is responsible for Hilda getting coronavirus and thereby causing Janelle's death. Daniel Dale, who follows Trump's lies for a living: "Trump has been comprehensively misinforming the public about the coronavirus. Trump has littered his public remarks on the life-and-death subject with false, misleading and dubious claims. And he has been joined, on occasion, by senior members of his administration." This list is chronological:

February 10: Trump says without evidence that the coronavirus "dies with the hotter weather"

Trump said on Fox Business: "You know in April, supposedly, it dies with the hotter weather." He told state governors: "You know, a lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat-- as the heat comes in. Typically, that will go away in April." And he said at a campaign rally: "Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away. I hope that's true."

Facts First: Experts were not saying this. They were saying, rather, that it was too soon to know how the coronavirus would respond to changing weather. "It would be reckless to assume that things will quiet down in spring and summer," Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, told CNN. "We don't really understand the basis of seasonality, and of course we know we absolutely nothing about this particular virus." You can read a longer analysis here.

February 24: Trump baselessly claims the situation is "under control"

Trump tweeted: "The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA."

Facts First: "Under control" is subjective, but by any reasonable definition, the coronavirus was not under control in the US-- and there was no way for the government to fully understand how dire the problem was given how few Americans were being tested. There were 53 confirmed cases and no deaths on the day of Trump's tweet; as of March 11, there were more than 1,000 cases and 31 deaths.

February 25: A senior White House official falsely claims the virus has been "contained"

White House National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow said, "We have contained this, I won't say airtight but pretty close to airtight." Kudlow said again on March 6 that the coronavirus "is contained" in the US. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway made similar though less definitive comments the same day, saying the virus "is being contained."

Facts First: Experts said the US has not come close to containing the coronavirus. They also said the small number of tests conducted in the United States had prevented the government from getting an accurate picture of how widespread the virus truly is.

"In the US it is the opposite of contained," said Harvard University epidemiology professor Marc Lipsitch, director of Harvard's Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics. "It is spreading so efficiently in so many places that it may be difficult to stop."

February 25: Trump falsely claims Ebola mortality was "a virtual 100%"

In comments to journalists on both February 25 and February 26, Trump contrasted the fatality rate for the coronavirus with the fatality rate for the Ebola outbreak of 2014 to 2016, saying "in the other case (Ebola), it was a virtual 100%" and that "with Ebola-- we were talking about it before-- you disintegrated. If you got Ebola, that was it."

Facts First: While the Ebola outbreak of 2014 to 2016 certainly had a much higher death rate than the coronavirus, the Ebola rate was never "virtually 100%"; for the entire epidemic, it was about 40% overall in the three African countries at the center of the situation. It was higher in the early stages of the outbreak, but it was never true that every infected person "disintegrated."

There were 28,616 "suspected, probable, and confirmed cases" and 11,310 deaths in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As of mid-September 2014, World Health Organization (WHO) researchers reported that there was an estimated fatality rate of 70.8%. But the rate "fell later in the epidemic with lessons learned in improving treatment," said Julie Fischer, associate research professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Georgetown University and director of the Elizabeth R. Griffin Program. Still, even at 70.8%, death was never guaranteed for infected people, as Trump suggested.

"It was never 100%. That is just patently untrue," Fischer said.

February 25: Trump falsely claims "nobody had ever even heard of Ebola" in 2014.

Comparing the coronavirus outbreak with the Ebola situation of 2014, Trump said, "At that time, nobody had ever even heard of Ebola."

Facts First: Some Americans certainly didn't know a whole lot about Ebola before 2014, but the claims that "nobody" had ever even heard of Ebola and that "nobody" knew anything about it are absurd. Ebola was discovered in 1976. It had been the subject of considerable media coverage in the next three decades, not to mention scientific study.

February 26: Trump wrongly says the coronavirus "is a flu"

Trump, contrasting the coronavirus with Ebola, said: "This is a flu. This is like a flu."

Facts First: While Trump may have simply meant that the coronavirus has a fatality rate more like the flu than like Ebola, experts have emphasized that the coronavirus is, simply, not the flu. They are different viruses with different characteristics, though they share symptoms, and the coronavirus has a higher mortality rate.

Experts say the mortality rate for the coronavirus is much higher than the approximately 0.1% rate for the seasonal flu, though the exact rate for the coronavirus is not yet known. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Congress on March 11 that it is "10 times" that of the flu's 0.1%.

As World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said March 3, the coronavirus "causes more severe disease than seasonal influenza. While many people globally have built up immunity to seasonal flu strains, COVID-19 is a new virus to which no one has immunity. That means more people are susceptible to infection, and some will suffer severe disease."

Also, the behavior of the flu over the course of a year is pretty well-understood, while the behavior of the coronavirus over time is not yet known. And while there are flu vaccines available, there is no vaccine available for the coronavirus (and no proven treatment).

February 26: Trump baselessly predicts the number of US cases is "going very substantially down" to "close to zero"

Trump said: "I think every aspect of our society should be prepared. I don't think it's going to come to that, especially with the fact that we're going down, not up. We're going very substantially down, not up." And he said: "And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that's a pretty good job we've done."

Facts First: Clearly, the number of US cases and deaths was going up, not down. As the New York Times noted in its own fact check, both Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Principal Deputy Director Dr. Anne Schuchat said at the same press conference that they expected "more cases."

There were 60 total cases in the US on the day Trump spoke here. The "15 people" referred to the cases that did not involve people who had been on the Diamond Princess cruise ship or who had been repatriated from China.

February 26: Trump wrongly says the flu death rate is "much higher" than Dr. Sanjay Gupta said.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN chief medical correspondent, told Trump, "Mr. President, you talked about the flu and then in comparison to the coronavirus. The flu has a fatality ratio of about 0.1%." Trump said, "Correct." But Trump later disputed the figure, saying, "And the flu is higher than that. The flu is much higher than that."-- February 26 coronavirus press conference.

Facts First: Gupta was right, Trump was wrong. Even if Trump meant that the flu has a "much higher" fatality rate than 0.1% -- rather than meaning that the flu's mortality rate is "much higher" than that of the novel coronavirus-- he was wrong, according to Fauci, other experts and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. February 27: Trump baselessly hints at a "miracle"

Trump said: "It's going to disappear. One day-- it's like a miracle-- it will disappear. And from our shores, we-- you know, it could get worse before it gets better. It could maybe go away. We'll see what happens. Nobody really knows. The fact is, the greatest experts-- I've spoken to them all. Nobody really knows." He made similar comments later in the outbreak, saying on March 10, "It will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away."

Facts First: There was no apparent basis for Trump's claim that the virus will miraculously "disappear." (He did immediately soften the claim by saying "nobody really knows," but still.)

February 28: Trump baselessly hints at an immigration link to the virus.

Trump said: "The Democrat policy of open borders is a direct threat to the health and well-being of all Americans. Now you see it with the coronavirus, you see it. You see it with the coronavirus."

Facts First: Prominent Democrats do not support "open borders," literally unrestricted migration. Aside from that, though, there was no evidence from the coronavirus situation that Democrats' preferred immigration policies would be harmful to Americans' health. There was no known US case in which someone brought the virus to the US while immigrating or making an asylum claim.

February 29: Trump exaggerates Tim Cook's comments about Apple and China

Trump said: "And if you read, Tim Cook of Apple said that they are now in full operation again in China." Trump also said: "You probably saw that-- as I mentioned, Tim just came out and he said Apple is back to normal in terms of production in their facilities in China. They've made a lot of progress."

Facts First: Trump was overstating what Cook told Fox Business. Cook had not said Apple's production in China was "back to normal" or that plants in China were in "full operation." Rather, he said that plants in China were "getting back to normal."

"When you look at the parts that are done in China, we have reopened factories, so the factories were able to work through the conditions to reopen. They're reopening. They're also in ramp, and so I think of this as sort of the third phase of getting back to normal. And we're in phase three of the ramp mode," Cook said.

March 1: Azar wrongly says 3,600 people have been tested

Azar said: "In terms of testing kits, we've already tested over 3,600 people for the virus."

Facts First: Politico reported: "Two days later, CDC Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat told the Senate health committee that her agency had tested more than 3,000 specimens taken from roughly 500 people-- a fraction of what Azar claimed." Politico reported that a Health and Human Services spokesperson explained that Azar had meant to say that the CDC had processed more than 3,600 tests, not that it had tested more than 3,600 people.

March 2: Trump falsely claims "nobody knew" the number of US flu deaths

Trump said: "You know, three, four weeks ago, I said, 'Well, how many people die a year from the flu?' And, in this country, I think last year was 36- or 37,000 people. And I'm saying, 'Wow, nobody knew that information.'" He said at a campaign rally: "So when you lose 27,000 people a year, nobody knew that. I didn't know that."

Facts First: Trump might not have known the number of annual flu deaths in the US, but that doesn't mean "nobody" else did. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes annual estimates on its website. The CDC estimates that between 12,000 and 61,000 people have died in the US in each flu season between 2010-2011 and 2018-2019; its preliminary figure for 2018-2019 is 34,157 deaths.

March 2: Trump says a vaccine is coming "relatively soon"

Trump said: "We had a great meeting today with a lot of the great companies and they're going to have vaccines, I think relatively soon. And they're going to have something that makes you better and that's going to actually take place, we think, even sooner."

Facts First: "Relatively soon" is too vague a phrase to call this claim false, but Trump did not mention that Fauci had told him earlier that day that a vaccine was "a year to a year and a half" away. Fauci similarly told the Senate the next day that the process of getting a vaccine ready to deploy "will take at least a year and a year and a half."

March 4: Trump falsely claims Obama impeded testing

Trump claimed he had reversed a decision by President Barack Obama's administration that had impeded testing for the coronavirus, saying that "the Obama administration made a decision on testing that turned out to be very detrimental to what we're doing. And we undid that decision a few days ago so that the testing can take place in a much more accurate and rapid fashion. That was a decision we disagreed with." He said on March 5: "They made some decisions which were not good decisions...We undid some of the regulations that were made that made it very difficult, but I'm not blaming anybody."

Facts First: There is no Obama-era decision or rule that impeded coronavirus testing. The Obama administration did put forward a draft proposal related to lab testing, but it was never implemented.

When asked what Obama administration decision Trump might be referring to, Peter Kyriacopolous, chief policy officer at the Association of Public Health Laboratories, said: "We aren't sure what rule is being referenced."

Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, who was principal deputy commissioner of the FDA under Obama and is now professor of the practice at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said, "There wasn't a policy that was put into place that inhibited them. There was no Obama policy they were reversing."

March 4: Trump wrongly says as many as 100,000 people died of the flu in 1990

Speaking about deaths from the flu, Trump said on March 4: "I think we went as high as 100,000 people died in 1990, if you can believe that." He said on March 6 that as many as 77,000 people might die in a given year, then added: "And I guess they said, in 1990, that was in particular very bad; it was higher than that."

Facts First: While the 1989-1990 flu season was considered bad at the time-- the CDC declared that it was an epidemic-- Trump greatly overstated the number of deaths. A CDC analysis in 2010 estimated that there were 26,582 deaths from the seasonal flu in 1989-1990. (The same analysis found that this number of deaths was exceeded in nine of the 17 subsequent flu seasons through 2006-2007.)

March 4: Trump says "the borders are automatically shut down"

Trump said during a meeting with airline chief executives: "And we're talking about the effects of the virus on air travel and what they see. In a certain way, you could say that the borders are automatically shut down, without having to say 'shut down.' I mean, they're, to a certain extent, automatically shut down."

Facts First: Trump did not explain what he meant by "the borders are automatically shut down." Trump's travel restrictions on China do not constitute a complete border closure even on China in particular.

Trump's China policy prohibits entry into the US by non-Americans who have been in China within 14 days-- but it makes exceptions for immediate family members of American citizens and permanent residents. And American citizens themselves are free to go back and forth.

Returning citizens who have been in Hubei Province in the previous 14 days are subject to up to 14 days of mandatory quarantine, while citizens who have been in the rest of mainland China in the previous 14 days "will undergo proactive entry health screening at a select number of ports of entry and up to 14 days of monitored self-quarantine," Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said. Still, this is not a shutdown.

March 4: Trump says he believes there was a coronavirus death in New York, though there hadn't been one

Trump said: "And then, when you do have a death, like you have had in the state of Washington, like you had one in California-- I believe you had one in New York..."

Facts First: There had not been any New York deaths attributed to the coronavirus at the time. (There still had not been any as of the morning of March 11, seven days later.)

March 4: Trump falsely claims the Obama administration "didn't do anything" about H1N1

Trump said of H1N1, also known as swine flu: "And they didn't do anything about it."

Facts First: The Obama administration did respond to H1N1. On April 26, 2009, less than two weeks after the first US cases of H1N1 were confirmed, the Obama administration declared a public health emergency. Two days later, the Obama administration made an initial $1.5 billion funding request to Congress. (Congress ultimately allocated $7.7 billion). In October 2009, Obama declared a national emergency to allow hospitals more flexibility for a possible flood of H1N1 patients.

The Obama administration did face criticism over the pace of the government's vaccination effort, but "they didn't do anything" is clearly false.

March 5: Trump misleadingly describes a Gallup poll

Trump tweeted: "Gallup just gave us the highest rating ever for the way we are handling the CoronaVirus situation." Pointing to the Gallup poll again at a Fox News town hall the same day, he said the administration got "tremendous marks" in the poll "for the way we've handled it."

Facts First: The Gallup poll was positive for Trump, as 77% percent of respondents did say they had confidence in the federal government's ability to handle a coronavirus outbreak. But it was not a poll about how the administration had handled the situation: the poll asked about confidence in the federal government's future acts, not about its actual work to date. Critically, it was conducted from February 3-16, when there were far fewer reported cases and reported US deaths; Trump was still, at minimum, 10 days away from appointing Vice President Mike Pence as his point man on the response.

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted March 5-8 found that 43% of registered voters approved of the way Trump was handling the coronavirus response, 49% disapproved. When the poll asked about confidence in "the federal government" to handle the response, 53% said they had confidence, 43% said they didn't.

March 5: Trump wrongly claims the virus only hit the US "three weeks ago"

Trump said, "We got hit with the virus really three weeks ago, if you think about it, I guess. That's when we first started really to see some possible effects."

Facts First: The US had its first confirmed case of the coronavirus on January 21, more than six weeks before Trump spoke here.

Facts First: Azar wrongly claims there is no test shortage.

Azar said: "There is no testing kit shortage, nor has there ever been."

Facts First: Vice President Mike Pence had said the day prior: "We don't have enough tests today to meet what we anticipate will be the demand going forward." Doctors, health authorities and elected officials in various locations around the country indeed said they did not have enough tests.

March 6: As the number of cases and deaths in Italy rises, Trump says the number is "getting much better"

Trump said: "...I hear the numbers are getting much better in Italy."

Facts First: The number of confirmed coronavirus cases and deaths in Italy was continuing to increase at the time Trump made this comment. As of Saturday, March 7, the day after Trump spoke here, Italy had 5,883 confirmed cases and 233 deaths; as of Monday, March 9, there were 9,172 cases and 463 deaths. (The Italian government announced a national lockdown on Monday.)

March 6: Trump falsely claims anybody can get tested if they want

Trump said: "Anybody that wants a test can get a test. That's what the bottom line is."

Facts First: That wasn't true. There were an insufficient number of tests available, as Pence said the day prior, and Americans could not get tested simply because they wanted to get tested. "You may not get a test unless a doctor or public health official prescribes a test," Azar said the day after Trump's remark. (Azar claimed Trump was using "shorthand" for the fact that "we as regulators, or as those shipping the test, are not restricting who can get tested.")

March 6: Trump exaggerates the number of people on the Grand Princess cruise ship

Trump said, of the Grand Princess cruise ship being kept in limbo over coronavirus concerns, "We do have a situation where we have this massive ship with 5,000 people and we have to make a decision." He later amended the claim slightly, "It's close to 5,000 people."

Facts First: Trump was overstating the numbers. There were 3,533 people aboard the Grand Princess: 2,422 guests and 1,111 crew members.

March 6: Trump falsely says US coronavirus numbers "are lower than just about anybody"

Trump said that "we have very low numbers compared to major countries throughout the world. Our numbers "are lower than just about anybody."

Facts First: Trump was exaggerating. The US did have fewer confirmed coronavirus cases than some countries, including China, Italy, Iran, South Korea, France and Germany. But it had more confirmed cases than big-population countries like India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia and Nigeria, plus neighbors Mexico and Canada, plus many other high-income countries.

In addition, the number of confirmed cases is dependent on how many people are tested. The US was conducting fewer tests than some countries with much smaller populations.

March 6: Trump baselessly muses that "maybe" the coronavirus improved US jobs numbers

Trump touted the jobs report for February, which showed a gain of 273,000 jobs. He then said that, instead of traveling abroad, "I think, you know, a lot of people are staying here and they're going to be doing their business here." He continued, "And maybe that's one of the reasons the job numbers are so good. We've had a lot of travel inside the USA."

Facts First: We can't definitively call this false, but there's no evidence to back it up. Reports suggest the domestic travel industry is also being hurt by the coronavirus.

In March, US airlines announced they were reducing domestic flights as well as international flights in March, and companies called off US conferences and limiting corporate travel. While industry experts said some particular domestic travel destinations could possibly benefit if the virus causes travelers to opt for local trips rather than international trips, there is no hard evidence for that yet.

March 9: Pence says Trump's "priority" was getting Americans off the ship

Vice President Mike Pence said "the President made the priority to get-- to get the Americans ashore."

Facts First: Trump may have eventually been convinced to get the Americans ashore, but he had said three days prior to this Pence claim that he wanted passengers to stay on the ship so that "the numbers" of US coronavirus cases would stay low.

"I have great experts, including our Vice President, who is working 24 hours a day on this stuff. They would like to have the people come off. I'd rather have the people stay, but I'd go with them. I told them to make the final decision. I would rather-- because I like the numbers being where they are. I don't need to have the numbers double because of one ship," Trump said on March 6. "That wasn't our fault, and it wasn't the fault of the people on the ship, either. OK? It wasn't their fault either. And they're mostly Americans, so I can live either way with it. I'd rather have them stay on, personally. But I fully understand if they want to take them off. I gave them the authority to make the decision."

UPDATE: Trump has finally announced that he is cancelling his campaign rallies, following Bernie's and Biden's leadership. But as we've been saying since late January, you elected someone like Trump and you wind up with a rudderless ship when the inevitable storm hits. This morning Rev John Pavlovitz told Trump supporters that the bill for MAGA has come due and that "it's time to pay up, the deferred invoice" for them selling their souls is here."

It’s time to pay for every incendiary campaign boast you cheered,
every factless diatribe you vigorously applauded,
every nonsensical middle-of-the-night tweet you boosted,
every dehumanizing stereotype and slur you shared,
every callous and cruel rally insult you passionately amen-ed.

Its time to pay for every denial of Scientific evidence,
every terminated qualified conscientious objector,
every attack on factual, responsible journalism,
every vicious assault on objective reality,
every star-spangled dog-and-pony show distraction,
every lazy xenophobic caricature,
every tired racist tirade.

This is how your beloved capitalism works isn’t it: someone was always going to pay for services rendered? Nothing is free, isn’t that what you’ve been saying-- no handouts? Well, dig deep friend because you are on the hook for this.

Many people have been footing the bill for a long time: migrants and Muslims and transgender people, young black men, refugees, the sick and the poor, already vulnerable communities pushed all the way to the brink-- and now past it.

You were paying too of course, you were just too willfully ignorant or intellectually negligent to realize it. Over and over we tried to tell you about the cost: the civil rights you were sacrificing too, the environmental protections you were losing as well as we were, the safety and security you were relinquishing alongside us. We tried to tell you that this hardship was not a partisan expense, that his moral bankruptcy would eventually hit you hard too.

But your Fox News bubble and your white Evangelical echo chamber and your America First, Don’t Tread on Me, middle-finger affinity clubs left you certain you were insulated from it all; that the only tears that would fall would be liberal ones, that the only people suffering voted for Hillary, that all of the pain would be isolated to people who vote Blue.

You felt immune from the spreading sickness. You felt invincible, because your messiah told you that you were winning and that was enough for you.

He was lying to you as he always does, but you preferred to believe the lie because it felt warm running through your veins even as it was poisoning you-- the intoxicating, cheap high of making America great while owning the Libs. That was a costly drug, that arrogance-- and you were slowly going broke in your addiction.

Now, in the middle of a burgeoning pandemic and a precipitous market crash and a hopelessly fractured nation, the bill is coming due.

You can’t avoid paying now.
You’re here with us.
I think even you realize that now.

This President didn’t create this virus,
but he ignored it,
denied it,
minimized it,
joked about it,
weaponized it,
politicized it,
exacerbated it.

He systematically removed qualified people and replaced them with genuflecting, sycophantic traitors, or with no one.

He generated a steady stream of partisan attacks and conspiracy theories and abject lies created in the moment, and the kind of “I am smarter than anyone in the room” sermonizing that cult leaders bellow all the way to the terrible and tragic end.

He is culpable for the chaos and the unnecessary illness, and yes the preventable deaths because of it-- and you are too.

This is the human cost of the MAGA cult delusion, and we’re all paying for it now equally, however we vote and wherever we live and whatever we value. Pandemics don’t choose sides or spare voting blocks or respect affiliations.

He will pay for it in November and in the unflattering, incorruptible light of History.

I hope whatever you received was worth it.

I hope you still feel like you’re winning.

The Democratic Party Establishment Has One Big Threat Over Voters' Heads: It's Either Our Crap Candidate Or 4 More Years Of Trump

I had a strong feeling that it would just be a matter time before Mayo Pete’s balloon would be burst and his inch deep support would start to evaporate. I assumed it would be during the Iowa caucuses next month. But, according to a new HarrisX poll, the process has already begun. For Ione thing, all that money Michael Bloomberg has been spending on TV ads-- nationally, not targeted to the early states-- show that he’s vaulted over poor Mayo (and his dozens of billionaire supporters):

As the Bloomberg media blitz kicks in-- as much as fifty million dollars in ads so far-- all the other candidates have started to lose support, except Bernie of course, who has continued gaining support. To more than double his support among Democratic primary voters, from 5 to 11%, Bloomberg took a point from each of the corporate conservative candidates-- a point from Biden, a point from Mayo, a point from Klobuchar. Elizabeth dropped 2 points, which is probably where most of the 3 points Bernie rose came from, although Yang also lost a point and Castro lost 2.


The latest Real Clear Politics polling average, which includes the HarrisX data, shows Biden dropping to 28.5%, Bernie rising to 19.0% and Elizabeth dropping to 14.9%. No other candidates, according to the average, are in double digits:

• Status Quo Joe- 28.5%
• Bernie- 19.0%
• Elizabeth- 14.9%
• Mayo Pete- 8.0%
• Bloomberg- 5.6%
• Yang- 3.3%
• Klobuchar- 3.1%
• Booker- 2.4%
• Tulsi- 1.9%
• Steyer-1.6%

Dead last is Colorado’s neo-lib senator Michael Bennet with 0.1%. Bennet is someone who has utterly failed to catch fire with even fellow conservative Democrats but who refuses to face reality and go back to work to try to salvage his badly damaged reputation.

The Iowa caucuses will likely mean the end of the road for Klobuchar, Booker and, hopefully, Bennet and Delaney. The Emerson poll, conducted in the middle of last month shows Biden, Bernie and Mayo all bunched up at the top, but the latest polling average for Iowa shows Bernie on top:

• Bernie- 22.0%
• Mayo Pete- 21.7%
• Status Quo Joe- 20.3%
• Elizabeth- 15.3%
• Klobuchar- 7.0%

No one else is in double digits. Spencer Kimball, Director of Emerson Polling, explained that “The most movement in this poll, as compared to the last Emerson Poll in October, is Warren’s downward slide from frontrunner status, and Sanders’ subsequent gain. Warren and Biden had 23% each in October. While Biden held his numbers in this poll, Warren fell 11 points. Sanders may have benefited from Warren’s loss of support, surging to 22% from 13% of the vote in October. Buttigieg maintained steady support over the last two months, gaining slightly from 16% in October to his current 18% of the vote. Amy Klobuchar experienced a huge leap from noncompetitive numbers-- just 1% in October-- to 10%. Continuing the trend evident in previous Emerson polls, Sanders leads among those under 50 with 32% support. Following him in that group, is Warren with 16%, Buttigieg with 13%, Biden with 11% and Klobuchar with 8%. Among those 50 and over, Biden leads with 36% support, followed by Buttigieg with 23%, Klobuchar with 13%, Sanders with 11% and Warren with 8%. Looking within political ideology, of those self-described as ‘very liberal,’ Sanders leads with 49% support followed by Warren with 16%, Biden with 11%, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg with 7%. Of those self-described as ‘somewhat liberal,’ Buttigieg leads with 27% followed by Sanders with 21%, Warren with 15%, Biden with 14% and Klobuchar with 10%. Of those self-described as ‘moderate’ or ‘conservative,’ Biden leads with 37%, followed by Buttigieg with 18%, Klobuchar with 12%, Warren with 9% and Sanders with 8%.”

When asked to identify their second choice, it is obvious that likely Iowa caucus voters are beginning to understand the differences and similarities between candidates:

• Among Biden supporters, 27% chose Warren as their second choice, 24% chose Sanders, 23% chose Buttigieg and 14% chose Klobuchar.
• Within Sanders supporters, 42% picked Warren, 20% chose Biden, 12% chose Yang and 9% chose Buttigieg.
• Of Warren supporters, 51% selected Sanders, 19% chose Buttigieg, and 5% chose Biden.
• Among Buttigieg supporters, 26% picked Biden, 23% picked Sanders, 22% picked Warren and 12% picked Klobuchar.
• Within Klobuchar supporters, 27% chose Warren, 22% chose Buttigieg and Yang and 11% chose Biden.
• Among the supporters of the candidates not in the top five, Buttigieg leads with 29%, followed by Sanders with 18%, Klobuchar with 17%, Warren with 12% and Biden with 7%. 

Now flip to the Emerson polling of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. There was a major shift with Bernie vaulting ahead by doubling his share of the vote-- from 13% to 26% Who lost support? Biden was down 10 points and Elizabeth was down 7. Mayo also double his support from 11 to 22%. It is likely that Bernie’s support came at Elizabeth’s expense and that Mayo took votes from Status Quo Joe. The latest RealClearPolitics polling average for New Hampshire shows Bernie #1 with 22.7%, followed by Biden (18.7%), Mayo (17.7%) and Elizabeth (14.7%)

The YouGov Iowa poll for CBS released on Sunday shows a 3-way dead-heat in Iowa, with Bernie, Status Quo Joe and Mayo all at 23%, followed by Elizabeth at 16% and Klobuchar at 7%. YouGov/CBS also released one for New Hampshire with Bernie #1 at 27%, Biden at 25%, Elizabeth at 18%, Mayo at 13% and Klobuchar at 7%.

Iowa caucuses really are next-to-impossible to poll accurately but the measurement that means a great deal is enthusiasm for first choice candidates and YouGov found that progressive voters-- those who say they plan to caucus for Bernie and Elizabeth-- were the ones all fired up, while the conservative likely caucus goers who support Mayo and Status Quo Joe are significantly less enthusiastic, meaning more easily persuadable to switch their final votes:

Daniel Dale in the journalist who deals with Trump's dishonesty the most and the most effectively. He's immersed himself into the world of lies that is TrumpWorld. And he's beginning to see BidenWorld is also a world of lies and dishonesty. According to PolitiFact, only 15% of Trump's checked utterances are True (5%) or Mostly True (10%). He lies so much they appear to have invented a new category for him-- beyond just Pants on Fire: a lie so immense that it breaks the meter:

About 71% of what Trump says is Mostly False (21%), False (35%) and Pants on Fire (15%). Biden doesn't lie as much as Trump. But he lies enough to disqualify him from commanding the trust needed to be an effective leader. Status Quo Joe is a compulsive liar. 37% of what he says is Tue (14%) or Mostly True (23%). Yes, better than Trump... but disgusting and disqualifying. And 39% is Mostly False 20%), False (13%) or Pants on Fire (4%). His record of lying is pretty vile. Here are a random few:

And the top one about Iraq is a lie he repeats frequently and purposefully, not because he's senile, but because he wants to deceive voters-- or maybe because he wants to deceive voters and because he's senile. Dale reported for CNN yesterday that "Biden dishonestly suggested on Saturday that he had opposed the war in Iraq 'from the very moment' it began in 2003-- even though Biden's campaign said in September that he 'misspoke' when he made a similar claim... Biden said that 'from the very moment' President George W. Bush launched his 'shock and awe' military campaign, and 'right after' that occurred, 'I opposed what he was doing, and spoke to him.' It's false that Biden opposed the war from the moment Bush started it in March 2003. Biden repeatedly spoke in favor of the war both before and after it began. Biden's language on Saturday-- saying he opposed 'what he was doing' at the moment the war commenced-- was more vague than his language in September, when he flatly said he had opposed 'the war' at that moment. But the new version was highly misleading even under the most generous interpretation. On both occasions-- and on another occasion earlier this week-- Biden created the impression that he had been against the war at a key moment when he was actually a vocal supporter."

Damon Linker, a conservative author and former Giuliani speech-writer, dealt with an interesting question at This Week Friday: Will Bernie voters vote for Biden when he wins? although a better question-- although probably not by Linker-- would have been “Will Biden voters vote for Bernie when he wins?” Linker detests progressives so get ready. He starts with a conservative fantasy: “Joe Biden is solidly in the lead… Biden is going to prevail. Which means that Sanders will not. And that could be a major problem for the party.”

Will Sanders supporters be willing (for the second time in as many presidential election cycles) to hold their noses and turn out to vote in November for a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party establishment when the socialist to whom they're so passionately devoted falls short of victory? Or will they be inclined (in much greater numbers than they did in 2016) to stay home or support someone's third-party bid from the left in a deliberate attempt to sink a party for which they have burning contempt? Those questions are going to become increasingly important as events unfold over the next few months.

Of course, the opposite could also become a problem. If Biden sinks and Sanders somehow manages to rise above 20 percent in the polls (he hasn't been higher than that since last April) and ultimately win the nomination, the more moderate voters backing Biden will need to decide if they can stomach casting a ballot for the most left-wing candidate ever to become a major party nominee.

But there is one very important difference between Biden and Sanders voters. The former are supporting the former vice president primarily because they think he is well-poised to win in a general-election contest against Trump. There's very little sign of fervent devotion to Biden as a person or a candidate. This indicates pragmatic flexibility that may be compatible with rallying behind another nominee, even if he's a socialist promising $97 trillion in new government spending.

The same cannot be said for Sanders supporters, who are uncompromisingly devoted to the Vermont senator and passionately committed to undertaking what he breathlessly describes as a “political revolution.” The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson is right to suggest that these millennial (and younger) voters effectively constitute a third, firmly left-wing party in American politics. This party is happy to turn out for the Democrats so long as Sanders is its nominee. But if it's bumbling, stumbling Biden-- a man who served for eight years as a right-hand man to a lukewarm, moderate president after decades of representing a state (Delaware) dominated by credit card companies-- well, then all bets are off. (Even if you believe polls that show a decent number of Bernie voters would shift to Biden as their second choice, this would still leave an awful lot of unhappy and homeless Sanders supporters around to stir up trouble.)

It would be one thing if 2016 had never happened. But it did, and many of Bernie's supporters feel like they got burned badly by the Democratic establishment not once but twice four years ago. First, their hopes were raised by Sanders' surprising success across the country and then dashed by his inability to overcome Hillary Clinton's strong institutional support. Then they settled for Clinton as a consolation prize in order to defeat Donald Trump in the general election only to have her lose to him. As far as they're concerned, they've been fooled two times already.

It's passion that explains Sanders' incredible success at fundraising-- with $34.5 million for the fourth quarter of 2019, a number that is likely to dwarf everyone else's in the race. It's even more impressive when we factor in the Sanders campaign's emphasis on collecting small donations. That shows a lot of devotion by a lot of people.

So far there's no sign that it's enough people to win the race for the nomination. But it would be more than enough to torpedo Democrats' chances of taking down Trump in November. Will Sanders (an independent who only calls himself a Democrat when he's running for president) urge his supporters once again to back the Democratic nominee, even if it's Biden? And even if he does, will those supporters go along with such an unrevolutionary act of sail-trimming?

That would be the real test of whether Sanders is leading a cult of his own personality or a genuine, ideologically galvanized movement that will outlast his leadership and continue to influence the shape of American politics going forward.

A movement firmly committed to bringing about the scale of changes Sanders has been advocating wouldn't hesitate to “heighten the contradictions”-- that is, allow things to get worse in the short term (by acting in a way that helps Trump to win a second term) in the hope that better long-term prospects for progress (namely, a big shift to the left in the electorate) would emerge from the mess. If nothing else, a second loss to Trump would ensure the overthrow of the establishment that has led the Democratic Party since 1992, thereby opening up the prospect of its takeover by left-wing populists by 2024.

As I've pointed out before, the Democratic electoral coalition is extremely broad, and perhaps too broad for its own good. A party that's big enough to include everyone from socialist Bernie Sanders to liberal Republican Michael Bloomberg is a party that will struggle to find a single standard-bearer who can unite its disparate factions. It might even be a party poised to shatter into its constituent parts.

The Sanders campaign may well end up being the catalyst that prompts the detonation.

NC-09-- The Greater Of Two Evils Candidate Wins

Nice outfits, ladies

Democratic pollsters showed their Dan winning by a hair. Republican pollsters showed their Dan winning by a hair. And non-partisan pollsters showed the race as too close to call. I had no doggie in this race. The last thing I was looking for was another yellow-bellied Blue Dog who had already announced that if elected he would vote against banning the sales of assault rifles, vote against Medicare-for-All and against the Green New Deal. There was only one thing that could turn out progressives in numbers big enough to make him win-- Trump hatred. (So... keep this factoid in mind from the new Washington Post/ABC News poll from yesterday: Independent voters-- crucial in a district like NC-09-- have turned on Trump. "Trump’s overall approval rating among independents is deeply underwater, with 36 percent approving of his job performance and 58 percent disapproving. That compares with a narrower negative split of 43 percent approval to 54 percent disapproval two months ago." Sensing Bishop-- who dressed identically to Trump on Monday night-- would lose, GOP Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) tried lowering expectations Tuesday morning. Although the NRCC and its allies have poured over $6 million into the race, Scalise called it "a very tough swing district," an odd way to describe a district with a PVI of R+8, where Trump beat Hillary 54.4% to 42.8%. Bishop won anyway, narrowly in a red, gerrymandered district like NC-09.

In the end, it was Republican Dan 96,081 (50.74%) and Blue Dog Dan 92,144 (48.66) with a few votes still to be counted. What it came down to was that Blue Dog Dan's win in Mecklenburg County (55.91%) wasn't big enough to overcome Republican Dan's win in Union County (59.95%).

In the end, it may have been Trump's last minute Monday night rally in Fayetteville that decided the race. The AP noted that Trump-- who brought Pence along too-- was "trying to prove his political clout by pushing" right-wing Republican Dan Bishop while using his divisive rhetorical, painting "a bleak picture of a nation that he claimed would be overrun with crime, poverty and immigrants if Democrats seize power in Washington."

While the stakes for the House are high, Trump's trademark rallies inevitably become more about him than the local candidate, as he uses the stage to settle political scores, sharpen attacks and take on perceived foes. With an eye to his own reelection next fall, he touted his administration's accomplishments but also urged voters to give him more time.

"That's why we need four more years," Trump said at the nearly 90-minute rally. "It's got to seed-- it's a plant. It has to grow. It has to grow those roots. That's why 2020 is just as important. Because they will try to take it away."

Trump's appearance Monday emerged as a test of the president's pull with voters. The special election could offer clues about the mindset of Republicans in the suburbs, whose flight from the party fueled the GOP's 2018 House election losses.

The president enjoys wide popularity within his own party, but a GOP defeat in a red-leaning state could, when combined with a wave of recent bad headlines, portend trouble for his reelection campaign. But before leaving Washington, Trump dismissed questions of whether a poor result for the Republican candidate would serve as a warning sign in next year's elections.

"No, I don't see it as a bellwether," Trump said.

After a light rally schedule of late, the president had plenty of new material to work with.

Chief among them was the White House's worries about the impact an economic downturn could have on a president who has made a strong economy his central argument for a second term. Trump advisers worry that moderate Republican and independent voters who have been willing to give him a pass on some of his incendiary policies and rhetoric would blame him-- and, in particular, his trade war with China-- for slowing down the economy.

Trump offered up a robust defense of the trade war with Beijing. He pushed for Congress to approve his new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal. And he exaggerated the number of miles constructed on his promised border wall.

Trump has increasingly turned to culture-war issues to rev up his core supporters.

He's leveled harsh criticism at majority African American cities, like Baltimore, and delivered repeated broadsides against four liberal Democratic congresswomen of color. Those attacks have been cheered by Trump's advisers, who are bullish on running a campaign critical of Democrats they cast as socialist and unpatriotic.

Monday's rally was held just over 100 miles from the site of a Trump rally in July where "send her back" chants aimed at a Somali-born American congresswoman rattled the Republican Party and seemed to presage an ugly reelection campaign.

The chant was not heard Monday.

Previewing what will surely be his own reelection pitch, Trump repeatedly painted the Democrats as a party that has moved to the extreme left on issues like immigration, abortion and health care.

"You don't have any choice. You have to vote for me," Trump told the crowd. "What are you going to do: Put one of these crazy people running? They are so far left."

"Your way of life is under assault by these people," he claimed.

Trump also notably expressed his support for the Second Amendment against the backdrop of a recent spate of deadly mass shootings. It comes as congressional Democrats push for expanded background checks for gun purchases and as Trump has flip-flopped on the issue amid pressure from the National Rifle Association.

...The district has been held by the GOP since 1963. In 2016, Trump won the district by 11 percentage points. Should Bishop defeat Democrat Dan McCready, it could give Trump room to assert that he pulled Bishop over the top. If McCready prevails or Bishop wins by a whisker, it will suggest GOP erosion and raise questions about Trump's and his party's viability for 2020.

"This will tell us if Trump can carry candidates through suburban districts or not," said Sarah Chamberlain, president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, which represents moderate Republicans. If not, she said, the GOP must "work harder to address the concerns of suburban individuals, mainly women."

CNN's fact-checkers, led by Daniel Dale found at least 22 lies that Trump told during the Monday night rally to his base of morons. Although the election is bering held because the Republican Party was caught stealing the election in November and a bipartisan panel and a court threw out the results, Trump made up nonsense about Democrats stealing elections in California. "A lot of illegal voting going on out there, by the way, a lot of illegal voting," he claimed, a total lie. These were the other 21 lies Trump used in his speech:

China and Trade

China's economy

"I want China to do well and I hope they do well, but they've had now the worst year in 57 years," Trump said.

Facts First: China's official second-quarter GDP growth rate, 6.2%, was the worst since 1992, 27 years ago. Trump correctly cited this "27 years" statistic in July, but he then began changing it for no factual reason. On subsequent occasions, he has said "35 years," "61 years" and "54 years," among other figures.

Trade deficit with China

"China made $500 billion over the last number of years," Trump said.

Facts First: Trump refers to trade deficits as economic losses, and surpluses as gains, though this characterization is rejected by many economists. The US trade deficit with China has never been $500 billion; it was $381 billion last year when counting goods and services, $420 billion when counting goods alone.

Who is paying the tariffs on China

"Hundreds of billions of dollars have been and are coming into our country in the form of tariffs. And China is eating the cost, which the fake news doesn't want to tell you," Trump said.

Facts First: Economic studies have found that Americans shoulder most of the cost of tariffs.

In addition, "hundreds of billions" is an exaggeration, at least when it comes to what has been collected thus far. US Customs and Border Protection reports collecting $41.6 billion from all kinds of duties in the 2018 fiscal year and $34.6 billion in the 2017 fiscal year, and it says $25 billion has been produced by Trump's tariffs on China in particular.

The USMCA and Canada

"We need a vote on the USMCA. That's United States, Mexico and Canada. And they've already voted. They want it," Trump said.

Facts First: Mexico's Senate has voted to ratify the USMCA trade agreement, but Canada's Parliament has not held a vote.

The agreement is highly unlikely to be rejected by Parliament even if Justin Trudeau's Liberal government is ousted in the coming election, since the Conservative opposition party says it will "reluctantly" vote in favor. Still, the voting has not happened yet.

The USMCA and unions

Trump, urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a vote on the USMCA, said, "The unions want it."

Facts First: American unions generally don't like Trump's North American trade agreement, a revised version of NAFTA. The AFL-CIO, a large labor federation made up of 55 unions, says changes must be made to the agreement before the federation could possibly be supportive; in a Fox News appearance in early September, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka called its present incarnation "an unenforceable trade deal" that would be "a windfall for corporations and a disaster for workers."

As the New York Times has reported, the United Automobile Workers and United Steelworkers, among other unions, have also demanded changes.

Immigration

Democrat Dan McCready

Trump said that the Democratic candidate in the 9th District race, Dan McCready, "wants open borders."

Facts First: McCready does not support open borders. His website says he wants comprehensive immigration reform "that secures our border, respects our laws and protects our American values." He calls for the government to "reinforce physical barriers with the technology Dan used in the Marines, like infrared cameras and drones."

Democrats and borders

Trump said the Democrats refuse to work with him to fix immigration laws "because they want to have open borders."

Facts First: Some Democrats, including presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Julián Castro, have advocated a significant loosening of immigration law, including a decriminalization of the act of illegally crossing the border. But none of them have proposed literally opening the border to unrestricted migration.

During the Trump era, Democrats have voted for billions of dollars' worth of fencing and other border security measures.

Migrants and court

"You have a program, catch and release: you catch them and then you have to release them. And they're supposed to come back to court in the next three, four, five, six years, and nobody shows up," Trump said.

Facts First: While it is unclear what subset of migrants Trump was referring to, the majority of migrants do show up for court. In 2017, 89% of asylum seekers appeared in court to receive decisions on their cases. Among all kinds of migrants, 72% appeared in court.

Immigration laws

"What can be much more threatening than people that want to pour across our borders? And we have the worst laws-- we have the weakest laws in the history of any country. You can't do anything to stop 'em," Trump said.

Facts First: This is obviously inaccurate hyperbole. Current US immigration laws are not even close to the weakest they have been in the history of this country: the US government did not make a broad effort to control the flow of people entering the country until the late 1800s, more than a century after the country's founding.

There are clearly numerous tools at the government's disposal to stop people from illegally entering the country, from physical barriers to Border Patrol apprehensions. Trump frequently complains that asylum seekers must be released and granted a legal process, but that is also the case in other countries.

The border wall

Trump said "we're putting up miles and miles" of the border wall.

Facts First: No new miles of wall had been built during Trump's presidency as of August, Customs and Border Protection told CNN's Geneva Sands. Sixty miles of existing barriers have been replaced.

Overdose deaths and the border

Trump, talking about the opioid crisis and drug smuggling, said, "100,000 people a year die from what comes across our southern border."

Facts First: The "100,000" figure is an exaggeration, though we don't have an exact figure for overdose deaths connected to the southern border. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a preliminary estimate that there were 68,557 drug overdose deaths of any kind in 2018, an estimated 47,590 of them involving any kind of opioid and an estimated 31,897 involving synthetic opioids including fentanyl. It is obviously not true that all of these drugs came from Mexico; Trump himself has repeatedly said that a significant portion of trafficked fentanyl comes through the mail from China.

Economy

Asian unemployment

Trump said Asian Americans are at the best unemployment numbers "we've ever had."

Facts First: The unemployment rate for Asian Americans was 2.8% in August-- higher than the 2.6% rate in December 2016, Barack Obama's last full month in office.

Women's unemployment

Trump said, "The unemployment numbers for women are the best they've been now in 72 years."

Facts First: This was another exaggeration. It has been 66 years since the women's rate has been as low as it has been this year-- it was 3.6% in August, 3.4% in April-- not 75 years.

We might omit this if it were a one-time slip, but Trump habitually exaggerates many positive statistics, including women's unemployment rates, even though the accurate figure is still impressive. In fact, according to our previous fact checking work at the Toronto Star, Trump exaggerated on women's unemployment in this kind of manner 37 times between the inauguration and June 2 of this year.

Manufacturing jobs

"And by the way: 600,000 manufacturing jobs in this country. Remember? 'You would need a magic wand, you can't do that anymore.' Well, we did it," Trump said.

Facts First: The economy has added 485,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2017, when Trump took office, official data shows. The number is 512,000 jobs added if you go back to November 2016, the month of Trump's election.

Trump's "magic wand" comment was a reference to a remark Barack Obama made at a PBS town hall in 2016. Obama scoffed at Trump's promises to bring back what Obama called "jobs of the past" without providing specifics on how he would do so.

Contrary to Trump's frequent claims, though, Obama didn't say manufacturing jobs could not be created at all or created in large numbers; Obama boasted of how many were being created during his presidency, saying, "We actually make more stuff, have a bigger manufacturing base today than we've had in most of our history."

Accomplishments

Right to Try

"They've been trying to get this for 45 years," Trump said of the program that seeks to make it easier for terminally ill patients to access experimental medications.

Facts First: There had not been a 45-year push for a federal Right to Try law, experts said. Similar laws have been passed at the state level only since 2014, after the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank, began pushing for them.

Veterans Choice

Trump took credit for passing the Veterans Choice program that allows some veterans to be reimbursed for seeing doctors outside the VA system: "We passed something that they've wanted to do for half a century. We passed VA Choice."

Facts First: The Choice program, a bipartisan initiative led by Bernie Sanders and the late John McCain, was signed into law by Barack Obama in 2014. In 2018, Trump signed the VA Mission Act, which expanded and changed the program.

Energy production

"We ended the last administration's cruel war on American energy. The United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world," Trump said.

Facts First: The US has not just "now" become the world's top energy producer: it took the top spot in 2012, under Obama, the very president he accused of perpetrating the "war."

"The United States has been the world's top producer of natural gas since 2009, when US natural gas production surpassed that of Russia, and it has been the world's top producer of petroleum hydrocarbons since 2013, when its production exceeded Saudi Arabia's," the Energy Information Administration says.

Pre-existing conditions

"We'll always protect patients with pre-existing conditions, always," Trump said.

Facts First: We usually don't fact-check promises, but this one has already proved untrue. The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have repeatedly put forward bills and lawsuits that would weaken Obamacare's protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Trump is currently supporting a Republican lawsuit that is seeking to declare all of Obamacare void. He has not issued a plan to reinstate the law's protections for people with pre-existing conditions if the suit succeeds.

The decline in overdose deaths

"Last year we saw the first nationwide decline in drug overdose deaths in nearly 31 years," Trump said.

Facts First: This was another of Trump's regular exaggerations of numbers that are already impressive. There was a rare decline in overdose deaths in 2018, according to preliminary data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics-- but it was the first in since 1990, or 28 years ago, not "nearly 31 years" ago.

Foreign affairs

Payments to Iran

Trump claimed that the US "paid" Iran "$150 billion" as part of the 2015 nuclear agreement.

Facts First: The money in question was Iranian money frozen in foreign financial institutions because of sanctions, not US government money-- and experts say the total was significantly lower than $150 billion. You can read a fuller fact check here.

NATO spending

Trump said that, "until President Trump," military spending by non-US NATO members was declining. "The NATO cost of-- spending was going like this," he said, moving his hand in a downward sloping motion.

Facts First: Military spending by NATO members had increased for two years prior to Trump's presidency. According to official NATO figures, spending increased by 1.8% in 2015 and 2.8% in 2016, before Trump took office.

Trump-era increases have been bigger-- 6% in 2017 and an estimated 3.8% in 2018-- and Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has credited Trump for his role in prompting the increase. But the upward trend started two years before Trump's tenure began.

In 2014, NATO countries who were not yet meeting the alliance guideline of spending 2% of their Gross Domestic Product on defense re-committed to meeting the target. Spending began rising after that.