You know, all that high-minded faux intellectualism you seem so proud of really rings as being disingenuous when you're freely admitting that you form your political opinions through dank memes and petty contrarianism.

• The travel ban (do I really need to explain this?)
• The ban on transgenders in the military
• The attempt to repeal ACA and replace it with an alternative that only accomplishes to put more money in the pockets of health insurance companies instead of actually providing health coverage
• The completely fudged military raid in the Middle East earlier this year (the one that, iirc, ended up killing an 8 year old american girl who, coincidentally, happened to be the younger sister of two Americans killed in drone strikes during the Obama admin only 6 years earlier)
• Many of his staff or associates having had ties with Russia (even when not taking the possibility of Trump himself being involved, its still not something that should be ignored)
• Nominating Ajit Pai as chairman of the FCC (the man who singlehandedly killed net neutrality overnight who, prior to his nomination to FCC chair, was a lawyer for Verizon, one of the very tech companies threatened by the idea of net neutrality)
• Using 5 days worth of focusing attention towards blasting NFL players for not standing during the national anthem, instead of using that time to focus on Puerto Rico's near-apocalyptic situation
• Publicly advocating the use of police brutality (a sentiment shared by his own Attorney General I might add)
• The mass deportations before and after the whole DACA situation took center stage

Trustworthy? Let's see...
...

If I remember correctly Trump claimed to be THE advocate for LBGTQ yet his trans ban says otherwise so how's that trustworthy? Trumps absolutely refuses to show his tax returns yet claimed he would after they've been "audited" to which the IRS already stated he could show them whenever like every other president in the past 40 some years has. Did you "trust" Trump while he claimed Obama wasn't a U.S. citizen for like 3 years even AFTER he had already been proven wrong about it? What about all the evidence he claimed to have had on Obama wiretapping him? Where's that at? If I were describe Trump, trustworthy is not a word I'd use let's not forget he invited Russia in to "find" the rest of Hilary's email's only last year.

Donald Trump is different. He doesn't lie like a politician does. He does it constantly, consistently, nearly every single day. He makes absurd, sweeping untruths without any seeming effort at all. Where normal politicians stick to (mostly) slightly stretching the truth, he makes up entirely fake, lurid pieces of fiction. He exaggerates needlessly, fabricating numbers and statistics that are wildly off base for no real reason.

His lying has stymied, and still is stymieing, most major news outlets; their normal tools and methods of interacting with and reporting on politicians simply don't apply, or aren't useful to Trump. They're used to dealing with normal politicians, who generally take care to never make a directly provably false statement, preferring instead to offer half-truths and misleading supporting statements. This is not true of Trump, and it has made for an incredibly rough adjustment.

The dedicated fact checking websites and fact checking sections at traditional news outlets are frequently at a loss, unable to keep up with the sheer volume of deception coming out of Trump's mouth. But an even cursory glance at these sites makes the difference between an ordinary politician and Trump crystal clear. The Toronto Star has a pretty good one, and it even generously (perhaps overly so) gives Trump the benefit of the doubt by calling these "false claims", and not straight up lies, because it's possible not every false claim was an intentional lie.

But yeah, lies, huh? Here's one from today, I guess: despite Trump's repeated claims during the campaign that he would be so, so much better at protecting LGBTQ rights than his opponent, his Justice Department argued today in federal court that employers should be allowed to fire people because of their sexuality, as they interpret Title VII's protection against discrimination based on sex to refer solely to gender, and not to sexual orientation (which is how most courts are interpreting it these days).

This case is especially odd because the Justice Department's opponents in this case are the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The DOJ inserted itself into this case in July, filing a brief supporting the employer that fired the gay employee who is suing.

But that's not gonna stop Trump from continuing to boast of his support of the LGBTQ community.