"Trump is incapable of telling the truth about the election."
His incapacity in that regard is not limited to the election.
He
lies when there's no point to lying. That's the creepiest part. He's like a kleptomaniac who's
compelled to steal to the point of stealing shit he doesn't even want.
People, Trump and/or his supporters, claim that pointing out the factual inaccuracies in Trump's statements is a matter of political badgering. It is not. It's a matter of accuracy and wanting to arrive at the point whereby when the POTUS says something, one doesn't have to "fact check" what he says. It's about trust of a person's words. It doesn't matter who says a thing, but POTUS job one for which part of the job is to at the very least be factually and contextually accurate the overwhelming majority of times one says something. The burden, like it or not, is far higher not just on a POTUS, but also on SCOTUS jurists, appointed government officials, experts speaking on their topic of expertise, and members of Congress. That just comes with being a professional.
I have to agree that Trump's lying about things when there's neither point or push to do so is what I too find most disconcerting about his false statements. Most of the time, the falsehoods he utters are one's that come unsolicited. The ones from today's press conference are the most recent examples (unless he's said something since then that I haven't yet heard.). Here's the video from the conference
I specifically point out and discuss a lot of the falsehoods from that press conference (the part before the reporters' questions) in a different thread. I'll just repost here the concluding paragraphs as it's a very long post.
As you look over the list of statements I've noted are false, just ask yourself whether the emboldened comments were necessary for Trump to say. Almost all of it is fallacious self-flattery. And the thing is that Trump, like most flatters, doesn't realize that if he'd just skip stating the self-aggrandizing falsehoods, people would focus on the policy aspects of his speeches, mainly because there'd be nothing else to focus on. That's really what it should be.
Ask yourself if they truly add anything to his statement. If, like me, you think they don't, then ask yourself why a presumably smart man of integrity would make those comments when they add nothing and aren't factually and contextually true. What adding those comments does is introduce a reason for people to doubt the speaker.