About

About the site

Why did you make this? Why is it special?

We give people the strongest examples possible when they're exploring whether Trump is doing a great job, or when they need to argue against Trump.
We continuously and systematically rank every item in our database by comparing two items at a time, and thinking about which is worse. These small decisions are pooled together to form a final ranking.
A relative long ago asked me to "name one time Trump has lied". If you're dealing with that, or "fine, so you have 3 examples, is that it?", we can help.
People are good at criticizing politicians, but not as good at building that up into something bigger and permanent.
People argue that everything bad about Trump is out there and known to everyone. We think that's often not the case, and that this content has been poorly organized.
Some smart people who like Trump maybe have a problem of only being able to endure a few examples before getting distracted. Long lists may help them more than articles.
We check the news daily, but we don't show you chronological feeds. Politicians are too able to distract people by feeding them new stories.
Our response to "flood the zone with shit" is "record all the worst shit and rank it". That makes shit more of a liability.
We have a large, clean collection of people on the Right voicing opposition to Trump. We explain why each of these people aren't woke leftists (or RINOs, "uniparty", etc).
When people are brave and disagree with a Trump publicly, we want to give their comments a home, so their speaking up isn't in vain when the next invented scandal pops up. We hope that by amassing this criticism, people will feel more comfortable to speak out together.
Many have made "worst of all time" lists, but some weren't continued, focus on a narrower theme, lean too far to the left, or they're simply major events put in chronological order. For example, the Washington Post had a Trump lies database that was building something more cohesive, but they discontinued it, and it was fairly narrow (just lies).
We care about more than lies. We also care about corruption, divisive comments, low-intelligence comments, and general actions taken by an administration.
We keep summaries short, but provide enough depth that you don't have to constantly leave our site to learn a little more. We have more details in-site than X or Drudge Report, but less than Wikipedia or a traditional news publication.
We don't think we've said anything "woke", however that's defined. We try to find common ground, where a significant portion of the Right and Left could agree. (The fringes will never agree.)

These things are not goals:

We aren't trying to say it's better to be liberal or conservative. Our target audience is both.
You shouldn't use this site to find the latest news, and we won't provide a way to see it. We don't need people to re-engage with our site daily, though that may be our undoing.
We aren't a research site with tons of filters and search tools, but you can download our data.

But did you see those crazy leftists who interrupted that church service?

Don't you think everyone has already made up their minds?

We think a lot of Trump voters (say, 30%) are rather unfamiliar with much of what Trump says and what people say about him. The majority of *liberals* I asked about the "King Trump Shit Plane" video didn't know it existed, at least a few weeks after it happened. There's either too much noise, or they're not following closely. Many conservatives have heard dozens of awful statements by Trump, but they're probably not the most important ones to know. Some have heard a lot, but just need help remembering. Of course, many will cheer on the worst statements because they just hate the Left that much. But if a few percent are reachable, that's enough to change an election.

Maybe instead of convincing voters to vary their news diet on a daily basis, we can get some to spend 5 minutes seeing the most impactful lists possible.

Don't you think it's misleading to show criticism from people that mostly praised the president?

No, and we don't claim to summarize every stance they've taken.

For anyone giving criticism, we link to their Wikipedia page, so you can find examples of them supporting Trump just one click away. We don't want to deny that praise exists, but that's also not our focus.
Some of these people supported Trump for a while, and then started to oppose him (like Bill Barr).
Some think many of his policies are ok, but that he's still a grave threat to America (like John Kelly).
Some have been caught privately saying they dislike Trump, while publicly saying he's great. So, many of their public remarks can be classified as entertainment (like Tucker Carlson).
Some currently support him publicly, but very recently said very negative things about him publicly (like Elon Musk).
Some think clearly on particular topics, and less so on others. For example, Laura Loomer correctly sees the problem with accepting a $400m jet from Qatar, while also recently saying 9/11 was an inside job.
Some reluctantly endorsed Trump over Harris (like Bill Barr). Regardless, we'd like you to think about the criticism they gave.
Some say they've seen the light and realized their earlier opposition to Trump was wrong (like Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, JD Vance, and Mike Johnson). We want you to think about if that's really why they back Trump now, and think about what they used to think.

Don't Trump's/Biden's opponents need to offer a positive vision for what they'd actually do differently, instead of just complaining about the other side?

Yes, but that's mainly on the Democratic or Republican parties, and we don't talk to them.
Properly discussing what's bad about a leader is already a challenging problem.
Better than refraining from criticism is learning to organize knowledge and make sense of the noise.
Warning about the other side works very well for Trump, and he spends a ton of time doing it, even while in office. It's a necessary thing that nobody is going to give up.

Why don't you talk about achievements and good news?

It complicates the project and the user interface
We try to stick to things that people can agree are bad. For example, most people dislike lying, hypocrisy, weakness, rudeness, dictators, in-your-face wealth, corruption, etc.
On the other hand, people like good schools and prosperity, but aside from wanting numbers to go in the right direction, they're pretty divided about how to achieve these things.
So, we won't praise someone for raising or cutting taxes. But if they scream about the national debt and then cut taxes, and the debt goes up, we can criticize that. A president doesn't have that much control of the economy, so it's difficult to attribute a good or bad economy to them. But, if they say they're going to lower prices quickly, and prices go up, that's bad.
We won't say that Trump's crackdown on DC crime was a bad idea, but if he's falsely saying it was the most dangerous city in the world and that now "there is no crime and no murder in DC", we can criticize that.
A lot of policy is over our heads. Was the Iran nuclear deal bad? We need to read more. Would higher tariffs make sense in some cases? No idea. Is it a failure to say dozens of times that you'll end the war in Ukraine "before I get to office", and then make no progress? Is it bad to give false numbers about tariffs? Yes, that's pretty clear.
It would be bad for us to focus soley on lies and missed targets, while ignoring overall results. For this, you can see our "stats" section.
We tend to think that the US Presidency has grown too powerful over many decades, so we value a president being less destructive over "getting things done", though it's a balance. This means we want a good picture of the bad side of a president.

I disagree with your ranking. How do you decide the order?

You could say the ranking criteria is: how much do we want a moderate person to see this item? We may just have different values than you. Sometimes it takes a while to get an accurate ranking when an item is first added to the database. Aside from that, we consider various factors:

How old is the thing? Although we don't want to chase the latest news, we give less weight to something that happened in 2012 than in 2022.
Who said the thing? We give more weight to people that readers would likely be surprised to see taking a certain stance.
If we have a ton of similar items in a certain category, we might choose to highlight one item more strongly.

I see something minor in your lists - do you have TDS?

That's what the ranking system is designed to protect against. It's ok to talk about minor things, if you put it in the appropriate position. Sometimes, we start off thinking something is outrageous, and then once we think about it for a day, we realize it wasn't such a big deal. Seeing examples from different severities helps keep things in perspective.

We also sometimes cover something to answer a particular question. So something might be highly relevant to the question "is Trump religious?", but not that relevant overall.

Why do you inject your own commentary in some sections and not just keep it as a pure database?

We link to fact-checking articles, but sometimes they're going way deeper than we'd want to go, and they'd derail your flow on our site. We prefer "here are 3 short reasons why this is bad, see link for more".
Our "opposition" section naturally shows what other people are saying. Our "stories" section has quotes that usually cover background and commentary from the journalist. When covering a president's statement directly, there's no counterbalancing voice, unless you link to something else or write a comment. But many articles about something like "Trump says person should be in jail" have a lot of filler.
Many recent presidential comments have gotten relatively little discussion, because there's just so much happening.
Less commonly, we feel we have something unique to say.

What's with the memes?

We wanted a way to revisit some of the highest ranked stuff frequently, without having it quickly feel stale . Putting criticism of Trump side by side with his own comments is a way to do that, because there are many possible combinations.
Everything in our memes corresponds to an entry in the "normal" database. In most cases, they're randomly generated, and we just say "ok, let's keep this one".
They might seem silly because they can be funny, but that's because a lot of what's going on in the world is actually absurd. We also aren't using pictures that are meant to make people look dumb, but use whatever Wikipedia uses, which are usually official portraits for government officials.

Did you know you're missing a story/statement/criticism?

We have a backlog of several thousand items, which we are constantly combing through and growing. We publish about 5 higher priority ones each day. It's also possible that we miss some current events, though we're fine with waiting a month or two to cover them. We have a list of about 70 additional people who have criticized Trump, but we just haven't gotten around to adding content for them yet.

We may ignore certain stories. See our rules for details.

What about Biden's flaws?

We may enable a Biden section later. We have some Biden content already, but if we don't do a thorough job of it, we'll just be accused of turning a blind eye to his flaws.
This project started in late 2025, and we can only go so fast.

Authorship

If someone claims to own this site, ask them to create a hidden page for you, using some random words of your choosing, like "this-site.org/authorship/banana-table-flow"

Adjacent but different projects

To give a sense of how we fit in the overall landscape, we've gathered a few related projects here. We've also leaned on some of these projects to figure out what's worth including in our own site.

About