Prefacing a description of a 2016 presidential candidate’s latest claim with, “despite lack of evidence,” is not exactly the ideal way to start. Donald Trump is by now the most commercial candidate in the race for the Republican nomination, but what are his tactics for gaining support? Lies. Slander and bigotry have won Trump the most support from his proponents, but where will the lies start?

TIME highlights the latest controversial assertions spoken by Trump: a claim that he witnessed Muslims in New Jersey cheering when AA Flight 11 and United Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11. On NBC’s Meet the Press, he claimed “I saw it on television. I saw clips. And so did many other people.”

Donald Trump supporters turn a blind eye to his antics. PHOTO VIA FLICKR USER GAGE SKIDMORE

Donald Trump supporters turn a blind eye to his antics. PHOTO VIA FLICKR USER GAGE SKIDMORE

Claims such as this became of value for the right wing after the tragic events in Paris two weeks ago. Because most would not be able to cook up a legitimate foreign defense policy against the Islamic State, potential nominees like Trump must use nasty rhetoric to round up the vote of those who fear the Muslim community for illegitimate reasons.

How can people round up their voices, let alone their money, to back a candidate so blatantly ignorant such as this? And even if they agree with his racist views on immigration and the Muslim community, should not they be wary to buy what he is selling when the anecdotes he spouts lack evidence in themselves? If a person is going to run for president, they would need to use fundamentally true facts in their arguments in order to gain support, correct? In the case of Mr. Trump, not so much.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC begged the question on his show Hardball on Monday, “Are people so committed to Trump’s nationalist message that they don’t, or they can’t, care what he says as long as he snarls at the big shots while he says it?”

Commentator Howard Fineman of the Huffington Post also pointed out during Matthews’ segment that “[Trump’s rallies] are a little bit like rock concerts, and they’re a little bit like revival meetings — they’re secular, political revival meetings where it’s about belief and it’s about faith that because Donald Trump is willing to say anything, no matter how obnoxious — the more obnoxious and the more accusatory it is, the more they believe in h

im.”

As an optimistic person, I would like to think that supporters of Mr. Trump’s campaign will see the light after being provided proof that what he’s dishing out simply is not true. But after his slander about how Mexicans crossing the border are inherently “rapists,” in his first speech announcing his run for President, you would think the ship had sailed far away, yet he has only garnered more support.

How can it be that Trump supporters are so bitter about U.S. President Barack Obama’s current healthcare, job growth and sustainability achievements that they need a candidate so opposite of the spectrum to wreck and destroy all good that has come out of our President’s terms?

The attitude makes a candidate, and Trump’s got it down. The idea of suppressing facts and fluffing up speeches with inflammatory language to gain cheers from the most red of the American people has kept him at the forefront of his party’s polls, and it is hard to predict if that will ever go away. Average people crave a candidate who speaks their language — even if that person is a billionaire who grew up on Wall Street.

Trump playing his “I’m not a career politician” card has gotten old, and it is upsetting that his current supporters have not seen past the front he gives off: a man just like one of you, who in reality would look out for himself and his cohorts on Wall Street if elected. For average Joes to actually support this man who probably cares more for his cars than the whole of the American people is beyond crazy to me.

What will it take to push people’s opinions to where the truth lies? But another question to ask would be if these people want the truth. The majority of them are probably the type to rant on and on about the overly-politically correct culture of today, and how terribly sensitive we as a society have become. But isn’t politically correct just the truth? And isn’t the truth imperative to an election process, especially one determining our next commander in chief?

Supporters of Trump reiterate constantly how they want a candidate who is not a corrupt, dirty politician, but someone they can trust. But trust is built around the truth, and with little truth in the foundation of the core of Trump’s platform, what are these proponents holding onto as their form of trust? How earnest is reliability on a man who makes things up and twists his words later to seem like he knew what he was talking about all along? Will these voters be let down when Trump’s lies come out to be as blatant as they seem, and he can no longer fend off the journalists who are actually trying to find the truth? We need to push for clarity in the world of politics today, and while the prospect of a candidate who is clear of a political record may be enticing, if their record shows just as many falsehoods as a president like Richard Nixon, we’re better off forgetting about work history.