Can you point to one real lie Trump told, with the exact quote and link?

First, here’s the link you couldn’t find, to this Politifake lie, written by young millennial reporter, Michaela Winberg, Tuesday, June 5th, 2018. Her big screaming headline reads, “President Trump said Eagles players kneeled for the anthem. They didn’t.”

She said:

The President released a statement Monday night informing the public that he had uninvited the Birds from the traditional post-Super Bowl victory visit. Why? In part because "only a small number of players decided to come," and in part because Trump said that players had been kneeling or standing in the locker room during the national anthem, which he said was "disrespectful." Many people on the internet made the reasonable assumption that Trump was talking about Eagles players.​

Michaela Winberg is referring to Trump’s tweet, which can be seen here. It says the following:

The Philadelphia Eagles Football Team was invited to the White House. Unfortunately, only a small number of players decided to come, and we canceled the event. Staying in the Locker Room for the playing of our National Anthem is as disrespectful to our country as kneeling. Sorry!​

When Michaela Winberg says, “and in part because Trump said that players had been kneeling or standing in the locker room during the national anthem, which he said was "disrespectful”, she is mischievously editing and misquoting. To show this, let’s lay them down side by side:

Trump said:

Staying in the Locker Room for the playing of our National Anthem is as disrespectful to our country as kneeling. Sorry!​

Winberg said Trump said:

…players had been kneeling or standing in the locker room during the national anthem, which was "disrespectful”​

Trump said staying in the locker room was AS disrespectful as kneeling. He didn’t say they were kneeling.

Another lie by Politifake, and by the young millennial, Michaela Winberg. So who is Michaela Winberg? This knucklehead, that's who:

​

A recent graduate of Temple University's Klein College of Media and Communication, she was editor-in-chief of The Temple News, where she oversaw the production of the weekly newspaper and daily online content, both focused on hyperlocal coverage of North Philadelphia. Yippee! Little Michaela thinks she knows all about 72 year old billionaire POTUS, Donald Trump. What would Fake News be without little millennials like her to set us all straight?

 

Post you were replying to may have been somewhat off-topic because it did not detail Trump lies, but it was certainly not a red herring because it was making a comparison using -your own- source of alleged Trump lies. YOU opened that door yourself, poster Robert's reply was reasonable, not a red herring.

Did you learn anything about what is and is not a red herring today? To review, it's -not- when someone responds by making a comparison using an authority -you- originally cited. You're welcome.

 

I am not a "leftie" I am nonpartisan independent.

Trump has not reduced the deficit.

He has made it worse.

Same as Reagan did.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-deficit-reduction/

 

Crime in Germany is up, probably more than 10%, as you would except it would be, with all those third world immigrants being imported. It would be a miracle if it wasn’t. Trump explained that the German Left winged government under communist Merkel is not interested in publishing the real figures and is covering them up. You don’t think the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces would know if Merkel was covering up such things? Until you have the United States intelligence machine don’t dare say your commander-in-chief is lying about such matters.

Trump said they are covering up the real stats, which makes those stats Merkel refer to false. Fake News are helping communist Merkel with her lie. Compiling false stats from communist Merkel does not a liar Trump make. Learn what a lie is. As far as Trump is concerned Merkel is covering her increased crime rate over to improve her coming election results. That’s opinion, not “lying”.

Trump said, in a tweet 11:52 PM - Jun 19, 2018 (emphasis mine):

Crime in Germany is up 10% plus (officials do not want to report these crimes) since migrants were accepted. Others countries are even worse. Be smart America! ​

See this article about the massive, migrant crime wave surging across Germany according to figures buried in a new report released by the country’s Interior Ministry.

And another from the U.K. Telegraph, but remember, these figures come from government sources, which your Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces says do not want to report these crimes.

In bringing this up you are changing the subject from “Can you supply one Trump lie?” to “Let’s argue about German crime”. It’s irrelevant because it is an opinion that your Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces has, based on his experience and knowledge. He is saying that communist Merkel is covering up the real crime stats. That is what other Lefties do all the time. In Melbourne Australia for instance, the Labor Government (Lefties) force their police to ignore the crime epidemic among Sudanese immigrants. Cops don’t report those crimes and the official government figures are toned down to make it look like the crime wave is not happening. It happens in many countries and is a common tactic used by socialistic governments.

 

Politifake, I like it.

German crime retort makes sense too, at least leaves that one open to interpretation.

 

And now, for the truth:

Larrikin

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the term [larrikin] generally meant "a lout, a hoodlum" or "a young urban rough, a hooligan", meanings which became obsolescent.
….
From the true-blue Crocodile Hunter to the blue humour of Stiffy and Mo, from the Beaconsfield miners to The Sentimental Bloke, Australia has often been said to possess a 'larrikin streak'.

Today, being a larrikin has positive connotations and we think of it as the key to unlocking the Australian identity: a bloke who refuses to stand on ceremony and is a bit of a scallywag. When it first emerged around 1870, however, 'larrikin' was a term of abuse, used to describe teenage working-class hell-raisers who populated dance halls and cheap theatres. Crucially, the early larrikins were female as well as male.

It can be argued that the larrikin tradition of disdain for authority, propriety and the often conservative norms of bourgeois Australia (as evident, for example, in the country's history of censorship and the nation's receptiveness to paternalistic leaders) are two sides of a self-reinforcing dynamic; the social conservatism of the mainstream fuels the undercurrent of larrikinism and rebellion, which, in turn, is seen as demonstrating that a firm hand is needed. This is sometimes referred to as the "larrikin-wowser nexus", "wowser" being an Australian colloquial term for a person of puritanical mores.

Larrikinism in wartime

When the First World War broke out, larrikinism became closely connected to diggers (Australian soldiers), and remains part of the Anzac legend. The notion of larrikinism acquired positive meaning and it became a term of admiration. Indiscipline within the AIF (Australian Imperial Force) was often portrayed as harmless larrikinism that continued in folklore and anecdote.[15] "After the armistice the larrikin digger characters were increasingly celebrated as quintessentially Australian. The idea that the real Australian was a bit of a larrikin crystallized."

Wikipedia


Successive Australian politicians and early historians suggest that these brave Australian soldiers supposedly possessed a shared set of positive and commendable characteristics that were indicative of being a "true Australian," including courage, charisma, larrikinism and mateship. They also suggest that the failure of the Gallipoli campaign was actually because of the overwhelming strength of the enemy and strategic blunders by the British Empire.

Link

Whereas American masculinity has an ethos of masculine individualism (Lucas, 1996), Australian masculinity accesses ideologies of mateship, characterized by obnoxious larrikinism, giving your "mates" a hand, fierce loyalty, as well as a reckless element, enterprise, courage and daring (Townsend, 1994).

Link

In Joe Maxwell's words we can have both Gallipoli and the Western Front recreated with irreverent humour, graphic action and the somewhat notorious larrikinism of off-duty diggers.

Link

 

As I said at that top of this thread, I haven't seen a Trump lie yet, and so far none have been offered in this thread. If you think one was, point to it. I answered all offered to me, and showed why they were not lies.

 

If you have a lie why don't you present it? Why all the talk? I'll tell you why. You can't find one. You know why?

Trump is a businessman. He couches all his talk in exit clauses. These allow him to escape any accusations later. It's smart. It's based on experience. It's businesslike. If you are not a businessman you wouldn't understand.

Now once again, quite whining and supply a lie. Go ahead.

 

I have also noticed that.

Still I recall when Bush continued the case made by Bill Clinton, he got called a liar but Clinton was told he told the truth about Iraq. Same facts and two results

 

I looked at the tweets and Fake News stories on this, and I still don’t see him admitting anything about “knowing” that he knew at the time. He was asked if he knew about the payment and he said no. In the tweets he was explaining things about that payment. According to Fake News that means he told a lie. Sorry – that doesn’t add up to a lie. Legal matters are often taken care of by lawyers without billionaires being aware of the detail. Here is how it can easily happen:

Scene: Trump apartment. Trump and his lawyer talk over coffee.

Trump: Okay, so what’s happening today?
Lawyer: I just need you to sign this, and this.
Trump: Okay [briefly looks and signs]. Anything else?
Lawyer: Take a look at this – would you like us to go ahead on that?
Trump: [Looks] Yeah, that should be okay.
Lawyer: Fine, I’ll get the paperwork on that organized by next week.
Trump: How about by Friday? I gotta lotta work next week, I’ll be overseas.
Lawyer: Okay, Friday.
Trump: What else?
Lawyer: We have three people threatening to sue. There’s a fat woman who fell over in Mar-a-Lago on the wet tiles.
Trump: The Spanish rhino?
Lawyer: Yup. Also, that hippy who swears you ran over her in your limo in Chicago.
Trump: What a creep. I wasn’t even in Chicago.
Lawyer: I know. We can ignore her, but the rhino we may have to deal with.
Trump: How much?
Lawyer: A hundred grand.
Trump: Nothing you can do?
Lawyer: Not worth the expense.
Trump: Okay, pay the beast.
Lawyer: Will do.
Trump: Anything else?
Lawyer: That woman Daniels.
Trump: Daniels? Daniels? Oh, not that crazy bitch again. I thought you got rid of her.
Lawyer: Sorry Donald – it’s my fault. I made a mistake when I told you to…
Trump: I tell you what, I don’t even want to talk about that lying pig.
Lawyer: Listen, I’ll fix this out of my own pocke…
Trump: I hate these parasites. They give me a stomachache.
Lawyer: I’ll organize to p…
Trump: Look, I don’t want to talk about her again – just make her go away.
Lawyer: Kay. Um, do you…
Trump: I don’t even want to know the details. You sort it out.
Lawyer: Sure.
Trump: And don’t ruin my day by bringing her up again.
Lawyer: Okay.
Trump: I mean it Mike. Never again.
Lawyer: Okay.
Trump: Thanks. Now, its that it for today?
Lawyer: That’s it.
Trump: So long – see you on the golf course in two weeks.
Lawyer: Yup – see you then.

Two months later

Reporter: Did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?
Trump: No.
Reporter: Then why did Michael Cohen make this, if there was no truth to the allegations?
Trump: Well, you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael is my attorney and you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen.
Reporter: Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?
Trump: No, I don’t know.

That night, on phone

Trump: Michael, did you pay that bitch Daniels $130K?
Lawyer: Yes.
Trump: Cos the press are attacking me about it.
Lawyer: What did they say?
Trump: They asked me if I knew about her $130K payment
Lawyer: You didn’t know.
Trump: I know. I had no idea.
Lawyer: What else did they ask?
Trump: About where you got the money to make the payment.
Lawyer: What did you say?
Trump: Said I don’t know. That’s the truth.
Lawyer: It is. I actually paid her from…
Trump: I don’t wanna know. Let’s just forget it, okay?
Lawyer: Okay. Of course Fake News will make a huge nothingburger out of it.
Trump: I’m used to those morons. It’ll be fine.
Lawyer: They’ll call you a liar of course.
Trump: Of course.

 

Yes, the remark was part of a blast of tweets that Trump fired off even as Air Force One touched down at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland outside the US capital and brought Trump back home.
​

“Just landed – a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!,” he wrote.​

What about it? This thread is an invitation for you to provide an alleged Trump lie. So where is the lie?​

 

Businessmen make plans for projects every day, and state those plans. "We'll have the biggest skyscraper in New York," etc. They mean it when they say it. If it doesn't work out, you don't call them liars - unless you can prove they knew it would never happen. Trump said he would hand pick the staff and he meant it. If you can prove he was lying do so, otherwise you're simply guessing. Guessing isn't good enough - you need proof when you are the one accusing.

 

To be fair, the champion deporter and increaser of the national debt is none other than OBama. To pick on Trump this soon seems unfair to me.

 

What's pathetic is that no Lefty has supplied one legitimate lie. They "believe" they are lies, but can't prove it. They point to misquotes and Fake News, but when the so called lies are examined, they fall apart.

 

If Trump said he will reduce the deficit he will. This is the same as the wall. He said Mexico will pay for it, and Mexico will pay for it. In both cases he didn't say when, so you'll have to be patient. The other point is that he has many working very hard to stop him in both cases. If they succeed, and he fails, does that make him a liar? No, since that is not what defines a lie. You have to have intent to deceive to be lying. If he meant what he said about the deficit and about the wall, then if he fails he doesn't magically turn into a liar. That's magical thinking. Look up the word lie and become acquainted with it. Learn that the words 'lie', 'intention', 'failed promise', 'changed intention', 'accident', 'sabotage' and 'failure' are all different, and come with different meanings. If Trump fails at something the Left will shriek "LIAR!" If he makes a small mistake, they will shriek "LIAR!" It's because many didn't learn English properly in school, and many have some other language other than English for their first language. They simply misunderstand Trump's statements, speech, nuances, and so on.

 

Only one, please. I won't be writing a book for you, so please take your dump truck of alleged lies elsewhere. If you can’t manage to provide one alleged lie, on its own, with a link, what does that say about your theory that there are thousands of Trump lies?”

 

You left this part out:

For all you know Trump may have thought the questioner was referring to using executive action to get the ten votes or something similar. We don’t know because we can’t read Trump’s mind. Even if he did mean what you said, 72 year old Trump is not a lawyer, nor a legal advisor. Why do you think he has a dozen of them? If a mob of Trump haters catch him out on The White House lawn and start peppering him with questions from all directions (the same approach cops use when putting pressure on people), don’t expect him to suddenly know every legal and constitutional law. He’s a businessman. At the time of this press gaggle he expressed an opinion that “you can’t do it through an executive order”. So what? You have no right to call it a lie. It was his opinion at the time about something, under pressure from a mob.

Conclusion – there was no lie.

 

No, I just enjoy watching them squirm when they're asked to prove a Trump lie. Even when they get close to one, they still fail because they have no proof of what was going on in his head. If he meant what he said, then he wasn't lying. This is why you need something strong when it comes to accusing someone of lying, stealing, killing, etc. Opinions and feelings don't cut it. For instance, let's say that regarding the business about hand picking professors, if there were a couple of people in a room with Trump when he told them that he would definitely not be hand picking profs, and then he said to someone else that he would, that would be something. Even then you have to be careful because Fake News often pays bimbos to make up fake allegations. So it's not easy to prove a lie, and in the meantime Trump is a savvy businessman. He uses words in such a way that he leaves exits all over the place. You might say, "Sure, I can provide you with a new oven," but he would probably say, "Okay, I'll look into it and see what I can do." The tenant might say later, "He promised me an oven," but she would be wrong. He didn't promise. His father taught him how to talk without lying, and to talk "safely".

 

And you are too scared to pick one and offer it here. Hah - what cowards Lefties are.

 

You're doing an awful lot of talking, but I don't see one single alleged Trump lie. I understand this is difficult. You would have gone online to find one, and, not wanting to be shown wrong, decided to investigate as the OP suggests. You found it did not stand up to scrutiny though, and started over. After a couple of hours of this you gave up and decided to just attack the thread. It's better than being humiliated by putting up non-Trump lies. Just refer us to mountains of Gish Gallops instead - the best logical fallacy for people making false allegations.

 

Refuting Gish Gallops requires writing books, and that is why you prefer to send them instead of supply one alleged lie. You may as well say, "Here is my argument," and point us to the New York Library. It is a coward's way of debating. It means you have no arguments.

 

"When I looked at the numbers that have come in from all of the various sources, we had the biggest audience in the history of inaugural speeches,” he said."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...us-president-white-house-barack-a7547141.html


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-media-idUSKBN15600I

Two photos, side by side, comparing crowds for Obama and Trumps inauguration.

 

Typical Republican Rhetoric from a Party who's Leader has Lied over 4000 times since taking office


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.6b4bc3aed1e2

 

Trump raised the Debt to shift wealth to rich Republican Donors.

President Obama increased the Debt bring America out of the Great Recession.

Which resulted in 8 years of sustained Job Growth

Thanks President Obama !!

 

I'm rather enjoying this thread in a 'watching a car crash unfold' sort of way. It is a fascinating exercise in political prejudice, word games & possibly mental illness. It sets up a paradigm where Trump is incapable of lying because any untrue statement he makes is simply defined in such a way that it isn't a 'lie'. Rather than deal with the untruths he is undoubtedly responsible for you just define them in such a way that they aren't a 'lie'. It is all OK because....clever word games.

Moderately clever, if desperately pathetic at the same time. Pretty much defines everything that is bad about internet forums.

For anyone keeping score at home, the OP has himself been caught telling untruths and refused to own up to it when caught. So clearly he has no issue with the practice. Apparently if you can define these things so they aren't a 'lie' it is all OK.