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

"If Trump said … then he will … ."
Santa Clause.
The Easter Bunny.
The Tooth Faeire.
Your Faerie Godmother.
You @Rob Larrikin must have a lot of heroes that you blindly worship besides Mr. Trump.

 

Making up a very specific story out of whole cloth is not “typical political exaggeration.” FFS.

I see. So its okay for the president to tell self-serving lies as long as you judge them “harmless.” Great standard you have there.

Trump tells so many falsehoods that he has nearly broken the fact-checking system. Isn’t that Trump’s fault?

Further, rampant dishonesty should be —and used to be — an automatic disqualifier for public office. There are areas of exceptions — the public tends to not care about elected officials lying about private matters, for instance. But we should be able to expect badic truthfulness on public matters, even if that truthfulness comes with a heavy dose of spin.

No, but they didnt call it a gaffe, either. They went with “Obama is so stupid he thinks there are 57 states.”

There has to be room for gaffes, and jokes, and sarcasm. But Trump repeats many of his most outrageous claims, so they aren’t gaffes. And trying to excuse them as mere exaggeration is discredible. So then we’re left with “well, maybe he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” Which is frankly scarier than “he’s a liar.”

 

I have made an almost identical challenge two or three times in the past. You can expect a big boatload of crap and nonsense!

 

Checking Facts, Lashing Out at Trump

PolitiFact checked 77 Trump statements and found that 76 percent of them were Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.
In other words, for every four statements Donald Trump makes, only one of them is true, according to the site.

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...site-donald-trump-lies-76-percent-of-the-time

Trump even ADMITS to lying and insincerity – "truthful hyperbole":

• Trump on the Republican primary system being rigged in May, as he secured the party’s nomination: "You’ve been hearing me say it’s a rigged system. But now I don’t say it anymore because I won. Okay? It’s true. You know, now I don’t care."

• Trump on his promise to prosecute Hillary Clinton and "lock her up": "Forget it. That plays great before the election. Now we don’t care, right?"

• Trump on his slogan to "drain the swamp": "Funny how that term caught on, isn’t it? I tell everyone: I hated it! Somebody said, ‘Drain the swamp.’ I said, ‘Oh, that’s so hokey. That is so terrible.’ I said, ‘All right. I’ll try it.’ So like a month ago, I said, ‘Drain the swamp.’ The place went crazy. I said, ‘Whoa. Watch this.’ Then I said it again. Then I started saying it like I meant it, right? And then I said it, I started loving it."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/15/13966872/trump-lying-daily-show

. . . .He was so confident he even let reporters in on his secret in Singapore when he said that he believed Kim would follow through on vague commitments to denuclearize but would just change his story if the North Korean leader fell short.

"I may stand before you in six months and say, 'Hey, I was wrong.' I don't know that I'll ever admit that, but I'll find some kind of an excuse," Trump said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...wild-week-matters-a-lot/ar-AAyITX4?li=BBnb7Kz

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the MINIMUM requirement for the Presidency is that the officeholder be respected and trusted. . . . Is there such a thing as "devious transparency"???

 

Politifact is your claim to the truth? Just skip the politifact middle man and go straight to the Democrat party talking points instead.

 

. . . . And yet ANOTHER Trump minion professing his unconditional love. . . . They suffer from chronic denial, alleging belief that he has the omnipotent authority to define truth.

Anyone who believes that Trump ALWAYS tells the truth and his critics are ALWAYS lying is delusional.

 

Empty hot air, not surprised.

What I found was a company PR rep of a public company, subject to strict federal laws such as the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sarbanes Oxley, and myriad other state and federal regulations that strictly regulate the release of information, declining to make a definitive statement, as should be the case provided the company's counsel and PR department are competent. During my career I have drafted many types of public disclosures, and can assure you there is good reason even the most basic press releases cost thousands of dollars of legal time for public companies. Litigation and government enforcement is pervasive, and so any release of any information must be strictly monitored and controlled.

"Meghan M. Cox, U.S. Steel's spokeswoman, simply offered this response: "To answer your question, we post all of our major operational announcements to our website and report them on earnings calls. Our most recent one pertained to our Granite City 'A' blast furnace restart."

The most likely interpretation is that Trump and company insiders, etc., were talking candidly about rough plans, or even specific but not fully fleshed out plans for the future, outside the ears of counsel and PR. Trump then gaffed by mentioning this at the rally. He shouldn't have said anything about candid talks with CEOs, etc. This is a failing of his handlers also, who should know better than to allow the POTUS to comment on public company matters regulated by many laws. Who knows what US Steel is planning in reality? Rest assured that there are strict legal requirements for release of such information, and anything they say in either direction could result in civil or even criminal consequences.

That's how this kind of thing works in the real world of the private sector as opposed to the fake news bubble you and yours inhabit.

But this is basic stuff that every American who has ever bought mutual funds in a 401k or read a public company's annual report should know. Of course that means the LW and their ignorant, unproductive voting blocs don't likely know it, and don't appreciate the broader ramifications of such an uncontrolled release of market-affecting information. Only an abject fool would gullibly believe media reports that "Trump lied" based on this alone. But that kind of gullible ignorance is not the real evil here.

The real evil is purposeful Complex-MSM liars who understand the details above full well, yet lie about "Trump's lies" anyway. They know full well that there are no real grounds for calling Trump's statement about USX a "lie." And they understand how delicate the release of market information is for public companies. So how do they expect to get away with this level of dishonesty? Simple, they know their blocs are indeed -ignorant- and deranged by Trump hate enough to fall for it.

1. Obama did in fact make that factually incorrect statement. 2. No one called it a "lie," just made fun of it. 3. Had Trump said it, dishonest media would have put it on a "Trump lies" list. 4. Don't even bother denying it because most of those lists are as a matter of fact composed of -exactly- this kind of error, opinion, exaggeration, etc., dishonestly characterized as a lie.

...and speaking of obvious lies. Irony.

There's definitely some "eating up" I do on this forum in responding to posts like yours, none of it involves eating up any "Trump lies."

I kind of understand your desperation though. Your rotten, incompetent, corrupt union-label Democrat Complex is falling down around your ears, sinking like a lead balloon more and more each day. Soon it will be dead everywhere other than in a few garbage-pit corrupt states. Sorry bout that, them's the breaks. Guess the Complex crooks and Soprano level thugs who parasitically and criminally live off the efforts of their betters will all have to move to those cesspits and feed off each other til the bitter end.

 

Have changed my mind on this, and covered it in the immediately prior long post. It was a serious, unfortunate gaffe on Trump's part, worse than a lie in some respects, based on the difficult position it forces for a public company. Trump's handlers should do a better job.

Whatever it was though, calling it a "lie" out of hand is just more fake news TDS BS. "Putting USX in a compromising dilemma?" Yes. "Failure of Trump and his handlers to deal correctly with sensitive market information?" Yes. Lie? No convincing evidence of that at all at this point. None whatsoever.

Using the inability of a company to comment on market-moving information improperly disclosed in any venue as grounds for calling someone a liar is itself transparently dishonest.

Rest of post is empty TDS blather.

 

Well based on the OP’s is premise, Obama didn’t lie since he believed it to be true.

 

Thank you. Let’s take a look. The answer here is in the article you linked us to, in the Independent. This is what it says, if you scroll down to the bottom of the article [emphasis mine]:

On January 23, Mr Spicer again briefed journalists on Mr Trump’s crowd size, but emphasized Mr Trump’s combined global viewing figures, which he said in addition to the crowd, made the highest viewing figure in history.

There is no known figure for how many people streamed the inauguration across the world, but if there was, it certainly could surpass previous inaugural audiences.

However, Nielsen, which records the US live television viewing figures, said an estimated 31 million people tuned in to watch the 2017 inauguration, about 19 per cent lower than the number who watched Mr Obama’s 2009 inauguration.
​

Obama’s TV viewers were 19% higher in 2009, but the global TV audience and web audience for the US and the world would have been significantly higher in 2017 than they would ever be in 2009. During that 8 years billions more people went online and had access to smart phones, iPads, etc. There is no doubt at all that Trump’s audience was many times as large as Obama’s, and the largest ever for an inauguration. To add to that, Trump has received far more publicity than any other POTUS, and probably any other human since humans first stood up to walk, again, thanks to the internet.

So, once again, no lie.

 

Yet you can't supply one lie. Isn't that peculiar?

Score for Lefties so far: Zero lies provided.

 

Where is the alleged Trump lie? What's the matter - tiger got your tongue? Have to change the subject of the thread because after searching and searching for ONE real Trump lie, you couldn't find one? How pathetic!

 

If you think I've lied about why an alleged trump lie is not a lie, while undoing the fabric of the said lie, you can point to the example and point out how I did that. It's called debate. I'll give you a simple example.

Let’s say that in post #25 someone said, “Trump said he didn’t steal a wallet, yet here is a video of him stealing the wallet, and three witnesses who say he stole it, and a signed confession by Trump himself, saying he stole it. A week later he changed his mind and said he didn’t steal it.” Let’s say I replied by saying the video was a fake, and that the three witnesses were paid off, and that Trump was pushed into signing the confession by the corrupt police. You can reply by pointing to the veracity of the video, the good record of those who made it, the fact that the three witnesses were all of sterling character, and that the police who got the confession have a long, distinguished career. It’s called debate. It’s called counteracting my argument with your own. If all you can do is sneer and whine, and say, “All his arguments are wrong,” then you are using cowardly logical fallacies in place of debate, and YOU LOSE.

Score so far for Lefties: Zero.

 

So in other words you can’t actually name a single one... way to prove the ops point

 

Don't spoil your hypnotic dream by going to GOOGLE and entering 'trumps lies'. You would probably embarrass yourself making a liar out of the ops. Carry on.

 

So again you admit you seriously can not name a single one. We’ve establish this already. You’ve got nothing and if you did you should be able to easily do so just off the top of your head without having to google it. But you won’t. Because you can’t. Not because no lies exist. I can name several off the top of my head, but because the only thing you know is what you’ve been brainwashed to “know” and that means you don’t have actual facts. Just tds.

 

You are very clever. When I said audience, and posted a link to two photos from Reuters, I was not talking about TV.

 

Yep, you were right, I shouldn't have even tried.

 

Oh brother...here we go again...
What did Trump's private investigators find in Hawaii that was so unbelievable about Obama's birth certificate?

 

From 2011? I was under the impression that the discussion was about his presidency, not stuff from 7 years ago. I don’t think there’s any idiot alive that believes trump has never once lied in his 72 years on earth. That’s retarded. Of course he has. He’s lied while in office. I can name several. But it was a nice effort on your part though. It’s more then Corn has attempted so hats off to you for that.

 

Shame on anybody who ever thought that Trump committed even the slightest sin in his exemplary life.

 

Trump is the closest thing to God.

 

IT was an incomplete sentence that said nothing, so no, that’s another lie allegation you got wrong. Try again.

Just as they point out what God does, every day. God made this happen. God made that happen. Prove it, egg. You have your challenge. Go fetch.

On the contrary; when Trump has a belief in something it’s called a belief. Not a lie. If you know of a lie he told, about anything, including Obama, then spit it out. Don’t confuse it with beliefs, opinions, mistakes or jokes. Lay the lie out here, as it asks in the OP, without the whining. Place the alleged single lie, along with a link. Not a Gish Gallop. Not a speech. Not a collection of rambling, whining complaints.

If you can’t manage that, what does it say about your conspiracy theory that ‘Trump tells thousands of lies’?

 

Sorry - with all your whining I didn't see this. I'll attend to it shortly.

 

The "fact checkers" like PolitiFact have been discredited - by the Left.

“I suspect the real problem is one of supply and demand. PolitiFact’s entertaining approach, complete with “Pants on Fire” liars, and its 2009 Pulitzer Prize, has led to a veritable fact-checking industry that needs increasing quantities of fuel to keep the fires burning. And there just isn’t enough. The fact-checkers are shifting from judging facts to indulging in opinion, but they’re not necessarily doing it because they want to. They’re doing it because politicians don’t flat-out lie as frequently as we might suppose.”
HUFFINGTON POST, PolitiFact and the Limits of Fact-Checking, Dan Kennedy, Associate professor of journalism at Northeastern University and WGBH News contributor, 12/13/11.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kennedy/politifact-and-the-limits_b_1144876.html