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

So when Trump said the Eagles players kneeled during the national anthem during Super Bowl, and 30 odd cameras were on them and they did not kneel - how are you explaining that?

 

When Trump says that crime in Germany is way up - despite it being at a 30 year low - how do you excuse that?

 

Hi Rob

Also an Aussie and I know exactly what the word "Larrikin" means

To my esteemed American friends it means TROLL

 

Spare the unhinged foam, dude WTF dude. Right there in the article they said that the BBB rating claim could have been true at one time and that apparently a close enough percentage of "students" did rate the course favorably. Do you know what an actual LIE is? It's not an exaggeration, an opinion that turns out to be incorrect, a statement taken out of context, a boast or brag, a white lie to spare feelings.

Personally, I consider a lie to be a statement of fact made with the specific intent to deceive, and within that definition, the liars who lie about Trump's lies are bigger liars than Trump will ever be, especially since those who do the most lying about Trump's lies have protection from consequences (actual malice) that the public doesn't have.

There is a hierarchy of lies as well. Gigantic lies that cost people their lives, freedom or lots of $$ are at the top. I haven't seen Trump doing much of that.

Claiming that a U.S. Ambassador was killed because of a youtube video for example. Now -that's- a material lie.

 

Another anti-Trumper said the following was a Trump lie:

Politifact has the actual video of him making this statement. [/QUOTE]

My reply:

Yes, but polifact isn’t polifact – it’s polifake. Let’s start with the actual tax reform remarks, which were made in the St. Charles Convention Center, St. Charles, Missouri, Nov 29, 2017.

As you see there were about 6,800 words spoken. I’ll copy and paste 290 of them below (about 4.2% or 1/24 of the talk). To get a much better idea of what he meant, read the entire thing - something Fake News knows you'll never do. I have bolded the appropriate parts:

Just three months ago, we came to this state to launch our plan to bring back Main Street by cutting taxes for American families and small businesses. Today, I’ve come back to this incredible state to spend an afternoon with its amazing citizens — you are amazing — to help push our plan for historic tax cuts right across that finish line. We’re going to do that.

With your help, we can usher in a thrilling new era of opportunity and growth for this nation that we love so much. Tax cuts have already passed the House of Representatives. (Applause.) Big ones. Big ones. The eyes of the world now turn to the United States Senate.

A successful vote in the Senate this week will bring us one giant step closer to delivering an incredible victory for the American people. Massive tax cuts and reform. I don’t even mention the word reform because people don’t know exactly what we’re talking about.

You know, for years, they have not been able to get tax cuts — many, many years, since Reagan. And the problem was they talked about tax reform, not tax cuts. I said, don’t call it “reform,” call it “tax cuts and reform.” So every once in a while we’ll add the name “reform.” But it’s tax cuts.

We cannot sit — (applause.) Right? The Governor agrees.

We cannot sit idly by and watch ourselves losing in competition to other countries as they continue to take away our jobs because their tax codes are more competitive and less burdensome than ours. That’s why we must cut our taxes, reduce economic burdens, and restore America’s competitive edge. We’re going to do that, too. And it’s already happening. Look what’s happening with our markets. People get it. (Applause.)
​

Looking at the bold parts you can easily see that to Trump there is a difference between tax cuts and tax “reform”. His view (and mine) is that when governments in the past gave you “tax reform” it came with a lot of red tape and bureaucracy, and left little actual cash in your hand. Trump wanted to cut taxes, not reform taxes, in a real way that could be felt in most Americans’ hip pockets. When he said, “You know, for years, they have not been able to get tax cuts — many, many years, since Reagan. And the problem was they talked about tax reform, not tax cuts,” he was talking about tax cuts, not tax reform. It’s pretty self explanatory. Of course Fake News would take his words, isolate a few of them, take them out of context and manufacture another nothingburger.

This was Trump describing his vision and putting forward his view. When looking at the whole talk his meaning was clear. There were no lies. You can argue with his opinion about the differences between his tax cuts and others' tax reform, but that is a political debate, not a "lie".

 

Yeah okay whatever....

 

I'd have to see the intelligence that Trump relied on in making that claim in context and see a quote in context. D.C. is full of Trump haters who could feed him false information and exaggerated talking points to try to mess him up. But sure, that Germany claim could certainly have been a lie... if based on inaccurate information he knew to be inaccurate and made the claim anyway. As stated, I am genuinely interested in seeing some -real- Trump lies. He has to have told many. Everyone lies.

No way to tell from biased, bogus "fact check" sites like politifact, which I've often wondered is it the parent of this forum due to identical logos? Wouldn't that be a monstrous lie? A newspaper department running a political forum and soliciting contributions from members without disclosing the forum's affiliation with a for profit newspaper? No idea if that's the case, just using it as an example of a real, true material type of lie.

 

Crap dude. Now you're claiming that Trump doesn't lie - he is just unable to tell truth from lie because he is too stupid to make any of his own conclusions and just accepts whatever someone hands him. And now you don''t even pretend that Trump is not a lier, "Everybody lies," you state.

f***ing hell. You've gone from "Trump hasn't told any lies," to "Everybody lies," in less than a page. Damn, that's just pathetic.

 

What about Trump's changing story about whether he paid Stormy Daniels? Anyway, one thing you didn't saw was what would prove an actual lie and can I have an example from another politician like Hillary or Obama who obviously lied?

 

Your lack of understanding of how the POTUS, ANY POTUS (or any senior executive of anything, anywhere for that matter) gets information is noted. Yeah, they -do- give him briefings, and yeah, regardless of whether it's Obama, GWB or Trump, they do contain talking points that are put into his hand. Some of that is invariably inaccurate and gets repeated. Is that "lying" though? Up to your level of TDS as to whether it is or not.

And boy do you have a world-class case of TDS.

Oh, straw man noted too. I have maintained steadfastly throughout the whole thread that surely Trump does in fact lie.

 

As per your link, Trump said the following:

We’re going to have professors and adjunct professors that are absolutely terrific. Terrific people. Terrific brains. Successful. We’re going to have the best of the best. And, honestly, if you don’t learn from them, if you don’t learn from me, if you don’t learn from the people that we are going to be putting forward — and these are all people that are handpicked by me — then you’re just not going to make it in terms of the world of success.​

This is what Trump said, and in my opinion he meant it. Things change and many plans businessmen make may change depending on what eventuates. I should know - I'm a businessman myself. Many times I have made plans and they have had to change for various reasons. If Trump planned to have handpicked instructors, and then, for whatever reason, had to appoint someone else to handpick them, the question becomes “was it a lie, or did he mean it at the time?” If he meant it at the time, and for unforeseen circumstances, things changed, then you cannot assume it was a lie. The onus is on you the accuser, to prove that when he said the words he was deliberately meaning to deceive. Until you do that you cannot honestly state it was a lie. So, where is your proof? Without it, you have no lie.

 

"There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...at-his-spies-disagree/?utm_term=.2e04a7212aaa

/end thread

You lose.

 

Yep, pretty much. If he said it -after- they were picked though, it was a lie IMO.

 

As per the OP, 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?”

 

All Pants on Fire! statements involving Donald Trump

That means that the statement was unmitigated, irredeemable bullshiite. There are 85 of 'em. There are another 192 rated as patently false. You may not be able to smell what you're shoveling, but the stink of it is fouling the forum, sock-puppet...

All Pants on Fire! statements involving Donald Trump

That means that the statement was unmitigated, irredeemable bullshiite. There are 85 of 'em. There are another 192 rated as patently false. You may not be able to smell what you're shoveling, but the stink of it is fouling the forum, sock-puppet...

 

​

Holy **** you can't be serious with this idiocy

 

That was easy. Democrats in full denial, you and others poking them to get the truth. Do you sincerely expect Democrats to be truthful?

 

All Pants on Fire! statements involving Donald Trump

That means that the statement was unmitigated, irredeemable bullshiite. There are 85 of 'em. There are another 192 rated as patently false. You may not be able to smell what you're shoveling, but the stink of it is fouling the forum, sock-puppet...

 

My question to Democrats. How can you be so intolerant. I realize you tolerate bigotry since you see it above. So how can you tolerate what you allege you do not tolerate?

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/barely-true/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/half-true/

 

Sorry, politifact is not a credible source, and linking to a long list of "lies" is outside the parameters of the OP's simple request.

...and "stink of it is fouling the forum?" hope you make it to the fainting couch and the smelling salts before passing out. Need a puppy?

 

Logical fallacy:

Red Herring (ignoratio elenchi)
A “red herring” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. Typically, the distraction sounds relevant but isn’t quite on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. Red herrings are typically related to the issue in question but aren’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing they confuse and distract.

Red herrings can be difficult to identify because it’s not always clear how different topics relate. A “side” topic may be used in a relevant way, or in an irrelevant way. In the big meaty disagreements of our day, there are usually a lot of layers involved, with different subtopics weaving into them. We can guard against the red herring fallacy by clarifying how our part of the conversation is relevant to the core topic.

But since you were stupid enough to bring it up, let's compare those scorecards side by side, shall we?

Cantaloupe Caligula President Obama

• True 27 (5%) 123 (21%)
• Mostly True 68 (12%) 165 (28%)
• Half True 87 (15%) 161 (27%)
• Mostly False 128 (22%) 70 (12%)
• False 192 (33%) 71 (12%)
• Pants on Fire 85 (14%) 9 (2%)

Unlike you and the OP, numbers do not lie. President Obama had 49% of his statements rated True or Mostly True, as opposed to 17% for Kaiser Kleinerschwanz. That means that 83% of Herr Twittler's statements rate half-true or worse, with a full 47% being rated as flat out false or pants on fire bullshiite.

Don't bring feelings to a facts fight - you'll just get your ass kicked.

Here endeth the lesson...

 

Hell you win. That's a giant, material lie, several of them, right there in one video. Harmless lies, but lies nonetheless.

"She works hard." WOW, maybe the biggest lie of the century.

 

Then find a way to refute them that doesn't involve killing the messenger. If what you say is true, it should be easy to find "credible" sources to do so.

 

Sorry, the likelihood of posters such as yourself lazily linking to biased lists from sources with demonstrated anti Trump animus was addressed and dismissed early on in the thread. Want to get a lie counted, play by the thread's rules... or don't, up to you. OP specifically stated that the usual LW "link plop" stuff seen dozens of times a day here is not acceptable in the thread.