Dishonesty is the defining characteristics of Trump and his administration, and lies are a daily occurrence. While there are far too many lies to track, I thought a thread dedicated to the worst and most notable lies would be useful. There’s a lot of material to choose from.
(I could have tapped into a rich vein of lies simply by linking to Trump’s Truth Social account — hence the OP title.)
For the same reason (namely that what passes for news in the US is on the crap end of the spectrum), critical thinking and media literacy are severely lacking in USA.
Allan Miller appears to be in disbelief that colewd could be this obtuse. I have a much longer experience of interaction with Americans on media matters and I say that the lunacy that we see in colewd is the expected default state in an average American. This includes even educated Americans. For example petrushka has kept asking me all this year how I find news and information about events in USA. I’m half a globe away and I know better what is going on in his country than he does. It is no news to me that Americans are this obtuse. They just are. And the obtuseness is further amplified by their superiority complex.
I ran across a clip of Lesley Stahl interviewing Trump in 2020, shortly before the election. It’s telling.
Trump:
Stahl:
Trump:
Stahl:
Trump:
Stahl:
Trump constantly lies about the media. Bill is playing dumb, but I suspect even he recognizes that.
And you know this because you are a prime example of critical thinking. Of course, so is keiths, who often disagrees with you. How can this be?
“Critical thinking” ought to mean something more or less definite, but I think it’s less rather than more. To begin, you need to have most of the relevant facts to work with. And how many is “most” and where are the borders of “relevant”? People who dedicate their entire lives to gleaning and cross-referencing and constructing coherent realities from this, unfortunately disagree pretty wildly. Where have your facts been selected – what are your sources? It has been said (correctly) that for $500 a day, a party to a legal case can hire a qualified expert for their side.
Then, armed with all of these facts, none of which are subject to any debate by knowledgeable people, you need to assemble them into a coherent picture no right-thinking person could doubt. But that’s easy – anyone who doubts you isn’t right-thinking and can be disregarded because they failed to marshal all the facts or think critically or whatever.
keiths seems to believe that any claim is either true or false, and critical thinking can make this determination. Problem is, at best in the real world almost any claim is sometimes right, or partially right, or mostly right, or sincerely believed to be right, or aspirational but indeterminate. We mock Bill for his inability to reject his hero on the merits, due to his inability to know what the merits are. Is the nation worse off under Trump? Good question. We can probably identify who is better off and who is worse off fairly accurately. But is the net result a Good Thing? In politics, the old saying is “where you sit is where you stand.” In politics there are no ill winds – all winds blow somebody good.
I can kind of understand where Bill is coming from. Yeah, the Washington Post identified over 30,000 false statements. Maybe the Post is weighing with a liberal scales, but maybe the focus should be on the net economic, social, political, and cultural impact of the Trump administration. And the important question isn’t whether Trump lied this time or that time, but rather how people generally feel about what’s happening. This is what elections are for.
Flint:
It depends on your standards, your skills, and your honesty. Someone who simply assumes that “anyone who doubts me isn’t right-thinking” is making a mistake.
No, for at least three reasons:
1. Many claims are subjective. I say the Grateful Dead were overrated, but Deadheads obviously differ. There’s no way to resolve the question. De gustibus non disputandum.
2. The evidence might be insufficient to make a determination. The person sitting directly behind me in the theater when I saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind may or may not have been named Bob. I’ll never know, and critical thinking can’t help me.
3. Some questions are just too difficult. Is the Collatz Conjecture true? It’s definitely either true or false, but I don’t know which and I don’t have the math chops to figure it out. Critical thinking isn’t enough.
If Bill simply said “Yes, Trump is a liar, but I don’t care about honesty,” then there would be nothing to dispute. But Bill actually (at least claims to) care about honesty, and he maintains that Trump isn’t a liar. That’s a false claim, easily disproven.
Yes, by a host of criteria. It’s why historians and scholars have ranked Trump as the worst president of all time. Does everyone agree with those criteria? Of course not. Steve Bannon, for instance, regards Trump as “an instrument of divine providence” and wants him to serve a third term.
It depends on your criteria. We can debate what the criteria should be, and we can debate whether Trump’s presidency qualifies as a Good Thing under any given set of criteria.
Factual claims can be checked. You don’t need to be a liberal to see that Trump is a pathological liar.
The WaPo covers all of those. The database is just one facet of their voluminous Trump coverage, but it’s an important part. Hence its nomination for NYU’s list of the Top Ten Works of Journalism of the Decade.
Trump’s lies have consequences, some of them enormous. They matter. There’s a reason we value honesty in our presidents.
“Most” and “relevant” means whether it forms a critical mass in the society. For example, you elected a fascist dictator into office for a second time! One time could be forgiven as a mistake. You saw the idiot dictator wannabe in the office and now you should know what you are dealing with. But this second time means you saw the idiot dictator wannabe in the office and you liked it. The critical mass of the people wanted him back there. This is what “most” and “relevant” means. America and Americans *are* that.
And the elections were decided by the likes of colewd. All of this is important:
1. Trump lied to deceive voters.
2. The voters put him in office. Again!
3. Not enough voters feel deceived by the lies. Many deny that Trump lied or is lying now.
Allan Miller,
I am willing to accept multiple imperfections in all candidates and I agree Trump is far from perfect.
Given all political candidates have imperfections where do we go from here?
Flint,
Hi Flint
This is pretty much how I see it. Politics is about choice as I am not sure there has ever been a candidate that you cannot tear down if that’s your only objective. The problem is after that exercise you are not any closer knowing how to make a rational choice.
keiths
Let’s for arguments sake assume the word liar simply means a person who makes misstatements. I would easily concede Trump is a liar given this. Now he makes the statement that given this my next claim needs to be “I don’t care about honesty” or in this case speaking factually.
Given all things being equal I would pick the candidate who speaks with the least misstatements. The problem is all things may not be equal as you have pointed out.
colewd:
For the eight millionth time, Trump isn’t a candidate. He isn’t running for office. The election is over. He won. He is the president. He occupies the Oval Office. When he shows up at the White House, the Marine guards let him in. The question is not “should we vote for Trump?” It’s “what kind of a president is he?”, and the answer is that he’s a horrible person and a terrible president who is doing great harm to the country and the world.
Regarding imperfections, everyone is imperfect. In conceding that Trump is imperfect, you’re merely conceding that he’s human. That’s not much of a concession. Trump isn’t merely imperfect. He’s amoral, emotionally stunted, unempathetic, unintelligent, inarticulate, childish, transactional, disloyal, uneducated, incurious, vain, incompetent and dishonest. He’s a dictator wannabe and a malignant narcissist.
Ideally, we avoid voting for malignant narcissists. We judge people like Trump, who are already in office, on the basis of their actual character and what they actually do with their power. We acknowledge reality instead of becoming cult members. We maintain our moral compasses instead of making excuses for immoral behavior.
colewd:
I’ll trot out Hitler again to expose the flaw in your logic. Should the Germans have said
It’s ridiculous, right? Hitler and Roosevelt were not roughly the same. Some leaders are good, and some are horrible. Pretending they’re equal, or on a par, makes no sense. Historians and scholars don’t. They’ve evaluated Trump against every other president and concluded that he is the worst. And that was based on his first term. His second is worse still.
I already know how to make rational choices, and part of that involves assessing people: their character, their strengths, their flaws. Trump was an inferior candidate, which is why I didn’t vote for him. Trump is a horrible president, which is why I criticize him. Trump is pathologically dishonest, which is why I started this thread.
Why redefine ‘liar’? The existing definition is fine. Trump intentionally says false things, over and over. He’s a liar. As a cult member, you’re unable to admit that, which is why you’re trying to soften a word that needs no softening, but reality-based people can easily see that Trump lies constantly. That’s why we roll our eyes at the fact that you can only admit that Trump uses “hyperbolic language” and makes claims that are “not well supported”.
No, my point was that if you acknowledged that Trump is a liar but stated that you didn’t think it mattered, you’d at least be acknowledging reality and your position would be consistent given your moral stance on dishonesty. As it is, you’re failing to acknowledge reality. Your belief that Trump isn’t a liar is objectively wrong.
So would I, but I would also look at the nature of those misstatements. If they’re deliberate, they count against the person’s character. If they’re unintentional, they count against the person’s competence but not against their character.
Your argument is that Trump’s misstatements are all unintentional. That’s obviously wrong, but what’s worse is that you won’t acknowledge the implication of your stance. If Trump isn’t lying about prices and inflation, for instance, but actually believes what he is saying, then he is stunningly incompetent and delusional. Unfit to be president.
If you have an argument for why being mentally incompetent and delusional shouldn’t count against Trump’s fitness for office, I’d love to hear it. But you don’t have an argument, which is why you flee every time I ask the question.
Your assessment of Trump isn’t based on reality. It’s based on your emotional dependence and cult membership.
keiths,
Hi Keiths
I have understood for a while now this is your opinion. Not just from your posts but how you have set up the conversation to demonise him. I believe your feelings are sincere yet not based on evidence but your negative feelings about how Trump behaves and some of his policies.
I simply disagree with some of your assertions. Do you really believe that Trump is like Hitler?
colewd:
So you say. What are the claims I’ve made that aren’t based on evidence, and what does the actual evidence show? I’ve been asking you for eight months, and in eight months I haven’t received a single reply. I want to examine the evidence with you, which is why I keep presenting it. You keep referring to evidence in the abstract, as if you were actually interested in it. Why the reluctance to examine it, then? If the discussion hinges on the evidence, let’s look at the evidence.
The topic in this thread is Trump’s dishonesty, and I’ve presented evidence that he is repeatedly lying about prices and inflation. You claim that he isn’t dishonest, which means that he isn’t lying about prices and inflation. Let’s figure out who’s right.
Here’s my challenge, once again. Please don’t run away from it this time:
If I’m mistaken that Trump is lying, then what is your explanation of his behavior, and how does the evidence support that explanation? Why do false statements about prices repeatedly issue from his lips?
My negative feelings about Trump are based on his behavior and his policies. I’ve cited the behavior and pointed to the policies. What specifically have I gotten wrong, what is the evidence that I’ve gotten it wrong, and what does the evidence actually say? Seize the opportunity to defend your Dear Leader. Make him proud.
Unlike the opportunistic and chameleonic JD Vance, I’ve never likened Trump to Hitler. Every time I bring up Hitler, it’s for a specific purpose: to highlight a flaw in your thinking. This time the flaw is your argument that we shouldn’t judge Trump because he’s just one of the boys (and girls), an imperfect guy who like all politicians and world leaders has his flaws. It’s bogus because it could equally be applied in defense of Hitler, to argue that he shouldn’t be criticized. But of course there’s nothing wrong with criticizing Hitler. I’ve never heard you object to criticism of Biden. Why then should Trump be exempt? Other than your cult membership and slavish devotion, what entitles him to special treatment?
And yet, you don’t accept a single case of lying against him. I am mystified as to why you would cling to that extreme position.
Nowhere. That would be for another thread; this one’s about Trump’s’untruth’, which is widely regarded as of a much more extreme character than others’. It is surely fair game to assess a former candidate’s performance or character when in post? The extent of his lying would be of much less global significance if he was still a playboy property developer/reality TV star.
Throughout all this, it feels as if the idea is that people hate Trump first, without any basis, and then cast around for reasons to hate him which that preexisting hatred inclines them to accept uncritically. It’s the other way around. Dislike of him stems from what he is and what he does. If he was a guy down the street, and one encountered him only as a neighbour or on the PTA or the church committee, it would probably be a lot easier to agree with critics – one might even be one of them; “I hate that guy”. But because he’s on telly, rich, famous, wrapped in the trappings of the Office and the Party, criticism has to be dismissed as ‘propaganda’ , ‘TDS’ – even if that itself veers towards the irrational.
Allan Miller,
Accepting based on what?
When has what he has said truth or untruth had a significant negative effect on the global population?
Allan:
colewd:
Based on the evidence you keep fleeing. Surprise us all by actually confronting it. You can start by explaining how you know that Trump isn’t lying about prices and inflation when to the rest of us it’s obvious that he is.
Based on him saying things that aren’t true.
“Yes he’s a liar but it doesn’t make a difference to anyone”
“He’s not a liar but even if he was it wouldn’t make a difference to anyone”.
Pick a lane.
Literally every time he claims climate change is false or a chinese hoax, his untruth has a significant negative effect on the global population.
The same applies when him and his administration (RFK jr.) claims SARS-Cov2 was a lab leak instead of another one in a veritably endlessly long list of zoonotic spillovers that have happened in the history of life on Earth.
Then there’s the effects on the global economy when him and his buddies signal tariff changes on BullshitSocial(tm), all the while also participating in inside trading and cashing in on the following stock market reactions. This had the seemingly unconsidered (due to simple incompetence borne out of greed with no consideration for it’s consequences) side-effect of almost crashing the Colombian economy (and raising the price of coffee both in the US and worldwide), which is massively dependent on coffee bean exports to the US.
Then there’s his blatant crypto grift.
The Orange clown is a global menace. He is an enemy of criminal justice, freedom, science, peace, and economics.
Rumraket,
Add in his RFK-influenced fuelling of vaccine hesitancy, and promotion of scaremongering over paracetamol (Tylenol). These asinine messages flow beyond borders.
Yeah. Somebody ought to close those boarders down.
Corneel,
I thought about the ‘a’ as I typed!
Trump claims that his words in the BBC documentary were fabricated. Not simply edited together. I’d call that a lie. And on the basis of it, he is reaching into the pockets of British licence- and tax-payers.
Allan Miller,
The lie claim is indeed hard to support beyond personal subjective opinion. The bottom line is you appear to not like what he is saying based on your own opinion.
Do you have a harder time with what he says about vaccines than what he says about the BBC editing his speech to mislead? How about climate change?
Instead of accusing him of lying which is like accusing a dog of barking how about challenging his policies?
colewd:
Haha. I don’t think that came out the way you intended. It’s an apt comparison, though: lying is to Trump as barking is to dogs, swimming is to fish, and slithering is to snakes. It’s in his very nature. He’s a liar to the core.
You mean like tariffs, the OBBBA, vaccine policies, National Guard deployments, foreign policy? Yeah, I wonder why we haven’t challenged any of those. 🙄
Yes, my opinion is that numerous untrue statements he has made are lies. I don’t like what people say if what they say is untrue. Why do you feel the need to twist yourself into a semantic pretzel over this? He’s either lying or dumb, take your pick. Although ‘both’ is a possibility; let’s not fall into the trap of False Dichotomy.
Bottom line: I care about integrity. Truth matters. If it doesn’t matter to you… well, OK.
There isn’t a relative scale of how ‘hard a time’ I have with his various statements. He lies about the BBC edit. He actually says they used AI, and that he did not say the words (that he was impeached for). A barefaced lie.
The thread (to repeat, for the dozenth time) is about his relationship with the truth.
Interesting you say he lies like a dog barks, though. On that, we agree.
I’m on some right-wing email and phone lists, so I get stuff like this all the time, but never so threatening. What is wrong with these people?
Allan Miller,
I have been politely trying to show that you are making claims based on opinion which you cannot support. Words matter and should be chosen carefully if you want to be taken seriously by someone not locked into their position. What I have observed is 30 days of an attempt to make a “lazy label” legitimate simply as a partisan tactic.
Simply make the claim I don’t agree with Trump here and state the reason for the disagreement. When you use words meant to defame like “liar” you paint yourself into a partisan corner especially if you cannot support the claim.
Once you are seen as partisan your ability to persuade independent voters goes away.
Here is a disagreement I have with Trump. You should have never posted what you did about Rob Reiner and his wife. For posting this about someone murdered by their own child this was a classless act.
colewd:
I’m glad you agree that he crossed a line with those statements. I was beginning to wonder if there was anything he could do that you wouldn’t support or rationalize, and I’m relieved to find that even you have your limits.
How do you feel about this? Also a classless act, wouldn’t you agree?
colewd:
Claiming that we can’t support our position is different from showing that we can’t support it. You’ve done a lot of the former and none of the latter.
We’ve pointed out dozens of Trump’s lies by now and referred you to a database recording tens of thousands of them. We’ve supported our claims. Where are your rebuttals? Where is your support for your claim?
The lies that are best documented in this particular thread are Trump’s lies about prices and inflation. If Trump isn’t lying, as you maintain, then why he is claiming that prices are down and inflation is dead when prices are up and inflation is alive and kicking? What is your explanation? Support your position. Let’s have a discussion based on the evidence.
We’ve been anything but lazy in providing evidence that Trump is a habitual liar. Lazy labels are labels that substitute for argument, as in your use of “propaganda” and “TDS” when referring to us. “Liar” is not a lazy label when applied to Trump. It’s an accurate label. He intentionally and repeatedly says things he knows aren’t true. That’s lying. He’s a liar.
If we have painted ourselves into a corner, why are we the ones who want to discuss the evidence while you are the one who runs away from it?
This thread is about Trump’s lies, not about strategies for persuading independent voters. We’ve shown that Trump lies; you’ve failed to show that he does not. We’ve succeeded; you’ve failed.
Also, you’re assuming that independent voters are all as narrow-minded as you in their judgments of who is partisan and in refusing to listen to people whose views don’t align with their own. If someone provides the receipts, I pay attention. What matters is whether what they’re saying is true, not whether their views align with mine.
This is tough for you to accept, but people who disagree with you are capable of saying true things, and they do. If you write off everything they say, then some of what you are writing off is truth. That’s good for cult membership, but bad if you’re seeking the truth.
Being an adult requires grappling with unpleasant truths. You hate that Trump is a liar, but that’s the reality. Take a deep breath and say “If Trump is a liar, I need to acknowledge that to myself.” Then look at the evidence with an open mind.
And how do you defend this against the charge that you are spouting an opinion without evidence that you cannot support and you are a radical leftist afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome? How do you know Trump really posted what you claim he posted? Are you sure he defended the post afterwards? Did you actually see Trump doing it or was it fake news propaganda on TV?
At this stage, your epistemological standards are entirely down the drain, your credibility is at zero and you will have to start demonstrating sanity by little baby steps.
I have supported it. You may be impervious to comprehending that support, but I have – politely – done so. Trump’s capacity for untruth is legendary, and widely acknowledged. Your defence – he just says stuff without awareness of its truth or untruth – is weak. Cultish, even. Playing with words to avoid criticising.
Do you want to be taken seriously as someone not locked into their position? Not doing a great job with your extreme denial of the totality of it.
Not a partisan issue, and I’m not an American voter.
It is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. After all, you seem to concede that he makes untrue statements. Just that he doesn’t know it.
See above.
You are not an ‘independent voter’ in the matter of Trump, and I don’t kid myself that there is any latitude in your capacity for persuasion.
The man is devoid of class. “Biden is a mean son of a bitch” when discussing his cancer diagnosis, the plaques, sneering over Paul Pelosi’s injuries… but those are separate issues to his lying.
I asked Grok to fact check just one post: a rant from Nov 25. In just that one post, he only managed a 40% truth rating, and half of that is his ‘excellent’ health exam, which is debatable for an overweight chap. Grok does not get to vote, so is not ‘partisan’, although is under suspicion as not being completely unbiased.
Allan:
Grok is being too generous to Trump. I fact-checked that same rant here a couple of weeks ago.
Yeah but you’re a Radical Far Left propagandist with TDS though…
Allan:
And ‘partisan’, because how could an independent voter who detests Trump and thinks he’s a liar be anything but partisan?
Man, that speech last night was a train wreck of dishonesty. The lab rat is frantically pressing the lie lever, wondering why it doesn’t work anymore.
Here’s a hint, Donald: the lies that work are the ones your audience doesn’t already know are false.
Allan Miller,
Independent voters voted for him in the last election this is how he won. I did not vote for him in 2020 primarily driven by comments about Biden that were demeaning. Given Biden was a train reck I made a mistake not supporting Trump and if Trump had won this discussion would be behind us at this point.
Allan:
colewd:
The following is not a valid syllogism:
There’s nothing independent about you. But since you regard the opinion of independents so highly, ponder the fact that Trump’s approval among independents has gone from 2 points underwater in January to an astonishing 43 points underwater now. Independents hate the job he’s doing as president.
Does not make you an independent voter in the matter of Trump. Your slavish devotion to the man, your wilful blindness to his faults, your portrayal of all criticism as propaganda, your joining in with the MAGA mantras – and endless “but Biden” – demonstrate this clearly.
But yes, the world might be a better place if he’d won in 2020, because he got 4 years to brood and fester grievance – and become more senile – making him far worse as 47 than if he’d been 46.
Allan Miller,
Why in the world did I not vote for him in 2020. This is not a sign of devotion? From my perspective unless you think he is Hitler from your perspective then you are devoted to him. Every time I mention a fault it falls of deaf ears because I am not in your camp of blind hatred.
You change the subject as if I never had made a sharp criticism. Yea the guy says some very classless things but you seem to only respond to one sided hate that this post reinforces. I did not vote for Trump in 2020. Have you or Keiths ever voted for a conservative in recent times in a national election?