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.)
colewd, to Allan:
Physician, heal thyself. You’re constantly using lazy labels, including in that very sentence: “pseudo claims” is a lazy label because you haven’t backed it up and you won’t. It’s a substitute for an actual argument that you are too lazy (or scared) to put forward.
Here’s a test for you: If Allan is “continually” making “pseudo claims”, then there must be plenty of examples to choose from. What are the last three you’ve seen him make? Tell us and show that they’re false. Are you feeling the urge to run away right now?
By the way, “pseudo” doesn’t mean what you think it means. A “pseudo claim” isn’t a false claim; it’s a claim that isn’t really a claim but is only masquerading as one. I’ve added it to your homework list:
colewd:
Do you think it doesn’t matter whether a president tells the truth? Would you have said that during the Clinton, Obama or Biden presidencies? Should I add ‘hypocrisy’ to your homework list?
You mean you’d like to continue our discussion of the OBBBA and why you support it? You didn’t seem so keen on that in the other thread. Aren’t you really just trying to change the subject away from your Dear Leader’s pathological lying?
You failed at this instantly as soon as this discussion started (in April). It turned out you do not know what tariffs are and what they do, and you know nothing about economics and policies in general. And you think it’s perfectly okay to be a moron on this topic because your Orange Fuehrer is a moron – just like you think it is a great virtue to be a liar because he is a liar, probably the most prolific of all liars. That Trump is a liar has been proven in court many times over beyond reasonable doubt, but you are not reasonable.
To assess what makes sense and what does not you’d better not be a moron. Why do you think it makes sense to give this another round?
Allan Miller,
Making an argument based on accusing him of lying is a losing argument as you cannot support it.
What else are you going to argue about his bad hair 🙂
Honestly I am not sure you guys have any rational criterial for supporting a candidate.
This raises an interesting point. The FACT that Trump lies as he breathes has been documented ad nauseum. However, Trump could look you straight in the eye, tell you you’re not there, and you still couldn’t recognize a lie. The point is, the argument that Trump lies has been established to the point where you are about the only person who believes it’s not supported. And as we tire of reminding you, you consider the facts not to be support for the conclusion because you refuse to accept the conclusion. In your mind, there cannot possibly be support for the argument that Trump lies, so no such support exists. Facts be damned.
Your claim is much like Trump’s claim that he lost in 2020 by fraud – it is not a conclusion based on fact, it is a policy position to be repeated endlessly, despite all of the recounts, repeated recounts, even Trumpies whose remit was to FIND fraud couldn’t find any, and Trump continues to repeat this lie. You are a cartoon figure with your fingers crammed in your ears repeating “Trump can’t lie, Trump can’t lie, Trump can’t lie”. For you, this is all the “support” necessary.
(And we even tried to explain that Trump is not now a candidate and never will be again, but that somehow doesn’t fit your narrative.)
colewd:
We’ve already won the argument, and you confirm it every time you avoid my questions. As I predicted, you’ve chosen Option #4: Run away.
Otherwise you’d have to choose either Option #2 (Trump’s a liar) or Option #3 (he’s mentally incompetent). He’s unfit for office either way, but as a cult member you can’t admit either, so you simply stay silent and pretend that our argument is the losing one. You’re not fooling anyone, Bill.
I’ll offer you the softball again. Can you bring yourself to acknowledge that he lies about his golf tournament victories? Once you break the dam by acknowledging those relatively inconsequential lies, you’ll be in a better emotional position to acknowledge the other, far more serious lies that he’s constantly telling.
You don’t believe that, and I doubt that anyone else does either. And for the 19th time, Trump is not a candidate. He’s the president.
The Dear Leader would be so disappointed if he could see how badly you’ve botched this. The discussion has been going on since April. In that entire time, I can’t recall a single point that you’ve won. Despite giving yourself permission to lie, you still haven’t managed to defend the guy.
It’s extensively supported, but you just play that ludicrous “he’s too stupid to know what’s true” defence. He says prices are down, they’re actually up but he just doesn’t have a clue where prices are.
Also… the argument is not based on his lying, it’s about his lying. But, as others have said, you just look us in the eye and deny that there is any evidence: straight out of the Trump playbook. Imagine us taking that line re: Biden. This is what we don’t get. It’s the slavishness, the inability to accept that he has been shown to lie even one solitary time.
A poster here was fond of Molly Ivins’ “military denial” – they’ll look you square in the face, bodies everywhere, and deny anything untoward took place.
How dare you! He has the best hair. Any evidence to the contrary is left-leaning media and AI. More than that, you haven’t proven he knows he has bad hair so the point is moot.
Not seeing any rational assessment from you. “Wait and see. It’s holistic. Lying is neither here nor there”.
This is the most delusional statement in internet history.
Donald Trump doesn’t lie? He’s a self-admitted pussy-grabber that… never tells a lie? Because he’s just such a moral person, right?
Bill even you aren’t this dumb. You’re just playing teams right now.
We must prove his intent to deceive otherwise it’s not lying? That’s a ridiculous standard to have with politicians and people in power. In fact we should hold people in power to a much higher standard than that, and they shouldn’t just be allowed to get away with saying falsehoods just because we can’t read their minds.
When politicians and other people in power tell falsehoods we should in fact assume, for our own protection and to safeguard societey against governmental/corporate over reach, that they are intending to deceive for their own polical and economic gains.
No, Bill. You should apply the standard to Trump you would to any other politician, CEO, or government employee, be that Obama, Fauci, Biden, Pelosi, or whoever else you can think of. Exactly because they have been given enormous power, that power should be assumed to be corrupting them and we must hold them to higher standards. Stop apologzing for Trump, start protecting yourself and your country.
Any other heuristic than the safeguarding “when Trump/whichever politician/business person/etc. is stating a falsehood it’s because he is trying to deceive us” will get you robbed blind six ways through sunday.
Rumraket,
I am not apologising for Trump I am pointing out bad arguments based on very poor support. How do we have real discussions that can shake out valid reasons for the people we are voting for?
So far people seem committed to arguing with unsupported claims and trying to establish “lazy labels” like “liar” vs trying to sort out reality and what matters to improving the human condition.
Allan Miller,
Calling someone a liar is simply a “lazy label” that is void of any ideas that move the discussion in a productive direction.
If I say I agree he is a liar for arguments sake can we move on 🙂
Saying we must prove intent is to apologize for Trump. Don’t ever give the sort of trust to politicians and other people in power as you are giving to Trump. By denying he’s lying because we can’t read his mind or have recordings of him literally saying he is intending to decieve you’re letting him get away with stating falsehoods that nobody in his position should just get away with.
I have already explained what’s wrong with that. By giving him this underserved benefit of doubt you’re not just robbing yourself, you’re giving away your country to grifters.
No. Action must follow words. How are you going to hold him accountable?
You are the ultimate Lazy Label Man. According to you, absolutely everybody lies about Trump being a liar.
colewd:
And:
I’m adding “lazy label” to your homework list:
And rather than reinvent the wheel, I’ll just quote my explanation of what a lazy label is:
colewd:
No, because the topic of this thread is the dishonesty of Trump and his administration. I know it distresses you, but that's what you get when you select a pathological liar as your cult leader.
Instead of hedging with the qualifier "for argument's sake", why not just acknowledge that Trump is a liar, period? In other words, why not acknowledge reality?
We can start small. Do you acknowledge that Trump lies about his golf tournament wins? His already preposterous claim of 36 wins, which he made in August, has now been inflated to 38. Rick Reilly, who wrote the book Commander in Cheat, commented:
Give it a shot. Type out the sentence “Trump lies about his golf wins.” Then take a deep breath and use your sweating, shaking hand to click on “Post Comment”. It will take some courage, but you’ll feel better afterwards knowing that you have acknowledged a small bit of reality for a change.
Rumraket,
How would a single voter hold Trump accountable?
keiths,
Trump lies about golf wins according to MSNBC and Keiths. This is a true statement.
Both MSNBC and Keiths have earned a low level of trust due to demonstration of obvious bias. This is also a true statement.
colewd:
Fixed that for you. Type out the revised sentence and see if you can summon the courage to click “Post Comment”.
By being another one among a growing number of voters who have realized Trump is ruining their country. By being an informed voter and taking it with you to the ballot box, the way to do it in a democracy.
If it’s you or me, just join the ranks of the sane and responsible at the ballot box. If it’s a (non-SCOTUS) judge, rule according to the facts and the law. If it’s a Republican in Congress, kindly die of old age.
If that was all we did, you’d be right. But you know damn well that’s not all we’ve done.
For argument’s sake, what do you consider his most egregious lie? On what do you base your assessment that he’s a liar? For argument’s sake.
Trump again says that drugs will come down ‘500-700%’. So you get the drugs for free and a wad of cash to boot. Of course, that may not be a lie. It may actually come to pass (‘wait and see’).Or he could be mathematically inept. But that matters when you’re telling the electorate things with maths in them.
Allan Miller,
I do not have direct evidence he lied on anything. What I have evidence for is the use of hyperbolic language which is a form of spin and can be deceptive to the voters. All this being said spin is a rhetorical technique used by most politicians.
I don’t think we can easily choose politicians based on spin as it is commonly used. I think we can separate them by those who meet their campaign commitments and those who make commitments we prefer.
For instance I prefer a candidate that will take laws like immigration laws seriously. I think Trump was the much stronger candidate supporting this policy and has shown a very strong effort meeting his commitment in this case,
I prefer a candidate that is fiscally responsible, In this case neither candidate in the last election stood out,
“There are no tanks in Baghdad. We have no evidence he lied because we haven’t proved intent.” – Bill “Gullible” Cole
Rumraket,
When you don’t have evidence to support your position revert to sarcasm, shaming and lazy labels :-).
You’ve been given evidence in this thread. Once I realized you didn’t care about evidence (this was long ago) I lost all respect for you and now I simply make fun of you. I take a certain amount of pleasure in it to be honest. It’s a guilty pleasure I have to admit. We shouldn’t make fun of the disabled.
Rumraket,
Evidence that is not well supported such as the evidence you tend to provide when you are pushing your latest ideology.
This is unequivocally NOT a good look. So, either nobody was willing to explain to him how percentages work the first time (Emperor’s New Clothes) or (my guess) they did explain this, but he is too addled to remember and just repeats the moronic statement.
Are you comfortable with this level of performance, Bill?
How do you feel about the signage installed in the White House?
colewd,
Not one thing? I’m surprised you don’t see how ridiculous this makes you look. You do not have direct evidence that any President lied about anything, in that case. Including Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nor, indeed, any human being ever.
“We reduced drug prices by 500%” may look like mere hyperbole, to someone as mathematically challenged as he is , I suppose. So what are you going to do with the extra cash he’s going to give you to take the free drugs?
DNA_Jock,
Dr Oz actually echoed this. He surely knows better. But I guess dumb is contagious.
Let’s apply Bill Logic™ to some other questions:
1. Did the moon landings happen? We should assume they didn’t, because we have no direct evidence. We weren’t there to witness it. The smart move is not to believe it. (“Were you there?”, as the creationists like to ask.)
2. I am richer than Elon Musk. Am I lying about that? You should assume that I’m not, because as far as you know, I actually believe what I just said.
3. Did Julius Caesar exist? Only a fool would say yes. We have his writings, sure, but how do we know that he wrote them? Major historical events are attributed to him, but how do we know that he was responsible for them? Coins were minted with his visage, but the Romans could have been commemorating a mythical figure. His contemporaries wrote about him, and so did historians, but why should we take their word for it? Perhaps they’re all lying. (Or maybe not. How could we know that they didn’t truly believe what they were saying, even though it was false?)
4. Everyone in prison for murder was wrongly convicted. Murder requires intent. How do we know that each murderer actually intended to kill their victim? We can’t read minds. Toss those convictions out.
5. Is lead heavier than aluminum? It’s true that when you put equal volumes on a scale, the lead appears to be heavier, but how you know that the scale is working properly? When you hold them in your hand, the lead feels heavier, but senses can be fooled. You might think that a lead atom contains more nucleons than an aluminum atom and therefore weighs more, but do you really know that? How do you know that nucleons exist? Do we really know how many there are in lead and aluminum atoms? Are we sure that in order to figure out how much an atom weighs, we can add together the weights of its components? What if addition doesn’t work on an atomic scale?
What do you think, Bill? Since you lack direct evidence, do you doubt the moon landings, do you believe me when I say that I’m richer than Elon Musk, do you agree with anyone who claims Julius Caesar didn’t exist, are you in favor of overturning all murder convictions, and do you doubt that lead is heavier than aluminum?
Do you believe that anyone in history (besides yourself) has ever lied? As Allan points out, you don’t know what they were actually thinking. Maybe every single time someone appears to have lied, they were just uninformed, confused, or deluded.
If it isn’t already obvious, the moral of the story is that a reasonable person won’t disbelieve something merely because there’s a tiny sliver of a possibility that it isn’t true. Absolute 100.0% certainty isn’t possible; I did an OP on that years ago. If something is overwhelmingly likely to be true — that the sun rises in the east, for example — we accept it as true.
It is overwhelmingly likely that Trump is a liar, to the point that for all practical purposes, it’s certain. No reasonable person could argue that he isn’t. The standard in a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If lying were a crime, Trump would be convicted in a heartbeat. Even Lindsey Halligan could win a conviction in that case. (Well, maybe not Lindsey Halligan, because she’d screw up immediately and the case would get thrown out on a technicality.)
The moon landings happened, I’m not richer than Elon Musk, Julius Caesar existed, most convicted murderers are guilty, lead is heavier than aluminum, and Trump ceaselessly lies. You deny the latter only because you are a cult member who is emotionally dependent on his Orange Daddy and cannot brook the thought that your OD is a liar.
You’re a cult member just as surely as any Scientologist or Moonie is, and it isn’t a pretty sight.
colewd:
Trump’s most important commitment as far as voters were concerned was his promise that he would bring down prices starting on Day One. He made that promise again and again on the campaign trail. Based on the evidence I presented earlier in the thread, do you acknowledge that he has failed miserably to deliver on that promise?
You’re pathologically unable to admit that he’s a liar, even about his golf wins. Are you also unable to admit that he’s a dismal failure on his most important campaign promise?
Cross-posting from the “Trump and mental illness” thread:
Trump’s narcissism is something to behold. Earlier I posted this photo of two giant banners on the USDA building overlooking the National Mall, one of Trump and one of Lincoln:
It’s obscene to juxtapose Lincoln, one of our best presidents, with Trump, who is the worst. The latest obscenity is this:
That’s a National Parks pass. It’s ridiculous enough for Trump’s face to be on it, and worse still to imply that he’s on a par with Washington, but what really takes the cake is that he is positioned in front of Washington. It’s inane and disgusting.
That’s what malignant narcissism looks like, folks. But not surprising from the guy who’s pressuring the Washington Commanders to name their new stadium after him.
Criteria 4 and 5 for narcissistic personality disorder:
It fits him perfectly.
ETA: Someone suggested a slight modification to the banners:
Well, just look at it logically! If something goes up 700% and then comes back to where it was before, it must have gone down 700%, right?
We know Trump doesn’t understand numbers, likes big numbers, and makes them all up. I think this is one of those cases where Bill is right – Trump is ignorant and mathematically illiterate, but he’s not lying about those percentages, he genuinely doesn’t know what he’s talking about. However, Trump has made a successful career by simply (and correctly) assuming the Great Unwashed share his aversion to numbers and brown people.
(I saw an interesting statistic – Republicans in Congress since January are down about 30% in the polls, but Trump is only down from 92% approval to 83% approval. Republican voters may disagree with everything Trump is doing, but they approve of Trump himself overwhelmingly.)
Allan Miller,
There is direct objective evidence that Clinton lied due to his impeachment and his testimony where he denied a relationship with Monica.
Do you have the example you are talking about with Nixon?
Do you have a recording or a post he made showing the context of this claim?
What is that direct objective evidence you are talking about? How did you encounter that evidence? Did you taste it? Are you sure it was what you think it was?
You must be the only one in the whole wide world who has missed these recordings and transcripts. Not going to help you out, because obviously you cannot be helped.
colewd,
He didn’t think he had a relationship, therefore was not lying. The Inaccessible Mental State Defence.
Ah yes. Nixon was a Republican. Republicans cannot lie. I forgot. That whole Watergate thing was far left media smear.
No. It never happened. I made it up. He’s perfect.
On Clinton’s impeachment, Senate chucked it out ,- interestingly, a minority 45/55 and 50/50 on the 2 charges. Trump’s impeachment on insurrection charges attained a majority 57/43, only failing on the 67 barrier.
Allan Miller,
Supporting claims with sarcasm is a very convincing way to go :-). Keep up the good work.
I mean, the guy’s ability to self-pwn is awesome. Truly a joy to behold!
Your eagerness to avoid, at all costs, the fact that Trump made those obviously stupid claims is very informative.
Allan:
colewd:
Are you really this helpless? Trump has made this stupid claim over and over. Googling “Trump drug price claims” immediately gives you examples. Here’s one:
I’ve used a certain talent that I have
The guy is mathematically incompetent. A president who can’t even understand percentages.
In case you’re not comprehending his mistake, let’s work through an example.
Suppose your Morontivan prescription costs $100 a month. Trump says he’s going to reduce the cost by 1500% using “a certain talent that he has”, lol. The first 100% of that reduction gets you to $0 per month — after all, reducing a price by 100% means eliminating all of it. The drug is now free. But we’re not done yet — we have a further 1400% to go. 1400% of $100 is $1400, so Sanopfizeneca, the maker of Morontivan, will pay you $1400 per month to take it. They will quickly go bankrupt. It’s a brilliant scheme, of a kind that only the best president of all time, one with “a certain talent”, could come up with.
It’s a nice combination of stupidity and lying. Stupidity, because Trump doesn’t understand percentages, and lying, because he was making up numbers that sounded good with no concern for whether they were accurate.
Complaining about sarcasm with sarcasm… 🤔
It doesn’t really matter if I take the piss or make a serious point; the result is the same. Conviction for hiding payments to a porn star? Activist judge and a New York jury (all New Yorkers hate Trump, right?). Cheating on the golf course? Everyone’s got it in for him. 30,000+ documented lies? Far left media. Adjudicated rapist? Oh, that’s only a civil case.
I might just as well take the piss.
Allan Miller,
This act is the same as the arguments here. Repeating the same mantra over and over again facts be dammed.
Another interesting lazy label is IDDS or ID derangement syndrome. It seems highly correlated with TDS.
DNA_Jock,
Seems you are betting our government could not be paying 1000% over global competitive prices. Maybe you are right time will tell. Appears to be substantial opportunity here and he is going after it. Could corruption of the candidates you like be a problem here?
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_95a1dd25-3633-400f-bad1-daece775aefc
Holy shit! Just when I thought it couldn’t get any better.
I know that our government is not paying 1000% over global competitive prices. This is the industry I work in, Bill. But let’s suppose, counterfactually, that they were.
Your Morontivan scrip costs you $100 a month, but Sanopfizeneca is only charging those wiley Scandanavians 9$ a month: you are been overcharged by ~1000%. The bastards! Trump comes along and reduces your cost “by 1000%”. That means 1000% of $100 Bill, not of $9. So, as everybody who passed Middle School math will tell you, Trump is promising to have Sanopfizeneca PAY you to take their drug. He is demented.
When you say things like “facts be damned” to people who are bringing the receipts that you desperately refuse to address, you appear similarly impaired.
[Side note for the grown-ups. Back when I first went over to the dark side, there was lot of whining about the fact that the USA was only 4.5% of the world population, but were the source of 40% of the global drug revenue: “we’re being ripped off!”. Conveniently ignoring the fact that the USA was the beneficiary of 42% of global drug research spending. The ROW was actually subsidizing the USA…]
Jock, to colewd:
Bill once told us that he graduated with a math-related degree (from UC Berkeley, no less), which raised my eyebrows. Apparently percentages aren’t part of the syllabus.
ETA: I found the exchange:
keiths:
colewd:
Economics without percentages?
Bill, suppose you’re at a restaurant and you get the check. It’s for $100. You want to tip 20%, so you multiply the total by 0.2 (20%) and get $20; then you add the $20 to the original $100, giving a new total of $120. Agreed?
Now suppose you want to buy a remedial math textbook that’s normally priced at $100. Amazon has it on sale for 40% off. How much will Amazon charge you for it? You multiply the original price ($100) by the discount percentage (40%, or 0.4) getting $40; you subtract that from the original $100, giving a final price of $60. So far, so good?
Now suppose that the Congolese have the lowest Morontivan price in the world at $20. The US is paying 1000% more. What is the US cost? 1000% is a factor of 10, so the US is paying 10 * $20 or $200 more than the Congolese, for a total price of $220.
Now the Orange Dork barges in and demands that Sanopfizeneca reduce the US price to $20, matching the Congolese price. Does that mean that they need to reduce the price by 1000%? Of course not. To get the price down to $20, Sanopfizeneca has to charge $200 less. $200 is 90.9% of $220, so the company needs to charge 90.9% less.
The Americans are paying 1000% more than the Congolese, and the Congolese are paying 90.9% less than the Americans. The difference in dollars is the same, but the difference in percentage terms is huge. Which makes sense.
What doesn’t make sense is when the Orange Dork starts yammering about reducing prices by 1500%. If you reduce a price by 100%, you make the product free. If you reduce it by more than 100%, the seller has to pay the buyer to take it. Americans would love to be paid to take their drugs, but your Dear Leader can’t pull that off despite his supposed “certain talent”. He is mathematically illiterate. Don’t follow in his footsteps.
He has upgraded from UC Berkeley economics to Trumponomics.
People present facts and you squirm for a reason to reject them. I’ve given a few above.
As I have pointed out before, the whole “Derangement Syndrome” thing goes back to George W Bush‘s administration. It’s not really a thing. It’s a handy card to play when you cannot address substance. With that, “far left media”, and “activist judges”, you’ve got it covered; no thought required.
“Trump never lies” – or it’s sophist cousin “I have never seen evidence that Trump lies” – is such a weird hill to die on. “Yes, He lies but I like Him on immigration and the economy” would be a rational stance. But never once, and anyone who thinks he does is deranged and/or far left…? Weird.