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.)
Allan:
Bill must have an enormous emotional investment in Trump given that he’s willing to debase himself day after day by denying what’s obvious to everyone else here. I wonder how many MAGA types are as bad as Bill. I would expect — and perhaps I’m being optimistic here — that most of them would acknowledge that Trump’s a liar but would try to find ways to minimize the importance of it, by for example arguing that Trump never lies about the important stuff (even though that’s clearly false). The cognitive dissonance of denying all of Trump’s lies would be too much for them. But maybe I’m being optimistic and most of them are as bad as Bill.
I wonder if anyone has done research on this.
I’ve said before (I’ve said everything before, it’s just Groundhog Day) that maybe Trump’s lies are so vast it’s impossible for some people to accept any as valid. No-one could really lie that prodigiously; it must all be a leftist plot. As plots go, it is enormously overcooked. After making up the thousandth lie, the Washington Post could say “enough?”. No, we need more, more, MORE!!!
And still he doesn’t sue.
Allan:
And no one debunks the Washington Post database and collects their Pulitzer.
Allan Miller,
The challenge we all have is separating propaganda from real information. The 30000 lie claim is a red flag as it is a pure unvetted assertion as many statistical claims are. What a claim like this does with people who trust the source is create cognitive bias. Some multimodal AI operates the same once it accepts a single fact it tries to prove that fact is right and loses its objectivity.
And that’s why Trump’s suppression of statistics is a good thing, right?
Except when the source is Trump, then it’s the other way round – anybody who does *not* trust Trump’s statistical claims suffers from cognitive bias and TDS, right? Whereas you have no bias in trusting Trump’s claim that he ended 8-10 wars, because Trump cannot lie. He says so many numbers in rapid succession that they cannot all be lies…
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
We are, at least, trying. You appear happy to avoid the challenge altogether.
No. It’s 30,000 claims, each one of which you are at liberty to challenge. There’s an 80% concordance when compared with other fact-checking operations, so 24,000 of those claims HAVE been vetted, and “Nearly complete agreement was observed for bottom-line attributed veracity. ” And again, anyone is welcome to challenge any of them. The absence of any attempt to rebut them is telling. I mean, you are disputing the error in “bring down prices 500%”, whilst offering up bromides about cognitive bias. It’s comedy gold.
You make no effort in that regard. You just regard anything Trump-critical as propaganda.
Feel free to pick one and dismantle it. You are rather proving my point. If someone lies so prodigiously as to be able to amass 30,000 instances, not one of them can be true.
In which case, why doesn’t he sue?
How objective is it to consider that a politician has not been shown to lie even once? Imagine it’s Biden.
Fox could have an absolute field day with this. They could show, one by one, how every one of those 30,000+ reports is incorrect. Destroy Washington Post’s credibility. Trump could extort billions.
Those dogs are not barking. Why is that?
colewd:
Some of us are better at it than others. You keep falling for propaganda. We don’t.
This is not some “how to lie with statistics” scheme. It’s a frikkin’ count, and the count is 30,573. Each of those falsehoods is documented in a publicly available database. According to you, not a single one of those 30,573 entries amounts to an actual lie. Do you realize how preposterous that is?
As Jock points out, the database has been vetted. Also, apply a little common sense. Why would the second most prestigious newspaper in the country publish a database of 30,573 entries, every single one of them fabricated, knowing that they would get caught? If the database is full of errors, why was it nominated for the NYU journalism school’s Top Ten Works of Journalism of the Decade list?
If the database is fraudulent, why hasn’t a single reporter exposed it? Do they think “Pulitzer, Schmulitzer — who cares about prizes”? Why aren’t Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham crowing about this? Is it because they don’t want to own the libs and they want the Washington Post to maintain its reputation? Why haven’t we seen Jesse Watters, veins throbbing, denouncing the Post on The Five?
And as Allan asks, why hasn’t Trump sued? If the database is a complete hoax, he’s guaranteed to win in court. Does he not want the money? Does he not want to humiliate the Post, a newspaper that he hates? It’s ludicrous.
Here’s the database. Go look for yourself:
In four years, President Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims
This is the first entry that shows up at that page:
Go ahead and debunk it. Then we can move on to other entries. Or you can do the Bill thing and run away.
colewd:
You keep forgetting: we’re not like you. We don’t blindly trust sources. When I first heard about the WaPo database, I didn’t just assume it was correct, even though the Post has a good reputation. I went and checked a few entries for myself, verified them using other sources, and observed how carefully they were documented. I searched the internet to see if anyone had debunked the database. I also simply thought about it and concluded that if the database were fraudulent, it would have been headline news and I would have heard about it.
It isn’t that difficult.
‘Multimodal AI’? Someone’s been cribbing from the internet, I see. Ironic that the guy who incessantly and blindly quotes Grok is suddenly skeptical of AI.
AI is a tool. You have to use it correctly. I have six AIs on my taskbar, so it’s easy for me to use two or three of them to cross-check each other. Even if they all agree, it doesn’t mean that they’re correct, but it certainly improves the odds. If the question is important enough, I’ll ask the AI to point me to its sources so I can verify them firsthand.
If you think the WaPo database is bogus, then start debunking entries, or point to someone who has done so exhaustively. If you can’t do either of those things, then what’s your basis for claiming that it’s unreliable?
Allan Miller,
I am not claiming he has never lied. That would be extraordinary for anyone. I do have evidence from an attorney that deposed him years before he ran. ” He is the most straight for CEO I have ever deposed.”
The lack of ability for anyone here to nail down a lie like we can with Clinton is supporting evidence that for a politician he is pretty straight forward. He does, however, use hyperbolic language.
The problem with the discussions Keiths is setting up is it is about bashing a candidate not about policy where we could actually have some interesting discussions.
colewd:
Um, aren’t you forgetting that you didn’t hear it from the attorney — you heard it secondhand through a friend? We had an amusing exchange about that:
keiths:
Your position is that a single bit of hearsay outweighs 30,573 meticulously documented lies, plus all of the other lies we’re constantly pointing out. Does that make sense to you? Particularly when you (falsely) criticize us for relying on hearsay?
We’ve nailed down dozens of Trump lies and the WaPo has nailed down tens of thousands. Where are your rebuttals? Why do you run away whenever I ask you to explain why you think Trump isn’t lying about this or that?
I offered you the easiest, most harmless Trump lie to consider. He clearly lies about his golf wins. That should be an easy lie to acknowledge because it doesn’t impact policy, or affect national security, or jeopardize due process, etc. He’s just lying about golf, but you can’t even admit that. If it’s about policy for you and not about character, then why not acknowledge his obvious but harmless golf lies?
I know why. It’s because you do care about character, despite pretending not to, and in particular you care about the character of your Dear Leader. The golf lies don’t impact the country but they do reveal your Dear Leader’s dishonesty, and that distresses you. As a cult member, you simply cannot abide the notion that he’s a liar — not even when the lies are harmless.
Here’s a fill-in-the-blank question, since you like to flee from these:
colewd:
You keep repeating that as if hyperbolic language can’t be dishonest. When I tell you that I’m as rich as Elon Musk, am I merely exaggerating, or am I being dishonest? When Trump claimed to have gotten 200 trade deals when it was actually zero, was that merely hyperbolic, or was it dishonest?
For the umpteenth time, Trump isn’t a candidate, he’s the president. And since the topic of the thread is Trump’s dishonesty, doesn’t it make sense that we’re discussing Trump’s dishonesty? Honesty matters in a president, and Trump lacks it.
Says the guy who ran away from our discussion of the OBBBA when asked to explain why he supported it. You don’t want a policy discussion, you just want us to stop showing that Trump is a pathological liar. It upsets you, and the fact that you’re helpless to defend him upsets you even more.
I genuinely feel some sympathy for you, seeing how upset you are and how you’re struggling to preserve your false image of Trump. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop telling the truth about him, though.
Here’s Secretary of Treasury issuing a statistical claim that is “not a debate” according to him, yet it’s instantly proved false.
It is no wonder that colewd sees himself as a perfectly functional human being in the context of this level of proud and brazen incompetence and ignorance at the highest levels of government in USA right now. Online posting cannot cure colewd’s clinical insanity when the irl environment is that cultish ideological lying is rewarded and facts do not matter.