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.)
An example of a trivial lie, but a lie nonetheless, regards Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Trump claims his uncle, Dr John Trump, taught him at MIT. “I asked him about him. What kind of student was he Uncle John, Dr John Trump?” (that last is typically Trumpian. No-one would call their uncle ‘Dr John Trump’, and I’m sure he doesn’t expect anyone to think that’s verbatim. But he clearly wants his audience to be impressed). “Seriously good” was Trump senior’s reported response. “He went around correcting everybody”.
There is no record of Kaczynski at MIT.
Dr Trump died 11 years before the Unabomber was uncovered. He may have misremembered, mistook him for another, or gaslit himself, of course. Only someone with TDS would fail to cut Trump several generous yards of slack on that one…
Allan Miller,
Keiths has successfully supported a claim which took a long time but his persistence paid off. There is a lot of noise in the political spectrum that is not properly vetted.
If we want as a group to have well informed discussions this is work that is required. Quoting biased news organisations as support of claims is guaranteed to keep us uninformed.
One of the problems with AI is like people when an opinion is informed that opinion becomes a biased path to conclusions. The group is latching to all data that confirms its established bias no matter how well vetted the sources are.
This is what the lazy label “TDS” is all about. Trump is a liar so every claim of a lie is accepted at face value no matter the source.
For years, the opposite was the case, and Trump got the benefit of the doubt no matter how obvious or flagrant the lies. He might have been misquoted, he might have forgotten, he might have been confused, he might have been misadvised, yada yada. Eventually the media were forced to recognize that he lies, about everything, all the time.
Still, his statements are not simply presumed to be lies because he says them. I have noticed the current euphemism for Trump’s lies is “there is no known evidence for this claim.” There is evidence, however, that Trump is becoming increasingly incoherent. He has never cared if his statements were true, and now it seems he really doesn’t know if they are true.
In case of the Washington Post collection of 30k+ Trump lies, Trump is the source. The same with all Trump’s lies cited here: They come directly from Trump’s Truth Social account and from his video-recorded speeches and interviews. Trump is the source. That you claim there is any bias in these observations is outlandishly grovelling certifiably lunatic asylum grade personality cultist reality denying brainwashed propaganda bs on your part.
Yes, of course, but that’s not what Bill is saying. The Washington Post was the source of the claims that Trump was lying, not the source of the lies themselves. And since Trump himself never claims he is lying, all such claims come from other sources. Which must necessarily be biased sources, since they are claiming Trump is lying, which can never be proved because nobody is a mind reader.
In reality, Washington Post has Trump’s statements along with actual facts, both independently verifiable, so that everyone can check and decide for themselves. Bill never checked, so it testifies to the unfathomable depth of his insane cultishness that he claims anybody else to be misled by bias and propaganda while not providing any definition of bias or propaganda and not backing up his claims in any way. He is hopeless looney bin material.
Well, sort of. He’s convinced Trump is honest, and you are convinced machines cannot be intelligent. Both of you find reasons to define evidence away to protect your beliefs, and neither of you recognizes that you’re doing this.
colewd:
Congratulations! I mean that sincerely. I know it was painful to admit that to yourself and to us. Unfortunately, your later comments suggest that you are digging your heels in to avoid further pain. There are thousands of lies where that one came from, however. Resistance is futile.
colewd,
He has supported all of his claims, but as a blinkered cultist, you have not noticed this until now – far beyond the point most rational people would have conceded that Trump does indeed lie.
“Trump.is a liar” naturally predisposes us to assume a lie. How dare we! We should remain skeptical of any given claim of a lie – despite his extensive lying…
The lazy label ‘TDS’ is popular with cultists, handed down by the Master himself as a means to deflect. It’s not even original, dating back to the Bush administration. Refusing to believe a single claim against him, purely because it is ‘in the media’, is the true TDS.
I’ve said it before: it is the sheer volume of Trump’s lying that bamboozles the cultist. A handful of claims of lying can be examined in detail. But 30,000? That’s too ridiculous to be real. It must ALL be propaganda, and we’re just TDS-afflicted saps for considering it valid without first combing through all 30,000 one by one to prove the broader claim on his relationship with Truth. A fascinating psychological study.
colewd:
The claims have been supported since the discussion began months ago. What’s new is that you finally acknowledged the obvious. But only with regard to one lie among thousands.
You keep forgetting: we are not like you. We aren’t helpless in our consumption of information. We are media literate. We know how to separate fact from fiction, and we can do so despite the fact that bias exists in the media. It’s a skill you don’t seem to possess, and it’s a skill that you don’t want to acquire for fear of stumbling upon the awful truth about your Dear Leader.
In months of discussion, you haven’t caught us in any errors. We continually catch yours. At some point you need to say to yourself: “These guys are good at something I’m terrible at, so maybe I should stop lecturing them about biased news sources and pay some attention to how they manage to separate the wheat from the chaff despite the fact that news can be biased.” I’m willing to coach you if you’re willing to learn. You don’t appear to be willing.
If we were falling prey to confirmation bias, you’d be able to point to errors that we’ve made. You can’t, because we aren’t making them. Again: we are not like you.
We’re not like you. We don’t automatically accept things just because they align with our beliefs. Why would we even want to? You care about your Dear Leader’s reputation and you want to protect your fragile image of him, evidence be damned, but we care about the truth. You may be unable to grasp this, but we don’t want to believe false things about Trump, and we make sure that we don’t, which is why you can’t point to any errors we’ve made.
A recent example: In a video, someone (I think it was Farron of Farron Balanced) claimed that Trump said that saying “Merry Christmas” used to be literally illegal until he came along. Trump says a lot of stupid things, and it wasn’t inconceivable that he would have made that claim, but I had my doubts. I did my research and sure enough, he never made that claim. He fulminated about how “woke” people frowned upon saying “Merry Christmas”, and how this was part of the “War on Christmas”, but he never claimed that it was actually illegal. So I rejected Farron’s claim, despite the fact that if true, it would have fit nicely with what I already know about Trump: he’s a pathological liar.
See if you can follow my example.
keiths,
You have supported one claim that shows a lie. On the ability for objective reasoning or the ability to recognise propaganda you have not demonstrated that skill.
Allan Miller,
Unless you can examine in detail how do you know what is a lie and what is not? You assert the sheer volume of lies but that only says you maybe vulnerable to propaganda because that is what most of the lies maybe based on.
We know the 30000 number being labeled lies is propaganda as the original claim was misinformation and repeated claims. Yet you have this information and repeat the propaganda. Are you ok using propaganda to help support your political position?
colewd:
*yawn* After eight months, I’m still waiting for you to point to a single objectively false thing I’ve said about Trump.
colewd, to Allan:
The database is publicly accessible. Have at it.
“May be” sounds pretty tentative. You don’t have much confidence in what you’re saying, do you?
For fun, tell us: how many of the 30,573 false or misleading statements do you think actually are intentional? Ballpark estimate is fine. 15,000? 5,000? 500? 25? Zero?
colewd,
From an article about the database:
If they were all unintentional, why did the rate increase exponentially?
keiths,
Asking someone to prove a statement objectively false for one of your statements means your statements have little value as useful pieces of trustworthy information. When your statements are well supported they will generally be accepted.
You have made many assertions and supported one. Keep going.
colewd:
A new excuse! Thank you for that. It was getting boring hearing the old ones repeated ad infinitum. However, your reasoning leaves something to be desired:
1. If keiths’s claims were correct, I would accept them.
2. I don’t accept them.
3. Therefore they aren’t correct.
“I’m irrational, therefore you’re wrong” isn’t exactly a compelling argument.
Besides it not being propaganda, you raise the question of whether a single known-dishonest claim repeated 100 times makes for one lie or a hundred. Or would you say it wasn’t a lie until it was refuted so many times that Trump must have become aware it was false, and was a lie after that?
keiths,
If keiths supports his claims I will accept them. I hope this is not one and done 🙂
Flint,
I would say a claim of 30000 lies is probably beyond support in practical terms. This slips it into the propaganda category in itself.
colewd:
Fixed that for you. Why not surprise us all by not running away?
You’ve been relying a lot on the “biased source” defense, which is bogus for reasons already given. But setting that aside, what about other cases which don’t depend on news sources? For example, Trump’s claims about prices and inflation are in his own words, which I have quoted, and the data comes mostly from government statistics. No news organizations involved.
Do you acknowledge that Trump is lying about prices and inflation? If not, what explains his utter cluelessness about something that everyone else knows: namely, that prices are up, not down? Is he an honest guy, but so stupid and incapable of gathering information that he has no idea what’s going on in the economy that he is supposedly managing?
If tariffs don’t cause inflation, as he has claimed, why did he recently reduce some tariffs on food products? If tariffs don’t raise prices, reducing tariffs shouldn’t lower them. Why is he doing something that by his own logic should have no effect? (Hint: he’s lying when he says that tariffs don’t cause inflation).
If prices are down dramatically, as he has claimed, why is he advising people to cut back on their pencil and doll purchases?
I commented earlier:
If prices have plunged, he should be celebrating the fact that Americans can afford to buy extra pencils and dolls for their kids. Why is he telling them that they need to start rationing their pencils?
Your choice: confront these questions, or run away yet again.
colewd:
Every entry in that database is documented. They managed to support it “in practical terms”, and they paid for it in lost personal time:
Summon your courage. Go look at it. Gather up some of the false entries and bring them back here. Good luck.
I don’t follow that. Every single lie was documented, as you seem aware. So what I guess you’re saying is that if Trump tells enough lies, the sheer quantity of them somehow turns counting them into propaganda!
But you didn’t answer my question: how many times does a false statement need to be repeated (and debunked every time) before you think it becomes a lie?”
keiths,
Another opportunity to support a claim.
Have you examined the claims in detail? Or even a cursory glance? The sheer number is important because it increases the unlikelihood that someone at a prestigious newspaper has sat down and just made shit up.
Support your claim that it is propaganda. So far, that has the status of … uh … a lazy label. Pick a claim, any claim, and show it.
This precisely proves my point. There would be so many lies attached to a hypothetical prodigious liar, not one of them can be true.
keiths: Do you acknowledge that Trump is lying about prices and inflation?
colewd: Another opportunity to support a claim.
That Trump lies about gas prices and that colewd lies about Trump not lying was very concretely demonstrated on the first page in this thread http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/untruth-social/comment-page-1/#comment-304516
Are Trump’s statements well supported and generally accepted?
Allan Miller,
Media Framing and “Spin”
Here is the evidence for propaganda from Grok:
To really understand the claim we need to look at a sample of the 30000 statements and test them. I think finding real lies will be challenging. Some I have looked at are opinion based and not fact based.
Trump clearly spins but so do other candidates along with the media. This is the challenge for all of us. My sense we are in a game where we are all getting ripped off.
San Francisco has formed a group to hold all politicians accountable called grow SF. It’s easier to do locally but this type of organised government watch dog is what is needed IMO.
colewd,
So you agree that Trump has made 30,000+ ‘false or misleading statements’ (in his first term), at least? That’s quite a lot isn’t it? Shouldn’t he … you know … get his fucking facts straight?
colewd,
What exactly is stopping you?
keiths:
colewd:
Already done, multiple times, including here. I’ve asked you several times to address it, and you’ve run away each time. Here’s another opportunity:
Allan, to colewd:
And the frequency increased exponentially over the course of his term:
Bill, I say the increase is intentional. You say it isn’t. What’s your explanation, then? Is Trump getting exponentially stupider?
Trump is so pathetically dishonest that he lies to children, too. He was taking calls from kids on Christmas Eve, and he told one of them:
He lost Pennsylvania in 2020, and in 2016 and 2024 he barely won, by margins of 0.71% and 1.71%, respectively. Nowhere close to a landslide.
It isn’t just pathological dishonesty. Imagine how insecure you’d have to be to lie to a kid in order to impress them.
It just shows that Trump is consistent and treats everyone equally: He lies no matter who he is talking to.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1pyp1r4/russia_wants_to_see_ukraine_succeed/
Trump: “Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed”
I’m going to file this under lies. The falsity of this is obvious to anyone and everyone. It must be obvious to even Trump. Russia is currently carrying out an invasion of Ukraine and is actively waging war on them. They do not want Ukraine to succeed at anything. They want them to fail and collapse and become a vassal state. Nothing less than that.
There is only one possible alternative interpretation. Donald Trump is fantastically low intelligence. Take your pick!
This one was fed to Trump by Putin and Trump regurgitates it without second thought. Putin is to Trump the same as Trump is to colewd – the one who shall not be questioned or second-guessed, the one deserving of unconditional worship.
Allan Miller,
The credibility of the claim from the source to looking at a sample and seeing that their claims are mostly opinion. I already know he speaks in hyperbolic language and spins.
colewd:
Allan:
colewd:
Which entries did you look at?
colewd:
You also know that he lies, though you’re underestimating the frequency by orders of magnitude. Here’s a question you dodged:
So far you’ve acknowledged just one lie. Do you believe it’s the only one he’s told in office? You also admitted that his “I ended six/seven/eight/ten wars” claim was “not well supported”, which is as close as you’ve come to acknowledging a second lie. See if you can take the next baby step. Can you acknowledge that Trump is lying about the wars? If you don’t think he’s lying, why not? Do you think he’s deluded? Or just stupid?
As for “hyperbolic language and spin”, I’ll remind you that something can fall into that category and also be a lie. I gave you examples earlier:
If the intent is to deceive, I consider a false statement to be a lie. You accept that criterion. Trump clearly wanted us to believe that he had 200 trade deals in the bag. He didn’t want us to know the truth, which is that he had zero. How is that not a lie?
The only way for it not to be a lie is if Trump was delusional when he said it. Imagine how mentally ill someone would have to be to believe that they had negotiated 200 trade deals, none of which actually existed. That, along with the sheer quantity of other obviously false statements that Trump has made, would mean that Trump is severely deluded. Would it be good in your opinion for the US to have a president who hallucinates trade deals and imagines that prices are plunging and inflation is negative when the opposite is true? And to put that person in charge of the economy that he is so completely deluded about?
Do you think Trump is that severely deluded? If not, the only alternative is that he’s lying. Which is it? Is he dishonest, or is he delusional?
keiths,
The 30000 lies claim is propaganda when it is changed from misstatements to lies and his accusation of misstatements is opinion and not fact.
I don’t think he is either. He spins like most politicians do. I think we understand each other position at this point as we have repeated many comments.
He made complain commitments and he is working hard to fulfil them. This is a positive differentiator for him against most politicians.
keiths:
colewd:
My question was:
Please answer the question.
keiths:
colewd:
So when he claimed to have 200 trade deals when the actual number was zero, that wasn’t a lie? He truly believed it? Or he didn’t believe it, but somehow it doesn’t count as a lie?
You understand my position, but I don’t understand yours. You’ve acknowledged one lie. Do you believe that’s the only lie Trump has told in office? I truly don’t know whether you believe that, because you won’t tell us. Hence my question above about the 30,573 false statements.
This is the second time you’ve used the phrase “complain commitments”, by which I assume you mean “campaign commitments”. One of Trump’s “complain commitments”, which he made repeatedly on the campaign trail, was:
And:
And:
…and many more.
He is now lying, pretending to have fulfilled that commitment. For example:
Prices are not down, as you know. Yet you claim that Trump doesn’t know it, because if he does know it, he’s deliberately lying, and the thought of that distresses you. What is your explanation, then? Why does Trump believe this idiotic thing about prices and inflation?
colewd,
Since you prefer examples that come straight from the horse’s mouth, here’s another:
And:
As you know, the files weren’t written by Obama, Clinton, Comey and Brennan. Trump lied. Can you acknowledge that? It would bring your count up to two. Baby steps.
And we might as well throw in a third:
As I explained earlier:
He clearly lied. Have we brought your count up to three? Or do the cult rules require you to lie about Trump’s lies?
keiths,
My cult rules are that supported claims are interesting when discussing with clear partisans. The general rhetoric is meaningless. At this point your agenda is not a mystery. Thanks for supporting the claim about Epstein.
colewd:
That’s not a rule, it’s a description, though it’s good that you’re affirming your cult membership. The rule seems to be “Acknowledge one lie every eight months, but deny all the others, no matter how obvious.”
My claims are specific and meaningful. The last two are that
1) Trump lied about the Epstein files being created by Obama, Clinton, Comey and Brennan.
2) Trump lied about trying out for major league baseball alongside Willie McCovey.
Nothing general about those.
The agenda has never been a mystery. I announced it in the opening lines of the OP and the thread title is a clue. We're documenting Trump's lies. Also, my agenda is irrelevant. A lie is a lie no matter who points it out. What matters is the evidence, and the evidence is clear.
You’re welcome. No need to thank me, though — just do yourself a favor and acknowledge the other two lies above. They satisfy the same criteria as the “I was never on Epstein’s plane” lie: They’re statements in Trump’s own words that are false, and deliberately so. The truth is directly available to you: the Epstein files weren’t written by Obama et al, and Willie McCovey was already in the majors when Trump graduated from the eighth grade. No need to rely on supposedly “biased” news sources.
keiths,
I will be happy to acknowledge the statements as lies once you support the claim that Trump lied.
colewd:
Somehow I doubt that you’ll be happy to do so. I gave you his words and I gave you the facts. What’s missing? Are you going to argue that he is so delusional that he actually believed what he was saying?
This is just plain weird.
Hey, if Trump stops bombing Venezuela, that’ll be nine wars he’s stopped! Never was a FIFA Peace Prize so richly deserved. Next stop Greenland?
keiths,
In the case of Trump flying on Epsteins jet you showed that Trump made the statement by showing a Truth social post that he never flew on Epstein’s jet and the flight logs contradicted his statement. This is a solid standard for identifying a lie.