Slade3200
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2016
- 66,979
- 17,025
- 2,190
The article never said lie. It showed simple falsehoods or misleading statements which have become the norm for Trump. It’s quite sadReal Thin. In many of those little snippets, the NYT is reaching. Nearly anorexic.Here’s the latest batch from his most recent interviewThe question is invalid. No one has been able or willing to produce documented proof of these alleged lies.Why does Trump lie when there is no need. He made a ridiculous claim that he signed the most bills of any President. It is not close to the truth.
He has plenty to tout with the passing of tax reform, judges appointed, regulations reduced through executive order and more.
Why does he continually lie?
He has signed many bills, very good. Near record amounts for sure.
Why do you hate the fact that workers get to keep more of their money?
That doesn't answer the question.
10 Falsehoods From Trump’s Interview With The Times - The New York Times 10 Falsehoods From Trump’s Interview With The Times — The New York Times
No. A lie would be " I did not vreak the lamp"> Meanwhile I'm standing next to the lamp with a broom in my hands that has glass fragments on it. THAT would be a "lie"....
Essentially gutted ACA.....Actually that is true. Because the main funding vehicle IS the mandate. Without the mandate ACA loses most of its funding. IN other words. it may not be totally demolished. But its been stripped to the studs. Or "gutted".
"He gave a premature estimate of the cost of the wars in the ME"....How can pulling the trigger on an estimate be considered a "Lie"....Its an estimate. A lie would be its' going to cost $100 billion. That is a deliberate misstatement
If oyu wan to consider that which is a deliberately misleading statement......Here's one.
"The number of coal mining jobs fell to about 48,600 in September 2016 from almost 90,000 in January 2012. Under Mr. Trump, employment in the sector made modest gains until this September — when job numbers reached about 51,700 — but it has since declined.
So lets get this straight. The NYT considers the addition of 3,100( and I don;t believe the NYT numbers anyway. More of that in a moment) jobs, a 6 % increase in the coal mining workforce to NOT be anything newsworthy. And then adds this. "But since has declined" . OH? To WHAT? Why does the writer not provide THAT new number? Is it because the writer has an agenda? Or the writer "heard from an anonymous source the number of Coal mining jobs was down"..Or is the wrote just too lazy to get confirmation?
I have to chuckle at this one.
"
"He falsely claimed the Democrats “made the Russian story up as a hoax, as a ruse, as an excuse for losing an election.”
What makes the accusation "false"....Have the dems presented evidence to the contrary? No. In fact, evidence that the Clinton campaign and the DNC PAID FOR the now debunked and fake Dossier has been produced documented and verified. SO the Dems created the hoax and then planted the story. when it was THEY who were doing that which they accuse POTUS.....
And this....." Obama administration formally accused the Russian government of interfering in the election"......Tell me, in what manner or context does the use of "formally" have here? Is it to simply add impact to the article? What exactly IS a "formal" accusation? Is there an "informal" accusation? And at the end of the day. Obama could have accused Trump for the Kennedy assassination. Doesn't mean a friggin thing, If his accusation was so FORMAL. why did he not order the DOJ or FBI to begin investigating who in the US was on the receiving end of the so called tampering?
This thread is a load of crap.
But, its all you screeching libs have. So keep it up. Gets you no mileage.