I'm not saying that's not true (I'm not a Trump supporter), but what sticks out to you as an instance of him doubling down on a lie?
Edit: It's disappointing to be down voted rather than being directly engaged. If you have a beef with what I said, please tell me where I've erred. I would love to change my mind on this topic. This is Hacker News after all, not Reddit.
How about:
* Lying about his past opposition to the Iraq war
* Lying about Russia only hacking the DNC (they hacked the RNC too, or at least tried to, but didn't release anything)
* Lying about the size of the crowd at his inauguration
* Lying about his "historic" electoral win (it wasn't)
* Lying about the election being rigged against him (before the election)
* Lying about the state of African American communities
* Lying about inner-city crime rates
* Lying about Obama and Clinton literally "founding" ISIS
* Lying about Ted Cruz's father being involved in the JFK assassination
* Lying about his charitable donations and activities
* Lying about his inability to release his tax returns because of an ongoing IRS audit
* Lying about his association with David Duke and the white national movement
* Lying about his history and relationship with Vladimir Putin
That's just a taste. I could go on.
> Lying about his past support for the Iraq war
Go watch his Howard Stern interview yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OU_Vrb_QXo. Listen at how indecisive he is for that question compared to the rest of the interview. It's wishy washy. It's hesitant. It's not a statement of support to call someone a liar over, unless you have an agenda.
That's a lie, and one he's repeated often. Wishy-washy, hesitant support for a thing is not the same as being totally against a thing. His assertion that he was in opposition to it from the very beginning is a deliberate, egregious misrepresentation of his past views intended to convey authority on a subject that he simply does not possess.
I'll update the wording of my initial point to be more clear, since you have my original wording quoted here for posterity.
0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/th...
"[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on 8-Sep-2016[0]
Considering that the vote was on 11-Oct-2002, and we have audio of Trump expressing hesitant, wishy-washy support for the war on 11-Sep-2002, that is almost certainly not true.
0. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-10/ap-...
> "[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on September 8th, 2016[0]
You can't disprove a hypothetical situation that never happened to call him a liar. Who knows what he would have done if he had been in congress instead of a businessman. It's clear though he was questioning it publicly as early as 2003 in the Cavuto interview, which was before the war started, and came out totally against it publicly in 2004 less than a year after it started. Who knows what he was saying privately before that. You don't know. This isn't grounds to call him a liar.
If you remove that from your defense of him, there is nothing left.
He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact.
When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it.
When he does that, he is lying.
There is no evidence whatever to support any other conclusion. Anything that comes from after the war was in progress is of no relevance.
It’s not irrelevant when someone claims "I was totally against the war in Iraq” is a lie. That's provably true.
> He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact.
Very weakly after he was asked the question for the first time. It’s utterly irrelevant.
> When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it.
Yes. Because those that voted for the war did not come out against it until much later, if they even did at all. He came out against it early.
> When he does that, he is lying.
Nope. That doesn't follow from what you wrote. Do you want to try again?
Claim 1: Trump says he was against the war before it started. In the Cavuto interview he's questioning the war, and he says he used to argue with Sean Hannity about it. Sean Hannity backed this up. There's no reason to doubt this.
Claim 2: Trump says he's different from his opponents because he came out strongly against the war before anyone else did. That's a fact and there's plenty of evidence.
Then comes the spin. The media will mix the two statements together to say Trump said he came out strongly against the war before it started. They'll use this to call him a liar. Try to find me one example of him saying he came out strongly against the war before it started. You can't, because he never did.
This is why people don't trust the media.
Claiming he was against the war, after it started is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many times you act as though it is.
One person saying they had a private argument with him before the war is also irrelevant. How many other people had private arguments but didn't express these reservations publicly?
If Trump was against the war before it started and had been brave enough to say so there would be evidence.
There is not. You can support Trump without having to be his propaganda ministry. The man makes false statements.
Hillary has nothing to do with Trump's lies. And no failure of hers excuses him of anything.
It looks like you can't defend him anymore.
If you seriously don't see Trump lying, it probably is better for you to bow out.
You can't address other users like that on Hacker News, so please don't do it again.
Also, this account has been using HN exclusively for political battle. That's an abuse of this site and we ban accounts that do it. The purpose of HN is to gratify intellectual curiosity. It can't both be that kind of site and a political battlefield.