Trumps SOTU lies & embellishments

You didn’t answer the question, coward.

You’re okay with government discounting votes because Trump believed they were fraudulent.

No votes got discounted. Trump fought, and he lost.

And you got an empowered version of him 4 years later.

Meanwhile more and more indications are coming out that there was fraud in 2020, and you don't care because you accept fraud as a method of winning.

You just don't have the balls to admit it.
 
It’s easily proven that’s what Trump was scheming to do.

And yet nothing happened. He fought, he lost.

And you got the steroids version of him in 2024 due to the likely cheating in 2020.
 
No votes got discounted. Trump fought, and he lost.

And you got an empowered version of him 4 years later.

Meanwhile more and more indications are coming out that there was fraud in 2020, and you don't care because you accept fraud as a method of winning.

You just don't have the balls to admit it.
Trump wanted the votes discounted. That’s what he was asking his Republican comrades to do.

You have never been able to admit this.
 
Trump wanted the votes discounted. That’s what he was asking his Republican comrades to do.

You have never been able to admit this.

He wanted them tossed because he believed fraud was involved.

So we should just accept the possibility of fraud and do nothing?

I've answered your question, you just don't like the answer, as usual.
 
From Grok:

Major fact-checking organizations reviewed the speech in real time or immediately afterward.


Economy and Jobs
  • Claim: "I had just inherited a nation in crisis with a stagnant economy, inflation at record levels." (Repeated in various forms.)
    • Why inaccurate: False/exaggerated. GDP grew 2.8% in 2024 (Biden's last year), stronger than the 2.2% in 2025 under Trump. Inflation was 3% in January 2025 (when Trump took office), down from a 9.1% peak in 2022—not a U.S. record (that was 23.7% in 1920). Unemployment fell to 4% under Biden from 6.4% post-COVID.
    • Context/Correction: Growth slowed in 2025 partly due to a 43-day government shutdown, but the inherited economy was expanding, not stagnant.
  • Claim: "The economy is roaring like never before... Prices are plummeting downward."
    • Why inaccurate: Misleading. GDP growth was 2.2% in 2025 (down from Biden years), unemployment rose to 4.3% from 4%, and inflation fell to 2.4% but prices are still rising overall (e.g., food up 2.2% year-over-year).
    • Context/Correction: Some items like eggs fell (down 30% due to avian flu recovery), but beef rose 15%. After-tax incomes rose only 0.9% in 2025 (vs. 2.2% in 2024).
  • Claim: "In 12 months, I secured commitments for more than $18 trillion pouring in from all over the globe."
    • Why inaccurate: Exaggerated/false. White House's own tally is $9.7 trillion in vague pledges (many pre-Trump or non-binding); a CNN review found trillions in "bilateral trade" not U.S. investments. Biden-era laws spurred ~$800 billion in manufacturing.
    • Context/Correction: Includes unsubstantiated promises; actual materialized investments are far lower.
  • Claim: "More Americans are working today than at any time in the history of our country."
    • Why inaccurate: True but misleading without context. Raw numbers rise with population growth, but employment-to-population ratio fell to 59.8% (from 60.1%), and labor participation is flat at ~62.5%. Job growth slowed to 359,000 in 2025 (0.2% gain) vs. 1.2 million (0.8%) in Biden's last year.
    • Context/Correction: Better metrics like unemployment (up to 4.3%) show no historic boom.
  • Claim: Gas prices are "now below $2.36 a gallon in most states" and "I even saw $1.85 a gallon" in Iowa.
    • Why inaccurate: False. No state averaged below $2.37 (national average $2.94–2.95); Iowa averaged $2.55–2.57. Only ~40 stations nationwide were under $2.
    • Context/Correction: Prices fell 17 cents since inauguration (from $3.12), but not to claimed lows.
  • Claim: The "big, beautiful bill" was "the largest tax cuts in American history" with "no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security."
    • Why inaccurate: Exaggerated. It's the 6th–7th largest as a GDP share (1.3%; Reagan's 1981 cut was 2.9%). Deductions are temporary (expire 2028–2029), capped ($25K tips, $12.5K overtime, $6K Social Security), phase out for higher incomes, and exclude some seniors (e.g., under 65 or low-income).
    • Context/Correction: Benefits 88% of seniors 65+ (up from 64%), but not "no tax" for all.
  • Claim: "Tariffs are paid for by foreign countries" and could "substantially replace" income taxes.
    • Why inaccurate: False. U.S. importers/consumers pay ~90–95% of costs (per Fed/NY and CBO). Tariff revenue ($195–300B in 2025) is <4% of federal revenue; income/payroll taxes are 84%. Replacing them would require implausibly high rates, causing inflation/jobs losses.
    • Context/Correction: Revenue up from $77B pre-Trump, but insufficient for deficits ($1.8T in 2025).
Immigration and Crime
  • Claim: "In the past nine months, zero illegal aliens have been admitted... We now have the strongest and most secure border in American history."
    • Why inaccurate: Exaggerated. Crossings hit lows (6,000+ in Jan 2026), but not zero; declines started under Biden. Trump restricted legal paths too (e.g., refugee cuts).
    • Context/Correction: Enforcement actions deported criminals at record rates, but claims ignore ongoing entries.
  • Claim: Immigrants came from "prisons and mental institutions... They were murderers, 11,888 murderers."
    • Why inaccurate: False/unsupported. Figure (actually 13,099 on ICE non-detained docket) includes noncitizens from decades (including Trump's first term), many legal residents/prison inmates, not all murderers or recent entries.
    • Context/Correction: 47% of detained migrants had only immigration violations; 7% violent convictions.
  • Claim: "Last year, the murder rate saw its single largest decline in recorded history."
    • Why inaccurate: Misleading. Decline (21% in cities) continued 2022–2024 trend from pandemic spike; not solely Trump's doing. Homicide rate ~4/100K (lowest since 1900), but from high base.
    • Context/Correction: Violent crime halved since 1990s; no direct policy link proven.
Foreign Policy and Other
  • Claim: "My first 10 months, I ended eight wars."
    • Why inaccurate: Inflated. List includes non-wars (e.g., Egypt-Ethiopia dam dispute, Serbia-Kosovo tensions); some ongoing (e.g., Rwanda-Congo, Thailand-Cambodia with recent fighting); U.S. role varied/partial.
    • Context/Correction: Credited for some ceasefires (e.g., Gaza at "low level"), but not eight full ends.
  • Claim: "Americans... will now pay the lowest price anywhere in the world for drugs."
    • Why inaccurate: Misleading. Negotiations lowered some prices (e.g., 16 companies' discounts), but U.S. remains highest among developed nations; many drugs generic/cheaper abroad; median brand prices rose 4%.
    • Context/Correction: Changes limited; insurance often better than deals.
  • Claim: "The cheating is rampant in our elections... Illegal aliens voting."
    • Why inaccurate: False/unsupported. Fraud rare (e.g., 0.02% noncitizen registrations; 15 cases in Michigan's 5.7M ballots, 20 in Georgia's 8.2M). Elections secure per CISA; noncitizen voting infinitesimal.
    • Context/Correction: 14 states no ID, but fraud not "rampant."
  • Claim: "We will always protect... Medicaid" (and similar for Medicare/Social Security).
    • Why inaccurate: Misleading. Signature bill cuts Medicaid $900B over decade via eligibility/work requirements; 7.5M fewer insured by 2034. Tax changes harm Medicare financing.
    • Context/Correction: Affects ACA marketplaces too.
Other notable ones include overstatements on fentanyl flow (seizures down 49%, but total flow unknown), oil/gas production (up but pre-Trump trends), and Iran's nuclear program (damaged, not "obliterated").
.

What's "grok"?

Some real journalism might be nice.





.
 
Eastman memo was already provided in the thread.

Which calls itself a scenario, and nothing in it was actually implemented.

Considering congress later passed a law to prevent some of what was in the memo from happening, it appears what was discussed was legal with regards to contesting an election thought to involve fraud.
 
He wanted them tossed because he believed fraud was involved.

So we should just accept the possibility of fraud and do nothing?

I've answered your question, you just don't like the answer, as usual.

We definitely should investigate the possibility of fraud when there's credible evidence.

So you're okay with government authoritarians tossing votes because you "believe" they are fraudulent?
 
We definitely should investigate the possibility of fraud when there's credible evidence.

So you're okay with government authoritarians tossing votes because you "believe" they are fraudulent?

What a mealy mouth dismissal of the 2020 situation. nothing presented to you would be considered credible by you.

That's not what happened, and yet you keep saying the same thing over and over like a trained shitzu doing a begging trick.
 
Why should Trump get to determine which votes are illegal and fraudulent?

He didn't determine, he challenged the election, and lost the challenge.

And again, you morons got Trump 3.0 instead of Trump 2.0 for all your "troubles"
 
What a mealy mouth dismissal of the 2020 situation. nothing presented to you would be considered credible by you.

That's not what happened, and yet you keep saying the same thing over and over like a trained shitzu doing a begging trick.
Everything was considered credible by Trump. We saw the kind of evidence they were using, including the allegations from a woman who was told about it in a dream state.

We have a whole infrastructure to evaluate fraud. It doesn’t include the president and his Republican cronies.

You keep trying to deny that’s what Trump tried to do. He tried to get votes discounted because he believed they were fraudulent.
 
He didn't determine, he challenged the election, and lost the challenge.

And again, you morons got Trump 3.0 instead of Trump 2.0 for all your "troubles"
You still can’t actually defend what he was asking.

All you can do is fall back on “he failed” as though that forgives his behavior.
 
Everything was considered credible by Trump. We saw the kind of evidence they were using, including the allegations from a woman who was told about it in a dream state.

We have a whole infrastructure to evaluate fraud. It doesn’t include the president and his Republican cronies.

You keep trying to deny that’s what Trump tried to do. He tried to get votes discounted because he believed they were fraudulent.

We had many of the rules in place lifted due to the pandemic, allowing massive vote by mail, and all of that opened up massive fraud potentials.

The locations where it probably took place were probably the ones working with the fraudsters, so your "infrastructure" claim is bullshit.

He fought, he lost. He got a memo showing his legal alternatives, and those were only closed AFTER by law passed by congress.

Why would they pass a law making something illegal if it wasn't legal in the first place?
 
15th post
You still can’t actually defend what he was asking.

All you can do is fall back on “he failed” as though that forgives his behavior.

I did defend it, you just don't care about fraud when it helps you to win.

He fought, he lost.
 
We had many of the rules in place lifted due to the pandemic, allowing massive vote by mail, and all of that opened up massive fraud potentials.

The locations where it probably took place were probably the ones working with the fraudsters, so your "infrastructure" claim is bullshit.

He fought, he lost. He got a memo showing his legal alternatives, and those were only closed AFTER by law passed by congress.

Why would they pass a law making something illegal if it wasn't legal in the first place?
The memo itself says the current law already forbade the actions.

Don’t pretend as though they care about following the law. They don’t think they have to.
 
I did defend it, you just don't care about fraud when it helps you to win.

He fought, he lost.
You didn’t condemn him for it either and you had no problem voting for him again.

Say Pence did what Trump wanted, and not counted the electoral votes for some states. Would have that been okay with you?
 
The memo itself says the current law already forbade the actions.

Don’t pretend as though they care about following the law. They don’t think they have to.

Point that out please. was it in the context of what could or could not be done?

You guys ignore immigration law and expect me to think you guys are on the side of "law"

**** off.
 
Back
Top Bottom