How can I tell the difference between Trump being wrong and him exaggerating?
If you genuinely find yourself struggling, ask me. I'll help you, free of charge.
Meanwhile, if you'd like to try having a go at it yourself, try reading several media articles around whichever sentence confuses you. Chances are you'll encounter a few accurate paraphrases with some explainers on current events. As I said before, the trick is not to take Trump's words as something that exists in a vacuum; as soon as you acknowledge world news, you'll be A-OK!
Because despite you avoiding actually posting what Trump said during the election
????? I did post what he said during the election. I even provided links. Why do you lie?
So (a) NATO is obsolete, (b) NATO doesn't discuss terrorism, (c) NATO isn't meant for terrorism, and (d) NATO "doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism."
(a) is the initial claim which he then tries to back up, (b) and (c) were largely accurate at the time (b is arguable and a slight stretch, c is not), (d) is meaningless drivel
If he's exaggerating and instead means NATO should focus more on terrorism, then it's far from clear here.
No, but of course you conveniently ignored the relevant
quote which I posted, and which he actually repeated multiple times (as opposed to the less-than-stellar one-off you're trying to misdirect the conversation to)
Trekky. Why do you lie? What do you have to gain from this?
That's simply not true. From July 2016:
That's great. What about the 10-or-so months between July 2016 and the statement I'm referring to? Do you reckon, oh, I dunno, that the two may have since met and discussed the issue? Could that have anything to do with Stoltenberg's change of tune?
Why do you lie, Trekky? Tell us.
That hardly sounds like someone who agrees with Trump that NATO was obsolete.
Indeed, the statement where he said he "totally agrees" with Trump was just a bit more recent than July 2016. I'm not surprised you didn't find the relevant quotes in the completely wrong statement. I do wonder what you were trying to demonstrate here, though. You already knew the timeline of events. You already saw the relevant transcripts. And yet you persist in pretending.
Stoltenberg isn't gonna change his mind just because you link a couple of his old opinions on the Internet. NATO is changing, because the Secretary General "totally agrees" with Trump's team's assessment. If you dislike that fact, tell us why - there might be a meaningful discussion to be had there. If you like it, hey, welcome to not being super-wrong for once. But pretending that it's not happening is really not gonna affect anything or anyone but yourself.
It's not really clear. And if he meant that, he should have said that.
Finally, you admit your issue. I'm afraid this is one I can't help you with. If you want to be wrong about everything all the time, continue to treat Trump's statements as extremely literal, and divorce them from current events. Just, y'know... it's not gonna be very useful for you, or anyone else.
It wasn't a mere statement of fact. Does it appear that we are posting irrelevant statement of facts in this thread? Trump was born on June 14th. Trump has blond hair. Is that what we are doing here?
No, that is not what Trekky is doing. The sentence he wrote implies that Trump sought office for financial gain, which is insulting and ridiculous since he already won that game many years ago. Trekky ignores the fact that he was voted into office to lower taxes because that is that the American people wanted, who were all well aware that it would lower Trump's taxes as well.
Tom is on the money here. Agree with Trump's tax cuts or not (I personally don't), Trekky is clearly on some sort of personal crusade here. His constant attempts to put a spin on things only weakens the anti-Trump message. Hell, I'm surprised he didn't rush to the defence of the "thousands of psychiatrists!!!!" who tried to diagnose Trump with a mental illness without even talking to him.