You're just repeating the claims he made. That doesn't make them true.

Ok, I'll get all my information from an anonymous image board user and the cult of morons that grew up around him, like you.

The first link you sent has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I'm not talking about Russian bounties at all.

The second link you said is trying to make a big scandal out of two handwritten sentences, one of which is largely redacted, and which, together, just say that Clinton planned on making Russian interference a campaign issue. The rest of the article lacks any quotes for its claims and seems to be editorializing, but even if the claim were true (Russians were injecting disinformation into Clinton's campaign re: Trump), that seems like it would make it even more likely they were also targeting Trump's campaign. Why would they only target one?

Finally, you can't just dismiss an entire 900+ page report by saying "they lied". There's literally hundreds of pages of documentation and research by teams of investigators there. If you dispute an individual claim you can say which one and why, but dismissing the entire report out of hand is just partisan laziness.

All of this isn't even on topic though. The question was "Has Trump ever said something that didn't turn out to be true?" I gave 10 examples, so even if I grant you the Russian collusion one (which I don't), there's nine more to contend with. How about "China pays for the tariffs" or "Trump's tax cut was the biggest ever"? Both those are just manifestly, unambiguously false.

what does that have to do with anything?

Mostly because those have nothing to do with the definition of the term, which is what we're talking about.

So "God exists"... symbolically?

Russian collusion happened. It's documented in the Mueller report and the fifth report by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, which was signed by Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, John Cornyn, and Richard Burr, among other Republicans and Democrats. Certainly not an anti-Trump collection of people.

You can read it here: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

It's about 900 pages documenting a pretty extensive fact pattern of meetings with various Russian government and intelligence operatives with members of the Trump team. Whether you personally call that "collusion" or not is a semantic choice, but for just one example, Paul Manafort shared campaign data with a Russian intelligence officer, Konstantin Kilimnik. Seems pretty questionable to me.

And this just reminded me of another Trump lie -- that he had "no business interests with Russia" while he was actively working on the Trump Tower Moscow deal.

You must be joking. Yes, Trump made statements that weren't true, literally thousands of times.

• Mexico will pay for the wall.
• China pays for the tariffs.
• Inauguration was the biggest ever.
• His health care plan will be released "in two weeks".
• Trade deficit with China was $500B.
• Ted Cruz' father hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald.
• Russian collusion was a hoax.
• Coronavirus "would just disappear".
• Trump's tax cut was "the biggest in history".
• The wall is being built.
• ...

What's the issue here? This really was a topic on this board just a couple days ago: https://greatawakening.win/p/12izz0hIJD/god-exists--swarm-of-cicadas-att/

Are you saying it's not newsworthy? Or that you guys don't "really" believe this? Or what?

None of these random underlined words predicted anything, because no one was able to accurately forecast what was going to happen before it happened. You fit the data to the posts after the fact. That's a postdiction, not a prediction.

For this to be an actual prediction, you would've had to: read the posts, interpret them, publicly say what you believe is about to happen and why, and then that would have to come true. That is a prediction.

You're retrofitting. This is the same thing people do when they say Nostradamus "predicted" everything from the French Revolution to 9/11. They wait for an event to happen and then go back through his writings to cherry-pick pieces that look like they correspond to the event, ignoring the parts that don't. This is made easier because all his writings are vague and semi-mystical and leave lots of room for "interpretation" without saying anything concrete so they can't be definitively rejected. Sound like someone you know?

So your argument is that God sent a mildly annoying group of bugs to slightly delay Biden's flight? Don't you think God would be a little more effective if he chose to divinely intervene?

That's not what systemic racism means. Systemic racism means the systems that are in place disproportionately affect certain races, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not.

You mention "massive black crime rates" near cities, but that this isn't a problem outside cities. Have you ever wondered why that might be the case? If you have, you might have learned about redlining, mortgage discrimination, or white flight, which are examples of racism embedded in the systems that controlled the choices available to people. That's what's meant by "systemic racism", not that any individual in the system is personally racist.

It turns out that America has many such systems, which is why people say that the country as a whole is "systemically racist". This really shouldn't be a big surprise, given that it was explicitly racist for at least 100 years during slavery.

Or systems are different from singular results.