What does that even mean in context? It looks like a proxy for saying young people pay very little at 21 and expect full benefits when they retire. Doubtful anyone took it as an assertion of fact - the Times didn't even ask about it. So why pull it out? Just cause it sounds silly?
I agree that it doesn't make much sense, but
in the snippet you quote he does in fact say "...
you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance...".
What's your quibble? And, by the way, when you say...
The idea being that because someone paid as a reported to document "lies" of Trump can string together a large list of "lies" that mostly are not in fact lies, but just things the left disagrees with, it's proof of exceptional capacity to lie.
...it sounds like you're saying fewer than 7,000 instances the Washington Post has reported of "misstatement of facts", narcissistic ego inflating self-compliments, misattributions, unsupported conspiracy theories and sheer gibberish are real. The other 7,000+ instances are themselves lies that they reported out of spite, and not because he exaggerates, flatters himself with irrational compliments, lies, misattributes and repeats unsupported conspiracy theories. Right?
As for your discovery about literally invisible F-35 stealth fighter jets, here's how your article rebutting claims that he said it starts:
Does President Donald Trump think the F-35 fighter is literally invisible? After researching his various statements on the 5th generation fighter, I don't really think so. But since he keeps saying exactly that — that the F-35 cannot be seen by enemy pilots...
To help you out I highlighted the part in that article where he says exactly what I said he did. Since only one of the quotes the author cites include the word invisible, that doesn't mean he didn't say it, only that the author doesn't include a quote where he does say it, with one telling exception:
"The Navy, I can tell you, we're ordering ships. With the Air Force, we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is, you know, almost like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys, I said, how good is this plane? They said, well, sir, you can't see it. I said, yeah, but in a fight — you know, a fight — like I watch in the movies — they fight, they're fighting. How good is this? They say, well, it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it. Even if it's right next to it, it can't see it. I said, that helps. That's a good thing."
Well, you *can* see it if you're right next to it, right? Are you going to insist that you can't see it, or Trump didn't mean exactly what he said? Here's another instance of him saying it that I found:
"...almost like an invisible fighter…You can’t see it. You literally can’t see it. It’s hard to fight a plane you can’t see."
And another:
This is an incredible plane. It's stealth—you can't see it. So when I talk to even people from the other side, they're trying to order our plane. They like the fact that you can't see it. I said, "How would it do in battle with your plane?" They say, "Well we have one problem—we can't see your plane." That's a big problem. Stealth, super stealth. The best in the world. We make the best military equipment in the world. Also, remember this: jobs.
Are you going to say he misspoke?
And Kasandra, this is exactly what frustrates me about replying to you. You grab a list of bullets from leftist sites that are not supported that you haven't even researched, and then to "refute" them I have take time to look up what actually happened - and I'm pretty sure all you're going to do is double down on what's left.
Everything I cited *is* supported. We can keep fencing on them if you insist, but I find it tiring and may give up. I'll give you a chance to retract your rebuttal on the invisible plane. If you still insist he never said it, that would be a meme and I definitely will give up responding to you.