Trump has made documented false or misleading claims about his height, wealth, golf handicap, economic achievements, and approval ratings — reported by fact-checkers at CNN, The New York Times, and other outlets. For example, his height claims have been inconsistent across different documents and contexts. The core criticism is factually grounded in these documented reports. However, the post uses sweeping language ('lies about everything, large and small') without specific examples, which goes beyond what can be verified. Not every single statement he's made falls into a false category — some claims are subjective disputes about whether particular accomplishments count as real achievements, which is a different kind of criticism than provably false facts. The distinction matters: there's a difference between verifiable falsehoods (like inconsistent height claims or false approval ratings) and disagreements over how to characterize his economic record or policy impacts. The post doesn't make that distinction clear, which weakens the argument by treating all criticisms as the same type of evidence.