In all examples such as the one you present, I always just look at the first one. The first propagandist "fact checker" apparently took issue with the person who said, "Madame Speaker, the President of the United States!". Astonishing and revealing.
This reveals the outlandish bias of the "fact checkers" but doesn't address anything said by Trump, let's just skip that one and move on to the next one.
In the first case in which the "fact checker" takes issue with something Trump said, he objects to Trump saying that "jobs are booming".
He justifies his objection by saying that in the 38 months
before the election, slightly more jobs were added than in the 38 months
after the election. Okay...
That's not what Trump said. Why your "fact checker" chose to address that point not mentioned is revealing either of his motivation or his stupidity. I wonder why he didn't decide to attack Trump because Trump didn't address the Infield Fly Rule.
The sentence from which he lifts the objectionable phrase was this:
"Jobs are booming,
incomes are soaring,
poverty is plummeting,
crime is falling,
confidence is surging, and
our country is thriving and highly respected again."
Does this objection seem at all petty to you? He objected to nothing else in that sentence.
In truth, jobs are booming. There are more jobs available than there are workers to fill them and the wage rates are varying up and down around the highest levels ever.
Wages are also rising at rates faster than inflation.
Is this really what you call a lie? The lie exists only in the mind of the biased, agenda driven propagandist lying about what Trump said.
As Joe Biden might say if regained lucidity long enough to say it before he drifted away again, "C'mon, man!"
