I'd gladly discuss them point by point with someone with whom I know I can have a fruitful discussion.
Which is why I subdivided his untruths into several different categories. As long as they're simply hyperbolic boasts, like the one about the 'most open and transparent administration ever', they're indeed not that big of a deal, though those still make him look petty and silly.
Then there's the category of 'too lazy and too uninterested to look up the real facts before spouting off', like the example about the UK being the largest trade partner of the US, which I guess you're arguing doesn't really matter. And sure, everybody may make the odd wrong statement or blunder at some point, which generally won't have a lot of consequences. But with him it's an endless stream of those guiding his rhetoric and sometimes decisions.
As for claims like the one about the one million illegal votes in California, you can't pretend that's simply hyperbole anymore. The nonsense he keeps telling about tariffs - that's not hyperbole, it's taking Americans for imbeciles and it's depressing how many of his supporters seem to go along with it.
Which is not to say there aren't any valid arguments in favour of tariffs, just that the debate should be based on those real arguments and not on Trump's blatant lies. With farmers in Iowa and elsewhere, this nonsense doesn't work because it's too painfully obvious to which extent they are having to take one for the team in the trade conflict with China, but the wider reality that all Americans are paying for that trade conflict, while any realistically achievable gains in the case of an eventual victory would go to a rather more limited group... that's not something you'd know if you're fool enough to listen to Trump on this topic.