A friend of mine started a thread on Facebook about why the media doesn’t call out Trump’s lies, using the example of his claim that the Lincoln Memorial is never/rarely used for inauguration events. And how his representatives can call these lies “alternative facts” with any seriousness. Trump lies so often and about so many ridiculous things (DC is sold out of dresses, really??). The thing is, media outlets do call him out(https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/donald-trump-says…/… or http://time.com/4640346/donald-trump-lincoln-memorial/ for the Lincoln Memorial example).

Why don’t these become big stories? Why is the constant flood of lies not a big story?

Trump supporters that I know tell me it’s hyperbole (what *is* the difference between hyperbole and lying?) and negotiating positions (I remember being a sixteen year old kid asking for a tattoo as a negotiating position when I wanted Manic Panic hair coloring … not sure what it says that our new President’s negotiating tactics and teenage kids differ only in scale) and I shouldn’t take everything he says so seriously.

I’m still not sure how to take that argument. I use rhetorical hyperbole too. I haven’t literally told Anya a million times to clean up her toys – that would be 650 times a day each day of her life. I try to be careful to say “It *SEEMS* like I’ve told you a million times to get the books on the bookshelf”. But it doesn’t seem harmful when I say “dude, I’ve told you a million times. Seriously, pick up the books!”.

I am willing to believe that people don’t mind being lied to by Trump … what I cannot figure out, then, is why they considered Clinton to be offensively dishonest. It’s a different type of lying — using technicalities. When I would do it, my mother called it lying by omission — you make a statement that is technically true because of some technically valid meaning of a word  and/or some incorrect assumption the other party makes about your statement. Consider Bill Clinton’s “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” statement — there is a difference between present and past tenses. If you ask me if I’m driving a Jetta, I can accurately say no because *right this second* I am sitting on the sofa typing … you assume I sold my Jetta, which from the perspective of a legal proceeding really is the interrogating attorney’s fault, but when you’re fifteen … you don’t get far telling your mom it’s her fault for not being specific enough or making erroneous assumptions 🙂

And maybe this is why I get so offended by Trump’s lies but don’t mind Clinton’s — I enjoy studying law and the challenge language adds to legal proceedings. To me, someone answering a present tense question ignoring past facts is clever (and highlights a flaw in the line of questioning). Essentially I don’t feel like I was lied to, I feel like someone outmaneuvered me. On the other hand, someone making an outright stupid provably untrue statement insults me.

I could see someone making an inverse conclusion, though. That uppity lawyer thinks he’s smarter than me, the LIAR! But is any amount of hyperbolic lying acceptable just because it’s a rhetorical technique most use occasionally. Do people condone it because they do it? Or the liar is seen as a ‘real’ person because he engages in the same rhetorical techniques they use?