There won't be a single person who will disagree with what I've got to say here.
OK, I've lied already. Of course there will be people who will
disagree with what I've got to say. But you're here, aren't you? See how easy
it was for me to make a confident, declarative statement that exploited the
curiosity gap, manipulating you into clicking through to this opinion piece?
Now you're one step closer to falling exactly where I want you, which is
listening to even more of my confident, declarative statements and, hopefully, being swayed to my side in the topic of my choosing.
Welcome to the insidious world of politics, and also of lying,
which is that chosen topic. I've been watching with interest the back-and-forth
on social media between Donald Trump supporters and those who intend to vote
for Hillary Clinton. (For the sake of this argument I'm leaving out third-party
fans, because I believe that ship has sailed.*) And while the liberal set has
failed miserably at coming up with catchy nicknames for Trump ("walking
circus peanut" and "Cheeto
Jesus" are amusing, but they don't exactly roll off the tongue), cons
have done a better job at coming up with shorter, pithier pejoratives. My
favorites being "Hitlery," "ILLary" (as an homage to her
supposed coughing fits, raging brain tumors, and recent bout with pneumonia),
and the ever-popular "HilLIARy."
It's that last one that most catches my attention every time
it floats down my feed, because for everyone planning on voting for Trump who's
hyperfocused on the Democratic nominee and her distortions meticulously curated
by Fox News, Breitbart, and the like, there's something I'd like to tell you, sotto voce: Your guy is also a liar. In
fact, an even bigger, "unprecedented"
liar—a pathological one who tells whoppers pretty much every time he opens
his mouth, about big things, small things, and things
that no one would ever have dreamed up if they hadn't actually happened.
He's a liar who lies so much and so often that an entire cottage industry has
sprung up dedicated to compiling the lies
he
tells
weekly,
and even daily.
One who has earned so many "four-Pinocchio" ratings from the Washington
Post that it keeps a running list; he doesn't fare much better on PolitiFact
against Clinton.
One who averaged about one fabrication every
three minutes and 15 seconds over a recent five-hour span, per Politico's
stopwatch.
He's a liar who can't help telling untruths to the point that there's a cheat
sheet for moderator Lester Holt on the lies that Trump specifically is likely to rattle off during tonight's debate. (To
be fair, the Post also alerts viewers to the
eyebrow-raisers that Hillary is likely to bring up during the debate, though
her list, by comparison, is filled with more exaggerations, overstatements, and
head-shaking technicalities than outright "fables" as expected from
Trump.)
He's a liar who will likely tell those whoppers
and more during tonight's debate—and he's been adamant he doesn't want the
candidates to be fact-checked during the debate, while the Clinton
campaign is all for it. Tomorrow's extensive recaps will lay out how much
of what he said was probably complete garbage (though maybe he'll surprise
us—he's nothing if not full of surprises!), but that doesn't help when people
are watching the debates and absorbing every word he says, and then refusing to
read (or believe) the following day's mitigation. He's a liar who said stuff during the debate, live in front of close to 100 million people, about being "smart" for not paying his taxes, and then that same night denied he'd ever said that**.
I'd be inclined to believe the assertion that so many in denial have claimed:
that the liberal media is responsible for this subterfuge smear against The
Donald. But we've got conservative-leaning
newspapers that haven't broken from their GOP presidential endorsements for
decades (in some cases, in
more than a century) suddenly announcing either third-party
endorsements or a thumbs-up for Hillary Clinton; high-ranking Republican
leaders and pundits defecting
from both Trump in particular and the GOP
in general; and even George HW, part of the beloved Bush dynasty, saying
he'll not only not vote for Trump,
but will vote
for a DEMOCRAT—and not only just any Democrat, but the Democrat who's
married to the person who beat him out for the presidency. Meanwhile, his wife,
Barbara, offers her own
incredulous reaction to anyone voting for Trump, especially women.
Guys, something's up. It should, at the very least, give everyone
thinking about voting for him some pause without leaning in hard on the
liberal-conspiracy trope. It's probably true that not all of these people are
fleeing from Trump strictly because of his inability to tell the truth, but
it's also probably true it plays a large part. I've heard it said by many that
they're voting for Trump because they crave radical change and want to shake up
the establishment—and so, therefore, many of these disgruntled GOPers, it's
often said, are defecting because they're part of this establishment, resent the
brazen interloper who's swooped in to destroy their party, and are now
harvesting their sour grapes. In some cases, that may be true; but it's also pretty
reasonable to assume, based on "reasons," that they're fleeing from
Trump not because he's simply anti-establishment, but because he's also clearly
a Lyin' Lunatic.
I guess one could label me a liberal "extremist" (a name
that's been hurled at my extremely boring self this election season), but that
just shows one doesn't know me very well. I do tend to lean liberal on many
issues, but I've pulled the lever for Democratic, Republican (including one
Bush), and third-party presidential candidates since I reached voting age.
I've also rarely commented on political matters on social media and
went into this election with relative ambivalence toward both of these
candidates: I knew very little about Trump's past, and I rather enjoyed
watching him on The Apprentice. I'm
also more Bernie than Hillary, as I've had my own various issues over the years
with her, most notably concerning her reactions toward women who've accused her
husband of sexual assault.
But as part of my 9-to-5 this election year, I've had the opportunity
to take in an awful lot of information from all sides, and I think I've become
pretty skilled at separating the wheat from the conspiracy-theory chaff—and
it's unmistakably led me to the same conclusion. I still have reservations
about Hillary Clinton (many of my original ones, as well some new ones), but
they pale in comparison to what I've learned, read, and witnessed with my own
eyes about Donald Trump.
One could respond to my thesis with a whataboutism list of
bullet points for every lie Hillary Clinton has ever told, and it won't matter,
because my point isn't that Hillary Clinton doesn't lie—I'm sure she does, has,
and likely will again, as I believe most politicians do to varying degrees
(except for perhaps Jimmy Carter, and I bet even HE had to have told a white fib
once in awhile). But everything she's said to have lied about—some true, some
maybe true, some already proven to be not so much true—can’t compare with Trump's
laundry list. If we're comparing lying apples to apples, and if truth-telling
is a large part of what you're basing your vote on (i.e., we're not even
getting into policy, general temperament, and overall saneness and humanity), Hillary's
basket may have some mighty big apples in there, but Trump's basket is
overflowing, and they're all rotten to the core.
Editor's Note A: Has any of this manifesto persuaded you? Will the
debate tonight sway anyone? Doubtful on both counts. I fall in the camp
mentioned in this Salon
article that believes most people's minds are likely already made up for
November, and that once beliefs are firmly entrenched in people's minds, even
wrong ones, it's extremely
difficult to dislodge them. But then again, a recent Reuters/Ipsos
poll showed that half of likely voters are going to use the debates as a
gauge to help them make their final call. That's where my hope lies—and not in
the way that Donald Trump does. (See what I just did there?)
Editor's Note B: If you skipped right to the end of this to check
out my conclusion because tl;dr, just watch this John Oliver clip
about the false equivalency of their foundation scandals, you monster.
* In regards to the much-ballyhooed protest vote, which, as
previously stated, I usually have no qualms against casting: a) Gary Johnson or
another savior candidate isn't happening, people; b) there's no candidate I
like well enough to cast my lot behind, even if it were happening; and c)
there's nothing morally, ethically, or pragmatically wrong with instead picking
a somewhat flawed candidate (as they all are, if you review your American Civ
101 notes) over one who will likely reach for the nuclear football as soon as
someone insults him on Twitter—and then, as we pull ourselves out of the ashes,
say, in his best Shaggy voice: "Wasn't me."
**Updated Oct. 2, 2016.