How to Pretend You’re Not Lying

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Imagine if you posted on Facebook, “I’m going to the store,” and someone replied, “How come you’re going to buy the world’s largest vibrating dildo?”

That other person would deny he’s lying, wouldn’t he? If you accused him of lying, he’d fire off a series of defenses:

  • It was a question, not a statement
  • You didn’t say you weren’t going to buy the world’s largest dildo, did you?
  • Can you prove you weren’t planning to get the world’s largest vibrating dildo?

In other words, someone who wants the world to believe you’re on your way to Dr. John’s to buy the world’s largest vibrating dildo could easily pretend he wasn’t lying about you.

Something like this happened on Facebook the other night. NeverTrumpers on Facebook asked why Donald Trump vowed to erase the 10th Amendment. Well, not directly. But that’s what they wanted people to believe. Instead of saying it directly, they used weapons grade mental manipulation to trick readers into making up their own lies.

Here’s what Trump actually said about protecting police officers from assassins and murderers:

One of the first things I’d do in terms of executive order, if I win, will be to sign a strong, strong statement that would go out to the country, out to the world, anybody killing a police man, a police woman, a police officer, anybody killing a police officer, the death penalty is going to happen.

Even a person of mild creativity like me can see how President Trump can fulfill this promise while being completely true to the intent of the 10th Amendment, which prohibits Washington from taking on powers not granted in the Constitution. For example, President Trump could sign an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to seek the death penalty in any federal prosecution of someone accused of murdering a police officer.

No one would argue that the president lacks the Constitutional authority to give such direction to the DOJ. In fact, that’s exactly what executive orders are meant to do–direct the executive branch within the law.

So it’s obvious that Trump can fulfill this intention to protect the lives of cops while staying true to the word and intent of the Bill of Rights. Anyone can see this.

But some NeverTrumpers don’t want you to see the truth. Those NeverTrumpers want you to make up your own lies. With their help, of course.

Those NeverTrumpers want people to believe Trump said things Trump didn’t say. (Because NeverTrumpers might secretly want to sleep with Hillary Clinton). They are very, very careful, the way a con artist is careful, to avoid direct statements. Instead, they ask vague questions that allow other Trump skeptics to imagine something terrible.

It’s very crafty and very skillful mental manipulation. I bet professional con artists would even be impressed.

Another tactic con artists use: they report old news as if it were new. Donald Trump’s statement on protecting the lives of police officers was from December 2015. Those NeverTrumpers are learning lots of manipulation tricks from MSNBC and Crooked Hillary’s campaign. After the election, they’d make great swindlers.

That’s how you pretend you’re not lying. Be vague. Imply with questions. Let the reader invent his own lies which he’ll cherish as his own.

I won’t use any manipulation tricks to get you to buy my new book. You’ll probably want to anyway.

Also published on Medium.

  • Ender Wiggen

    I’m dealing with your quote of his words as they stand alone.

    Maybe you can help me understand what that means. I take it to mean his “statement” could take the form of executive order, or a federal law. Either way if the future event involved a state or local peace officer it would cut the state out due process.

    I showed you mine now show me yours. What do you think it means?

    We’re stuck with what we got but 5 years ago I would of thought we could sit in the same room without talking because we’d be thinking the same thoughts.

  • Ender Wiggen

    I’ve stood with you in years past. Still proudly have some of your shirts. You might be able to recall me at town hall for a certain candidate a few cycles ago sporting one of your shirts. I respect your opinion as well as the work you’ve done.

    I’ll also add that I’m a bit old school, I don’t tolerate violence against peace officers in any way. Ferguson was a test run for what we are seeing now.

    I have not read the FB post in question. Just going of of your post alone.

    You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to call Trump’s “statement” Constitutional. The federal government would have to have some sort of grounds for jurisdiction to even take the case from the state. Like on federal property or against a federal agent. These are things that I know, you know, inherently.

    You can still support a candidate without supporting the garbage that comes out of his mouth. I expect better from you.

    • whennessy

      You’re really stretching here, Ender. Really stretching.

      Read what Trump said. Read it four of five times. There’s nothing there that conflicts with the 10th Amendment–unless you add words in your mind that Trump didn’t say.

      I am dealing with what Trump said. Are you dealing with what he said or with what you think he said? Or what you hoped he said?

      Your last paragraph is incongruent. I expect better from you.