If he "doesn't know they are false" then they aren't lies even if they are false.
But that's only part of the point. Some of them aren't false (and certainly not ridiculous, which would go beyond just false, as a lot of statements that turn out to not be correct, where not ridiculous), and in other cases its not clear, either being a pure difference of opinion and not a matter of concrete fact at all, or being a different opinion about the facts (which may or may not be shown to be true or false in the future, but which isn't settled now).
In other words his statements are a mix of true factual statements, statements that are matters of political, philosophical or other types of opinion that don't readily translate to simple concrete true of false facts, statements of opinion about facts about which the truth is unclear or not yet known, at least some false factual statements (which is pretty much inevitable if your making statements as often as he does) which he probably believes to be true.
And maybe some lies. My point is not that he does not lie (few people flat out never lie, and even in terms of important public statements I wouldn't be shocked to find out that one or more of his where a lie), but that the "liar" accusation was not substantiated. The specific claimed lies in the post by RW where either true statements, or matters of opinion, or statements which might not be true but which don't appear to be lies.
In general terms, I think "lie" or "liar", is thrown around far too easily. Too many people look at any disagreement as indicating lies. That's unreasonable. |
