+6
I don't really follow your response to TUS. He's making a pretty simple point: with Trump, you sometimes call things a "lie" because he did not literally say them, but you're happy to read implications from Biden even if he did not literally say a thing. It's a fair point.
Obviously, you can just say "that's different" each time, by saying you believe there is an implication in one case but not another, but that means you can't just say "he didn't say that" and leave it at that, either. And in plenty of cases, Trump's implication is pretty hard to mistake, IMO.
This is known in rhetoric as "special pleading," by the way: finding some reason a posited rule doesn't apply in a specific case. Technically it's hard to disprove, but it's also not worth much, because we can always find some difference between one thing and another which allows us to make out that any rule is still being applied fairly.