All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Tami]

When the quest for freedom goes horribly wrong

Brisbane, Australia (CNN)Dr. Sayed Mirwais Rohani wanted to heal people, but he died a broken man.

Trained in China, the young Afghan doctor fled the Taliban in Kabul only to become trapped in Australia's offshore immigration detention system.

He ended his own life in a Brisbane city hotel on October 15. He was 32.

A coroner's investigation into Rohani's death is in its very early stages.

The family's lawyer, George Newhouse, says it deserves a full inquest. "His family want to get to the bottom of what happened to their son," said Newhouse, from the non-profit legal service the National Justice Project.

"But more importantly, to examine the systematic failures in the provision of healthcare that left an able-bodied doctor so seriously debilitated and in a state where it appears he took his own life."

[Mister Mets]

When someone does it often enough, the line blurs so badly it really doesn't make a difference. Either the speaker is ignorant, careless, or intentionally deceitful but the end result is passing on incorrect information that results in the same effect.

Someone asks you when the next bus will arrive and you say 2:30 PM when, in truth, the bus arrives sat 2:00 PM, it doesn't matter what the reason was that you said what you said, the end result is that the person, if they believe you, will end up missing the bus.

This could lead to all sorts of problems for that person, like being late for work or missing a doctor's appointment, or even the risk of getting mugged at the bus stop.

Bottom line is, if it happens once or twice, a person speaking these untruths can be excused for it. If it happens all the time, then the speaker becomes very dangerous to him/herself and others.

Trump definitely falls in the "it happens all the time" category, but there is a lot of room in the middle between "once and twice" and "all the time" especially for public figures for whom every word is scrutinized by opponents eager to point out lies and mistakes.

Show factual proof that Obama lied as much as Trump does, or even Bush who lied about WMDs and tax cuts, leading to Iraq War and the Great Recession.

Posting a link to ten or so "lies" by Obama doesn't negate the thousands of lies told by Trump just this year, or the hundreds of lies told by Republicans with regards to things like tax cuts, the deficit and social security -- again, you're being blatantly dishonest if you're trying to make the argument that "both sides routinely lie", especially with regards to Obama or important national issues like the deficit and social security.

Just like the party you support.

And you do deflect -- just like now you're deflecting by bringing up "Obama" instead of addressing Republican lies regarding tax cuts, the deficit, climate change, voter suppression, family separation, foreign interference in our elections (etc). You won't address those issues directly because you know you can't -- so instead you deflect to the false argument that Democrats are the same.

The unavoidable truth is that if Republicans weren't so comfortable with lies, then Trump wouldn't be your party's current elected representative.

With that in mind, show factual proof that Democrats "routinely lie" as much as Republicans with regards to important national issues like tax cuts, climate change, voter suppression, family separation, and foreign interference in our elections.

Or you can simply admit that like many Republicans, you don't have a problem with the dishonesty of said party, so long as it serves your purposes.

-----
"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.

False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used.

False equivalence arguments are often used in journalism and in politics, where the minor flaws of one candidate may be compared to major flaws of another."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

I've made no claim that Obama has lied as much as Trump. My arguments were that he has lied in significant ways, in ways that exceeded your earlier goalpost "a person who lies once or twice" and WBE's "that one time Obama misspoke."

You removed the portion of my quote where I explicitly said "Even in the context of elected officials, Trump is extraordinarily untrustworthy which is part of why I'm ready to vote against him in primaries and ready to vote for some of his likeliest general election opponents in the November 2020 election." So I do think that Trump is more dishonest than Obama.

My both sides argument was that both sides have crossed the threshold of not being trustworthy. I make no statement about which side lies more, just that both fall short.

The original comment was in response to a policy point on SSI and SSDI, where I relied on Snopes, rather than any statements by elected or appointed Republicans.

I'm not responding to specific points, because you haven't referred to any clear statements, and seem to suggest that someone you disagree with politically is obligated to respond point by point on six different topics after making a point on SSI/ SSDI which you haven't even said you agree or disagree with.

I doubt you would support this tactic, if it were reversed, if in response to a policy point on a different matter (IE- Buttigieg wanting to create an independent immigration court separate from the just department), a liberal poster were asked about multiple contentious issues.

[Tami]

White Evangelicals Are Terrified That Liberals Want to Extinguish Their Rights

As we all know, white evangelicals are convinced that their religious liberties are under attack from liberals and atheists. But are they really? Political scientists Ryan Burge and Paul Djupe looked at survey data to find out:

[Among] white evangelical Protestants, we found that 60 percent believed that atheists would not allow them First Amendment rights and liberties. More specifically, we asked whether they believed atheists would prevent them from being able to “hold rallies, teach, speak freely, and run for public office.” Similarly, 58 percent believed “Democrats in Congress” would not allow them to exercise these liberties if they were in power.

Is this true? The authors go to a second survey to find out, but it has different questions and different groups of respondents and doesn’t really address the question. Nonetheless they try to tease out an answer, and unsurprisingly the answer is no. Most atheists and Democrats are pretty tolerant of basic religious liberties even if they really, really hate evangelicals. Conversely, evangelicals who hate atheists are pretty intolerant of their religious liberties:

Conservative Christians believe their rights are in peril partly because that’s what they’re hearing, quite explicitly, from conservative media, religious elites, partisan commentators and some politicians, including the president. The survey evidence suggests another reason, too. Their fear comes from an inverted golden rule: Expect from others what you would do unto them. White evangelical Protestants express low levels of tolerance for atheists, which leads them to expect intolerance from atheists in return. That perception surely bolsters their support for Trump. They believe their freedom depends on keeping Trump and his party in power.

[Tami]

Speaking Out on Gay Rights and Corruption Costs Ambassador His Job

The United States recalled its ambassador to Zambia on Monday after he criticized the government for sending a gay couple to prison and accused officials of stealing millions of dollars of public funds.

The ambassador, Daniel L. Foote had, described the treatment of the gay couple as “horrifying” — setting off outrage in Zambia, a conservative Christian country. But analysts said that the main reason for his departure was that he had repeatedly declared that ministry officials had misappropriated millions.

In an unusually combative public statement for a member of the diplomatic corps, Mr. Foote had said that the Zambian government “wants foreign diplomats to be compliant, with open pocketbooks and closed mouths​.”

Mr. Foote’s comments set off recriminations in Zambia, a copper-producing, landlocked country in southern Africa. Zambia’s president, Edgar Lungu, said he did not want Mr. Foote in the country, even if Zambia risked losing its annual $500 million in American aid.

[aja_christopher]

Trump definitely falls in the "it happens all the time" category, but there is a lot of room in the middle between "once and twice" and "all the time" especially for public figures for whom every word is scrutinized by opponents eager to point out lies and mistakes.

I've made no claim that Obama has lied as much as Trump. My arguments were that he has lied in significant ways, in ways that exceeded your earlier goalpost "a person who lies once or twice" and WBE's "that one time Obama misspoke."

I didn't set any "goalpost" -- I just pointed out how hypocritical it is to act concerned about truth when you support a party that routinely lies.

And you still have yet to address why that is because you know it's hypocritical, yet your technique is to deflect and use the "both sides" argument when you know that doesn't address Republican dishonesty regarding the issues raised (tax cuts, the deficit, climate change, foreign interference, etc) directly.

You won't research the "truth" on those matters nor can you provide any solid evidence to back up your statement -- you'd prefer to engage in fallacy regarding "routine dishonesty" on "both sides" despite knowing that the Republicans "routinely lie" about said political issues while the Democrats don't.

Like McConnell and the rest of your elected representatives, you should be aware that just because you refuse to acknowledge certain facts and evidence doesn't mean said facts and evidence don't exist -- doing so is exactly why individuals like Trump prosper in the Republican party.

------
"Study: PolitiFact says Republicans lie more"

The fact-checking organization PolitiFact has found Republicans to be less trustworthy than Democrats, according to a new study.

Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs.

By the same token, 54 percent of Democratic statements were rated as "mostly true" or "true," compared to just 18 percent of Republican statements.

The CMPA looked at 100 statements -- 46 by Democrats, 54 by Republicans -- that were fact-checked by PolitiFact between January 20 and May 22. The study's findings are similar to a previous CMPA study, which found that PolitiFact gave more negative ratings to the Romney campaign than the Obama campaign in 2012."

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ie-more-164943

"The more facts come out, the more desperate they get,” said Kurt Bardella, a former spokesman and senior adviser on the House oversight committee. “They know in a debate centred on facts, truth and reality, they lose. Their only mechanism to survive is to muddy the waters, distort, distract and hope if they repeat lies often enough, they become real."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...icans-fox-news

[Robotman]

White Evangelicals Are Terrified That Liberals Want to Extinguish Their Rights

Because they think liberals think like them. They themselves want to extinguish the rights of everyone so they figure their opposition is out for them. Most liberals and non-evangelicals don’t care what you believe as long as it doesn’t infringe on their rights as Americans.

“My religions says I can’t do that.” Ok

“My religion says you can’t do that.” **** off!

[Mister Mets]

I didn't set any "goalpost" -- I just pointed out how hypocritical it is to act concerned about truth when you support a party that routinely lies.

And you still have yet to address why that is because you know it's hypocritical, yet your technique is to deflect and use the "both sides" argument when you know that doesn't address Republican dishonesty regarding the issues raised (tax cuts, the deficit, climate change, foreign interference, etc) directly.

You won't research the "truth" on those matters nor can you provide any solid evidence to back up your statement -- you'd prefer to engage in fallacy regarding "routine dishonesty" on "both sides" despite knowing that the Republicans "routinely lie" about said political issues while the Democrats don't.

Like McConnell and the rest of your elected representatives, you should be aware that just because you refuse to acknowledge certain facts and evidence doesn't mean said facts and evidence don't exist -- doing so is exactly why individuals like Trump prosper in the Republican party.

------
"Study: PolitiFact says Republicans lie more"

The fact-checking organization PolitiFact has found Republicans to be less trustworthy than Democrats, according to a new study.

Fifty-two percent of Republican claims reviewed by the Tampa Bay Times fact-checking operation were rated "mostly false," “false” or “pants on fire,” versus just 24 percent of Democratic statements, according to George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs.

By the same token, 54 percent of Democratic statements were rated as "mostly true" or "true," compared to just 18 percent of Republican statements.

The CMPA looked at 100 statements -- 46 by Democrats, 54 by Republicans -- that were fact-checked by PolitiFact between January 20 and May 22. The study's findings are similar to a previous CMPA study, which found that PolitiFact gave more negative ratings to the Romney campaign than the Obama campaign in 2012."

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ie-more-164943

"The more facts come out, the more desperate they get,” said Kurt Bardella, a former spokesman and senior adviser on the House oversight committee. “They know in a debate centred on facts, truth and reality, they lose. Their only mechanism to survive is to muddy the waters, distort, distract and hope if they repeat lies often enough, they become real."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...icans-fox-news

I am always concerned about truth. I believe we all should be concerned about truth. In the past I have expressed my concerns about tribalism and the idea that what matters isn't about being right but about being on the right side, an approach I am strongly opposed to.

I don't support Republicans because the party is fundamentally more honest but because I agree with them on more issues. I don't believe Democrats have been honest enough to make that a fundamental argument (there are some bias questions on what statements are interesting enough to merit fact-checking but even then an 46 percent failure rate isnt that impressive) although there may be an opening in that direction. It seems unlikely for a variety of reasons (difficulty of maintaining the necessary level of party discipline, the likely blowback to admitting politically inconvenient truths.)

I do make process arguments, which should be politically neutral (whatever standard is articulated should be applied to both sides.) There are two reasons here. First, we're more likely to get to common ground when the metrics are factual. Second, if you guys are following in the footsteps of Republicans I don't like I'll point out the shared errors. The current status quo isn't certain to last.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Speaking Out on Gay Rights and Corruption Costs Ambassador His Job

I'm just speaking out of my ass but I think they've believed this since the '90s.

[jetengine]

All your doing Mets is a poor job of explaining why you follow a party 99% percent horrible. Like if they kept a veneer of respectability like say the Tory party does then we might be able to say "Well your just being duped" but their pretty open about how horrible they are and have been for the last 5 years.

[aja_christopher]

I am always concerned about truth. I believe we all should be concerned about truth. In the past I have expressed my concerns about tribalism and the idea that what matters isn't about being right but about being on the right side, an approach I am strongly opposed to.

I don't support Republicans because the party is fundamentally more honest but because I agree with them on more issues.

If you were really always concerned about truth, you wouldn't support a party that you know lies on key issues, such as tax cuts, deficits and climate change.

Your second statement gets to the core of the issue: that you are willing to overlook "routine" Republican dishonesty as long as it serves your purposes.

Which -- again -- is exactly why individuals such as Trump prosper within said party.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Tulsi Gabbard and the Return of the Anti-Anti-Trump Left

She's inching closer to proving Hillary's 'Russian grooming' comment being true.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

White Evangelicals Are Terrified That Liberals Want to Extinguish Their Rights

Yeah, their “rights” to discriminate against gays, minorities, the poor, immigrants of color and religions other than Christianity, especially Islam. All those two faced bible thumpers aren’t fooling anyone.

[Malvolio]

Honestly if Trump was a generic republican I don't think he could lose on this economy. The only reason this is a contest is because Trump is Trump. Even if he wins, does anyone doubt for a second it will be close?

I take no joy in saying this, but if Trump were removed from office via the impeachment process and Pence were to become the candidate, all he would need to say to win the election would be, "1. The economy is fine, and 2. I will tweet a lot less than Trump does."

[Malvolio]

I am always concerned about truth. I believe we all should be concerned about truth. In the past I have expressed my concerns about tribalism and the idea that what matters isn't about being right but about being on the right side, an approach I am strongly opposed to.

I don't support Republicans because the party is fundamentally more honest but because I agree with them on more issues. I don't believe Democrats have been honest enough to make that a fundamental argument (there are some bias questions on what statements are interesting enough to merit fact-checking but even then an 46 percent failure rate isnt that impressive) although there may be an opening in that direction. It seems unlikely for a variety of reasons (difficulty of maintaining the necessary level of party discipline, the likely blowback to admitting politically inconvenient truths.)

I do make process arguments, which should be politically neutral (whatever standard is articulated should be applied to both sides.) There are two reasons here. First, we're more likely to get to common ground when the metrics are factual. Second, if you guys are following in the footsteps of Republicans I don't like I'll point out the shared errors. The current status quo isn't certain to last.

But the Republicans are completely full of **** on those issues that you say you agree with them. They say they're for smaller government, but that really only applies to getting rid of regulations so that their corporate masters can get richer. When it comes to social issues like abortion or gay marriage, suddenly they want the government to expand its authority.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I take no joy in saying this, but if Trump were removed from office via the impeachment process and Pence were to become the candidate, all he would need to say to win the election would be, "1. The economy is fine, and 2. I will tweet a lot less than Trump does."

If it were that simple, Republicans would’ve jettisoned Trump after the Mueller Report came out, but it’s not. I’ve maintained for months now that Trump’s base are more loyal to him than to the GOP while Pence doesn’t move the needle with that cult even a little bit, and Republicans know it. Bottom line: If they lose Trump, they lose his base, and without that rabid support, they lose any chance at winning the election.