All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[aja_christopher]

If you knew a guy that out-right lied to you 24% of the time, you'd call him a habitual liar, and so would everyone else who knows him. No one would take anything he says seriously.

No -- I'd say he's someone who lies about 24% of the time, which is the truth.

That also means he's not making blatantly "false" statements 76% of the time, which would make him more trustworthy than not.

Conversely, you have Republicans making blatantly false statements (lying) more than half the time at 56%.

That's who I wouldn't trust.

That said -- using your logic, I'm sure you don't trust anything the Republicans have to say.

[numberthirty]

No -- I'd say he's someone who lies about 24% of the time, which is the truth.

That also means he's not making "false" statements 76% of the time, which would make him more trustworthy than not.

Conversely, you have Republicans making false statements more than half the time at 56%.

That's who I wouldn't trust.

Any reasonable person wouldn't trust either.

If you were babysitting a kid, you wouldn't tell the kid "You can play with matches as long as you are not doing it 76% of the time. Playing with them only about a quarter of the time doesn't make you a potential fire bug that I should be worried about."

[aja_christopher]

Any reasonable person wouldn't trust either.

Pardon me if -- based on past experiences -- I don't equate your logic with reason.

The bottom line is that the Republicans are the ones who routinely lie while there is absolutely no evidence that Democrats do the same.

This attempt at "both sides" false equivalency is rooted in bias, not fact.

It's also the standard way of deflecting from discussing in detail the completely unethical behavior of the modern Republican party.

[numberthirty]

Pardon me if -- based on past experiences -- I don't equate your logic with reason.

The bottom line is that the Republicans are the ones who routinely lie while there is absolutely no evidence that Democrats do the same.

This attempt at "both sides" false equivalency is rooted in bias, not fact.

Again...

If you had a neighbor who slashed you tires right in front of you every fourth day, you would rightly say "This neighbor is a hassle. He routinely slashes my tires right in front of me."

That reality would not change if you had another neighbor who was throwing a brick through your window three out of every four days.

[TheManInBlack]

No -- I'd say he's someone who lies about 24% of the time, which is the truth.

There is no person on earth who wouldn't call a man who outright lies 24% of the time and makes up half-truths almost as often a habitual liar. You're being absurd and resorting to desperate whataboutism. Yes, the Republicans are generally worse. So what?

A person who outright lies 24% of the time is an untrustworthy habitual liar. Period. The level of cognitive dissonance necessary to claim otherwise is astronomical.

[aja_christopher]

Again...

If you had a neighbor who slashed you tires right in front of you every fourth day, you would rightly say "This neighbor is a hassle. He routinely slashes my tires right in front of me."

That reality would not change if you had another neighbor who was throwing a brick through your window three out of every four days.

We're not discussing people slashing tires -- we're discussing politicians making false statements.

If you think it's better to criticize the party that lies 24% of the time instead of the one that lies 56% of the time, then go ahead.

That's what you do, regardless.

There is no person on earth who wouldn't call a man who outright lies 24% of the time and makes up half-truths almost as often a habitual liar. You're being absurd and resorting to desperate whataboutism. Yes, the Republicans are generally worse. So what?

You don't get to speak for me and tell me what I would call someone who lies 24% of time.

Again, I'd call them exactly what they are: someone who lies 24% of the time.

If you want to support the party that lies 56% of the time, then do it, but don't try to act like I have to think like you do, because I don't.

Speaking of which, the "whataboutism" involved Mets bringing up the Democrats when told that Republicans routinely lied.

Both sides lie enough that decisions on who to vote for should typically be based on something other than trustworthiness. I know that Republicans routinely lie, as do Democrats. As did Obama.

It's the typical Republican tactic of projection -- something the both of you have in common.

[zinderel]

*sigh*

With tax cuts, the benefit is that people have more money to spend as they choose.

Which would be AWESOME! Except you and I BOTH know that the only people who benefit from Republican tax breaks are the super wealthy, who then hoard it in offshore accounts or spend it on luxuries rather than actually putting the money back into the economy. You want people to have more money to spend as they please? Tax the super wealthy at the rate they were taxed before Republicans stripped all of those taxes away to appease their primary donor class. Get that money back into the actual economy, not trading hands back and forth at auction houses, or traded amongst ‘friends’ on ridiculous luxuries, or on buying politicians, or on the stock market where it all becomes make believe money that only enriches the few.

I'm not a fan of record deficits, although that's a bipartisan problem. The main argument is that it's more important to spend the money now, especially at a time of low interest rates, than to raise taxes and cut spending enough to reduce the deficit and the debt.

If you aren’t a fan of record deficits, then why do you continue to support the party whose policies have given us every major record deficit in living memory? War without end, payoffs to rich donors, zero regulations on banks or the investor class, wage and benefits cuts across all sectors to enrich the boss who does nothing for the economy at the expense of the worker who can no longer take part in the economy, all causing EVERY record deficit in my lifetime, and likely before as well.

With climate change, the argument is that the costs of preferred left-wing policies are too expensive and limit the quality of life for ordinary Americans, and that we've made gains in energy efficiency and emissions reductions, largely due to a policy the left wing doesn't like: switching to less carbon-intensive fuels like natural gas.

The costs ARE prohibitive to switch from the toxic fossil fuel addiction we have been stuck in for so long, you’re right.

PROHIBITIVE TO THE PEOPLE WHO DEAL IN POISONING THE PLANET. So who gives a CRAP if Exxon/Mobil goes bankrupt and their investors and CEOS go broke?! “Oh no! How sad! They can’t actively strangle the planet to death anymore while making disgusting amounts of money! How sad!”

Meanwhile, the long term returns on investing in NEW, non-planet-killing energy sources are fantastic! Your kids get to have a future, for one. But if that isn’t enough for you, Investing in and supporting new energy sources means new jobs and a new basis for our economy that can be regulated from the start to ensure that it doesn’t benefit terrorist enabling nations like Saudi Arabia or greedy shitbags like Dick Cheney over everyone else who has to live on the planet, too. In the short term, yes, fossil fuel reliant industry will face high costs, and that might mean that their investors and CEOs will have to sell one of their five houses or hold off on buying a twelfth Aston Martin, but they’ll live. Especially if we make sure we put regulations back in place that protect their workers and enforce things like ‘safety standards’ and ‘job security’ and ‘living wages for workers’...

With voter suppression, the main argument is that claims are largely exaggerated. Democrats are pushing for changes that they believe will benefit them politically (IE- restoring voting rights to felons.) There is also an ugly history of rampant fraud in living memory, so that is going to influence the views of policy-holders, even if it's not as big a problem now.

Meanwhile, Republicans purge voter rolls routinely, shut down voting centers in ‘urban’ neighborhoods, add hurdles to the voting process that adversely affect the poor far more than they affect the wealthy, oppose any sort of attempt at making Voting Day a national holiday with easy access to secure, easy-to-use, uniform voting systems. Republicans instead keep pushing for digital voting machines owned and operated by Republican donors and hackable with barely any effort and zero accountability. Republicans keep gerrymandering their districts to make sure that they never lose their money flow, and resist every attempt at creating non partisan districts based on population SIZE instead of population ‘loyalty’.

But yeah, ‘exaggeration’ is just as bad as all of that.

As for foreign interference, I think you are probably right. We should just ignore all the evidence that Russia is, and has been, engaged in destabilizing nations they despise (not just us) with propaganda, social media manipulation, and outright bribery and assassinations. By acknowledging these things and trying to put a stop to them, we only gives Russia what they REALLY want, which is just attention, not the complete destabilization and corruption or destruction of longtime enemy nations through undermining their citizens faith in their governments, the functionality of said governments, and the creation of a massively divided electorate in those nations. There’s no way that strategy would work better than the old threat of nuclear war that got them nowhere...

What could possibly go wrong?

[Jack Dracula]

No one knows anyone who is completely honest 100% of the time because doing so is not possible.
Taking that into account, lying 24% isn't bad.
It seems some of you are trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good here.

[numberthirty]

We're not discussing people slashing tires -- we're discussing politicians making false statements.

If you think it's better to criticize the party that lies 24% of the time instead of the one that lies 56% of the time, then go ahead.

That's what you do, regardless.

"Better..." has nothing to do with it.

I don't need to create some nonsensical scenario where someone who lies almost a quarter of the time does not actually lie routinely so that I can reasonably point out that someone who lies more than half of the time is the one who lies more routinely.

[Celgress]

...Do you have a link about this?

Nope, but I saved it on an old hard drive maybe I'll upload it (if I get the time). If I do I bet CNN will yank it down for copyright infringement and have my Youtube account (which is tied to my main Google Account I use in real life) suspended. No offense Mets but I'm not sure I should take such a risk just to "prove" something to you (or anyone else for that matter).

Edit - I was simply telling a personal experience that impacted my life not trying to make any sort of point beyond that.

[worstblogever]

No one knows anyone who is completely honest 100% of the time because doing so is not possible.
Taking that into account, lying 24% isn't bad.
It seems some of you are trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good here.

By Politifact's measurables, they're putting it that Republicans lie at a rate two and a half times the Democrats...

But when you look at "Pants on Fire" stats... it's far, far worse. It's like 10X. It's almost like the GOP are gaslighting the country, or something.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

By Politifact's measurables, they're putting it that Republicans lie at a rate two and a half times the Democrats...

But when you look at "Pants on Fire" stats... it's far, far worse. It's like 10X. It's almost like the GOP are gaslighting the country, or something.

The GOP became a party of lying, sociopathic bastards, and that was before Trump came down that escalator to kick up the ugliness to levels unknown.

[AnakinFlair]

A couple of days ago I checked out the History Channel and saw a Documentary on the Johnston Flood. The documentary was half over, but I still watched it for a whie until i saw the first Talking Head, which, to my disappointment, was Trump (per-election). I changed the channel.

Trump bought his cameo role on Home Alone 2 by getting the producers to use his hotel as a filming location. Aside from the occasional interview related to his presdency, and the Apprentice, Trump has never done anything on film that was worth the preserving.

Why the hell was Trump talking about the Johnston Flood?

Oh, and it bears saying:

everybodylies.jpg

[Tami]

Pathological Lying: Symptom or Disease?

What to know about pathological liars

The psychological reasons why some people can't stop lying

The Art of Lying

[Theleviathan]

No one knows anyone who is completely honest 100% of the time because doing so is not possible.
Taking that into account, lying 24% isn't bad.
It seems some of you are trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good here.

Progressives kick ass at that!

I love all these lame analogies though. It's as if people cant recognize that, yes, Democrats lie (nature of politics) but Republicans are on a whole different scale. Yeah, that dude slashing your tires is irritating....these other mother fuckers are trying to burn your house down, salt the earth, and frame you for doing it. Yeah, both criminal acts. Not in the same ballpark.

AJA is right, why cling to such an obvious false equivalency unless you are trying to make excuses?