Obama has reneged on previous requirements of deal
He has gone back on his word yet again. This behavior of his is getting old and is becoming his signature hallmark:
http://americanprosperity.com/obama-pulls-bait-and-switch-forcing-america-to-cave-to-muslim-demands/
I'm shocked. Utterly shocked, I tell you. No waaaaay that Obama would break a promise or even go directly against one of his promises.
Obama has been nothing but the most honest president in US History.
Spoiler:
This is sarcasm for those who are not familiar with my strong distaste of Obama's absurd amount of lying. I'm salty over it because I expected lots of good things from in when he was elected in 2008.
Pfft.
Buahaha!
They're actually trying to spin this as a lie?
A deal in which Iran goes from 2-3 months from a nuclear weapon if they started aiming one, to a full year gap, plus much closer observation, constantly observation, for the next quarter century. And, if we don't have a deal? Then they literally have no restriction. Doing this deal doesn't help them get a nuclear weapon in any way. The eyes on their nuclear program purely increased.
That, friends, is what we call a 'good deal.'
Which, by the way, is by a deal involving half a dozen countries, not just the US, mostly our allies, who were all fine with this. It's not just Obama, he does not have the ability to just change it to what he wants, but as it is a good deal, Obama would be a fool not to accept it.
And, as for Obama's overall honestly? Let's go third-party non-partisan fact checker from a group that tracks political lies, Politifact.com, where you can even go to their breakdowns statement-by-statement and see exactly what every last call on true/false/lies is.
Obama's score?
True119 (21%)(119)
Mostly True143 (26%)(143)
Half True150 (27%)(150)
Mostly False65 (12%)(65)
False70 (13%)(70)
Pants on Fire9 (2%)
Well, definitely not 100% accurate, though that, notably, includes simply being 'wrong.' 47% in 'true.' Another 27% in 'half-true.' Only rarely blatantly lies, and leans more to true than not. Still, that's not great, right? Let's see how other politicans compare...
Boehner, Obama's closest to an opposite number right now.
True17 (25%)(17)
Mostly True4 (6%)(4)
Half True11 (16%)(11)
Mostly False13 (19%)(13)
False21 (31%)(21)
Pants on Fire2 (3%)
Oooh, not good! He's not even in Obama's league of honesty. 31% in true, another 16% in half true. The majority of what he says is more-than-half false.
31% in trues, 28% in half true... well, at least he breaks the 50% barrier of not-false statements. Barely.
Alas, they started after the Bush years, so we can't compare president to president (Bush, who notably had a campaign manager most famous for a strategy called 'the Big Lie,' Karl Rove), and they don't have many other big names with a lot of statements, but Obama actually seems to be above the curve in honesty.
And that's just statements.
Actual campaign promises?
Promise Kept
45%
Compromise
24%
Promise Broken
22%
Stalled
1%
In the Works
7%
The GOP Pledge-o-Meter?
Promise Kept
38%
Compromise
30%
Promise Broken
32%
Beats his rival party in promises kept by thirteen percent, and has ten percent lower broken promises.
And the Iran deal is certainly not an example of dishonesty- that article is. It conveniently leaves out that not doing the deal leaves Iran far closer to a nuclear weapon than doing it does.
And I really, really wonder at the motives of those who view 'Iran closer to nuclear weapons' as an acceptable factoid to leave out in their attacks on that matter, don't you?
So, you know, perspective.
And by that, I mean, "Don't listen to liars," and I'm not referring to Obama there.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The many vocal critics of the nuclear deal with Iran have proposed zero credible alternatives. Either they want war with Iran or they expect that extra bravado and continued sanctions will be enough to indefinitely curb Iran's ambitions.
Exactly.
The last one, the idea that extra bravado and doing the sanctions?
In the time that's been going on, Iran's time-to-nuke (if they want to start building, which I should note, they haven't actually done) has shrunk continuously from years to months.
Anyone who thinks 'stay the course and they'll cave to all demands' is going to happen is a moron. Why would "Keep doing what's continued to let Iran get closer to a nuke" be a good idea?
Anyone who wants a war is either a third party willing to sacrifice huge amounts of US lives and money for their own gain, or ignorant of the projected costs of the war.
And, I'll note, they do have really obvious non-military reasons to have a nuclear program: If they use it for power, then they can sell oil rather than using it up themselves. It also makes it much harder for their rivals, Saudi Arabia, to screw with them economically by messing with oil prices. So, yea, it makes perfectly rational sense for them to agree to a 'no bombs but atomic power ok,' deal, and really mean it and stick to it, because it helps their stability a lot.
Originally posted by Q99And, as for Obama's overall honestly? Let's go third-party non-partisan fact checker from a group that tracks political lies, Politifact.com, where you can even go to their breakdowns statement-by-statement and see exactly what every last call on true/false/lies is.
Obama's score?
True119 (21%)(119)
Mostly True143 (26%)(143)
Half True150 (27%)(150)
Mostly False65 (12%)(65)
False70 (13%)(70)
Pants on Fire9 (2%)Well, definitely not 100% accurate, though that, notably, includes simply being 'wrong.' 47% in 'true.' Another 27% in 'half-true.' Only rarely blatantly lies, and leans more to true than not. Still, that's not great, right? Let's see how other politicans compare...
Boehner, Obama's closest to an opposite number right now.
True17 (25%)(17)
Mostly True4 (6%)(4)
Half True11 (16%)(11)
Mostly False13 (19%)(13)
False21 (31%)(21)
Pants on Fire2 (3%)Oooh, not good! He's not even in Obama's league of honesty. 31% in true, another 16% in half true. The majority of what he says is more-than-half false.
I see your ok explaining out how its ok for politicians to lie as long as they lie less then others........................grats bro you should be the poster child for moral equivalence. Anyone in political office that lies should be kicked out of office, R or D I don't care it should be a zero tolerance policy.
Originally posted by snowdragon
I see your ok explaining out how its ok for politicians to lie as long as they lie less then others........................grats bro you should be the poster child for moral equivalence. Anyone in political office that lies should be kicked out of office, R or D I don't care it should be a zero tolerance policy.
You have to be realistic about this. In politics, idealism and a bucket of piss is worth the bucket of piss.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think you'd find the entire government would collapse if that were a policy.
There are a few people who don't. A few. Like...4 or 5 in the house and 1 or 2 in the senate. Very solid voting records based on their campaigns and platforms.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You have to be realistic about this. In politics, idealism and a bucket of piss is worth the bucket of piss.
Here's the deal: I think you and most everyone else thinks we have to settle for that. We don't. 🙂 They (honesty and getting things done in office) are not mutually exclusive.
We just have too many dishonest ones in office, currently.
Obama's problem is both the volume of lies and the severity of lies. An argument of relative lies is irrelevant. When you break some of your biggest campaign promises (you know, the stuff that got you lots of votes), that makes you a real scumbag politician. I'm okay with breaking some of the very small promises that are niche. But not the big ones that mattered.
But, even then, the small ones shouldn't be broken. It would be nice if a politician tried to keep all his/her promises and the ones they couldn't keep, it was due to others blocking it. I would rather see a "tried but blocked" in the Obameter than "broken."
I'm all about blaming the Republican shitheads for doing shitheaded Republican stuff (and Dems being shitheads, etc.). But Obama can't blame the vast majority of his broken promises on the GOP. He's just simply a liar who said shit to get elected.
Originally posted by snowdragon
I see your ok explaining out how its ok for politicians to lie as long as they lie less then others........................grats bro you should be the poster child for moral equivalence. Anyone in political office that lies should be kicked out of office, R or D I don't care it should be a zero tolerance policy.
One, note how a lot of that stuff is simply false. As in, 'the person is wrong,' but often not a deliberate lie. People can be wrong, you know.
Two, 'lying less is better than lying more' is... not exactly a radical thing? 'Lying significantly less,' the more so.
And it also doesn't get into the scale of things. There's a difference between lying about something important and not.
This topic? Obama didn't lying, people are lying about Obama.
Lies annoy you? On this issue, it makes more sense to be annoyed on Obama's behalf, not against him.
DaDudemon
Obama's problem is both the volume of lies and the severity of lies.
Yes, 'not all that often' and 'significantly less severe than his opponents.'
Remember when they lied about the Iran deal here? Because that's what's happening, Obama is being lied about.
Or when they lied during the health care negotiation as a matter of policy, pretending to be willing to compromise but stating internally that that was only as an attempt to sink the policy as a way to get at Obama?
If a side is caught lying all the freaking time, one should perhaps not take their word when they accuse someone else of lying.
When you break some of your biggest campaign promises (you know, the stuff that got you lots of votes), that makes you a real scumbag politician. I'm okay with breaking some of the very small promises that are niche. But not the big ones that mattered.
One, no president ever fulfills every promise because the president doesn't have control over every promise. Politics is about trying to get things done, but it's a joint effort to get things done. Some stuff, he's tried repeatedly and simply failed at.
Two, his biggest ones were stimulus, health care, and economic recovery. To which he... did, did, and did, all successfully.
If he was honest about his biggest promises, shouldn't that count in his favor?
Personally, I find "Do they help the country?" to be a better metric for judging a president as well, but he's kept his big ones.
I'm all about blaming the Republican shitheads for doing shitheaded Republican stuff (and Dems being shitheads, etc.). But Obama can't blame the vast majority of his broken promises on the GOP. He's just simply a liar who said shit to get elected.
Looking at his track record, that seems the opposite of true. He got his biggest goals done despite the opposition throwing everything they had to stop them, which made getting those promises done more politically-costly than expected, but he still did it.
69% either kept or some compromise.
If over 2/3rds isn't acceptable, where is your line?
And, importantly, do you think any modern president fulfills it? Because I'm pretty sure Obama beats GWB there by a margin, and probaly Clinton too.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I agree we should hold our leaders to higher standards, I just don't agree that it would be at all wise to demand every politician resign who so much as breathes a half-truth. I know you weren't making that argument, I'm still referring to the new guy.
Yes, what you'd end up with is people who have no idea whatsoever to run a government and who are so afraid of being caught out that they simply won't make statements.
And it does depend a lot on where you draw the line between 'wrong' and 'lies'.
Also, are people allowed to honestly change their mind? Because people changing their mind when they get new information is a good thing, but if you treat it as a lie, what's happening is you're punishing people for using their reasoning.
Obama didn't start pro-gay-marriage, but he came around. That's not a lie, that's a good thing.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
And as Orwell pointed out, even without telling a direct lie there are many ways to avoid the truth.
Right. Tell just what you want people to know. Allow them to infer the untrue parts. Avoid mentioning things you don't want people to know you're involved in at all.
I'd rather have someone say their intentions or hopes, even if they know things are likely to not turn out as planned. Obama wanted to close Gitmo. He's been stopped, repeatedly. But he did, in fact, try, repeatedly. Do I count this as a lie or a broken promise? Not so much, though one can count it as such. A failure, yes, but not due to being purposefully deceptive.
And, let's face it, with negotiating, you often have to start one place, then back off to a compromise position with your opposition, and this is not a bad thing, it's good, it's how multiple opposing sides can get stuff done.
The Tea Party refuses to compromise or change their position, and they produce horrible results as a result. You'd think this'd also make them the most honest party, but ironically it's anything but, they seem to act like words change the truth and are much more willing to flat-out make things up and misrepresent than their other Republican colleagues, but even if they weren't, their unwillingness to compromise or re-think things helps no-one, not their constituents, their nominal allies, or even themselves. It ends up being a way to be loud while accomplishing nothing and resulting in more failed promises.
Originally posted by dadudemon
An argument of relative lies is irrelevant. When you break some of your biggest campaign promises (you know, the stuff that got you lots of votes), that makes you a real scumbag politician. I'm okay with breaking some of the very small promises that are niche. But not the big ones that mattered.But, even then, the small ones shouldn't be broken. It would be nice if a politician tried to keep all his/her promises and the ones they couldn't keep, it was due to others blocking it. I would rather see a "tried but blocked" in the Obameter than "broken."
I'm all about blaming the Republican shitheads for doing shitheaded Republican stuff (and Dems being shitheads, etc.). But Obama can't blame the vast majority of his broken promises on the GOP. He's just simply a liar who said shit to get elected.
Dadudemon summed it up.
When you work for companies and if you were to tell lies about your job/performance/etc you would be well on your way to the shittiest resume in history filled with getting kicked to the shitter for not meeting expectations. The fact that ANYONE thinks politicians should be able to lie is simply dumbfounding given the job of PUBLIC servants.
We've been really lucky in the past 20 years to see politics change with invent of social media and while that allows for more information its also allowed for more lies or deliberate "half truths" to confuse.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Dadudemon summed it up.When you work for companies and if you were to tell lies about your job/performance/etc you would be well on your way to the shittiest resume in history filled with getting kicked to the shitter for not meeting expectations. The fact that ANYONE thinks politicians should be able to lie is simply dumbfounding given the job of PUBLIC servants.
We've been really lucky in the past 20 years to see politics change with invent of social media and while that allows for more information its also allowed for more lies or deliberate "half truths" to confuse.
See my above response on types of lies, being wrong vs actual lying, and yadda yadda.
And on the 'no judging relative ethics' argument ... should we simply not care when one side is relatively not just better, but *much* better than another?
This, ironically, sounds like a self-serving argument made to support those who lie more.
If you insist on perfection, and punish people who do better the exact same as you do those who do worse (or, judging by the target of this thread, aiming to punish them more), then not only won't you get perfection, but you aren't even incentivizing moving closer to it.
At some point, practicality has to factor in a little (the practicality of moving to the goal of less lying if nothing else).... and furthermore, if you focus overly on targeting the people who are doing less lying, them I'm going to think your motives are not to go after lying at all, but rather are a part of a biased move to support those who are lying more / targeting based on dislike on other reasons and simply trying to use lying as a not-so-strong excuse. Or in other words, a lie, for extra irony's sake.
The basis for your argument was leveraged on a position trying to show that another political figure lies more then our president.................so that makes the president OK.
I responded very specifically in a real world application in regards to working for normal folks. If you lie to your boss about performance or how you are managing a project or cost projections your fired or at the very least reprimanded and fired if you do it twice.
It seems you think politicians should not be held to that same level of accountability as every other working adult in the USA. That shows a HUGE flaw in our current system and in your ethical code of conduct as well.
Originally posted by Q99
Yes, 'not all that often' and 'significantly less severe than his opponents.'
Not only is this particular line of reasoning of yours irrelevant, it is also a red herring.
Your justification runs along the same line as, "Well, Pol Pot killed lots of Chinese people so I'm going to kill some, too." Obviously, that's not a very good justification.
Originally posted by Q99
Remember when they lied about the Iran deal here? Because that's what's happening, Obama is being lied about.Or when they lied during the health care negotiation as a matter of policy, pretending to be willing to compromise but stating internally that that was only as an attempt to sink the policy as a way to get at Obama?
Anything you bring up (and refer to as "they"😉 is irrelevant to my point. You'll never convince me out of believing that the GOP is full of scumbags. But at the same time, you'll not be able to convince me any more of it. Preaching, choir, etc. Regardless, that is irrelevant to my point.
Originally posted by Q99
If a side is caught lying all the freaking time, one should perhaps not take their word when they accuse someone else of lying.
That really doesn't matter. My point is not about the GOP lying about who is lying. It's literally about Obama lying and being absurdly obvious about it.
Originally posted by Q99
One, no president ever fulfills every promise because the president doesn't have control over every promise. Politics is about trying to get things done, but it's a joint effort to get things done. Some stuff, he's tried repeatedly and simply failed at.
Well:
1. That's woefully naive and skirts on the edge of missing my point, entirely.
2. I later state something that directly addresses your point, here: "I would rather see a "tried but blocked" in the Obameter than "broken." Additonally, when one of your campaign promises is transparency (to contrast against Bush when he ran in 2008), and you do the exact opposite and come off even shadier than Bush, that's pretty damn shitty. Come on, you've got to admit how shitty Obama has been considering his fundamental campaign promises.
Originally posted by Q99
Two, his biggest ones were stimulus, health care, and economic recovery. To which he... did, did, and did, all successfully.
No, they were not. His biggest campaign platforms were war, military, war, economy, and healthcare reform in 2008. This site lists out the top 3 reasons Obama won the Democratic Nomination:
But Obama had three crucial advantages that enabled him to eke out a narrow victory for the Democratic nomination. First, he was able to contrast his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq with Clinton's vote in 2002 to authorize the war before later turning against it. Second, although there was little difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues, Obama ran on a theme of change and Clinton on a theme of experience. In a year when the economy was steadily deteriorating, change was the more appealing theme, especially among Democratic voters. Third, while fighting Clinton in the thirty-nine primaries, Obama did not overlook the seventeen states and territories that, like Iowa, choose their national convention delegates through caucuses. He strongly out-organized Clinton in those contests, winning fourteen of seventeen caucuses. The delegates Obama won in the caucuses put him over the top. Clinton withdrew from the nominating contest on June 7.
http://millercenter.org/president/obama/essays/biography/3
During the general election, his platform can be better summarized with the following:
In his acceptance speech on the last night of the convention, Obama outlined the issues of his general election campaign. Among other things, Obama promised to "cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families," "end our dependence on oil from the Middle East .?.?. in ten years," "invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy," provide "affordable, accessible health care for every single American," close "corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help American grow," "end this war in Iraq responsibly and finish the fight against al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan," and allow "our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to visit the person they love in a hospital and live lives free of discrimination."
You may not be old enough to remember the news coverage or have watched the presidential debates but Obama's main focuses for his election were war, military, war, war, war, military, healthcare reform, and tax changes.
Obama literally picked up where Bush left off with the economic recovery efforts. Obama did worse than his promises or broke many military/war campaign promises. And the healthcare solution we have is not what he promised (and part of why I was okay with him being elected in 2008). He'd rather a true healthcare option get butchered by the GOP than deliver what he promised. I'd rather it failed entirely and to have him make a true effort to get us a universal option than to end up with the shit we have, now. Obama may have let his pride get in the way just to have a lasting/major legacy after his 2 terms? Who knows. But he failed on one of his big ones.
Originally posted by Q99
If he was honest about his biggest promises, shouldn't that count in his favor?
If. He has not been. This is one of my fundamental problems with him. If he was honest about it (you know, transparent, like he campaigned to be), I'd be able to accept some of his broken promises (but not all).
Originally posted by Q99
Personally, I find "Do they help the country?" to be a better metric for judging a president as well, but he's kept his big ones.
Just so you are aware of what you're implying, here, you're stating the following: "I don't care how much a politician lies to get elected. I don't care how many promises he/she makes and then breaks them. I only care if I can answer 'did they help the country?' with a 'yes.'"
Also, that question is quite a poor way to test whether or not someone is a good president. Let me put it this way, you could have probably been the US President since 2009 and I would have been able to answer that question of you with a "yes." It's quite simple to know why. The Office of The President is not really going to be allowed to fail in an atrocious manner.
Originally posted by Q99
Looking at his track record, that seems the opposite of true.
Let's be clear that you're saying that the opposite of the following statement is true:
"He's just simply a liar who said shit to get elected."
Regarding his major broken promises, what I said is true. That many of his major campaign talking points, he broke. The very small campaign promises? Who cares about those except the special interest groups he is doing favors for....it's the big ones. The ones that got my goat. The ones that have caused his approval rating to plummet and to cause people to regret voting for him. Literally, millions of American voters agree with me. Don't let KMC fool you into a false consensus.
Originally posted by Q99
He got his biggest goals done despite the opposition throwing everything they had to stop them, which made getting those promises done more politically-costly than expected, but he still did it.
I'm beginning to think that you will not fault Obama for anything no matter how obviously he broke a campaign promise.
No, some of his biggest goals were not met. That's like...the entire problem and why we are even talking. Obamacare is so far removed from what he had talked up in his campaign that I actually think it is worse than what we had before and it is not even close to a universal healthcare option. And this is not just my opinion. A majority of Americans still don't like Obamacare:
So there's one major campaign promise that woefully under-delivered. What about ending foreign wars? Nah...we have more military campaigns than when he took office. Libtards don't tell you that. Obama is one of the biggest war-mongering presidents in US History. Worse than Bush. Crazy, right? Why don't people talk about this? Sure, Bush lied to get us into Iraq but we knew what he stood for: he wanted war shit. Obama lied and talked about peace. It was such a big deal that he got a Nobel Peace Prize. I bet they regret that decision, now. haha
What about Obama's opposition to Gitmo and his disdain for it? What's that? He upheld and wallowed in it's existence? Cool. Why did we forget about the shameful creation and Obama's broken promise to close it?
Are we going to forget about the Obama assassinations? Obama likes to kill the shit out of people. Kill lists...Lots of war threats to Iran (childish)...drone strikes.
And what was Obama's comment about the number of innocents killed in his drone strikes? Literally, he said these are "not ... a huge number" of human lives. What in the actual f*ck? This is the guy whose knob you're polishing. I cannot even fathom justifying the killing a single innocent person and I come from a family of military servicemen (I'm an exception...seems almost all the males serve in the military in my family).
Okay, what about his War on Immigration? This is the opposite of what you'd expect from a liberal president. He's not very nice.
Okay, what about Tax Reforms that start taxing the rich more and the lower and middle class less? That was supposed to be a big deal. Obama even campaigned on the notion he'd repeal the major Bush tax breaks for the rich. Did that happen? Nah.
And the American people are displeased with all of his broken promises, too. Based on current polls, Romney would have comfortably won in 2012 if we had a do-over. That many people would change their votes.
But wait!!! What about his promises to end shit like the Patriot Act and spying on innocent Americans? That was a big one for me in 2008. NOPE! Obama has been stupid tough on whistleblowers, expanded the Patriot Act (went even further), and seems keen on shitting on the 4th amendment.
Originally posted by Q99
69% either kept or some compromise.If over 2/3rds isn't acceptable, where is your line?
Wait...31% is acceptable to you?
Q99, be my friend. You can trust me. I only lie 31% of the time about very important promises I make to you.
Originally posted by Q99
And, importantly, do you think any modern president fulfills it? Because I'm pretty sure Obama beats GWB there by a margin, and probaly Clinton too.
You assume that I like any modern US President. In fact, I do! I liked Clinton. To Clinton's credit, he didn't compromise on his universal healthcare proposal. Unfortunately, the bill died. But at least he didn't destroy his healthcare reform. I'd rather Obama have let the bill die than allow it to be torn to pieces like Obamacare is. Clinton broke one of his major promises: his tax reform for the middle class. That was one of his big mistakes/broken promises. Lemme see if I can find more on Clinton...Okay, Clinton promised to reform campaign finance and he didn't. Clinton also reversed his position on some human rights position he had on foreign policy.
This site says Clinton tried to keep 79% of his promises:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960818&slug=2344764
I cannot find anything from 2001-2002 time period that reviews all of Clinton's promises because I could have sworn he did eventually follow through with his tax reforms (undoing a major broken promise). Obama is getting the benefit of fulfilling some of his 2008 promises in his second term: his numbers were much worse when we were reviewing and discussing them in 2012.
Originally posted by Q99
Yes, what you'd end up with is people who have no idea whatsoever to run a government and who are so afraid of being caught out that they simply won't make statements.
I think this is a logical fallacy. It is an appeal to ignorance. This is kind of like a false dichotomy because you think it is one or the other when there is clearly a third option. I hinted at that with my reference to some upstanding congressional members who almost always stick to their guns. You may hate this but there is a reason Ron Paul is called "Dr. No" in congress. He votes no against almost everything that goes against his political platform. He is not perfect, however: he has broken some of his promises on his voting record. But if you review the areas in which he broke his promise, it becomes pretty hilarious to try and justify a Ron Paul Crucifixion:
An examination of Paul's record shows that although he usually adheres to his principle, he has sometimes voted for programs that aren't "expressly authorized" in the Constitution.For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday on the third Monday in January.
More recently, he voted to change federal law governing organ transplants to make it easier for people to receive donated kidneys. He voted to designate the Ellis Island Library as the "Bob Hope Memorial Library." And he voted to change federal law so the American flag would be displayed on Father's Day.
The Constitution discusses many things, but there's nothing that "expressly authorizes" organ transplant law, naming rights for libraries or flags on Father's Day.
When we sent the Paul campaign an e-mail asking for an explanation of these votes, spokesman Jesse Benton declined to discuss them in detail. He quibbled over whether the measures technically could be considered legislation. "Your argument over semantics sounds more like a fishing expedition than good journalism," he said.
But Ron Paul is an extreme example. He's not the best example, either, because of some of his extreme positions. Imagine a moderate with such a clean voting record? That's a pretty cool notion. That's quite a bit of integrity, no doubt. Where are those guys? Why aren't you holding people to higher standards? Why do you accept a 31% liar rate as being "pretty good and acceptable"?
Originally posted by Q99
And it does depend a lot on where you draw the line between 'wrong' and 'lies'.
No. Sorry. It really doesn't. We are not quibbling over MLK Day or Father's day flag accommodations like in Ron Paul's case. Those are extremely minor issues that really have no bearing on breaking promises and lying. I could definitely agree with your statement if we were discussing Ron Paul.
Originally posted by Q99
Also, are people allowed to honestly change their mind?
Yes and no. Yes, they are allowed to change their mind if they are wrong about a political position (and many poiticians have been expclitely wrong and did change their minds once they educated themselves: Newt Gingrich was grilled on one such example in the 2012 election and he spoke candidly about that...which I found refreshing. Al Gore did the same in 2000, iirc...I'm okay with changing your mind when you are clearly wrong). No, they are not supposed to change their mind about key campaign talking points that get them elected. Definitely not. That's worse than a slap in the face.
Originally posted by Q99
Because people changing their mind when they get new information is a good thing, but if you treat it as a lie, what's happening is you're punishing people for using their reasoning.
There are too many things wrong with your reasoning here to consider indulging it. Those things would be all of the broken campaign promises, for one. By now, it should be quite obvious that we are not dealing in gray areas or him having bad ideas where he changed his mind. That's almost not the case with anything we are talking about.
Originally posted by Q99
Obama didn't start pro-gay-marriage, but he came around. That's not a lie, that's a good thing.
If this is the only good talking point you can find that supports your previous statement...
But, if I were to deal with this topic, I think marriage should no longer be a legal institution (and only a private one that has no direct legal binding) and everyone deals in civil contracts. 🙂 This would make marriage purely ceremonial and/or religious. The legal union would be a contract. That'd solve the debate. 😄