Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So the lies perpetuated by the liberal media are 👆 to you, yet the ones who believe them are the smart ones, and the ones who don't are the stupid ones?
Yeah. LOL. That's what they think. As I've said before, liberals live in some kind of Bizarro World where wrong is right and stupid is smart. 😂
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So the lies perpetuated by the liberal media are 👆 to you, yet the ones who believe them are the smart ones, and the ones who don't are the stupid ones?
The thing is, you paint everything you don't like as a 'media lie,' even the stuff that checks out like, Obamacare doing well in terms of coverage and budget (which doesn't mean you have to like it, but those are both objective areas in which it's done at least as well or better than promised), unemployment and economy numbers working fine, etc..
And meanwhile, if someone else actively lies about what was said or happened in order to attack Democrats, and are caught in it, you give 'em a pass.
Now, obviously no politician here has been entirely honest, just going to politifactcheck will tell you everyone has something on their "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" zone. But wailing, "How can you foolsss actually believe any liberal! You're so dumb!" while then, when pointing out that many of the attacks you're using are made up, just brush off those lies, comes across as pretty hypocritical.
Heck, here's a political lie for you- Donald Trump was a major proponent of Birtherism, a completely made-up attack.
If you're going to try and paint lies as the worst thing ever, it'd behove you to not be so one-sided about it, and even more it behoves you to stop backing any attack that itself turns out to be a clear lie. Otherwise you end up hurting your own credibility more than your target's.
Obama lied about the specifics of Obama care.
The guy who wrote Obama care was a liar and said it was a fraud.
Hilary lied about joining the marines, then politico Favricates a story about Carson.
Hilary Clinton is and was the grandmother of the birthers. She started it.
Why can't we be honest and put the blame were it is deserved.
If you wanna blame republicans, I'm fine with it, but let's not be bias.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama lied about the specifics of Obama care.The guy who wrote Obama care was a liar and said it was a fraud.
Yea, it turned out it was better than the one-line comment about 'keeping your plan' said. In truth, if your plan truly sucked, you moved to a better one.
You find this damning for some reason, but it's not really minus in practical terms.
Hilary lied about joining the marines, then politico Favricates a story about Carson.Hilary Clinton is and was the grandmother of the birthers. She started it.
Nope, wrong on multiple counts as we've discussed before. It started with a prior opponent of Obama's in a minor race, someone on Hillary's staff floated it, but at no point did Hillary endorse it. To repeat, at *no* point did Hillary Clinton ever say she believed Barack Obama was from another country, or a muslim, or what have you. That is factual.
Meanwhile, major republicans supported it for years, including Trump, which is noticably more major. If you're holding it against Hillary, shouldn't you hold it against Trump more? If you are merely commenting on my POV, why would you think I should not count it far worse against the people who embraced it and encourage it rather than those who didn't?
Time, why do you think repeating inaccurate things we personally have discussed before wand you should know is factually incorrect- and is definitely uneven and includes far worse conduct by the Republicans- will work?
Why can't we be honest and put the blame were it is deserved.
Good question, how come when you find out an attack is mislading, inaccurate, or true-but-not-actually-bad, you keep on trumpeting it as a horrible thing and ignore all information that indicates it's either not what you thought, that your side is also engaging in it at least as much or, in the case of the birther thing, far more, or similar?
Why is it you actively mispresent things, even to people who've hashed out the facts with you before and you know isn't going to fall for a misrepresentation?
If you wanna blame republicans, I'm fine with it, but let's not be bias.
Ok, how about I blame them in direct proportion to what they do, rather than, as you insist, blaming Democrats massively for minor things or misrepresentations-of-things-that-turned-out-better, while giving Republicans passes for things they actively pursued and embraced for years?
How about I blame Hillary for a minor miscommunication post-Benghazi, and blame you for actively lying about what happened in the events themselves, and blame the Republicans for turning what should have been a serious investigation into a political farce- which still found no evidence she was responsible for the loss of life in Benghazi, and was not even in charge of security?
If you wanna talk bias and equivalency, you've got a whole lot of catching up to do. If you try and accuse someone of bias while actively presenting falsehoods, including on the subjects you're trying to call bias on, you're the one who ends up showing the most bias, by a good margin.
By the way, I'm surprised there's been no response to this post:
Originally posted by Q99
They do?His economic trade policies bear strong resemblence to those of Herbert Hoover's.
"The tariff act they wrote was initially meant to benefit farmers. But after the shock of 1929, industry and labor demanded protection as well. Both Hoover and the Republican Congress were compliant. In its final form Smoot-Hawley covered some 20,000 items. The average tariff on dutiable goods jumped to 50% from an already high 25%. U.S. trading partners responded in kind and world trade began to shut down.
U.S. exports dived to $1.7 billion in 1933 from $5.2 billion in 1929. Farmers’ share of the $3.5 billion in lost business was $1 billion. "
Restrictive trade policies are what presided over the first half of the Great Depression- the half where jobs and GDP were going down.
Here's a pro-Trump article trumpeting his anti-trade message, and here is an old article about how he wanted a 25% tariff on China, it's been a long-term goal of his, and it is *dangerous*.
His TV shows are no minus, and a business background can work just fine. It is his policies that concern me. Herbert Hoover was possibly the least-economically-successful US president ever, due to his anti-trade policies, so I am pretty darn leery of someone pushing for similar restrictions.
Btw, some may recall this is also my objection to Bernie Sanders- while not as protectionist as Trump, he does oppose trade pacts too.
It's an issue I'll disagree with, and which will drastically lower any chance of support of, no matter what side someone is, and even if I personally like them (like Bernie).
And on the subject of biasness/truthfulness in general-
This is politifact.com. It is associated with no party and no major news organization. It can and has called people of every party liars when they lie, honest when they tell the truth, and has also won awards for it's quality journalism.
Everyone here can use it.
When biasness and the subject of honest comes up in the future, I'm going to be tempted to just link to it. We don't have to rely on our opinions, there are literal non-partisan researchers to deliver a non-partisan fact check.
Originally posted by Q99
Yea, it turned out it was better than the one-line comment about 'keeping your plan' said. In truth, if your plan truly sucked, you moved to a better one.You find this damning for some reason, but it's not really minus in practical terms.
Nope, wrong on multiple counts as we've discussed before. It started with a prior opponent of Obama's in a minor race, someone on Hillary's staff floated it, but at no point did Hillary endorse it. To repeat, at *no* point did Hillary Clinton ever say she believed Barack Obama was from another country, or a muslim, or what have you. That is factual.
Meanwhile, major republicans supported it for years, including Trump, which is noticably more major. If you're holding it against Hillary, shouldn't you hold it against Trump more? If you are merely commenting on my POV, why would you think I should not count it far worse against the people who embraced it and encourage it rather than those who didn't?
Time, why do you think repeating inaccurate things we personally have discussed before wand you should know is factually incorrect- and is definitely uneven and includes far worse conduct by the Republicans- will work?
Good question, how come when you find out an attack is mislading, inaccurate, or true-but-not-actually-bad, you keep on trumpeting it as a horrible thing and ignore all information that indicates it's either not what you thought, that your side is also engaging in it at least as much or, in the case of the birther thing, far more, or similar?
Why is it you actively mispresent things, even to people who've hashed out the facts with you before and you know isn't going to fall for a misrepresentation?
Ok, how about I blame them in direct proportion to what they do, rather than, as you insist, blaming Democrats massively for minor things or misrepresentations-of-things-that-turned-out-better, while giving Republicans passes for things they actively pursued and embraced for years?
How about I blame Hillary for a minor miscommunication post-Benghazi, and blame you for actively lying about what happened in the events themselves, and blame the Republicans for turning what should have been a serious investigation into a political farce- which still found no evidence she was responsible for the loss of life in Benghazi, and was not even in charge of security?
If you wanna talk bias and equivalency, you've got a whole lot of catching up to do. If you try and accuse someone of bias while actively presenting falsehoods, including on the subjects you're trying to call bias on, you're the one who ends up showing the most bias, by a good margin.
Ah so you you turn the lies into "well he lied, but what happened ended up better then the lie."
If you wanna blame republicans for something like immigration, which you have in the past, it was the dems who had, house, senate, executive and SC and still could not get immigration reform passed.
Yet its the republicans fault.
You blamed Benghazi on the rino's yet, but they had nothing to do with it.
Thought I'd post this information here as well since immigration is a hot issue for the upcoming election. An appeals court has ruled against Obama's immigration plan to protect millions of illegals from deportation.
That is also millions of potential votes lost.