Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 26, 2015 1:04:03 GMT -5
In the meantime, Bernie and Hillary show with the least. If that's true, I weep for America.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 26, 2015 2:15:16 GMT -5
So you would rather have the liars. OK.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 26, 2015 2:22:18 GMT -5
I cannot seem to locate the politifact.com chart that was in today's Seattle Times that listed the candidates. This shows the percentage of 'factual' statements made by some of the candidates that have been judged mostly or entirely false. Here is a sampling of the top candidates: Ben Carson 23 statements 83% false Donald Trump 71 statements 75% false Ted Cruz 62 statements 66% false Marco Rubio 115 statements 39% false Hillary Clinton 138 statements 29% false Bernie Sanders 43 statements 28% false Read 'em and weep Virgil.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 26, 2015 2:27:51 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 26, 2015 3:52:00 GMT -5
So you would rather have the liars. OK. I'm not contesting your figures. I'm saying that if the best America can do is Hillary "one in every three things coming out of my mouth is a lie" Clinton, you've got a problem. And I'm guessing those figures don't even include the things the candidates say that aren't provably false but will turn out to be false anyway.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 26, 2015 4:52:23 GMT -5
Perhaps, but to be fair, that is still far superior to:
Two in every three Ted Three in every four Donald Five in every six Ben
Hard to argue with the math.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 26, 2015 4:56:09 GMT -5
In defense of Carson though, I don't really believe he is the worst liar of all. I just think he really is that stupid about subjects other than surgery.
Is that really defending him?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 26, 2015 9:23:22 GMT -5
Perhaps, but to be fair, that is still far superior to:
Two in every three Ted Three in every four Donald Five in every six Ben
Hard to argue with the math. "Superior" implies some degree of acceptability. A player's deck missing a third of its cards may be more integral than one missing two thirds of its cards, but I still wouldn't say the former is "superior".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 26, 2015 9:24:49 GMT -5
In defense of Carson though, I don't really believe he is the worst liar of all. I just think he really is that stupid about subjects other than surgery.
Is that really defending him? It depends on whether people mind stupidity more than they mind deceit.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 26, 2015 9:30:48 GMT -5
I cannot seem to locate the politifact.com chart that was in today's Seattle Times that listed the candidates. This shows the percentage of 'factual' statements made by some of the candidates that have been judged mostly or entirely false. Here is a sampling of the top candidates: Ben Carson 23 statements 83% false Donald Trump 71 statements 75% false Ted Cruz 62 statements 66% false Marco Rubio 115 statements 39% false Hillary Clinton 138 statements 29% false Bernie Sanders 43 statements 28% false Read 'em and weep Virgil. Since Hillary and Bernie only argue how much money they will throw at people for their vote, it is not hard to see why they score so well. Does not mean they are honest. Actually, I do believe Bernie is honest. He is a socialist and admits it. He also stuck to his view on gun control and did not back down. I give him credit for it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 26, 2015 9:45:50 GMT -5
Since Hillary and Bernie only argue how much money they will throw at people for their vote, it is not hard to see why they score so well. "Score so well" being a relative term. This touches on my biggest issue with the numbers, which is that they don't include untruths that can't immediately be exposed as untrue. Statements like "I will half the deficit.", "I will make America great again.", "I will limit lobbyist influence.", etc. For the candidates that have campaigned in previous elections, it would be interesting to see how many of their statements/promises ultimately proved to be untrue in addition to the ones that were provably untrue at the time they made them. The baseline percentages can only get larger.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 26, 2015 10:36:34 GMT -5
three (3) timesHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Perhaps if you had been waterboarded 100 times you might have a different opinion. Especially if it was not done by 'friendlies' which devalues it's effectiveness. According to U.S. Senator John McCain, "The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times... not only did the use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed; So, it works. Good.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 26, 2015 10:36:45 GMT -5
Hint: if McCain said it, it's probably wrong.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2015 11:35:21 GMT -5
liking Rubio more right now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2015 11:36:39 GMT -5
three (3) timesHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Perhaps if you had been waterboarded 100 times you might have a different opinion. Especially if it was not done by 'friendlies' which devalues it's effectiveness. According to U.S. Senator John McCain, "The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times... not only did the use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed; So, it works. Good. they got no actionable intelligence. the information KSM gave them was totally wrong. so, if spending money on wild goose chases, wasting resources, and compromising yourself morally is what you call working, then yeah, it worked.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2015 11:37:43 GMT -5
I cannot seem to locate the politifact.com chart that was in today's Seattle Times that listed the candidates. This shows the percentage of 'factual' statements made by some of the candidates that have been judged mostly or entirely false. Here is a sampling of the top candidates: Ben Carson 23 statements 83% false Donald Trump 71 statements 75% false Ted Cruz 62 statements 66% false Marco Rubio 115 statements 39% false Hillary Clinton 138 statements 29% false Bernie Sanders 43 statements 28% false Read 'em and weep Virgil. Since Hillary and Bernie only argue how much money they will throw at people for their vote, it is not hard to see why they score so well. Does not mean they are honest. Actually, I do believe Bernie is honest. He is a socialist and admits it. He also stuck to his view on gun control and did not back down. I give him credit for it. populism is big on both sides of the aisle. even Trump uses it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,212
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 26, 2015 12:12:33 GMT -5
Haven't had any music for awhile. Here is one of my favorites:
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 26, 2015 12:42:04 GMT -5
Perhaps, but to be fair, that is still far superior to:
Two in every three Ted Three in every four Donald Five in every six Ben
Hard to argue with the math. "Superior" implies some degree of acceptability. A player's deck missing a third of its cards may be more integral than one missing two thirds of its cards, but I still wouldn't say the former is "superior". Not necessarily. As a stand-alone adjective I would agree that it denotes a degree of at least acceptability if not exceptionalism. As a comparative, it denotes "better" more than anything else. Not a problem, though. Consider it to mean "far better than...." (And yes, the magnitude of difference between the numbers qualifies as "far better.)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2015 12:46:24 GMT -5
"Superior" implies some degree of acceptability. A player's deck missing a third of its cards may be more integral than one missing two thirds of its cards, but I still wouldn't say the former is "superior". Not necessarily. As a stand-alone adjective I would agree that it denotes a degree of at least acceptability if not exceptionalism. As a comparative, it denotes "better" more than anything else. Not a problem, though. Consider it to mean "far better than...." (And yes, the magnitude of difference between the numbers qualifies as "far better.) yeah, i would say telling the truth 4x as often qualifies as "far better".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 26, 2015 12:52:28 GMT -5
In defense of Carson though, I don't really believe he is the worst liar of all. I just think he really is that stupid about subjects other than surgery.
Is that really defending him? It depends on whether people mind stupidity more than they mind deceit. I hate both, and will not voluntarily have anything to do with either one. I can at least hope that the deceitful person will be doing intelligent things, even if he doesn't want me to know about them. The stupid person has to luck into doing something intelligent, but on the other hand may arguably be less dangerous.
One thing for certain: The majority of the public can at least relate to "stupid." (Though they likely don't realize that is what they are doing....)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 26, 2015 13:31:51 GMT -5
"Superior" implies some degree of acceptability. A player's deck missing a third of its cards may be more integral than one missing two thirds of its cards, but I still wouldn't say the former is "superior". Not necessarily. As a stand-alone adjective I would agree that it denotes a degree of at least acceptability if not exceptionalism. As a comparative, it denotes "better" more than anything else. Not a problem, though. Consider it to mean "far better than...." (And yes, the magnitude of difference between the numbers qualifies as "far better.) I realize "superior" is synonymous with "better" here. I'm emphasizing the existence of a threshold beyond which compromised is compromised and defunct is defunct. For instance, I would think it fair to say that, all other things being equal, a car with one missing headlight is superior to a car with two missing headlights. I would not, however, characterize a car smashed by a wrecking ball as superior to a car smashed twice by a wrecking ball. Hence the term "totaled", as in "total write-off". Beyond the threshold of salvageability. One totaled car is neither superior nor inferior to any other totaled car. A politician who provably lies a third of the time (and heaven knows how much the percentage would go up if we included empty promises) is well beyond the "total write-off" line for me. Hence our disagreement over the use of the word "superior".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2015 13:34:42 GMT -5
Not necessarily. As a stand-alone adjective I would agree that it denotes a degree of at least acceptability if not exceptionalism. As a comparative, it denotes "better" more than anything else. Not a problem, though. Consider it to mean "far better than...." (And yes, the magnitude of difference between the numbers qualifies as "far better.) I realize "superior" is synonymous with "better" here. I'm emphasizing the existence of a threshold beyond which compromised is compromised and defunct is defunct. For instance, I would think it fair to say that, all other things being equal, a car with one missing headlight is superior to a car with two missing headlights. I would not, however, characterize a car smashed by a wrecking ball as superior to a car smashed twice by a wrecking ball. Hence the term "totaled", as in "total write-off". Beyond the threshold of salvageability. One totaled car is neither superior nor inferior to any other totaled car. A politician who provably lies a third of the time (and heaven knows how much the percentage would go up if we included empty promises) is well beyond the "total write-off" line for me. Hence our disagreement over the use of the word "superior". must be great living in such a black and white world.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 26, 2015 13:58:04 GMT -5
I realize "superior" is synonymous with "better" here. I'm emphasizing the existence of a threshold beyond which compromised is compromised and defunct is defunct. For instance, I would think it fair to say that, all other things being equal, a car with one missing headlight is superior to a car with two missing headlights. I would not, however, characterize a car smashed by a wrecking ball as superior to a car smashed twice by a wrecking ball. Hence the term "totaled", as in "total write-off". Beyond the threshold of salvageability. One totaled car is neither superior nor inferior to any other totaled car. A politician who provably lies a third of the time (and heaven knows how much the percentage would go up if we included empty promises) is well beyond the "total write-off" line for me. Hence our disagreement over the use of the word "superior". must be great living in such a black and white world. I would settle for a politician who told 10 or fewer demonstrable lies in 100 statements. Hence 10% is my threshold. This wouldn't include statements made out of ignorance on politically inconsequential topics. For example, I wouldn't count Dr. Carson's theories about the Egyptian pyramids or Ms. Clinton's faux southern accent as "lies". Anything beyond 10% is sufficient evidence to conclude that a politician has no qualms about lying for sake of expediency. Precisely how much (s)he lies is (I'm guessing) limited by how divorced his/her policies are from what a given audience wants to hear, and by what (s)he figures the public will believe. That may matter to you, but to me anything beyond 10% is pure black. 0% is white. 1% to 10% are shades of gray.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 26, 2015 14:01:16 GMT -5
I was positive the righties would come up with all kinds of rhetoric re: this liars chart. When your leading candidates are liars perhaps the real lying starts with one's self.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2015 14:19:39 GMT -5
must be great living in such a black and white world. I would settle for a politician who told 10 or fewer demonstrable lies in 100 statements. Hence 10% is my threshold. This wouldn't include statements made out of ignorance on politically inconsequential topics. For example, I wouldn't count Dr. Carson's theories about the Egyptian pyramids or Ms. Clinton's faux southern accent as "lies". Anything beyond 10% is sufficient evidence to conclude that a politician has no qualms about lying for sake of expediency. Precisely how much (s)he lies is (I'm guessing) limited by how divorced his/her policies are from what a given audience wants to hear, and by what (s)he figures the public will believe. That may matter to you, but to me anything beyond 10% is pure black. 0% is white. 1% to 10% are shades of gray. arbitrary, but dark gray rather than black. congratulations.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 26, 2015 14:20:14 GMT -5
must be great living in such a black and white world. I would settle for a politician who told 10 or fewer demonstrable lies in 100 statements. Hence 10% is my threshold. This wouldn't include statements made out of ignorance on politically inconsequential topics. For example, I wouldn't count Dr. Carson's theories about the Egyptian pyramids or Ms. Clinton's faux southern accent as "lies". Anything beyond 10% is sufficient evidence to conclude that a politician has no qualms about lying for sake of expediency. Precisely how much (s)he lies is (I'm guessing) limited by how divorced his/her policies are from what a given audience wants to hear, and by what (s)he figures the public will believe. That may matter to you, but to me anything beyond 10% is pure black. 0% is white. 1% to 10% are shades of gray. If we had a smarter public, their lies would not work. They lie BECAUSE it works, as you were implying. I would have argued that much of what they do is spin, but the apparent qualification with the Politifact numbers was that even half-true counted as true. That makes the numbers shameful.
Not a surprise at all though that the Republican Party candidates are far more likely to make false claims or statements than their opponents. With so much reliance on right-wing media many of their voters can't tell what the truth is any more, so why bother telling it?
My respect for politicians goes way up if they tell the truth no matter who the audience is. If they are consistent in their positions whether the audience wants to hear it or not. Bernie Sanders this year, John Anderson in 1980, too few others....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2015 14:29:55 GMT -5
I would settle for a politician who told 10 or fewer demonstrable lies in 100 statements. Hence 10% is my threshold. This wouldn't include statements made out of ignorance on politically inconsequential topics. For example, I wouldn't count Dr. Carson's theories about the Egyptian pyramids or Ms. Clinton's faux southern accent as "lies". Anything beyond 10% is sufficient evidence to conclude that a politician has no qualms about lying for sake of expediency. Precisely how much (s)he lies is (I'm guessing) limited by how divorced his/her policies are from what a given audience wants to hear, and by what (s)he figures the public will believe. That may matter to you, but to me anything beyond 10% is pure black. 0% is white. 1% to 10% are shades of gray. If we had a smarter public, their lies would not work. They lie BECAUSE it works, as you were implying. I would have argued that much of what they do is spin, but the apparent qualification with the Politifact numbers was that even half-true counted as true. That makes the numbers shameful.
Not a surprise at all though that the Republican Party candidates are far more likely to make false claims or statements than their opponents. With so much reliance on right-wing media many of their voters can't tell what the truth is any more, so why bother telling it?
My respect for politicians goes way up if they tell the truth no matter who the audience is. If they are consistent in their positions whether the audience wants to hear it or not. Bernie Sanders this year, John Anderson in 1980, too few others....
there is another aspect of the WIV (wrong information voter) that bears mentioning. studies have shown that a significant number (it is either a plurality or outright majority) of conservatives "single source" their news. this means that they are only relying on one perspective. if the news is being mis-reported, or is factually wrong, there is no way for them to know that. so, the rumor gets taken as fact, and is breezily repeated by candidates, who either also know it is false, or know that their audience doesn't know. this is actually how it works in communist countries. but i guess that is OK if it wins the election, eh?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 26, 2015 14:40:47 GMT -5
Bills, Thanks for that reminder. I pulled the CD and cranked that sucker up although donnadub and Dubette #1 were not real happy about that!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 26, 2015 14:43:16 GMT -5
True, dj, and also a reason why conservatives like to crow about the ratings of Fox News always dwarfing any other (and especially liberal) media outlet. But they mischaracterize the whole argument by doing so. Conservatives in general are content to find one outlet that supports their views or biases. Liberals...aren't. Ratings for any particular outlet will be lower because nobody depends on one source. They are far more likely to synthesize various viewpoints from various sources to come up with a coherent (to them) point of view. It is also why most will be closer to the truth, since they are not being dominated by one source which may be (and in most cases IS) provably wrong more often.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 26, 2015 15:03:29 GMT -5
What an absolutely astounding lack of class!! Trump tries to defend his lies by mocking a reporter with disabilities. American politics have turned into trailer park reality show. I guess Trump hates the disabled almost as much as he hates American prisoners of war. Disgusting.
|
|