The depraved state of US politics

[Pangloss]

... and she's sharing a ticket with a guy who's on death's doorstep.

 

No, he is not. And it's ironic that you're in here complaining about popular memes from Republicans while spreading one from Democrats yourself.

[iNow]

Slight difference. McCain being old, and more statistically likely to die, is a fact.

The stuff that Republicans have been spreading? Not facts.

 

 

Of course, how that fact is stated is important to perceptions, but he is old no matter how much you disagree with the tone and presentation of that statement.

[bascule]

No, he is not.

 

Statistically, he is.

 

Slight difference. McCain being old, and more statistically likely to die, is a fact.

 

Yep

 

And it's ironic that you're in here complaining about popular memes from Republicans while spreading one from Democrats yourself.

 

Mine are statistically likely. What the Republicans are spreading are deliberate and blatant distortions of truth.

 

The stuff that Republicans have been spreading? Not facts.

 

Indeed.

[ParanoiA]

Ok' date=' well I thought strategy was the focus, sorry. [/quote']

 

So do many Americans, and because of that, I weep for our country.

 

No, I meant your previous post. I thought your point was in reference to strategy - your OP seems to be all about strategy.

 

You know better than that. I won't sign on to your two party system this round because strategy means nothing to me. Only honest, sincere problem solving interests me. Neither the democrats nor republicans have anyone for me. They're both a dog and pony show.

 

Should Democrats succumb to the Republicans' level and collectively tow the party line, a party line distributed in the form of a talking points memo? Or should they continue to be independent thinkers and say what they truly believe?

 

The fact you ask this question proves you're interested in the strategy. You are part of the problem that you're bitching about.

 

I would love to hear what they believe. Democrats have been such a reactionary party in recent times. They don't have a position on anything nor share their position on anything until they have to, when the issue demands attention. That's a politically safe maneuver. In contrast, the republicans have been spouting their opinions and positions for quite a while now, so they appear more convicted, focused, and confident. You can disagree with their reasoning, but no one is wondering what they stand for.

Edited September 13, 2008 by ParanoiA

[bascule]

The problem is the Republicans picked a candidate purely for strategic reasons without seeming to care that she's pathetically underqualified

[ParanoiA]

The problem is the Republicans picked a candidate purely for strategic reasons without seeming to care that she's pathetically underqualified

 

That sounds like an accurate statement. It was all about strategy, that's for sure and the whole damn party loves it. We'll see how much they love it when Palin and Biden go toe to toe in the debates.

[Pangloss]

Slight difference. McCain being old, and more statistically likely to die, is a fact.

The stuff that Republicans have been spreading? Not facts.

 

Of course, how that fact is stated is important to perceptions, but he is old no matter how much you disagree with the tone and presentation of that statement.

 

More likely than Obama? Yes. More likely to die than not die during his term in office? No, he is not. And you posted the statistics on that yourself. So you are, above, participating in the same exaggeration as bascule, albeit in a less inflammatory manner. Why are you doing that?

 

And neither of these things what bascule said:

 

... and she's sharing a ticket with a guy who's on death's doorstep[/b'].

 

I hope you're not defending that comment, iNow.

 

 

Statistically' date=' he is.[/quote']

 

No, he is not. iNow posted statistics on this from the Social Security administration and statistical analysis in this thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=432253&postcount=81

 

Here's the link to the SSA page:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html#fn1

 

That shows that the average 72 year old man has a life expectancy of 12 years, and that he's roughly 85% likely to survive his first term and 68% likely to survive his second term, if he has one. You are not statistically right, you're statistically wrong, and more importantly, for you to imply that he's "on death's doorstep" is a heinous exaggeration.

 

And you're in here complaining about the exact same kinds of exaggerations coming from Republicans.

Edited September 13, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

I was saying, "Statistically more likely to die" than at any point previously in his life, than any other candidate, and more so than any other president ever.

 

While you are correct that actuarial tables give him a better chance at living than dying, his chance of dying is still quite large.

 

Statistics for the "average 72 year old man" hardly represent McCain since he will be in the most stressful office on the planet (just look at how Clinton and Bush both aged during their terms).

 

This all translates into Palins chances of becoming president being higher than they EVER should be (a chance which, in my mind, should be very close to zero).

 

 

Finally, Bascule can defend his own points. I speak for myself, and ask that you address me as an individual and my points specifically, as opposed to lumping me with some collective ideology and dismissing my arguments in the process of doing so.

[Pangloss]

So you aren't defending bascule's egregious exaggeration of your statistics, from 15% to "at death's door". Got it.

 

Most stressful, perhaps, but also arguably the most medically cared-for individual on the planet. And if the statics weren't significant then you shouldn't have posted them.

 

While you are correct that actuarial tables give him a better chance at living than dying, his chance of dying is still quite large.

 

It has to mean something that you prefer to say something like "quite large" instead of "15%" (one term) or "32%" (two terms). I think what it means is that you want people to think the number is larger than what it actually is. And since we're talking about lies and exaggerations in "the depraved state of US politics", I think that what I think of what you're doing is spot-on relevant to this thread.

 

If you don't like what's happening in American politics right now, stop cutting and pasting it.

 

---

line[/hr]

By the way, both Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush are now 84 years old, in spite of having served in "the most stressful office on the planet". Both continue to make personal appearances even decades after leaving office, and so far as I know neither is "at death's door".

Edited September 13, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[bascule]

And you're in here complaining about the exact same kinds of exaggerations coming from Republicans.

 

Fine Pangloss, comment retracted, now calm down.

[ParanoiA]

For what it's worth, Madison was arguably the most frail and sickly of the founding fathers yet he outlived them all. McCain does look that stubborn.

[john5746]

By the way, both Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush are now 84 years old, in spite of having served in "the most stressful office on the planet". Both continue to make personal appearances even decades after leaving office, and so far as I know neither is "at death's door".

 

 

Stress earlier in life would be different than stress at an older age. That's why you won't find to many 20 year olds dying from sex, while 70 year olds do.

 

But, it does look like McCain has some pretty good genes from his mom. I am more worried about his mental faculties, especially in a second term. Age is a discriminating factor - they have to be at least 35 years old.

[Pangloss]

Fine Pangloss, comment retracted, now calm down.

 

Thank you, I appreciate that.

[iNow]

The problem with the depravity is that we continue to let it happen... we the electorate. This is, I believe, why Pangloss agrees so much with the tone of the OP and also why he has pushed so hard to try to keep semantic and rhetorical license in check.

 

If only all voters would revolt against blatant falsehoods... If only people in America would wake up... We might actually get to focus our attention on the stuff that matters, instead of the distractions which don't, and issues would be allowed to take precedence over fact checks and corrections.

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-truth14-2008sep14,0,1376410.story

Analysts who have studied campaign rhetoric point out that rhetorical excess is hardly new. Plato railed against it 2,400 years ago. But even he might have been taken aback this year, particularly by the GOP ticket's recent comments and advertisements.

 

On Saturday, the McCain team was on the defensive after the Boston Globe reported that Palin's 2007 trip to Iraq, which the campaign had forwarded as evidence of foreign policy experience, was actually a trip to a Kuwait-Iraq border crossing. The campaign earlier had said the trip -- her only one outside North America -- included a visit to Ireland, but later acknowledged that was a refueling stop.

 

On Friday, McCain himself added to the list of untruths. He said on ABC's "The View" that his running mate would help him put a stop to congressional pork projects known as "earmarks," which are put into appropriations bills without the normal review procedures.

 

When co-host Barbara Walters noted that Palin herself has requested earmarks, McCain inaccurately responded, "No, not as governor she didn't."

 

In fact, she requested $198 million in earmarks this year as governor, atop millions more when she was mayor of the small town of Wasilla.

 

McCain also brushed back criticism of two misleading ads released by his campaign this week, one that attacked Obama on sex education and another that said he equated her with a pig. Both ads have been debunked by independent analysts. FactCheck called the sex education ad "simply false" and said along with others that Obama was talking about McCain's government reform strategy, not Palin, when he said the campaign was putting "lipstick on a pig."

 

On "The View," co-host Joy Behar asked McCain about the ads, calling them "lies."

 

"Actually they are not lies," McCain replied.

[Pangloss]

Interesting post, iNow. I read a little about the View thing yesterday and my reaction was "gee, how oddly insightful and informative for that crowd". A bit of a shibboleth on my part -- I don't mean to sound sexist, but I don't have a whole lot of respect for the "Sex in the City" segment of our society (as demonstrated by any movie in which women are depicted dancing together in a kitchen and/or lamenting about The Evils Men Do). But that story gave me pause and I wondered if I should reconsider my perspective a bit.

 

But that quote is a perfect illustration of what you're talking about, because it's so clear that in our current, highly-charged state we're not only more prone to extreme rhetoric, we're also more prone to extreme reaction. Not that I'm suggesting Behar was wrong in calling them "lies", but rather it's (a) stunning that she would say that to a presidential candidate (good on her), and (b) stunning that he would defend them.

 

The point being that maybe we need to take our newfound confrontational political skills and turn them back on the memes that put us here in the first place. It's difficult to be fair with this -- I can't imagine Joy Behar making the same accusation to Barack Obama over his "100 years" comments -- but maybe that's what has to happen.

[iNow]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809120021

When a candidate makes a false claim, reporters can respond one of three ways:

1. They can ignore it, on the basis that a false claim is unworthy of attention.
   
   
    
   
   
2. They can adopt the false claim as the basis of their report, as they did with this week's stories about whether or not Barack Obama had made a sexist comment about Sarah Palin.
   
   
    
   
   
3. They can produce a report centered on the fact that the candidate is saying something that is untrue. If it is the latest of many falsehoods, they can indicate that. If the candidate is telling more and larger falsehoods than the opposition, they can make that clear. In short, they can make the lack of credibility of the person making the false claim the theme of their coverage.
   
   

The first option privileges the lie by allowing a candidate to run around saying things that are not true -- but at least it does not help spread the lie further.

 

The second option -- even if it includes mention of the fact that the claim is false -- privileges the lie a great deal by helping the candidate spread the false claims. At the end of the day, what most people take away from this week's media coverage of the lipstick flap is likely that there is some controversy around whether Barack Obama made a sexist comment about Sarah Palin. That's a clear advantage to McCain -- and thus the media's handling of the episode has rewarded his falsehood.

 

The third option punishes the falsehood. If you think the media's job is to bring their readers and viewers the truth, this is obviously the best of the three options.

 

This is where some will say "but then reporters will be taking sides."

 

And there is some truth to that: They'll be taking the truth's side.

 

Reporters "take sides" with everything they do. Everything they do involves a choice, involves a decision that X is more important than Y. When they report a lie five times before reporting the fact that it is false, they are taking the lie's side.

 

The question isn't whether reporters should "take sides" -- they can't possibly avoid taking sides.

 

The only question is whether they will side with truth or with fiction.

 

I can't help but agree. The third option is the only way to go.

 

 

h/t

[Pangloss]

Their examples expose their bias, but I guess they make no secret about that anyway, and yes, they're right about that.

[CaptainPanic]

The whole argument about whether McCain is likely to die or not is totally irrelevant. Part of the job description of a Vice-President is to be the backup plan is the President dies. And the choice of the person should be based on that job description...

 

I get the feeling some people are saying "It doesn't matter that Palin is merely a corrupt hockeymom from the middle of nowhere in Alaska, because she'll never become president anyway - McCain is not likely to die". That's a very odd reasoning.

 

I for one would be scared as hell if Palin ever becomes president. From what I've read and heard, I am slowly starting to think that it can be even worse than Bush (which I considered unthinkable until not long ago).

[Phi for All]

I get the feeling some people are saying "It doesn't matter that Palin is merely a corrupt hockeymom from the middle of nowhere in Alaska, because she'll never become president anyway - McCain is not likely to die". That's a very odd reasoning.

No US president has ever stood a greater statistical chance of dying in office than John McCain would if elected. That's a fact, not an opinion.

 

I know Obama's campaign has targeted the connection with Bush as a strategy, and McCain had to embrace neo-GOP stances he's not happy with in order to get the nod, but I can't help wonder how McCain really feels about carrying that ugly baggage around after what Bush and Rove did to him in the 2000 primaries. It's gotta be killing him, but at least *that* stress would be gone if he wins.

[bombus]

Stress earlier in life would be different than stress at an older age. That's why you won't find to many 20 year olds dying from sex, while 70 year olds do.

 

But, it does look like McCain has some pretty good genes from his mom. I am more worried about his mental faculties, especially in a second term. Age is a discriminating factor - they have to be at least 35 years old.

 

Sod his age - McCain is a damaged man mentally. Having undergone such torture as POW he MUST have a few screws loose. NOT NOT NOT someone who should have a finger on the red button. God help us all if he gets in.

[john5746]

Sod his age - McCain is a damaged man mentally. Having undergone such torture as POW he MUST have a few screws loose. NOT NOT NOT someone who should have a finger on the red button. God help us all if he gets in.

 

That was the ultra-swiftboat-right argument in 2000. I disagree, since he has worked in congress for many years and has worked quite well with others. Now, having Palin in charge, that is a different matter...

[Sisyphus]

The desire to appear neutral really just enables dirty campaigning. If you can't talk about some truth stretching without saying "but of course the other side does it too," then there's no incentive to be more honest, because you'll come out looking the same as your opponent anyway, just with hopefully a few more thousands who heard the lie but not the correction. The great majority of media outlets are either pointlessly "neutral" like that or blatantly partisan (so you can't trust what they say, anyway). There are legitimate nonpartisan watchdogs, but they get lost in the static. "Is he saying that because it's true, or because he's a liberal shill?" Etc.

[iNow]

A lot of good data on fact checking at the below:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/09/annals_of_mccainpalin_i_the_en.php

 

Why would anyone believe anything these two fabricators say? Of course I know the answer. Because to a lot of people it doesn't matter if what they say is true or not. they just want to beat Obama and Biden. Whatever it takes.

 

Haven't we just had 8 years of that?

[Pangloss]

I think the concerns above are perfectly valid, though I think bombus's "screws loose" assessment is contemptible, and I think it's quite reasonable for people to wonder what kind of president Palin would make. Her lack of experience is a legitimate issue, just as it is with Obama (iNow raised some pretty good points in response to that issue earlier, talking about how he's had a couple years of vetting by the public now).

 

Even though McCain is unlikely -- actually VERY unlikely -- to die while in office, people have a right to be concerned about something that has a 15% chance of happening before we get another say in the matter. And the trend towards eight-year terms has been pretty obvious -- it could be argued that the rise in polarization has actually contributed to a HIGHER chance of incumbent re-election. Which puts McCain in the 32% category, and then it gets a little more interesting.

 

So I think the concerns are legitimate, and I think people are right to ask questions. I do wish some in the media and on the far left weren't so quick to throw harsh judgments around while we're still light on facts, but that's not a reflection on anyone here.

 

The desire to appear neutral really just enables dirty campaigning. If you can't talk about some truth stretching without saying "but of course the other side does it too," then there's no incentive to be more honest, because you'll come out looking the same as your opponent anyway, just with hopefully a few more thousands who heard the lie but not the correction. The great majority of media outlets are either pointlessly "neutral" like that or blatantly partisan (so you can't trust what they say, anyway). There are legitimate nonpartisan watchdogs, but they get lost in the static. "Is he saying that because it's true, or because he's a liberal shill?" Etc.

 

Interesting point.

[waitforufo]

This thread is about the "the depraved state of US politics." It certainly has been a three ring circus since the conventions. I can't help however, but think that most of the discussion in this thread is irrelevant. For the life if me I can't understand why Obama doesn't have poll ratings in the middle fifties. Why can't the guy seal the deal?

 

Okay, you can blame it on the media for exaggerating silly issues if you like. In every campaign, politicians make gaffs. Often times these gaffs are what the media makes of them. Personally, I think the best way to handle all gaffs is to just quickly move past them. I think Obama spends too much time on his gaffs (or the gaffs the media attributes to him if you like). Time better spent on real issues. Time better spent winning over swing voters.

 

Take for example all the time Obama and his campaign are spending comparing his experience with Palin's. Winning that argument just proves he should be vice president. Why waste time on this issue? Take for example all the time spent on discussing how much of a tool Palin is to the right wing of the Republican party. How does that show the Obama is qualified to be president?

 

To seal the deal Obama needs to prove to the voters that he is qualified to be president. It really doesn't matter what McCain's, Palin's or Biden's qualifications are. If he can prove that he himself is qualified for president, his poll ratings would dramatically improve.

 

Generally I think people feel that McCain is qualified to be president. Voters at this time however would rather not vote for a Republican because of Bush. So McCain is holding at about 47% in the polls to Obama's 45%. Obama is however still ahead in the electoral college. This is still Obama's election to lose, but lose it he might.