Nominations for stupidest political act of the year so far...

[dimreepr]

Maybe you can provide one that shows someone who lies and defrauds for personal gain, is any better?

[swansont]

YOU want to have Children intentionally infected with a horrible disease. Maybe you should find a mirror, look yourself in the eye, and say out loud...

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

If you don't have the ability to detect sarcasm used to make a point, then maybe discussions like this aren't for you. This is beyond ridiculous.

 

 

Why aren't you demanding that your party leaders stop sacrificing other people's children for their political gain? Why? Why?

 

That says a lot about you.

 

!

Moderator Note

How about everyone takes a step back and focuses on the discussion, rather than getting personal

[waitforufo]

 

How do you feel about Trump's propsed total ban on Muslims entering the US, given it rather thoroughly violates the first amendment?

I believe the Supreme Court decided that the right to exclude aliens stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. I could be wrong.

Maybe you can provide one that shows someone who lies and defrauds for personal gain, is any better?

You are referring to Hillary right?

[iNow]

So you notice that she lies, but you don't think that makes her a liar?

 

Maybe you could provide a logical syllogism that shows that someone who lies is not a liar.

Liar is an extremely loaded term. It's one that comes with a lot of pejorative baggage. I don't apply to an individual lightly.

 

You should note that I have a hard time applying the label even to Donald Trump, despite the fact that he has been proven to lie in 76% of his statements (versus Clinton's 27%).

 

I'd use a more precise term, something like opportunist or perhaps equivocator (or con artist or huckster in Trump's case), but not liar.

 

You said, "I'm glad to see you agree Clinton's a liar." I don't. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

I corrected you when you suggested I didn't notice any lies, and I'm correcting you once again now.

 

My hope is that this clarification helps and the intentionally obtuse willful ignorance you're displaying can be put behind us.

[Moontanman]

They are politicians, politicians lie, that is what they do, if they told the truth they would be run out of town on a rail..

[waitforufo]

Liar is an extremely loaded term. It's one that comes with a lot of pejorative baggage. I don't apply to an individual lightly.

 

You should note that I have a hard time applying the label even to Donald Trump, despite the fact that he has been proven to lie in 76% of his statements (versus Clinton's 27%).

 

I'd use a more precise term, something like opportunist or perhaps equivocator (or con artist or huckster in Trump's case), but not liar.

 

You said, "I'm glad to see you agree Clinton's a liar." I don't. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

I corrected you when you suggested I didn't notice any lies, and I'm correcting you once again now.

 

My hope is that this clarification helps and the intentionally obtuse willful ignorance you're displaying can be put behind us.

Hillary Clinton lies to cover her own personal misdeeds. She lies to further the causes she promotes. She lies to further herself. She is a liar. This has been proven so many times through out her life, that nothing she says can be held as truth.

 

They are politicians, politicians lie, that is what they do, if they told the truth they would be run out of town on a rail..

The everybody does it defense, used by Hillary herself, is shameful. This excuse is generally abandoned by most in elementary school. Accepting it will destroy our society.

[Moontanman]

Hillary Clinton lies to cover her own personal misdeeds. She lies to further the causes she promotes. She lies to further herself. She is a liar. This has been proven so many times through out her life, that nothing she says can be held as truth.

 

The everybody does it defense, used by Hillary herself, is shameful. This excuse is generally abandoned by most in elementary school. Accepting it will destroy our society.

 

 

I agree, but saying one politician lies more than another is silly..

[iNow]

I agree, but saying one politician lies more than another is silly..

 

Can't say I agree with this. It's quantifiable. We can, in fact, compare lie frequency, magnitude, and commonality and there will be variance from politician to politician (or businessman, as it were).

 

[mp][/mp]

 

So you notice that she lies, but you don't think that makes her a liar?

I'm sure that at least once in your life (and likely many more than one) you have told a lie. However, you would likely protest (and justifiably so) being called a liar.

 

While in the simplest and most remedial black and white of terms, calling you a liar is true, in more practical and more realistic of terms it would be a mistake to label you with the monolithic term "liar."

 

IMO, you've told lies, but you are not a best described as a liar. That term is and should be reserved for extreme cases.

 

I hope this helps you to better comprehend the position I'm expressing, regardless of whether or not you agree with my assessment.

[neutrinosalad]

 

Or, I'm trying to show what the shoes look like on your feet. I can't figure out why on Earth decent people who claim to be Christians are playing politics with this potentially catastrophic disease. Can you tell me why the GOP is delaying funding for Zika research so they can remove support for birth control at a time when that might help fight the disease? Couldn't they find a better way to hurt poor people?

 

False.

 

Democrats and Republicans were working in a bipartisan way to approve the bill until Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader for Democrats) came riding in on horseback, inserted Planned Parent hood as a wedge issue and killed the bill in hopes of securing votes for the elections occurring later this year.

 

 

Pollsters regularly show that Congress is less popular among the public than infectious diseases, and Senate Democrats on Tuesday helped explain why. After spending months demanding more funding to combat the Zika virus, they voted down their own priority to foment the chaos they believe will work to their political benefit in the fall.

 

The White House asked Congress for $1.9 billion by July 4 to address mosquito-borne Zika, which can cause a birth defect called microcephaly. A bipartisan compromise stripped out spending unrelated to Zika but otherwise granted the $1.1 billion request in full for prevention, research, education, health services, international aid and vaccine development.

The measure passed the Senate 89-8 in May, with 44 Democrats in favor and none opposed. But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid emerged on Tuesday to ambush the House-Senate conference report compromise, which the House has already passed and can’t be amended.

Mr. Reid called the bill “the most irresponsible legislation I have ever seen in my 34 years in Congress,” and as a specialist in that field he would know. Inventing pretexts that happen to overlap with their campaign themes, Democrats blocked the Zika money, 52-48.

Since microcephaly is a natal condition and Zika can be transmitted sexually, Democrats naturally conscripted “women’s health” as a wedge. The bill makes block grants to hospitals, local health departments and public insurance programs like Medicaid. Democrats objected because the bill does not specifically identify Planned Parenthood as a candidate for grants.

 

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-zika-democrats-1467155866

 

Let's give a round of applause for Harry Reid for his Herculean effort to kill even the most simple spending bill by going out of his way to insert partisan issues into non-partisan problems.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Capayan

[John Cuthber]

Meanwhile , on this side of the pond, we have Boris Johnson as foreign secretary.

[John Cuthber]

It seems you have won.

[imatfaal]

It seems you have won.

 

Damn. I would have preferred to have stayed as the must screwed up nation politically - amazing results from USA. Frankly a little scary - sorry a lot scary.

[Delta1212]

It seems you have won.

I offer you my congratulations.

[Delbert]

Frankly, I can't understand what all the fuss is about. The election of Trump was a democratic process involving the view of that organism called: The People.

 

And to infer (which seems to be the suggestion) that stupidity is involved can only be an insult to the American people.

 

Doubtless there'll be some making comments about unfairness of the electoral system. But whatever the system, such suggestions will always be from the losers.

[Carrock]

.... Doubtless there'll be some making comments about unfairness of the electoral system. But whatever the system, such suggestions will always be from the losers.

and from the winner.

[DrKrettin]

And to infer (which seems to be the suggestion) that stupidity is involved can only be an insult to the American people.

 

 

 

 

Hear hear. They voted for an unstable ignorant narcissistic bigot, a sexual predator and compulsive liar. How on earth could stupidity be involved? What an insult to suggest that.

[Delbert]

DrKrettin

 

That's your view. An intolerance of the view of others is perhaps not something to boast about.

 

Perhaps unstable, narcissistic and all that is what they want, so who are you to criticize?

 

Slightly off tack, but I can recall during the London riots some years ago two girls talking, and one commenting: I can't stand stuck-up people.

[imatfaal]

,

...

Perhaps unstable, narcissistic and all that is what they want, so who are you to criticize?

 

Did you read what you just wrote? I criticize people who do stupid things! If they want an unstable commander-in-chief of the world's largest military then I criticize them, if they want a narcissist in charge of appointing supreme court justices then I criticize them ...

[DrP]

An intolerance of the right wing bigotry and racism is what people were going for - but that intolerance seems to have alienated the people they were supposed to be educating.

[DrKrettin]

 

Perhaps unstable, narcissistic and all that is what they want, so who are you to criticize?

 

 

 

It was in response to your suggestion that it would be an insult to the American people to infer that stupidity played a part. If you think that this choice was devoid of stupidity, then frankly I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[DrP]

Maybe they deserve ridicule for their regressive thinking and backward drives - but the problem there is that that will drive them further away from seeing the light.

 

I have seen it here over the last 20 years - left wing anti racists will not even debate immigration without shouting "RACIST!!" at their opponent when they express concerns about immigration. That "racist" then thinks that they are dealing with an extremist and both parties go their separate ways thinking that it doesn't matter that they haven't changed the view of the other because they assume everyone else thinks like them. They don't.

 

To the good people out there - STOP shouting down these right wingers - win your debate with reason not ridicule and you might get further. If you can't sway middle ground people without calling them racists and bigots then you loose ALL of the population to the right of them - we had here with brexit..... and now you have it there with your crazy nuke toting all 'mer'can POTUS who, hopefully won't build a dumb wall or nuke all of the middle east.

 

Good luck.

[Phi for All]

And to infer (which seems to be the suggestion) that stupidity is involved can only be an insult to the American people.

 

Not stupidity, ignorance. And no independent media to help inform us. And a general disdain for intellectualism. And a corporate machine that loves uninformed, ignorant people who want to stay that way and buy stuff.

 

This is the face of the American People we're showing now. And I think we're the insulting ones.

[imatfaal]

Maybe they deserve ridicule for their regressive thinking and backward drives - but the problem there is that that will drive them further away from seeing the light.

 

I have seen it here over the last 20 years - left wing anti racists will not even debate immigration without shouting "RACIST!!" at their opponent when they express concerns about immigration. That "racist" then thinks that they are dealing with an extremist and both parties go their separate ways thinking that it doesn't matter that they haven't changed the view of the other because they assume everyone else thinks like them. They don't.

 

To the good people out there - STOP shouting down these right wingers - win your debate with reason not ridicule and you might get further. If you can't sway middle ground people without calling them racists and bigots then you loose ALL of the population to the right of them - we had here with brexit..... and now you have it there with your crazy nuke toting all 'mer'can POTUS who, hopefully won't build a dumb wall or nuke all of the middle east.

 

Good luck.

 

Did you witness the Brexit campaign or just sleep through it. One side was pretty reasonable and argued with facts - they didn't reach for the rhetoric, they didn't typecast their opponents, they didn't ridicule the people on the other side, and they tried to be an acceptable vote to the entire electorate THEY LOST!

 

They lost to a flurry of rhetoric, name-calling. outright lies, pernicious manipulation of half-truths and cherry picking. Please do not put the blame for Brexit and Trump on the aggression of the left wing - that is a shameful transposition of guilt.

 

Am I meant to accept this man as a nice bloke I can introduce to my friends? Because you say I cannot label him a Racist...

 

 

Is this the sort of tolerance I should be practising

 

 

Here is a list of the 282 people places and things Trump has insulted on Twitter

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html

Sorry can you confirm - you think it is the left who are guilty of insulting rhetoric?

[DrP]

Fine - but you are proving my point a little - if you can't discuss it with me without HAVING to win the argument straight away without really hearing what I am saying, then what chance have you of changing the view of a working class builder who hates blacks because of his 'they're coming over here taking all our jobs' mentality. I hate that kind of racism and ignorance, but it isn't easy getting the right message through their thick heads. Bollocking them for being racists hasn't worked - maybe better education, maybe something else - but complete alienation and school teacher like bollocking has not worked over the last 25 years. I actually see an improvement in the zeitgeist of these groups - but it is slow slow change and we haven't arrived where half of the population thought we were yet.

 

You are correct Imat - the whole pro brexit arguments seemed to be based on lies and sensationalism - but these people do not know you are correct. They still think we are heading for a better future because of it. Some people will be pleased to see Trump nuke ISIS - they won't see that as a disaster at all.

 

Re brexit - the remain campaign was rubbish - it could have been put across SO much better - but because they assumed they would win, they did not bother running a proper campaign. It was just assumed that people would not be that stupid to vote out. You are correct about it being based on facts rather than sensationalism, but you over estimate the mentality of the lower classes maybe - they need the sensationalism as they seem not to understand facts.

 

SO - to sum up - don't bother arguing with me about it - you are preaching to the converted - learn to get your views across to those you consider abhorrent human beings... because it is still about half the people in your country.

[imatfaal]

fI do find it frustrating that our liberal self-scrutinizing angst leads many left-leaning intellectuals to blame ourselves for failing to either stoop to the level of the lying demagogue or to rise to the level of the saints. The last 25 years have not been spent by the left demonising the disenfranchised as racist chavs - there have been numerous and good campaigns to explain the benefits of immigration; these are all undermined in seconds by the power of rabble-rousing and tub-thumping appeals to self-interest.

 

The demonisation of the working class was a tory tactic for many years now - and remarkably they have turned it on a six-pence and used it to say to the working poor that they have been betrayed by the left. Throughout the last 25 years in the UK the right-wing conservative party has vilified and disenfranchised the working class poor and lionised the businessman and entrepreneur; the protection of his job that your rightwing worker desires existed through unionisation and good labour practices - both removed by the tories. The right-wing have for many decades (and in this, I include the 1997 - 2000 govt) emasculated the working classes and decimated the manufacturing base in order to prioritise a service economy and business - the use of low rhetoric, cheap lies, and a compliant press has allowed the reactionaries to now use this alienation to further promote their own agenda

 

To recap - my argument against your initial post is simple; very few left-leaning liberals castigate people as racist for being right of centre - but the far-right is very happy to say to the disenfranchised "those liberal elites think you're an uneducated racist chav - vote for me" Those that lie have beaten those that tell the truth