Why does the President demonstrably lie so much, and why do we tolerate it?

Not A Theist said:
Totally fair point. Trump is an appalling human being, and it is wrong of me to "soft serve" it. It's a habit I have developed to not speak too strongly about things of which I am not certain.

To put it in context, I can't speak of Trump's relationship to, say, the of Nixon's truthfulness accurately. I can say that Trump is lying at a greater rate, but I'm not sure he is dropping quite the whoppers that Nixon did - though that, again, may be a product of my ignorance. What's more, I see the lies that got the U.S. into the Iraq war as significantly worse than any single lie that Trump has promulgated yet - so I have trouble judging a relatively truthful administration which had one horrible, huge, and effectively destructive lie versus one where the president lies over stupid stuff like a call he had with the Boyscouts, but he hasn't started a war with it - yet.

I hope this gives context beyond "something rotten." I simply don't want to overspeak my position, and I think there is some ambiguity between quantity and magnitude.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying and that's helpful because it crowbars some of that "both sides" cynicism out of there. I don't think it's a defensible position because Trump's default mode is to lie. He has lied blatantly about literally everything. In terms of lying, there's simply no contest between him and any other human on the planet, going back through all of recorded history.

If he decides to invade Iran (or drive us into a recession or destroy the environment with his policies), it will absolutely be based on lies. And the damage done to the very act of truth-telling is essentially permanent for all generations alive during this presidency, if not for longer. And for what it's worth, he's currently helping the Saudis as they try to go full genocide in Yemen, while pretending, occasionally, to be bothered by it.
 
Not A Theist said:
Could you explain further?
Click to expand...
If we're discussing for example why I lie often, it's not relevant how often someone else lies; the discussion pertains to my dishonesty.
Pointing to examples of others' dishonesty isn't germaine.
 
n...not crazy said:
Yeah no shit. I remember people talking about this when I was 4 years old.

ps:
Click to expand...

Amusingly enough, on topic, because it's certain that people were talking about Trump's lies when you were four.
They were doing it when I was four.
A lot of investors got pennies for their dollars.
 
I will keep it simple, Trump is a proven lying, cheating scumbag and so are the people who still support him, just look how the people at his rallies behave.
 
OeuvrePressure said:
Amusingly enough, on topic, because it's certain that people were talking about Trump's lies when you were four.
They were doing it when I was four.
A lot of investors got pennies for their dollars.
Click to expand...

He was just a rich guy, who at times hung around with Mike Tyson lol. That's how I knew about him.
 
Strychnine said:
"We" tolerate it because it's all about "Owing the Libs" now. It's a perverted from of schadenfreude because they are "Winning" at the cost of flushing the country down the swamp.
Click to expand...
And his policies will only hurt all of his nonmillionaire cult members.
 
Quequeg said:
And Trump lies more than any of them.
Click to expand...
They sure shit wouldn't accept if people said "all cities have violent crime so it doesn't matter if Chicago has problems"
 
Not A Theist said:
Could you explain? Is your assertion that the Obama administration was entirely truthful?
Click to expand...

The claim I disagreed with was "it's only against a backdrop of an astoundingly dishonest political landscape that the Obama administration could be presented as truthful." Many other baselines--normal people, a normal political landscape, etc.--would lead to that judgment.

Not A Theist said:
I'm not sure I agree on this. Attempting to set a higher standard leads to a justification of bad behavior? Of course, this is contingent on the first part of this exchange.
Click to expand...

Setting a higher standard is great. Suggesting that bad behavior is normal does lead to justifying it. Think about it in a different context. If you think that all fighters are using PEDs, and then your favorite gets busted, you're not going to be concerned about it ("why pick on Joe Ped?"). If you think that use is rare, someone getting busted is going to be harder to defend.

Not A Theist said:
As for the last bit, nice touch. You have an undeniable sense of style about you.
Click to expand...

It would be better if I didn't explain the change, but otherwise, it might have just appeared to be a mistake.
 
Fawlty said:
I get what you're saying and that's helpful because it crowbars some of that "both sides" cynicism out of there. I don't think it's a defensible position because Trump's default mode is to lie. He has lied blatantly about literally everything. In terms of lying, there's simply no contest between him and any other human on the planet, going back through all of recorded history.

If he decides to invade Iran (or drive us into a recession or destroy the environment with his policies), it will absolutely be based on lies. And the damage done to the very act of truth-telling is essentially permanent for all generations alive during this presidency, if not for longer. And for what it's worth, he's currently helping the Saudis as they try to go full genocide in Yemen, while pretending, occasionally, to be bothered by it.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but this "We have to double down on possibly hyperbolic positions in order to prevent giving the other side from having any room to gain ground" is, I believe, a big part of polarizing political dialogue that has allowed us to become so accepting of blatant dishonesty. Seriously, consider our interaction here - you called me out as perpetuating "something rotten" because I didn't condemn Trump strongly enough when I simply wasn't sure - and frankly, I'm still not. What is the proper course here - that I simply say "Yep, he's the worst ever" when I can't verify since I'm not sure how to properly weight the scales for quantity of lies versus severity of lies? We all have gaps in our knowledge, and I prefer to fill those gaps with a bit of generous forbearance rather than hyperbolic accusation, but this is something that is somewhat alien in today's political discourse.

I do not believe the problem is the attitude of "both sides," but rather the partisan application of "both sides" in order to draw attention away from your side when it's doing something that is genuinely wrong. The application of "My side has problems, but yours is clearly bad too" is the problem when it leads to "but yours is clearly worse, so we don't have to worry about my side" as a standard style of political discourse, but the sentiment itself can be usefully instantiated as a way to avoid the type of moralizing that characterizes political divides today.

It actually reminds me of a post of Jack's I found quite clever yesterday - in a thread about some issue that was clearly casting a shadow on one side of the political dialogue, he said something to the effect of "This thing is bad, but that other thing is bad too, so let's talk about that thing." We all do that to some degree and rather than doubling down on doing this to not let the other side get any purchase, we should aim for a degree of generosity in our assessment. I suspect that if we give platforms to people perpetuating that type of stance, we might find that people are hungry for it. Wouldn't that be a wonderful political movement to start - one based on somewhat honest assessment of fault, rather than a scrabbling political defensiveness with everyone unwilling to concede an inch they should rightly give up, to prevent the opposition from attempting to steal a mile they have no right to!
 
n...not crazy said:
He was just a rich guy, who at times hung around with Mike Tyson lol. That's how I knew about him.
Click to expand...
I grew up in 1970's Queens; in the city nearby his reputation taught me what an NDA was and likely meant. He was known as an investment risk and serial litigator.
 
Not A Theist said:
I understand where you're coming from, but this "We have to double down on possibly hyperbolic positions in order to prevent giving the other side from having any room to gain ground" is, I believe, a big part of polarizing political dialogue that has allowed us to become so accepting of blatant dishonesty. Seriously, consider our interaction here - you called me out as perpetuating "something rotten" because I didn't condemn Trump strongly enough when I simply wasn't sure - and frankly, I'm still not. What is the proper course here - that I simply say "Yep, he's the worst ever" when I can't verify since I'm not sure how to properly weight the scales for quantity of lies versus severity of lies? We all have gaps in our knowledge, and I prefer to fill those gaps with a bit of generous forbearance rather than hyperbolic accusation, but this is something that is somewhat alien in today's political discourse.

I do not believe the problem is the attitude of "both sides," but rather the partisan application of "both sides" in order to draw attention away from your side when it's doing something that is genuinely wrong. The application of "My side has problems, but yours is clearly bad too" is the problem when it leads to "but yours is clearly worse, so we don't have to worry about my side" as a standard style of political discourse, but the sentiment itself can be usefully instantiated as a way to avoid the type of moralizing that characterizes political divides today.

It actually reminds me of a post of Jack's I found quite clever yesterday - in a thread about some issue that was clearly casting a shadow on one side of the political dialogue, he said something to the effect of "This thing is bad, but that other thing is bad too, so let's talk about that thing." We all do that to some degree and rather than doubling down on doing this to not let the other side get any purchase, we should aim for a degree of generosity in our assessment. I suspect that if we give platforms to people perpetuating that type of stance, we might find that people are hungry for it. Wouldn't that be a wonderful political movement to start - one based on somewhat honest assessment of fault, rather than a scrabbling political defensiveness with everyone unwilling to concede an inch they should rightly give up, to prevent the opposition from attempting to steal a mile they have no right to!
Click to expand...
I disagree with all of this lol. I don't hate it, but I could summarize by saying that we've definitely crossed the line where "generosity in our assessment" is a pure liability. It's like giving the benefit of the doubt to people whose hands are in our pockets. A spade is a spade. One side is clearly worse, in nearly every way (and they're catching up extremely quickly in the ways that they are not worst, like SJW stuff).

People have had these arguments all throughout history, when some despot or some disastrous movement swept their country. Trumpism is a national emergency rather than a hiccup in the discourse. I don't see that you're sensing the imperative here.
 
Fawlty said:
I disagree with all of this lol. I don't hate it, but I could summarize by saying that we've definitely crossed the line where "generosity in our assessment" is a pure liability. It's like giving the benefit of the doubt to people whose hands are in our pockets. A spade is a spade. One side is clearly worse, in nearly every way (and they're catching up extremely quickly in the ways that they are not worst, like SJW stuff).

People have had these arguments all throughout history, when some despot or some disastrous movement swept their country. Trumpism is a national emergency rather than a hiccup in the discourse. I don't see that you're sensing the imperative here.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's like the cloud war thing I mentioned earlier. Both-sidesists in the age of Trump are like the Russellian turkey on Christmas eve.
 
Man. All I hear is a bunch of whining in here. You fucks jacking each other off with your Trump angst reminds me again why I voted for my All Father.

He hit you where it hurts most. Your feelins.
 
Ranzou** said:
Man. All I hear is a bunch of whining in here. You fucks jacking each other off with your Trump angst reminds me again why I voted for my All Father.

He hit you where it hurts most. Your feelins.
Click to expand...
Do.
You.
Have.
Anything.
Onthefuckingtopic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MicroBrew
Elections Fox News: Maria Bartiromo mainstreams Trump accusation that Obama is the real President
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
MicroBrew
MicroBrew

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,993
Messages
55,459,900
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top