jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (15 posts)

For those of you to whom this applies...

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Why are you unwilling to discuss politics objectively?

    Why are you unwilling to admit fault in your candidate?

    Why do you refuse to discuss when your claims are shown to be false?

    There are a few people here I respect, but mostly it's hit and run.

    Person 1 - "Romney said X"
    Person 2 - "Actually, he said Y. [link]"
    person 1 has left the discussion

    It bothers me, because this behavior causes problems in America. It causes R's to support a candidate who spends money recklessly. It causes D's to support a candidate who spends money recklessly. It keeps real discussion from happening... So, the question is...

    Why?

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Some people get tired of arguing the same facts over and over again and leave when someone keeps it going so they always have to get in the last word.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's a little different than what I'm talking about, but I understand that view.

      What about though, the times when people will make a claim, that claim is proven false, and instead of paying attention to it, they ignore/leave/make the claim later?

      What is the point in ignoring facts? What is the point in refusing to learn and allow your viewpoint to mature?

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Jaxson, I think part of is because "facts" these days are often hard to prove - especially regarding politics. You can go to a legitimate source that says one thing, but if you look hard enough, you can often find another legitimate source that says the opposite, or one that at least seems to say the opposite. And so we go 'round and 'round...

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I know some things are hard to prove(studies, projections, predictions)... but saying something like 'Obama said X', when you can link to a transcript and video of him saying something slightly different, or pointing out the context(you didn't build that)... that's what I don't get. It's blatant dishonesty.

          You're not one of the people who this applies to though habee... either toe the party line or get out of here!

          tongue

          1. habee profile image90
            habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            There's a PARTY?? Where, where? Is it BYOB? I LOVE parties!!

        2. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I was going to say, there is just so much we don't know or completely understand.

          You could be right, or you could be citing a half-truth or a fact that has been proven wrong elsewhere.

          It also doesn't help that there is little context in the world of politics for a fact or quote to be judged correctly.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm talking about the stuff that is clear though.

            For instance, if the IRS comes out and says 'The top 20% of Americans paid an average tax rate of 17%', and I link you to irs.gov/20-percent-17-percent-tax-rate.aspx?

            that's not really a disputable fact, but people will dispute it if they don't like it.

            Or, if Romney gives a speech and says 'I enjoy killing time with my grand-children', but John Q Libral says 'Romney said he enjoys killing children!'

            it's really not up for dispute... but people do it anyway.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think that what you describe does happen.  However, I also think that quite often when you believe you have "proven" your side through facts, you haven't.  You have merely presented what you consider to be an appropriate "example" using some mathematical story problem of your own invention that is oversimplified and proves nothing except that you like concrete numbers.  Then, if someone doesn't buy into it, you say they are running from the "facts."

        Sorry, that's just how I see it.  On the other hand, you do have a point and sometimes what you are describing does happen.  I just don't think it happens as often as you think it does.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, in one thread, it happened 3 or 4 times with one person.

          - Romney said 'X'
          - No he didn't. [link to transcript]

          - Romney didn't say 'Y'
          - Yes he did. [link to transcript] + quote

          Things like that. There's a lot of it on HP. People denying what the IRS says about taxes... people accepting SEC documents if a news agency says the document says GE paid no taxes, but not accepting the same documents when I link to and show that the taxes were actually 20%... it happens all the time.

  3. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
    Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago

    Or, if Romney gives a speech and says 'I enjoy killing time with my grand-children', but John Q Libral says 'Romney said he enjoys killing children!'

    Haha, what? Just because you happen to agree with Romney or think his plans will actually work doesn't meant that people who disagree are twisting his words.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Cody, you don't seem to be paying attention.

      When you mis-quote somebody, it's a fact that can be corrected and verified. If someone tries to dispute it, they are disputing something that shouldn't be disputable.

      I'm not talking about someone disagreeing, I'm showing examples of the types of things that are disputed even though they honestly can't be. Would you agree with John Q Libral?

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Eh, I've never actually seen Romney mis-quoted on these boards. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen it.

        Although. a lot of what Romney says is hard to keep straight because he does flip-flop a lot.

  4. gg.zaino profile image75
    gg.zainoposted 4 years ago

    Politics and religion are two topics that butt heads on issues each party believes to be correct, yet come to loggerheads when a serious discussion on when the true facts come to the forefront... i stay away for good reason... gg.zaino

  5. profile image0
    Sarra Garrettposted 4 years ago

    Discussions on politics and religion always cause conflict and that will never change. In this day and age people are afraid to be put on a list.....red, blue, yellow with their political views.

 
working