For those of you to whom this applies...

1. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 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?

   replyreport
2. 79

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 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.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin 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?

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 11 years agoin 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...

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin 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!
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 92

               habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
         2. 68

            Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
      2. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
3. 68

   Cody Hodge5posted 11 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.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin 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?

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
4. 72

   gg.zainoposted 11 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

   replyreport
5. 0

   Sarra Garrettposted 11 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.

   replyreport