Beyond the Numbers: The Risks of Simplifying Political Lies

1. 86

   Sharlee01posted 3 months ago

   Loyalty Over Truth: The Flaws of Comparing Political Lies
   
   In today’s political climate, I often hear people simplify complex issues by saying things like, “he lies, but she lies less.” This kind of reasoning feels both unintelligent and disingenuous for several reasons. First, it reduces complex moral and ethical questions to mere comparisons, failing to consider the context and severity of the issues at hand. Politics is not just about who is less truthful.
   
   When people focus on who lies more, they ignore the underlying issues that those lies may obscure. This approach also encourages a dangerous mentality that trivializes serious matters, suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable as long as it is less frequent than that of their opponent.
   
   Comparing lies in a quantitative way fails to address the impact of those lies on the public. The nature of a lie is just as important as its frequency. A politician’s lie can have devastating consequences, from shaping public policy to influencing social norms. When we focus solely on who lies more, we miss the opportunity to hold leaders accountable for their actions.
   
   Ultimately, this simplistic comparison distracts from the critical thinking necessary to evaluate political candidates and their policies effectively. Rather than merely asking who lies less.
   
   When a person can weigh lies and ignore the missteps of their preferred candidate while ridiculing the other candidate for lying, it reveals several underlying traits. First, it suggests a strong bias or partisanship, where loyalty to a political figure or party takes precedence over objective evaluation of truth and integrity. This selective perception indicates that the individual may prioritize their political allegiance over a commitment to honesty and accountability.
   
   Also, such behavior can demonstrate a lack of critical thinking. By focusing solely on the faults of the opposing candidate while turning a blind eye to their own candidate's shortcomings, this person misses the opportunity to engage in a nuanced analysis of political behavior. It shows a willingness to accept a double standard, which can undermine genuine discussions about ethics in politics.
   
   Lastly, this tendency can reflect an emotional investment in political identity. When individuals identify strongly with a candidate or party, they may develop a defensive posture that leads them to rationalize or downplay negative behavior associated with their preferred choice.
   
   Why do you think some people choose to focus on the number of lies rather than the context or implications of those lies?
   
   Questions
   
   How do you feel about the idea that comparing the quantity of lies can serve as a valid measure of a politician's integrity?
   
   What potential dangers do you see in measuring political dishonesty solely by the number of lies?
   
   Do you think that focusing on the number of lies distracts from more significant ethical issues?
   
   In your opinion, what factors should be considered when evaluating the seriousness of a politician's lies beyond their frequency?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      tsmogposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Eloquently presented!
      
      Off the cuff . . .
      
      Sticking to the main point/topic of counting lies and then using it as a retort in dialogue be that one-on-one, a public format, or media of some sort I see it as only seeking a 'gotcha' moment. Nothing more and nothing less.
      
      The speaker of the proclamation is placing a reliance on inference, as I see it, for the recipient of the retort to use their critical thinking skills to justify the quantity of lies while glossing over the specifics of any one particular lie.
      
      For myself, while am not proposing I speak for anyone else, I always wonder about the individual's reality who is prone to constant lying. A mystery?

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

         Thank you for staying on the subject. 
         
         I share your perspective on this issue. When the conversation shifts to merely counting lies, it often feels like an exercise in seeking a “gotcha” moment rather than fostering genuine dialogue. This approach, in my view,  tends to oversimplify complex issues, reducing them to a numbers game that misses the heart of the matter. It leads to a superficial understanding, where the nuances and consequences of those lies are overlooked.
         
         I completely resonate with your observation. When a speaker relies on inference in this way, it places an unfair burden on the listener to navigate through the fog of vague accusations without addressing the specifics of any one claim. This approach often diverts attention from the substance of the dialogue and instead encourages a mental exercise in justification that can lead to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. It feels like an attempt to shape perceptions rather than engage in a substantive discussion. True discourse should illuminate the details and implications of individual statements, allowing for a more informed and critical examination of the issues at hand.
         
         I find the idea of labeling someone as prone to constant lying as potentially unfair, especially if we don't take the time to understand their individual circumstances. It’s easy to jump to conclusions about a person's character without considering the context of their actions. Constant lying might stem from a myriad of factors, such as fear, insecurity, or a deep-seated need for approval. Lots of variables. Ultimately, I have never been able to figure out why some lie excessively.
         
         Rather than framing it as a mystery, I think it could be more constructive to view it as a reflection of their reality—one that may be shaped by past experiences or social pressures.

         replyreport
2. 59

   Willowarborposted 3 months ago

   From imaginary pet-eating immigrants to schools secretly performing gender-affirming surgeries on children, pushing anti-semitic tropes, saying   migrants  commit crimes because “it’s in their genes, insisting he won the 2020 election, lying about crime stats,  FEMA lies,   ...his lies aren’t just garden-variety political spin, they’re weaponized fiction aimed at manipulating public discourse.  His lies promote fear , hate and division. 
   
   Of course, many of Trump’s lies are “conventional” or needs "context"  lies similar to those that politicians often tell in order to look good or avoid blame. But the sheer  number  of lies by Trump does vastly exceed the lies of previous presidents and or candidates.    The sheer number points to a pathological quality. A disordered character. 
   
   Objective facts are  discoverable through investigation, empirical evidence, rationality, and the scientific method. From this premise,  it follows that political discourse involves making logical arguments and showing  evidence in support of those arguments, rather than asserting one’s own self-serving version of reality.   
   
   Trump’s refusal to attempt to refute charges that he was telling lies, admit their inaccuracy, or attempt to wiggle out of them by equivocating demonstrates either his lack of touch with reality or his conviction that he does not have to explain himself to others.
   
   Insistence on his false statements is an assertion of power.
   
   Trump expects others to accept his version of reality, and when they do not, he responds with ad hominem attacks and charges of “fake news.”
   
   Trump’s refusal to admit the truth of widely accepted facts corrodes political conversation and is actually consistent with the practice of many authoritarian leaders. The assertion of the power to define reality is destructive of democratic governance.  Why?  in part because many people believe him and are not open to contrary evidence.
   
   If there are no agreed upon facts, then it becomes impossible for people to make judgments about their government or hold it accountable.
   
   There will be long-term damage as a result of Trump's anti-democratic lies. His repeated peddling of lies and misinformation  is culminating in such cynicism that we see citizens rejecting experts, rejecting science, rejecting accurate sources of information, dismissing them as "partisan" without a critical look... Ceasing to believe in any shared reality.   The most harmful  though?  Disinformation and outright lies  regularly make false or misleading claims to vilify individuals or misrepresent their beliefs.  An "enemy within".  These fascist words should turn every Americans stomach.  No morals, no ethics, no character.
   
   Trump's lies are a blight on democracy.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      It won't be near the damage that the twisting, the exaggerations, the changes that liars are and have been making to Trump's words have already done.
      
      An exaggeration, a slight twist; these are as much a lie as the original.  Such as insinuating that Trump claims schools have a secret OR somewhere, operating on children.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

         Trump is too smart to be so dumb...
         
         Much of the outrageous things he says he likely knows will make the headlines, or be taken out of context to be used against him.
         
         So when he says something outrageous, people will often go and fact check for themselves when they see the headlines... and during this stage of the election process, people look into things they might not have bothered with otherwise.
         
         Take for instance the "eating dogs and cats" statement regarding the Haitians.  While that may be disproven what is the REAL outcome?
         
         What occurred was all of America became aware that 20,000 Haitian migrants had been placed into one mid-sized town... something like a population of 40k Americans now hosts 20k Haitians.
         
         It put a spotlight on what is going on in America and how it is not just in big cities where thousands of migrants are being dropped off, but small towns, mid-sized towns across America.
         
         Dumb... or Smart?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            You don't think a political point can be made without vilifying people or a group? Without lying?  Sort of proves that he isn't very adept.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

               Not at all... the media runs with it every time, and takes it so far to the other extreme they discredit themselves with their efforts.
               
               The end result... America is made aware of something the media would have otherwise never covered, going out of their way to hide it whenever possible.
               
               That is the brilliance of Trump's way of communicating.  When dealing with a corrupt system designed to hide truths from the populace, it takes the types of effort Trump puts forth to get them to expose the truth.

               replyreport
         2. 86

            Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            I completely agree! And I might add, did you see Vance wipe the floor with Martha Raddatz when she tried to deny that Arora was having a problem with gangs?
            
            It’s the classic leftist mindset on display—no big deal that gun-toting gangs have taken over a FEW apartment complexes. Oh, what skewed thinking! That’s one of the reasons I put this thread together—to highlight this kind of mindset. It’s clear that some people are easily trained to think bad is good, just because it’s "only a few"... LOL!
            
            He really put her more deeply into the mud.  So tired of this type.
             
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1upYldYxbL0

            replyreport
         3. 86

            Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Very insightful! As you mentioned, bringing the problem to the people is not just clever; it encourages them to look deeper into a complex, multi-faceted issue. We have migrants being dumped into a small city, straining their resources, and let’s not overlook Aurora—where gun-toting thugs among the migrants have taken over some apartment complexes. The pictures really spoke volumes—making me think, is this another country? Oh no, it’s Aurora, Colorado! My initial reflex was --- yuck. Then after listening to the leftest media discount the problem as --- "hey only a few". Then I laughed.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

               How damaging this Administration has been is unfortunately very difficult to get across to a populace that is misinformed and lied to by our Main Stream Media sources.
               
               Topics like attempting to start WWIII with Russia... and Biden being DENIED by the Pentagon (who would have thought they would need to be the ones saying NO to escalating war against both Russia and Iran) cannot even be brought to the public's attention because of so many other lies that are required to constantly be disproven.
               
               In reality, dumping millions of migrants into communities that do not have the resources to properly provide for them is the lesser of the evils done... but it is the easier to prove to Americans, many whom will realize they do not want 4 more years of such nonsense... or worse.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  "In reality, dumping millions of migrants into communities"
                  
                  Can you speak to immigration law, specifically asylum, and it's role in this current situation ?

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Ken Burgessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                     Let me give you a link to a great Trump interview, at times its a riot...
                     
                     I watch this and its one of those perfect examples that disprove what the 'leftwing' media has spouted about him for a decade now...
                     
                     This is clearly not a man that is a "threat to Democracy" as a normal person understands Democracy, nor is he worse than that German guy with a mustache...
                     
                     It helps put things in perspective for those of us with rational, functional, comprehensive minds that are not mired in loony MSNBC type hyperbolic nonsense.
                     
                     I suggest that you skip the first 20 minutes or so to get to the part where they are all relaxed and talking like buddies talk to one another:
                     
                     https://youtu.be/Ry1IjOft95c?t=1320

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                        Lol, I don't think Trump knows the laws either.   At some point, many people are going to have to realize that we either have to work within the framework of our immigration law or change it.  Using the issue as a political football because they understand a lot of people don't know any better is not an option anymore

                        replyreport
      2. 59

         Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

         What does this mean?
         
         
         https://x.com/Acyn/status/1844164154258 … 4b3eba093a
         
         Or this?
         
         https://youtu.be/5DkM0l2osSo?si=7aL_suxDYSEoghuO

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            When Trump made the statement about "your child goes to school and they take your child," he was addressing a broad audience of parents, particularly those who are concerned about educational policies and school board decisions. This rhetoric was aimed at rallying support among parents who feel that their rights are being overlooked in the education system, especially regarding controversial topics such as gender identity, sexuality, and critical race theory.
            
            When Trump made the statement about "your child goes to school and they take your child," he was generally expressing concerns about parental rights and what he views as the overreach of school boards and educators in shaping children's beliefs and values. His remarks often center around the idea that parents are losing control over their children's education and exposure to certain ideologies, particularly regarding topics like gender, sexuality, and critical race theory.
            
            In this context, Trump suggests that school boards are wielding too much power and are making decisions that should be the prerogative of parents, effectively "taking" authority over children away from their families. His comments resonate with many parents who feel that their voices are not heard in educational decisions or that the curriculum does not align with their values.
            
            Many Americans are concerned regarding what their children are learning in school and the overreach of school boards.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

               "When Trump made the statement about "your child goes to school and they take your child," he was generally expressing concerns about parental rights and what he views as the overreach of school boards and educators in shaping children's beliefs and values. "
               
               This seems to be a reinterpretation of his statement.  but it doesn't at all, in any way accurately reflect what he said.   
               
               This is sanewashing.   Trump followers always tell us they love how he speaks in such a very plain, simple and straightforward manner but then immediately turn around and reinterpret what he has said.
               
               He told us what he believes is happening at school.  I'm taking him at his word.   His comment had nothing to do with school boards.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  This could be said... However, I did watch the clip where he made that claim. I would say I must agree to disagree.

                  replyreport
               2. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  This could be said... However, I did watch the clip where he made that claim. I would say I must agree to disagree. He pounded on the subject regarding power/school boards, as well as gender reassignment, and his feelings parents were losing power over their children--- what they are learning in schools, and what he seems to feel is a surge in school boards usurping power.
                  
                  This was a media blitz on Trump --- was it turned upside down? Was it one of many media political ploys?

                  replyreport
   2. 86

      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I value your perspective, as it underscores the point I was attempting to make. It appears that your approach focuses on weighing lies, which may lead to overlooking the inaccuracies of other candidates based on how you assess the significance of each lie.
      
      I appreciate your detailed perspective, but I must respectfully disagree with several points you've raised. While it’s true that politicians often stretch the truth or manipulate context, framing Trump’s lies as entirely “conventional” seems overly simplistic. The political landscape is complex, and many candidates exhibit similar behaviors, yet they don't always attract the same level of scrutiny or condemnation.
      
      Regarding the sheer number of lies attributed to Trump, I think it's important to consider the context in which those statements were made. Media coverage can amplify certain narratives, often leading to a disproportionate focus on one individual. This doesn’t negate the inaccuracies, but it does complicate the picture. Many politicians face scrutiny, and it’s essential to evaluate their statements within the broader context of political discourse rather than isolating one individual.
      
      Your assertion that Trump's behavior is indicative of a pathological quality or disordered character raises questions about fairness in our evaluations. Such claims can often detract from meaningful discourse and simplify complex human behavior into labels that may not accurately reflect reality. People often communicate in nuanced ways, and attributing a single motive to someone's statements can undermine our understanding of their full context.
      
      I also take issue with the idea that Trump's refusal to admit to inaccuracies constitutes a clear rejection of reality. Political figures often navigate a landscape rife with misinformation and bias from all sides. His approach, while controversial, reflects a broader trend in politics where individuals may choose to assert their version of events in the face of opposition.
      
      While I understand the concern about disinformation eroding democratic norms, I believe it's essential to engage in conversations about political beliefs without resorting to alarmist language. Labeling differing viewpoints as “fascist” can alienate those who may not agree with you but are nonetheless participating in a democratic process.
      
      When comparing Trump’s claim that migrants were eating pets, which he used to exaggerate the dangers of immigration, we see a story that is sensational and inflammatory, but its impact is largely anecdotal. This kind of lie may evoke strong emotions and fear among constituents, but it ultimately serves to stoke division rather than directly threaten essential services.
      
      In contrast, Kamala Harris's assertion that Trump intends to take away Social Security and Medicare represents a much more consequential lie. This claim directly attacks the financial security and well-being of millions of Americans who rely on these programs for their livelihood and health care. By suggesting that a political opponent seeks to eliminate these vital safety nets, Harris raises legitimate concerns among constituents who depend on Social Security and Medicare for their daily survival.
      
      The weight of her claim is significant because it creates fear and anxiety among vulnerable populations about their future well-being. While Trump’s lie about migrants may incite outrage and fear, Harris's statement can lead to real consequences for people’s lives and livelihoods. The potential loss of Social Security and Medicare represents an existential threat to many individuals, making her claim not just a political jab but a direct assault on the financial security of countless Americans.
      
      Bias can significantly influence how we perceive and evaluate lies, affecting our judgment about a lie's significance and impact. When we "weigh" a lie, we often do so through the lens of our own beliefs, values, and experiences, which can lead to subjective assessments rather than objective evaluations.

      replyreport