NYT Opinion Piece Suggests: Republicans Lie More Than Democrats

[Angelsjunky]

OK Angelspin, spin this.

 

East Coast Bias?

Edited February 5, 2016 by Angelsjunky

[Thomas]

I question any methodology that has Bill Clinton being more honest than Bernie Sanders.

[Angelsjunky]

I question any methodology that has Bill Clinton being more honest than Bernie Sanders.

 

I had the same thought. The NYT is part of the Democratic establishment that supports the Clintons so will want to portray them on, at worse, equal footing to Bernie. That said, another thought that crossed my mind is that while I agree that Republican politicians are generally more dishonest, the huge discrepancy could be at least partially because Democrats (e.g. the Clintons) are just better at it (lying).

 

Last night I was struck (and nauseated) by Hillary's mastery of the half-truth. Bernie was straight-forward, honest, and at worst was evasive or re-directing of certain questions. But Hillary would spin things Bernie had kind of said to put him in a bad light and/or try to goad him into confrontation. She is the consummate politician.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Angelsjunky

[Thomas]

I think the number of candidate in each primary makes a difference. Jeb Bush and Rand Paul were relatively (loosely) honest. Their campaigns are near death/dead because no one really paid attention to them. Trump, Cruz and Carson are throwing shit at the wall and getting the necessary attention. In a two person race that kind of tactic would just seriously backfire.

[Angelsjunky]

Yes, true, although that article is based upon 2007 to the present, so the current election is only a small part of their rating (although in some cases, like Carson, it is probably a larger part because he wasn't as politically active before now).

[Blarg]

You can keep your healthcare...

[Tank]

Yes, true, although that article is based upon 2007 to the present, so the current election is only a small part of their rating (although in some cases, like Carson, it is probably a larger part because he wasn't as politically active before now).

 

i think the number of republican candidates probably skews the perception of dem vs. repub a bit in this. i'm sure if things were reversed and there were 12 dems running then one could easily conclude that dems lie more than repubs.

 

that probably sounds more defensive than i'd like it to sound, but i hope you'll get my meaning.

[Jay]

one word:

 

 

Clinton

[Crampknees]

I made lots of money during the Clinton years, lost a bunch wading through W years and my business at the same time also, got it all back  and more during the dark Kenyan presidency.  Lie all you want mofo's, you make me money. Those truthful Republicans burn up my portfolio. 

[Adam]

I've made more $ every year since 2000

[nate]

I just paid my highest tax bill ever so I am not feeling the dems.

[Angelsjunky]

Because your tax bill is what really matters.

 

Not whether or not people have affordable health care.

 

Or whether or not people have drinkable water.

 

Or whether or not we have a decaying infrastructure.

 

Or whether or not millions of young people are crippled by college debt.

 

To be honest, nate, I don't give a flying **** about your tax bill.

[arch stanton]

politician and liar are synonymous to me

Well not all liars go into politics but...

[nate]

Because your tax bill is what really matters.

 

Not whether or not people have affordable health care.

 

Or whether or not people have drinkable water.

 

Or whether or not we have a decaying infrastructure.

 

Or whether or not millions of young people are crippled by college debt.

 

To be honest, nate, I don't give a flying **** about your tax bill.

 

Sure you do.  You want me to pay for your healthcare and college debt because you are too lazy and worthless to pay for it yourself.

Edited February 6, 2016 by nate

[mtangelsfan]

of course aj isn't concerned. Socialists don't take much stock in individualism or personal property.

[Angelsjunky]

Sure you do.  You want me to pay for your healthcare and college debt because you are too lazy and worthless to pay for it yourself.

 

Actually, not at all. I just care about other human beings. I'm happy to chip in and help improve society.

 

of course aj isn't concerned. Socialists don't take much stock in individualism or personal property.

 

What is this, the 50s? Bernie's red scare? You really have a myopic worldview, mt, if you think the choice is either socialism or rugged individualism.

 

You know there are other reasons to vote than money. I won't vote for a republican president because I don't like the idea of brown people being clubbed to death like baby seals. 

 

 

By all means if the dems tax plan increases your taxes vote ®. Just make sure to find out if it ACTUALLY increases your taxes. So many laws are written in favor of the top .1% I could care less if they take a 5% hit. It would probably match their political contributions.

 

Well yes, exactly. Republicans have been pulling a fast one on the less educated segment of the country for decades, getting them to vote for them while damaging their long-term well-being.

 

We've been over this before, but obviously AJ doesn't have a wife, kids, mortgage or is he a small business owner. He's either just a kid or lazy. Bernie's ideas sound great when you are 22.

 

The bottom line for me isn't how much taxes I pay, but how healthy society is. Of course I care how policies effect me, but I'm only one of 300+ million people in this country. I vote for who I think cares the most, and has the best ideas, to improve society, help those who need help, etc.

 

Bernie is the only presidential candidate who actually wants to address the problem of money in politics, which is what has kept this country stuck for decades.

[Adam]

Well we can't have human beings being personally responsible for their own circumstances. Let's ensure it through force!

[Angelsjunky]

Adam,where you might find that I differ with some of my fellow lefties is that I think they often under-emphasize personal responsibility. But the bottom line is that when you are poor, it is very, very hard to get out of being poor, and this is not only or always because they aren't taking personal responsibility or are lazy.

 

The usual line between liberal and conservative can be illustrated in this way. Let's say you have a homeless drug addict who has hit rock bottom. The conservative approach is to emphasize personal responsibility, to say "He did it to himself and only he can get himself out of it." The liberal approach is to emphasize how society let him down, to say "because of various factors he found himself in the place he's at and needs outside help."

 

I think both are true, both are important parts of the picture - but taken on their own, they're both half-truths. In my opinion we need better social services to support people in need. Yet on the same time, we need ways to encourage such folks into taking back their lives.

[Angelsjunky]

Dude this shit might work on the lefty ladies but you're not impressing anyone here.

Makes you come off a bit fruity actually.

 

Dude, I clean up - the hippy chicks buy this bullshit hook, line, and sinker.

 

Seriously though, I know you at least partially jest, but it is sad to think that caring about other people is considered "fruity." Is that a right-wing, macho thing?

 

Honest questions: Did you have any strong, positive male role models growing up?

I'm willing to bet you were raised by a single mom.

 

Boy, you really like to deal in demographical stereotypes. But I'll play along. My parents were and still are married, with a strong sense of equality between the two of them. My father was, and is, a man that I greatly respect.

[Jay]

I'm not in favor of zeroing out everyone's tuition debt, that's a half-baked idea.

I might be in favor of a plan that provides tuition reimbursement for certain approved degree programs.

That means people have to actually go to class and get decent grades or they pay for it themselves.

I was the beneficiary of such a program, although it was in the private sector.

[Blarg]

Because your tax bill is what really matters.

Not whether or not people have affordable health care.

Or whether or not people have drinkable water.

Or whether or not we have a decaying infrastructure.

Or whether or not millions of young people are crippled by college debt.

To be honest, nate, I don't give a flying **** about your tax bill.

Yes my tax bill is important because I do not want to pay for others health care while I take on the full amount for myself. I find more important benefit inequality than anything else being a societal cancer.

Kids that ****ed around in college for a useless degree are getting the full value of their bad decisions. **** them.

People that have lived a life of institutional welfare, **** them as well.

People that want others that have busted their ass to suck more free stuff from their estate, **** them.

I think you are getting the message but can't seem to understand it. I don't give a **** what kind of lifestyle you want to live as long as it is not predicated on usurping my income to fund it.

[Angelsjunky]

Jay, I'm not sure who is talking about wiping out tuition debt. As far as I know, Bernie (and Hillary in her "jump on the progressive bandwagon" way) is talking about making public and state universities free, just like public schools, and also decreasing interest rates.

 

notti, I get the "**** them" message I just don't agree with it, for a variety of reasons.

[Hollyw00d]

Propaganda piece

[Hollyw00d]

I'm not in favor of zeroing out everyone's tuition debt, that's a half-baked idea.

I might be in favor of a plan that provides tuition reimbursement for certain approved degree programs.

That means people have to actually go to class and get decent grades or they pay for it themselves.

I was the beneficiary of such a program, although it was in the private sector.

Do you actually think about the stuff you say, or is it a no-filter type of thing?

[nate]

Adam,where you might find that I differ with some of my fellow lefties is that I think they often under-emphasize personal responsibility. But the bottom line is that when you are poor, it is very, very hard to get out of being poor, and this is not only or always because they aren't taking personal responsibility or are lazy.

 

The usual line between liberal and conservative can be illustrated in this way. Let's say you have a homeless drug addict who has hit rock bottom. The conservative approach is to emphasize personal responsibility, to say "He did it to himself and only he can get himself out of it." The liberal approach is to emphasize how society let him down, to say "because of various factors he found himself in the place he's at and needs outside help."

 

I think both are true, both are important parts of the picture - but taken on their own, they're both half-truths. In my opinion we need better social services to support people in need. Yet on the same time, we need ways to encourage such folks into taking back their lives.

 

Bullshit.  I grew up in a lower middle class family (near poverty even).  It is 100% effort.  You either want it or don't.  By giving them handouts you are only encouraging them not to try.

 

The problem with liberals is that they are so one dimensional.  They just see it as rich kid being able to afford college and poor kid not being able too.  They don't give to shits that that kids parent or grand parents or great grand parents worked their ass off to earn it.  To make enough money so several generations could live comfortably and go to a top college, have health insurance, etc.

 

Liberals couldn't care less about rewarding hard working people.  All they care about is making it easier for lazy people to live comfortably.

Edited February 6, 2016 by nate