US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Shadowy Man]

It's okay. They're likely to be deplorable white cis-gendered dudes. They're not an identity anyone should care about. Why haven't they just died off yet? Srly.

Because they still have Obamacare. Once that's taken away from them then they'll be able to die off.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Migration from Central America and Mexico was down under Obama due to the economy. The manufacturing jobs left in the 80s and 90s. Hillary Clinton seems to have lost on a referendum on the past.

Telling coal miners she hopes they lose their jobs didn't help.

I guess "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" is a lot shorter and easier to repeat than:

So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why don't there concerns matter, Jimmy? Seriously. Why don't the concerns of working class people matter to Democrats?

When are you going to stop beating your wife?

If you tell someone you plan on making them unemployed if elected, on what basis could you be genuinely surprised that that person voted for your opponent?

Obama was blamed for the death of coal, despite the job losses occurring in the 80s and 90s and gas fracking which I bet the coal miners supported.

 

[laughing dog]

It's okay. They're likely to be deplorable white cis-gendered dudes. They're not an identity anyone should care about. Why haven't they just died off yet? Srly.

Because they still have Obamacare. Once that's taken away from them then they'll be able to die off.

Last week's Economist magazine had an analysis of the election results that claimed that a better explanatory variable for the switch from Obama votes to Trump was an index of poor health (even after adjusting for the usual SES variables) than uneducated white males. If that analysis is accurate, your observation is truer than you might have thought.

 

[Deepak]

Because they still have Obamacare. Once that's taken away from them then they'll be able to die off.

Last week's Economist magazine had an analysis of the election results that claimed that a better explanatory variable for the switch from Obama votes to Trump was an index of poor health (even after adjusting for the usual SES variables) than uneducated white males. If that analysis is accurate, your observation is truer than you might have thought.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...es-predict-trumpward-swings-illness-indicator

 

[blastula]

I showed that your claim that the Directory Comey agreed Clinton lied during the investigation is utterly false. She may have lied. She may simply been mistaken. I don't know. Nor do I care. And it is not relevant to your blatantly false claim about what Director Comey said.

For Mrs. Clinton or for someone who blatantly made a false claim about the director of the FBI or for someone who did not appear to know what a lie really is?

Comey stated that many of her sworn statements were untruths. Unless you want to claim she has dementia so was incapable of knowing the truth then speakers of the English would read those false statements as being lies - especially since if she had told the truth it would be her admitting to the crime she was being investigated for.

What's your excuse for your false statements?

 

[skepticalbip]

Comey stated that many of her sworn statements were untruths. Unless you want to claim she has dementia so was incapable of knowing the truth then speakers of the English would read those false statements as being lies - especially since if she had told the truth it would be her admitting to the crime she was being investigated for.

What's your excuse for your false statements?

Comey testified during the Congressional hearing that she told untruths under oath. Would you prefer saying that she perjured herself rather than she lied? I would accept that but perjury has a legalistic connotation of a more serious crime.

 

[laughing dog]

What's your excuse for your false statements?

Comey agreed that she told untruths under oath. Would you prefer saying that she perjured herself rather than she lied? I would accept that but perjury has a legalistic connotation of a more serious crime.

You keep repeating this blatant falsehood. Comey said she did not lie tp the FBI. Which means she did not perjure herself.

We have been over this before. Saying something that is untrue is not necessarily lying. For example, you are posting blatant untruths. Does that mean you are lying. However, blastula's question is still relevant - what is your excuse for persisting in repeating blatant falsehoods?

 

[skepticalbip]

Comey agreed that she told untruths under oath. Would you prefer saying that she perjured herself rather than she lied? I would accept that but perjury has a legalistic connotation of a more serious crime.

You keep repeating this blatant falsehood. Comey said she did not lie tp the FBI. Which means she did not perjure herself.

We have been over this before. Saying something that is untrue is not necessarily lying. For example, you are posting blatant untruths. Does that mean you are lying. However, blastula's question is still relevant - what is your excuse for persisting in repeating blatant falsehoods?

Yet again, the investigation was more than the FBI. It included the Congressional hearings where she told the "untruths". Comey testified in a later Congressional hearing that she did indeed tell "untruths" to the Congressional investigation - I linked it for you.

 

[laughing dog]

You keep repeating this blatant falsehood. Comey said she did not lie tp the FBI. Which means she did not perjure herself.

We have been over this before. Saying something that is untrue is not necessarily lying. For example, you are posting blatant untruths. Does that mean you are lying. However, blastula's question is still relevant - what is your excuse for persisting in repeating blatant falsehoods?

Yet again, the investigation was more than the FBI. It included the Congressional hearings where she told the "untruths".

Telling untruths is not necessarily lying. You keep evaded the question yesterday when I asked, and you've evaded it twice now You don't have to worry about prosecution because you are not under oath. What is your excuse for your false statements?

 

[skepticalbip]

Yet again, the investigation was more than the FBI. It included the Congressional hearings where she told the "untruths".

Telling untruths is not necessarily lying. You keep evaded the question yesterday when I asked, and you've evaded it twice now You don't have to worry about prosecution because you are not under oath. What is your excuse for your false statements?

Again, I would accept perjury rather than lying but perjury seems a more harsh condemnation to me.

No false statements - only a recognition of the Congressional testimony. I even linked it for you.

 

[laughing dog]

Telling untruths is not necessarily lying. You keep evaded the question yesterday when I asked, and you've evaded it twice now You don't have to worry about prosecution because you are not under oath. What is your excuse for your false statements?

Again, I would accept perjury rather than lying but perjury seems a more harsh condemnation to me.

No false statements - only a recognition of the Congressional testimony. I even linked it for you.

You most certainly did. You claimed that Comey said Clinton lied. Comey did not say that. You keep evaded the question yesterday when I asked, and you've evaded it thrice now You don't have to worry about prosecution because you are not under oath. What is your excuse for your false statements?

 

[angelo]

Since when has "telling untruths" not classified as lying?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Since when has "telling untruths" not classified as lying?

If you honestly believe what you are saying to be the truth, then even if you are wrong you are not lying.

 

[fast]

Since when has "telling untruths" not classified as lying?

Lying (and I'm not giving a definition but rather an analysis) includes two necessary conditions:
A) the utterance of a falsehood
B) intent to deceive

If I mistakenly satisfy the first condition such that the second condition is not satisfied, then both the conditions for a statement to constitute a lie have not been met. One (just one) of the very reasons we should not be so quick to accuse others of lying is precisely because they may not in fact be lying. One could, after all, simply be mistaken.

The second condition can be met without the first being met, and it can also serve to highlight the difference between truth and truthfulness. I can say something and that something be true, but if my intent was to be deceitful, then although it may be just as wrong as lying, it is not therefore a lie. Not even what is referred to as "a lie by omission" is in fact a lie despite the presence of the word, "lie" in the phrase. Just as bad as a lie, perhaps so, but there are subtle differences between certain kinds of wrongs that is captured by the words we choose.

 

[blastula]

Telling untruths is not necessarily lying. You keep evaded the question yesterday when I asked, and you've evaded it twice now You don't have to worry about prosecution because you are not under oath. What is your excuse for your false statements?

Again, I would accept perjury rather than lying but perjury seems a more harsh condemnation to me.

No false statements - only a recognition of the Congressional testimony. I even linked it for you.

Perjury is lying. They both denote intention. So the reason for your false statements appears to be ignorance of the meaning of these words, unless you are lying.

 

[Elixir]

Telling untruths is not necessarily lying.

A fundy on the CARM forums insists that telling an untruth - intentionally or otherwise - is a sin tantamount to murder, in Jesus' eyes.
I actually agree with him - Jesus is dead*, so his eyes wouldn't discern any difference.
Oddly, that particular poster, who has written over 100,000 posts on that site, rarely says anything that is not an untruth.

* Assuming he was ever alive

 

[angelo]

Since when has "telling untruths" not classified as lying?

If you honestly believe what you are saying to be the truth, then even if you are wrong you are not lying.

In that case, theyre even lying to themselves. Deep down they know they're telling porkies.

 

[laughing dog]

If you honestly believe what you are saying to be the truth, then even if you are wrong you are not lying.

In that case, theyre even lying to themselves. Deep down they know they're telling porkies.

Are you speaking from long personal experience?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Will Trump's entire candidacy consist of nothing more than him appointing people and saying that they're "our best"? I'm assuming that he'll later tell the same people "you're fired" when it turns out that they weren't the best.