• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Who lies more --- the Left or the Right?

Who lies more -- the Left or the Right?

  • It's only the Right which lies, never the Left.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It's only the Left which lies, never the Right.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • There's no provable case where the Left lied.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • There's no provable case where the Right lied.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Both sides lie, but the Right lies more than the Left.

    Votes: 9 75.0%
  • Both sides lie, but the Left lies more than the Right.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Whichever side is better at lying is the one which will win.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Getting your candidates elected takes priority over telling the truth.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • The Hunter Biden laptop never existed, despite the recent trial.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • It's necessary to lie when it helps win more votes for your side.

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Total voters
    12
It's pretty interesting Lumpenproletariat hasn't returned since starting this thread...
The agents of "The Deep State" obviously got a hold of him. Probably took him down into the basement of Comet Ping Pong and showed him Hillary's emails on Hunter Biden's laptop, and his brain exploded.

Pour one out for Lumpenproletariat.
 
We almost know without a doubt that Putin and Wikileaks were working together or at least allied. ...
^^^^ That ^^^^

What puzzles me, though, is why so many Americans seem to blame Assange and Pootie for undermining trust in the electoral process by airing the DNC's dirty laundry, instead of blaming the DNC for undermining trust in the electoral process by having that dirty laundry in the first place.
Because they didn’t also air the RNC’s dirty laundry.
See, this is exactly what I'm on about. They didn't also air the RNC's dirty laundry. Well, so what?

Assange isn't asking America to put him in charge of anything. And it's not as though when Slate catches Trump doing something crooked we go all "Why didn't you investigate Biden too?" We rely on journalists to expose corrupt politicians to sunlight, and journalists have their own biases, and if we demanded viewpoint neutrality from investigative reporters the way we demand it from judges then the 2% of journalists who are unbiased would have time to uncover 2% of the corruption that's currently getting exposed. Is that really what we want?

I'm not questioning the leak, I'm questioing the strategic timing of said leaks to cover Trump when bad stuff was coming out on him.

Even back when Assange was embarrassing the W Admin, I was skeptical of their actual motives in releasing particular documents.

... Wikileaks is selective with what they post. Wikileaks did a good job posting stolen documents by the Russians in order to help Trump with his pussy grabbing claims. They weren't on any remotely noble mission of trying to clean up politics in America (or the West).

Assange pretended to be a whistleblower.

Exposing wrongdoing is one thing, but he went a lot farther than that.

I think they started out with noble intentions but were subverted by Moscow.
Even back in the days of W, they seemed to have less of a noble agenda.
Why do all you guys care whether Wikileaks has a noble agenda? Seriously, dudes, what is up with that?
Why am I supposed to like a "journalist" who is a proTrump misogynist? Fuck Assange. He picked a side. He contributed to Trump winning the 2016 election.
 
Russia's direct involvement with Trump is unknown, though complicated with the fact that they did have that secret meeting at Trump Tower with people linked to the Kremlin.

The same guy who said "Russia, if you’re listening — I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens."?

We're not sure about THAT guy's (EDIT) involvement?
We almost know without a doubt that Putin and Wikileaks were working together or at least allied. ...
^^^^ That ^^^^

What puzzles me, though, is why so many Americans seem to blame Assange and Pootie for undermining trust in the electoral process by airing the DNC's dirty laundry, instead of blaming the DNC for undermining trust in the electoral process by having that dirty laundry in the first place.
Because they didn’t also air the RNC’s dirty laundry.
Well they did, back in the W days. But again, it appeared to be anti-West, not anti-corruption / anti-fucked up governing. The fact he leaked out docs that the Russians had stolen... and doesn't seem to care about leaking docs regarding the corruption in Russia. In fact, there is evidence they have specifically refused to.

Bomb#20 appears to have been caught by surprise by a major political party in the United States being a bit underhanded and bureaucratic, but that wasn't all too surprising. It is disappointing, but there are no virgin politicians out there. Well, there was Jimmy Carter, but we saw was the electorate did to him. Bomb#20 also seem to not understand that the documentation leaked by Wikileaks wasn't released to inform, but to manipulate, to undermine the US Government and specifically the Hillary Clinton Administration.
 
We almost know without a doubt that Putin and Wikileaks were working together or at least allied. ...
^^^^ That ^^^^

What puzzles me, though, is why so many Americans seem to blame Assange and Pootie for undermining trust in the electoral process by airing the DNC's dirty laundry, instead of blaming the DNC for undermining trust in the electoral process by having that dirty laundry in the first place.
Because they didn’t also air the RNC’s dirty laundry.
See, this is exactly what I'm on about. They didn't also air the RNC's dirty laundry. Well, so what?

Assange isn't asking America to put him in charge of anything. And it's not as though when Slate catches Trump doing something crooked we go all "Why didn't you investigate Biden too?" We rely on journalists to expose corrupt politicians to sunlight, and journalists have their own biases, and if we demanded viewpoint neutrality from investigative reporters the way we demand it from judges then the 2% of journalists who are unbiased would have time to uncover 2% of the corruption that's currently getting exposed. Is that really what we want?

I'm not questioning the leak, I'm questioing the strategic timing of said leaks to cover Trump when bad stuff was coming out on him.

Even back when Assange was embarrassing the W Admin, I was skeptical of their actual motives in releasing particular documents.

... Wikileaks is selective with what they post. Wikileaks did a good job posting stolen documents by the Russians in order to help Trump with his pussy grabbing claims. They weren't on any remotely noble mission of trying to clean up politics in America (or the West).

Assange pretended to be a whistleblower.

Exposing wrongdoing is one thing, but he went a lot farther than that.

I think they started out with noble intentions but were subverted by Moscow.
Even back in the days of W, they seemed to have less of a noble agenda.
Why do all you guys care whether Wikileaks has a noble agenda? Seriously, dudes, what is up with that?
Why am I supposed to like a "journalist" who is a proTrump misogynist? Fuck Assange. He picked a side. He contributed to Trump winning the 2016 election.
I doubt Assange is Pro-Trump. Assange is pro-Fascist. Not certain he always was, but he at the very least went to the dark side.
 
I'll never vote Repub for any office in any election -- they've gone over to the dark side -- but McCain does look pretty good on a number of counts:
-lending his name, energy, and political capital to the movement to put limits on campaign donations -- another great lost cause
-shutting down that hateful hag at his town hall who wanted to rant about Obama being Muslim -- I'm sure she's happy with DJT.
-defying Trump on the vote to scuttle the ACA
-letting it be known that he didn't want Trump at his funeral
I guess that balances his creation of Palin as a national phenom, especially since she's now a has-been. (He must've been smart enough to realize how completely unfit she would have been to step into the role of President, once he got to know her.)
Yup. There are decent Republicans. It's just they'll vote for the atrocious stuff the party wants.
 
Because they didn’t also air the RNC’s dirty laundry.
See, this is exactly what I'm on about. They didn't also air the RNC's dirty laundry. Well, so what?

Assange isn't asking America to put him in charge of anything. And it's not as though when Slate catches Trump doing something crooked we go all "Why didn't you investigate Biden too?" We rely on journalists to expose corrupt politicians to sunlight, and journalists have their own biases, and if we demanded viewpoint neutrality from investigative reporters the way we demand it from judges then the 2% of journalists who are unbiased would have time to uncover 2% of the corruption that's currently getting exposed. Is that really what we want?
The point is they were selective in what they leaked. Compare what they leaked vs what Moscow would like--basically 100% overlap.

And they leaked things that were bad for US troops but not in any way wrongful.

They waddled and quacked--they're under Moscow's control.


I think they started out with noble intentions but were subverted by Moscow.
Even back in the days of W, they seemed to have less of a noble agenda.
Why do all you guys care whether Wikileaks has a noble agenda? Seriously, dudes, what is up with that?
It's very relevant to understanding the importance of what's said.
 
I'll never vote Repub for any office in any election -- they've gone over to the dark side -- but McCain does look pretty good on a number of counts:
-lending his name, energy, and political capital to the movement to put limits on campaign donations -- another great lost cause
-shutting down that hateful hag at his town hall who wanted to rant about Obama being Muslim -- I'm sure she's happy with DJT.
-defying Trump on the vote to scuttle the ACA
-letting it be known that he didn't want Trump at his funeral
I guess that balances his creation of Palin as a national phenom, especially since she's now a has-been. (He must've been smart enough to realize how completely unfit she would have been to step into the role of President, once he got to know her.)
Yup. There are decent Republicans. It's just they'll vote for the atrocious stuff the party wants.
Then they are not decent.
 
What puzzles me, though, is why so many Americans seem to blame Assange and Pootie for undermining trust in the electoral process by airing the DNC's dirty laundry, instead of blaming the DNC for undermining trust in the electoral process by having that dirty laundry in the first place.
Because they didn’t also air the RNC’s dirty laundry.
See, this is exactly what I'm on about. They didn't also air the RNC's dirty laundry. Well, so what?

Assange isn't asking America to put him in charge of anything. And it's not as though when Slate catches Trump doing something crooked we go all "Why didn't you investigate Biden too?" We rely on journalists to expose corrupt politicians to sunlight, and journalists have their own biases, and if we demanded viewpoint neutrality from investigative reporters the way we demand it from judges then the 2% of journalists who are unbiased would have time to uncover 2% of the corruption that's currently getting exposed. Is that really what we want?
...
Why do all you guys care whether Wikileaks has a noble agenda? Seriously, dudes, what is up with that?
Why am I supposed to like a "journalist" who is a proTrump misogynist?
:consternation2: So who said you were supposed to like him? Hate him all you want. I hate him too. Like the President of Ecuador said, Assange is a spoiled brat. He wore out his welcome by among other things expecting embassy staffers with real jobs to take care of his cat for him. There's a special place in hell for people who neglect their pets. The man is human sludge. So what?

He picked a side. He contributed to Trump winning the 2016 election.
The DNC picked a side and contributed to Trump winning the 2016 election! If they hadn't rigged the primary against Sanders they wouldn't have made the Sanders supporters hate Clinton enough to stay home in November. Somebody was going to catch them at it. What, they were entitled to get away with it just because the somebody happened to be a jerk?

All this focus on Assange's character is an ad hominem distraction. We shouldn't have to like a messenger to figure out the blame belongs squarely on the wrongdoers he exposed.
 
Because they didn’t also air the RNC’s dirty laundry.
See, this is exactly what I'm on about. They didn't also air the RNC's dirty laundry. Well, so what?

Assange isn't asking America to put him in charge of anything. And it's not as though when Slate catches Trump doing something crooked we go all "Why didn't you investigate Biden too?" We rely on journalists to expose corrupt politicians to sunlight, and journalists have their own biases, and if we demanded viewpoint neutrality from investigative reporters the way we demand it from judges then the 2% of journalists who are unbiased would have time to uncover 2% of the corruption that's currently getting exposed. Is that really what we want?
The point is they were selective in what they leaked. Compare what they leaked vs what Moscow would like--basically 100% overlap. ...
Everybody who leaks is selective. So go get some other financier and some other leaker and some other media outlet to air the dirty laundry Moscow wouldn't like. Expecting the same source to have the motivation to take out both sides is beyond unrealistic.
 
Both sides use the same methods.

Look at Biden doing the political two step on immigration and Gaza.

Come on, man. You know Biden's moves don't count as the two-step.
Unfortunately he would stumble badly if he tried the two-step.

Yeah a lot of old people would, and?
There are times when people reach the age/condition when they have to be told they cannot no longer do what they used to or wish to. My father has gone through that with regard to working with hand tools. It was hard for him and us but necessary for his safety.
There are times when running a country can be become just too onerous. Biden is right at that stage now. It is not good for him, his family and his country if he keeps going. Why the Democrats cannot find someone to replace him is beyond me.
Churchill for example should never had been premier in 1951-1955. He was not just up to it. Yet no-one said to him "Its time Winnie" until it was too late.
 
He won the primary. How hard is this to understand. Running the following primary against an incumbent is a dangerous game.

He wasn't anyone in here's first pick. But he won the nomination. He is the incumbent President. The question is why can't the GOP nominate someone that didn't incite a riot because he wanted to steal an election?
 
He won the primary. How hard is this to understand. Running the following primary against an incumbent is a dangerous game
Entirely hopeless. Though incumbents who face a hefty primary challenger tend to lose their re-election. Probably why few Democrats even tried this time, fear of Trump and his neo-Nazi goons outweighed whatever mild disatisfaction they might have been feeling about Biden.

The question is why can't the GOP nominate someone that didn't incite a riot because he wanted to steal an election?
Democrats are scared of Trump, but Republicans are fucking terrified of him. He can remove most of them from office on a whim, and will if they don't kiss his ass.
 
EXactly. Do I want Biden as President? Not really. Do I want Biden instead of Trump as President. OMFG YES!!!
Yet do you want an incumbent who through age is at the point where he cannot be effective anymore or a challenger who is unfit for myriad other reasons?
Again I will ask - with 320 million persons to choose from why are 2 persons who are not up to it even in contention? Your system of choosing candidates is not just broken, but stuffed.
 
EXactly. Do I want Biden as President? Not really. Do I want Biden instead of Trump as President. OMFG YES!!!
Yet do you want an incumbent who through age is at the point where he cannot be effective anymore or a challenger who is unfit for myriad other reasons?
What part of Hobson Choice are you having difficulty understanding here?
Again I will ask - with 320 million persons to choose from why are 2 persons who are not up to it even in contention?
Biden won the black vote. If you can remember four years back, Biden wasn't near the top of anyone's list. But he got the nomination and that was that. We could act like petulant children and throw a fit or move forward with the candidate in hand. With the alternative being not remotely fit to run an ice cream stand, forget the country, there was only one option.

Trump is the nominee for the other part because of 40 years of right-wing turn far right-wing turn alt-right wing propagandizing. This nomination reared its head in 2000 when a bunch of whites in South Carolina fell for a push poll regarding McCain's mixed race child. And the right-wing went with the draft dodging simpleton Texan, who was really an Ivy League deep state. I only bring up the draft dodging due to the endless whining the right-wing did about it with Clinton. Afterwards, we'd see the next big step inadvertently again with McCain who nominated the Mouth from the Sou North firebrand Sarah Palin, who made a political career out of being loud about controversy. While she was paper thin, it was the stepping stone to the Anyone But Romney tantrum of the far-right of the base in 2012. That was followed up inexplicably by Trump, who somehow managed to win in 2016, even after a tape came out about how he like to sexually assault women because they "let you do it" when you are a celebrity.
Your system of choosing candidates is not just broken, but stuffed.
The drawn out primary system has to go, but the system as a whole had managed to work for over a century. The problem is America, as well as Europe is that fascism is getting popular again. Thanks to the advent of social media, it has restarted being easy to manipulate large populations.
 
Public Service Announcement: We are no longer accepting votes for policies.. Please proceed to choose the lesser evil "boogeyman" until further notice.

Respectfully,
DNC/RNC
First question, is the candidate outrageously unqualified to be President? If yes, then we're done. We are in a situation where there is a candidate that proved he can't be trusted to be President. Both in how he acted in (fucked with our alliances, leaked uber secret Israeli intel... and then like a moron confirmed it via denial in a press conference with Netanyahu, strong arming Ukrainian President to announce fake investigation into Joe Biden as a quid quo pro for Congressional mandated military funding, that whole riot thing) and out of office (stealing documents, targeting court officials in social media). He should have been convicted in the second impeachment and barred from the office!
 
Casting votes to stop the opposing candidate, rather than to enthusiastically support polices, is troublesome to me. The general public, many of whom don't do their own research, rely heavily on the media and presidential debates to make their decisions. It's not about whether Biden is a better option than Trump (which I agree with); it's about the shift towards voting for or against candidates instead of voting for and against the policies they champion. I mentioned the RNC and DNC because they shape the party's strategy, messaging, and overall campaign focus.. Clearly, one is failing more than the other to shift the focus back to policies, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Just look at the debates from Reagan's era onward, and you'll see a remarkable decline in the discourse.

I'm all for doing whatever it takes to shake people back to their senses about Trump, but expect aftershocks.
 
Casting votes to stop the opposing candidate, rather than to enthusiastically support polices, is troublesome to me.
No shit. Conservatives that love Trump today, hated the dude in 2016, but voted for him for SCOTUS Justices and Federal Judge appointments.
The general public, many of whom don't do their own research, rely heavily on the media and presidential debates to make their decisions. It's not about whether Biden is a better option than Trump (which I agree with); it's about the shift towards voting for or against candidates instead of voting for and against the policies they champion. I mentioned the RNC and DNC because they shape the party's strategy, messaging, and overall campaign focus.. Clearly, one is failing more than the other to shift the focus back to policies, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Just look at the debates from Reagan's era onward, and you'll see a remarkable decline in the discourse.
Yeah, last dude to be honest got his ass handed to him in 1980.
 
Back
Top Bottom