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

[Gospel]

It appears the race has reached a stage where the question isn't about who lies the most, but rather who hasn't lied enough.

 

[Politesse]

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.

I wouldn't even mind it so much if the reason given for trying to keep someone out of office were more tangible. But half the time it's just "I think we can all agree that the other guy is Evil and must be stopped at all costs" Like, an undecided voter probably wouldn't be undecided in the first place, if that's all it was going to take to convince them...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I wouldn't even mind it so much if the reason given for trying to keep someone out of office were more tangible. But half the time it's just "I think we can all agree that the other guy is Evil and must be stopped at all costs" Like, an undecided voter probably wouldn't be undecided in the first place, if that's all it was going to take to convince them...

Actually, it is as simple as, "The judges they will appoint will undo social justice from the last half century."

W gave us Citizens United, Shelby v Holder. W and Trump gave us Dobbs.

 

[Politesse]

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.

I wouldn't even mind it so much if the reason given for trying to keep someone out of office were more tangible. But half the time it's just "I think we can all agree that the other guy is Evil and must be stopped at all costs" Like, an undecided voter probably wouldn't be undecided in the first place, if that's all it was going to take to convince them...

Actually, it is as simple as, "The judges they will appoint will undo social justice from the last half century."

W gave us Citizens United, Shelby v Holder. W and Trump gave us Dobbs.

That is a better argument, yes.

 

[RVonse]

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.

What really is telling about Biden's mental state is this:
Hur found that Biden knowingly possessed national security documents for which he had no permission, and that he was guilty of mishandling national security documents by leaving them in the trunk of his car and spread among a variety of non-secure locations. However, Hur concluded that Biden shouldn’t be indicted because of his “diminished mental facilities.” As I previously asked, how then is Biden qualified to be president of the United States and have his finger on the nuclear button? The Justice (sic) Department doesn’t say.

Washington Weaponized Domestic Law and Its “Rules-based-order” |

www.paulcraigroberts.org

A POTUS who is so mentally deficient he can not be indicted? It is beyond scary but half of our population is actually going to vote for him in office again.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

OK, maybe there's no way to really measure exactly, for sure, which side tells the most lies.

But it would be nice to keep score, or try to. Or rather, it would be nice to identify individual cases where it can be established with certainty which side lied.

E.g. the Hunter Biden Laptop

Which side lied about this?

Don't the Leftists have to admit now that they are the ones who lied, not Hannity and Giuliani claiming this laptop existed and was taken by police for evidence?

It's not often that we have a clearcut case to prove which side told the truth and which side lied. Because both sides make up their own "facts" -- the Red facts vs. the Blue facts. And each side can cite their news source --- MSNBC or Fox News etc. for their "facts" which prove the other side is lying.

But in the case of the H. Biden laptop, the truth now is undeniable. This laptop was used for evidence in the recent trial. For years Progressive talk-show hosts have denied that the laptop even existed, and that the whole story was fabricated by Hannity and Giuliani etc. So don't the Demos have to admit this time that it's their side which lied?

What are some other cases where BOTH SIDES must recognize the same truth and must agree on which side lied? Do Trumpsters have to admit that their side is the one which lied, in some other case?

It is true that the Left must admit this now -- Right? It's their side which lied about this. Each side accused the other of lying, for 2 or 3 years. And it is now established what the truth is -- that the laptop did exist and was taken by the FBI for evidence, as Trumpists claimed, while Demos/Progressives continued to deny it and accused Hannity-Giuliani of making up the whole story, because no such laptop existed. And they continued saying this for at least 2 years.

Isn't it good to establish the Truth, for certain, in this or that case, identifying beyond doubt which side lied and which side told the truth? Are Progressives honest enough to now admit that it's their side which lied in this case? At least in this one major Left-Right squabble, it's official that it was the Demos/Left/Bidens who were the liars. Right?

Straw man. You need to demonstrate that someone on the left lied saying the laptop did not exist.

On Chicago Progressive Radio there were talk-show hosts at the time who insisted that the laptop did not exist. They said Giuliani fabricated the story that Hunter Biden's laptop had been taken by the FBI to be used for evidence.

Perhaps these pundits believed the lie (that the laptop didn't exist), but they relied on Biden Administration sources for it, and those higher-level sources knew that the laptop did exist. It was during the 2020 election season, and this story would hurt Biden in the November election, so their best response to the story was to deny that the laptop even existed. Admitting that it did exist would promote rumors about it which would cost Biden some votes.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

OK, maybe there's no way to really measure exactly, for sure, which side tells the most lies.

But it would be nice to keep score, or try to. Or rather, it would be nice to identify individual cases where it can be established with certainty which side lied.

E.g. the Hunter Biden Laptop

Which side lied about this?

Don't the Leftists have to admit now that they are the ones who lied, not Hannity and Giuliani claiming this laptop existed and was taken by police for evidence?

?? Well you are being a little deceitful here. The laptop was used in court to demonstrate hunters drug problems. No evidence of Joe Biden corruption on it. Hunter is not the president!

Remember when Giuliani said that the laptop had illegal pics of children on it (and that he had copies on those files on him).

We don't know whether there was additional evidence on the laptop. It may be true that there was further incriminating evidence against both Joe and Hunter. We don't know. All we know is that the Left lied by denying that the laptop existed. Why should we take their word for it that there was nothing further? If the only evidence was something minor about Hunter, why didn't they just admit this? Why don't they expose everything there now, to prove that there is nothing incriminating against Joe? They could vindicate Joe by presenting all the content of the laptop, rather than keeping it secret.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

OK, maybe there's no way to really measure exactly, for sure, which side tells the most lies.

But it would be nice to keep score, or try to. Or rather, it would be nice to identify individual cases where it can be established with certainty which side lied.

E.g. the Hunter Biden Laptop

Which side lied about this?

Don't the Leftists have to admit now that they are the ones who lied, not Hannity and Giuliani claiming this laptop existed and was taken by police for evidence?

?? Well you are being a little deceitful here. The laptop was used in court to demonstrate hunters drug problems. No evidence of Joe Biden corruption on it. Hunter is not the president!

Remember when Giuliani said that the laptop had illegal pics of children on it (and that he had copies on those files on him).

We don't know whether there was additional evidence on the laptop.

We can't "know" a lot of things. However, it isn't unreasonable to presume that if the material Giuliani alleged was on that drive, Hunter Biden would have been brought up on worse charges.

All we know is that the Left lied by denying that the laptop existed.

You mean the Left lied about it being seemingly unlikely that a poor-sighted PC repair guy recognized Hunter Biden and gave a copy of the hard drive (or was it the whole thing?) to representatives of Rudy Giuliani? That was "lying"?

Why should we take their word for it that there was nothing further? If the only evidence was something minor about Hunter, why didn't they just admit this? Why don't they expose everything there now, to prove that there is nothing incriminating against Joe? They could vindicate Joe by presenting all the content of the laptop, rather than keeping it secret.

Are you kidding me?! Could you please provide us all of your digital files, to prove you aren't a terrorist or support terrorism? You have nothing to hide.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It may be true that today Republicans lie more than Democrats. Or that Trump raised the level of lying one notch higher. Whereas before Trump it was about equal between the two sides.


Don't take chances. Better to just slam the lid on any investigation.

But it was OK to allow a minor charge against Hunter, for the symbolism.

We don't know whether there was additional evidence on the laptop.

We can't "know" a lot of things. However, it isn't unreasonable to presume that if the material Giuliani alleged was on that drive, Hunter Biden would have been brought up on worse charges.

No, we shouldn't presume that. Rather, the additional allegations should be investigated. Worse charges might be appropriate, but the orders from the top are to put a limit on it. The only additional "charges" would be brought by Democratic Party prosecutors, who have their orders from higher up.

All we know is that the Left lied by denying that the laptop existed.

You mean the Left lied about it being seemingly unlikely that a poor-sighted PC repair guy recognized Hunter Biden and gave a copy of the hard drive (or was it the whole thing?) to representatives of Rudy Giuliani? That was "lying"?

It became lying later when they continued insisting that the laptop did not exist. This was a story which was damaging to the Bidens in the 2020 and 2022 elections.

Why should we take their word for it that there was nothing further? If the only evidence was something minor about Hunter, why didn't they just admit this? Why don't they expose everything there now, to prove that there is nothing incriminating against Joe? They could vindicate Joe by presenting all the content of the laptop, rather than keeping it secret.

Are you kidding me?! Could you please provide us all of your digital files, to prove you aren't a terrorist or support terrorism? You have nothing to hide.

In cases where there are allegations, it should be investigated. Or, you can assume that anything a Sean Hannity alleges is automatically a lie, with never any need to investigate it. You can always start out with the premise that any allegation from the Right is automatically a lie and must never be investigated. Or that anything which might be damaging to the Democrats in Power has to be suppressed.

The best premise is that ALL allegations on either side, or against either side, should be investigated, for possible prosecution if evidence does turn up.

But rather, the premise today, on both sides, is that NO allegations should ever be investigated if it might hurt our side. And each side lets the other side find ways to escape being investigated. It's better to not know the truth than to allow investigations which might show something negative about our side. Better to just suppress all of it, by letting either side have enough power to obstruct any investigation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It may be true that today Republicans lie more than Democrats. Or that Trump raised the level of lying one notch higher. Whereas before Trump it was about equal between the two sides.

Naw... it was equal around 2002 or so. That was when US Senate Republicans started talking like AM Radio right-wing entertainers.

But it was OK to allow a minor charge against Hunter, for the symbolism.

I'm just curious how you know so much about the actual investigation. It is almost like you are concluding you are correct before you finish uttering your accusation. You aren't even investigating it yourself.

We don't know whether there was additional evidence on the laptop.

We can't "know" a lot of things. However, it isn't unreasonable to presume that if the material Giuliani alleged was on that drive, Hunter Biden would have been brought up on worse charges.

No, we shouldn't presume that. Rather, the additional allegations should be investigated.

So they investigated the laptop and found files for his conviction, but they didn't look hard?

Worse charges might be appropriate, but the orders from the top are to put a limit on it. The only additional "charges" would be brought by Democratic Party prosecutors, who have their orders from higher up.

Oh, this is one of those you are going to assume whatever you want and defend it by blaming the people you are making things up about things.

All we know is that the Left lied by denying that the laptop existed.

You mean the Left lied about it being seemingly unlikely that a poor-sighted PC repair guy recognized Hunter Biden and gave a copy of the hard drive (or was it the whole thing?) to representatives of Rudy Giuliani? That was "lying"?

It became lying later when they continued insisting that the laptop did not exist. This was a story which was damaging to the Bidens in the 2020 and 2022 elections.

The laptop as the far right was talking about didn't seem to exist, and really never did. A laptop was seized after all, which was indeed surprising, but the reality of it existing fell well short of the outlandish claims by the lying liars of the right-wing.

Why should we take their word for it that there was nothing further? If the only evidence was something minor about Hunter, why didn't they just admit this? Why don't they expose everything there now, to prove that there is nothing incriminating against Joe? They could vindicate Joe by presenting all the content of the laptop, rather than keeping it secret.

Are you kidding me?! Could you please provide us all of your digital files, to prove you aren't a terrorist or support terrorism? You have nothing to hide.

In cases where there are allegations, it should be investigated.

I'm not saying you are a terrorist, but it seems kind of odd that you wouldn't provide us all of your digital files. After all, the claim is outlandish on the face of it, which makes it just seem odd that you appear to be hiding something.

Or, you can assume that anything a Sean Hannity alleges is automatically a lie, with never any need to investigate it.

According to Fox News' lawyers, Sean Hannity is an entertainer, not a journalist or a law enforcement officer.

The best premise is that ALL allegations on either side, or against either side, should be investigated, for possible prosecution if evidence does turn up.

Even pizzerias?

But rather, the premise today, on both sides, is that NO allegations should ever be investigated if it might hurt our side.

Hunter Biden has been convicted of crimes.

 

[Patooka]

A POTUS who is so mentally deficient he can not be indicted? It is beyond scary but half of our population is actually going to vote for him in office again.

*tap tap*



That the US will elect a geriatric old fart is a forgone conclusion in this election. The choice now is between one who is self aware enough that they surround themselves with a lot younger people to balance things out, or a guy who thinks he's a Nelson Mandela/Mother Teresa hybrid who misses Hannibal Lector deeply.

 

[Patooka]

It may be true that today Republicans lie more than Democrats. Or that Trump raised the level of lying one notch higher.

Really? What the fuck makes you think that?

Whereas before Trump it was about equal between the two sides.

Congratulations on waking up from that coma you've been in since the 1970s. You've got a lot of catching up to do, son.

 

[Shadowy Man]

In cases where there are allegations, it should be investigated. Or, you can assume that anything a Sean Hannity alleges is automatically a lie, with never any need to investigate it. You can always start out with the premise that any allegation from the Right is automatically a lie…

given the track record of the Right and the effort it takes to investigate allegations, I would be comfortable with this stance.

Not that anything the right brings up should never be investigated just that their word alone without good evidence is not sufficient. The authorities should not be tracking down every conspiracy theory and that’s the great majority of what the right is spinning these days. Their credibility is in the toilet. Fox News themselves have argued in court that they shouldn’t be taken seriously; that is, when they aren’t settling out of court for all of their incessant lying.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

What really is telling about Biden's mental state is this:
Hur found that Biden knowingly possessed national security documents for which he had no permission, and that he was guilty of mishandling national security documents by leaving them in the trunk of his car and spread among a variety of non-secure locations. However, Hur concluded that Biden shouldn’t be indicted because of his “diminished mental facilities.” As I previously asked, how then is Biden qualified to be president of the United States and have his finger on the nuclear button? The Justice (sic) Department doesn’t say.

Washington Weaponized Domestic Law and Its “Rules-based-order” |

www.paulcraigroberts.org

A POTUS who is so mentally deficient he can not be indicted? It is beyond scary but half of our population is actually going to vote for him in office again.

You actually take that bullshit seriously??? Hur is a holdover from the Trump admin and PCR is an asshole. The congress has the transcript of the discussion between Hur and Biden. They just want sound bites to use as political fodder.

 

[ZiprHead]

OK, maybe there's no way to really measure exactly, for sure, which side tells the most lies.

But it would be nice to keep score, or try to. Or rather, it would be nice to identify individual cases where it can be established with certainty which side lied.

E.g. the Hunter Biden Laptop

Which side lied about this?

Don't the Leftists have to admit now that they are the ones who lied, not Hannity and Giuliani claiming this laptop existed and was taken by police for evidence?

It's not often that we have a clearcut case to prove which side told the truth and which side lied. Because both sides make up their own "facts" -- the Red facts vs. the Blue facts. And each side can cite their news source --- MSNBC or Fox News etc. for their "facts" which prove the other side is lying.

But in the case of the H. Biden laptop, the truth now is undeniable. This laptop was used for evidence in the recent trial. For years Progressive talk-show hosts have denied that the laptop even existed, and that the whole story was fabricated by Hannity and Giuliani etc. So don't the Demos have to admit this time that it's their side which lied?

What are some other cases where BOTH SIDES must recognize the same truth and must agree on which side lied? Do Trumpsters have to admit that their side is the one which lied, in some other case?

It is true that the Left must admit this now -- Right? It's their side which lied about this. Each side accused the other of lying, for 2 or 3 years. And it is now established what the truth is -- that the laptop did exist and was taken by the FBI for evidence, as Trumpists claimed, while Demos/Progressives continued to deny it and accused Hannity-Giuliani of making up the whole story, because no such laptop existed. And they continued saying this for at least 2 years.

Isn't it good to establish the Truth, for certain, in this or that case, identifying beyond doubt which side lied and which side told the truth? Are Progressives honest enough to now admit that it's their side which lied in this case? At least in this one major Left-Right squabble, it's official that it was the Demos/Left/Bidens who were the liars. Right?

Straw man. You need to demonstrate that someone on the left lied saying the laptop did not exist.

On Chicago Progressive Radio there were talk-show hosts at the time who insisted that the laptop did not exist. They said Giuliani fabricated the story that Hunter Biden's laptop had been taken by the FBI to be used for evidence.

Perhaps these pundits believed the lie (that the laptop didn't exist), but they relied on Biden Administration sources for it, and those higher-level sources knew that the laptop did exist. It was during the 2020 election season, and this story would hurt Biden in the November election, so their best response to the story was to deny that the laptop even existed. Admitting that it did exist would promote rumors about it which would cost Biden some votes.

Gee, someone somewhere said...

 

[Shadowy Man]

What really is telling about Biden's mental state is this:
Hur found that Biden knowingly possessed national security documents for which he had no permission, and that he was guilty of mishandling national security documents by leaving them in the trunk of his car and spread among a variety of non-secure locations. However, Hur concluded that Biden shouldn’t be indicted because of his “diminished mental facilities.” As I previously asked, how then is Biden qualified to be president of the United States and have his finger on the nuclear button? The Justice (sic) Department doesn’t say.

Washington Weaponized Domestic Law and Its “Rules-based-order” |

www.paulcraigroberts.org

A POTUS who is so mentally deficient he can not be indicted? It is beyond scary but half of our population is actually going to vote for him in office again.

You actually take that bullshit seriously???

maybe he didn’t see Mr. Hur questioned in front of the Congress. Where he had to truthfully explain what was in his report.

 

[ZiprHead]

Speaking of Hur:

But a special counsel must write a report in a way—if possible—that gives no advantage or disadvantage to any one person, apart from the consequences that flow naturally from the factual findings of the report. It is one thing to explain in a neutral way why evidence exists—or does not exist—in a case (such as Biden could not recall) and another to use language that is arguably disparaging (such as that Biden is “an elderly man with a poor memory”). It is one thing to suggest that a defendant could come across to a jury as sympathetic and another to suggest that a defendant is utterly incapable of forming criminal intent. Political opponents will turn the latter characterizations into political capital. A special counsel report should avoid providing that sort of ammunition to either side (and I believe Hur could have threaded that needle here) while still adequately explaining a declination decision to the attorney general.

The Special Counsel Regulations Strike Again

The regulations are flawed, and pouring sensitive investigative impressions into the public domain is almost always a bad idea.

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[Shadowy Man]

However, Hur concluded that Biden shouldn’t be indicted because of his “diminished mental facilities.”

That’s not what he told Congress under penalty of perjury. This is what he said to Congress:

“One of the elements of the relevant mishandling statute is the intent element. And what my report reflects is my judgment that based on the evidence, I would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that that intent element had been met.”

If one cares to know the truth, one can watch the Congressional testimony and read the actual transcripts of Hur’s interview with Biden.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If they were truly about exposing things that shouldn't be hiding in shadows they would not have been so one-sided.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Don't even have to be old. I've always said I have 4 left feet. I've always been terrible at any footwork in dancing.