Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[BernardLanguillier]

Is there no bottom for this hypocritical moron?
Earlier this week Trump expressed support for the rioters behind the deadly January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, saying in a video played during a fundraiser that “People have been treated unconstitutionally in my opinion and very, very unfairly, and we’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

Trump is Trump, no surprise.

To me the worst hypocritical morons are the American people who knew full well Trump was crazy but still decided in full consciousness to support him because they think (present time) that Republicans in power is more important than democracy.

And we clearly have some in this very forum. Educated and intelligent folks who don’t have the excuse of having been Fox News brain washed.

It’s a clear case of a minority trying to steal power from their fellow Americans.

The very same people have been the most vocal about the superiority of the US over non democratic countries, yet the moment they see the risk of loosing power they act exactly the same as the corrupt elite of those countries. Supporting the removal of power from the people in favor of a government supporting their selfish interests over the interest of the nation.

And of course the worst offense is to the memory of the founding fathers of the country and to the memory of their own ancestors, proud republicans who fought to make America what it is.

What an incredible decadence. People who see themselves as winners when they in fact ultimate loosers because they have lost themselves when they lost their values.

Cheers,
Bernard

[digitaldog]

To me the worst hypocritical morons are the American people who knew full well Trump was crazy but still decided in full consciousness to support him because they think (present time) that Republicans in power is more important than democracy.

Well there's this <g>:

[marvpelkey]

Perhaps in years past it was more subtle so not as noticeable by the public. But the thing that confuses me the most, and even more than people voting for "the crazies" and the incompetents, is why would someone vote for a candidate that starts off (blatantly) lying to them. If they will obviously lie to you to get your vote, why do you think they wouldn't lie to you once in office? It just boggles my mind.

[Ray]

Perhaps in years past it was more subtle so not as noticeable by the public. But the thing that confuses me the most, and even more than people voting for "the crazies" and the incompetents, is why would someone vote for a candidate that starts off (blatantly) lying to them. If they will obviously lie to you to get your vote, why do you think they wouldn't lie to you once in office? It just boggles my mind.

The answer is quite complex because lying in politics appears to be a necessary trait which a successful politician is usually good at, and is able to hide. The general public do not appear to want to spend the time investigating the truth about issues, or examining alternative views, perhaps because they are more interested in entertainment, and/or don't have the intellectual capacity to do a thorough investigation.

Therefore, the way out is through an 'appeal to a particular authority'. If the views of the 'Authority' support their preconceived prejudices and biased views, so much the better.

Perhaps Trump's appeal is that he tends not to hide his lies as much as other politicians.

Here's a couple of articles which explain the problem in more detail.

Why politicians lie

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/25/why-politicians-lie/

"The public ignorance that makes lying an effective political strategy is extremely difficult to overcome. Some of the resulting lying may even be justified. Still, we might wonder whether so many of our important decisions should be made by a system where lying is just politics as usual. Perhaps we should consider alternatives that do might curb the influence of ignorance and lies.."

Martin Jay, author of The Virtues of Mendacity: On Lying in Politics

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/05/06/why-politicians-should-lie

"We need to see how citizens are affected by the policies that our politicians pursue. That's far more important than looking for a perfect politician. You can have an absolutely incorruptible figure who is a fool. And you can have somebody who is morally complex, and yet his policies help people more."

[digitaldog]

The answer is quite complex because lying in politics appears to be a necessary trait which a successful politician is usually good at, and is able to hide.

This applies to 2022 as well if the topic is lies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-Lk-OwCMM
"When we believe in lies, we cannot see the truth, so we make thousands of assumptions and we take them as truth. One of the biggest assumptions we make is that the lies we believe are the truth!" - Don Miguel Ruiz

[Ray]

This applies to 2022 as well if the topic is lies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-Lk-OwCMM
"When we believe in lies, we cannot see the truth, so we make thousands of assumptions and we take them as truth. One of the biggest assumptions we make is that the lies we believe are the truth!" - Don Miguel Ruiz

You have to ask,'Who actually believes in lies, and what does that statement really mean?' A person who is told a lie but doesn't recognize it as a lie, doesn't necessarily believe in lies. A belief in lies is surely a belief in the efficacy and purpose of lies in order to achieve a particular outcome.

Telling lies can sometimes be justified in relation to a particular outcome. The following quote from the Martin Jay article I linked in the previous post, provides an example.

"For example, in the movie Inglourious Basterds, a peasant is asked whether or not there are Jews hiding underneath his floorboards. He ultimately tells the truth, and the SS man immediately comes and shoots them. It would have been, on some level, maybe more dangerous, maybe more courageous, but nonetheless, morally justified to lie. There are other instances when it's clear that to create coalitions among partners who don't quite share all the same interests and values, it's necessary to pretend that there is the commonality of those values and interests. We see this even with primary campaigns: candidates who have been calling each other names and decrying the possibility of supporting their opponents then, after one is selected, all rallying around that candidate. Either they were lying before or after, but it's clear that there is some tacit obstruction of truths to create a kind of coalition."

[LesPalenik]

To me the worst hypocritical morons are the American people who knew full well Trump was crazy but still decided in full consciousness to support him because they think (present time) that Republicans in power is more important than democracy.

When I looked at the cartoon and then read the author's name caption which started with "Color Management", for some reason I assumed that this was a picture from a photographer's coloring book.

[digitaldog]

When I looked at the cartoon and then read the author's name caption which started with "Color Management", for some reason I assumed that this was a picture from a photographer's coloring book.

"Assumptions are made and most assumptions are wrong."- Albert Einstein

[digitaldog]

You* have to ask,'Who actually believes in lies, and what does that statement really mean?' A person who is told a lie but doesn't recognize it as a lie, doesn't necessarily believe in lies. A belief in lies is surely a belief in the efficacy and purpose of lies in order to achieve a particular outcome.

*Who has to ask?
If you, or that 'person' is unable to investigate facts and data to uncover a lie, you (they) shouldn't be asking me such a question. 
If someone lies long enough about having a horse eventually somebody will buy them a saddle. Maybe that's the goal.
Further:

[Jonathan Cross]

In the UK, the BBC is showing a 3 party series 'History Now' by Simon Schama, a noted historian, writer and broadcaster.  He was born just after the Dresden bombing in 1945 and has seen much in his lifetime.  The Times newspaper in its crit. said it should be required viewing. It is amazing and is about how art and culture can lead the fight for democracy against tyranny and autocracy.  In the second episode last Sunday, he interviewed Margaret Atwood, the Canadian author, who wrote 'The Handmaids Tale' alongside a piece in the programme about Roe vs Wade.  He has interesting things to say about Trump and his followers.

If you can get it on catch up TV, do have a look.  He also had a big article on the same theme in last Saturday's Financial Times.

Best wishes,

Jonathan   

[BernardLanguillier]

Indeed.

Dictators always start by burning books and preventing access to culture and art because art and culture are the most powerful way to open people’s minds.

Republicans have front loaded the problem by spreading the crazy idea among many of the red states voters that art, culture and education overall are snob. It’s a remarkable achievement when you convince you supporters that they should voluntarily deprive themselves from the intellectual weapons that could lead them to realize you (the Republicans in power) are acting against their own interests. The most obvious example being the dismantling of high quality public education that teaches kids the realities of the world and not what the religious parents of the kids think they should be taught.

Of course Trump further reinforced this and added a layer by playing on the feeling that Red States are not understood in Washington… and pushed the logic by saying that Washington is the evil implementation of Democracy and that him, his supreme Trump, is going to free Red States from the dictatorship of democracy… by removing the constitution among other things. Let’s call a cat a cat, this is identical to the approach adopted by all dictators in history. Nothing new. The mall plays the role of the little red book. The Red state have never carried their name better. Their citizens are as much victims as the citizens of China during the cultural revolution… but they think they made the choice themselves.

But that only works because of the long lasting prep work by Republicans against art, culture and education.

[Ray]

*Who has to ask?
If you, or that 'person' is unable to investigate facts and data to uncover a lie, you (they) shouldn't be asking me such a question. 
If someone lies long enough about having a horse eventually somebody will buy them a saddle. Maybe that's the goal.
Further:

I was addressing your point, 'When we believe in lies, we cannot see the truth', and trying to make the distinction between believing in the 'efficacy of lies', and unwittingly accepting a particular falsehood as a truth.

Lying in some form or another, and to some degree, seems to be deeply embedded in human behaviour, and also in the general process of evolution. Women can use make-up to lie about their appearance. Men sometimes flatter their wife by telling her how beatiful her hair-style is, when he doesn't really believe it.

That famous scientist, Isaac Newton, who created the Theory of Gravity, couldn't explain why the universe was not collapsing on itself if every object exerted a force of attraction on every other object. He assumed, or believed, that all the stars were static, and claimed that it was God who prevented this force of gravitational attraction from causing the universe to collapse. Was this a lie?

Albert Einstein also believed the universe was static when he created his first Theory of Relativity, and added a Cosmological Constant to his equations to make the universe appear static. This is often referred to as Einstein's Greatest Blunder. Was this also a lie?

I think it's quite common for people with some degree of authority to protect, including scientists in various disciplines, to avoid admitting that they 'don't really know', even though it is the truth that they don't really know..

However, it's often not an 'either/or' situation. For example, is exaggeration a form of lying? Most advertisements exaggerate the wonderful properties of the product in the advertisement. Blatant lying is usually illegal in advertisements, but there are various degrees of lying. Don't you agree?

I'm by no means an expert on American politics, so I probably shouldn't comment on Trump. However, I've read a few times that Trump advised Germany, about 4 years ago, that it shouldn't rely upon Russian gas supplies. He was right about that. 

[digitaldog]

Sorry Ray, I'm lost at the direction and concept of your post. This is a very long tread, years old about politics and more recently about politicians and their lies.
I have no idea what Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein have to do with this. Are you suggesting that their ideas, based upon the science and data at the time they formed them are the due to lies?
As for Trump, sure, he may have been right about Russian gas supplies. I don't think anyone posting here about him would say he never got anything right. Almost always wrong, almost always a racist and always legendary teller of lies.

[Robert Roaldi]

.
.
.

I'm by no means an expert on American politics, so I probably shouldn't comment on Trump. However, I've read a few times that Trump advised Germany, about 4 years ago, that it shouldn't rely upon Russian gas supplies. He was right about that. 

I also don't completely follow you. Your intention may be to start a new direction, I don't know,  but some of what you say seems to want to "sort of" normalize what we've been experiencing with Trump, in the sense that, well, he's just another lying politician. That phrase "lying politician" is a kind of trope, maybe cute but essentially meaningless.

As a reminder in case you (or others) have forgotten, read through this list https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-president-things-you-forgot_n_63890ec3e4b0d17409602b90?utm_campaign=share_email&ncid=other_email_o63gt2jcad4. 

[digitaldog]

Well, Trump is having a bad day (more and worse coming): The Trump Organization found guilty on all counts of criminal tax fraud, and his pick, Walker, loses in Atlanta.
The beginning of the end (finally).

[Ray]

Sorry Ray, I'm lost at the direction and concept of your post. This is a very long tread, years old about politics and more recently about politicians and their lies.
I have no idea what Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein have to do with this. Are you suggesting that their ideas, based upon the science and data at the time they formed them are the due to lies?

No. I was just making the point that the acceptance that a particular concept is true, when it really is not true, is not  only common amongst the general public, but even brilliant minds like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein can make such mistakes. There was no verifiable scientific evidence that the universe is static, yet Newton believed it was, depite his own theory of gravity implying that it should be in a process of collapse.

Einstein's own equations of General Relativity had predicted the expansion of the universe, in theory, even before it was later demonstrated by the observation of the cosmological redshift, yet he introduced a 'cosmological constant' so that his equations would show that the universe is static, because he believed in that  'untruth' of a static universe.

The connection here is the similarity between an 'untruth' and a 'lie'. From the recipient's perspective there's is no difference between believing and accepting an 'untruth' or a lie. They are both false. However, there can be a difference between the utterence of an untruth and the utterance of a lie, in the sense that a person telling a lie could be knowingly lying, whereas a person telling an untruth might be unaware that it is not true.

[Chris Kern]

I'm by no means an expert on American politics, so I probably shouldn't comment on Trump. However, I've read a few times that Trump advised Germany, about 4 years ago, that it shouldn't rely upon Russian gas supplies. He was right about that. 

The United States has advised Germany since the administration of President Ronald Reagan that Russian gas pipelines would serve as a source of political leverage that could be used to undermine the national interests and international commitments of European governments.

[marvpelkey]

I actually wasn't questioning why politicians lie. Having been 30 years in policing, I spent a considerable amount of time exposed to humans who lie, and have a pretty good handle on the why's.

What I was questioning was the "ability" of people to ignore the lies of a politician, enough to support that politician at the polls. It's like they have fooled themselves into believing the politician will lie, but not to them. As has been mentioned above, although the politician may hold some of the blame, the majority of the blame rests with the voter.

Marv

[Robert Roaldi]

Vaccines soon to be put on trial https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/13/desantis-grand-jury-covid-19-vaccines-00073718. Just when you think the whole Covid thing might be tailing off, a politician revives it. I would have enjoyed listening in at the meeting where the strategists made the decision to go down this route. I wonder if they focus-grouped it. I mean, he already had the anti-vaccine vote so why bother.

Does an anti-vaxxer get a tetanus shot when they step on a nail?

[Robert Roaldi]

I just wanted to add that it's awfully woke of De Santis to complain about Big Pharma's excessive profiteering.

My personal problem is that, by default, I assume that political statements are primarily about policy and public welfare. At the very least, that's the aspiration. But a much more clear-eyed friend pointed out that the move by De Santis to rail against Big Pharma and vaccines might just be a signal to them to increase their campaign contributions. Is that too cynical?