Lies

[MajorMitchell]

I'm not sure what the point is in the comment from President Eden questioning why Marxists cannot understand why kids like cinnamon crunchy toast. People generally dislike getting decayed teeth fixed and tend to like cocaine.. I use that comment to illustrate that what we dislike is not axiomatically bad for us and what we like is not always good for us.

[MajorMitchell]

I'm not sure about part of my Christmas presents, whilst I've been recently purchasing books about Sir Francis Walsingham purportedly "for research", my Lovely Fire Breathing MemSahib Her Serene Imperiousness Indoors lying on a sofa eating cakes purchased two books about Trumptoad to include in her Christmas presents​ to myself.. so I have been given, "A Warning" by Anonymous and ""Siege" by Michael Wolff.

The habit of numerous members of the public in many nations to accept obvious falsehoods, lies, misrepresentations etc from politicians (& other political activists & religious extremists) is not new and is rather depressing. Often it's a function or result of a poor education but in many cases but too often that's not the case, people who "should know better" or "should be able to think critically" simply do not exercise those capabilities.

[Octavious]

too often that's not the case, people who "should know better" or "should be able to think critically" simply do not exercise those capabilities.

I don't think I agree with that, to be honest. I think it's more a case that there is rarely an honest alternative to the liars. Boris Johnson's campaign wasn't played with a straight bat by any stretch of the imagination, yet the Labour and Lib Dem activists who most loudly criticised him seemed completely oblivious to the massive lies told by their own side.

Of course, most lies aren't really lies at all but merely strong expressions of a point of view you happen to disagree with, but regardless there seems to be a trend towards outright dishonesty that is disturbing. The people, sadly, have no choice but to vote for the liars who they believe will do the best job.

[Jamiet99uk]

I'm a Green as you know, but I'm curious, Octavious. Can you give three good examples of "outright dishonesty" from Labour during the recent election campaign?

[Octavious]

I'm a Green as you know, but I'm curious, Octavious. Can you give three good examples of "outright dishonesty" from Labour during the recent election campaign?

Well, off the top of my head you have Labour's spending commitments which were described by the Institute of Fiscal Studies as not credible and by Emily Thornbury (Labour's Shadow Secretary of State) as promising the Earth, Moon and Stars without worrying about how to pay for it.

Then you had the never-ending utter crap that the Tories were planning on selling the NHS to Trump, which anyone with half a braincell knows is utter bollocks.

You even have the stupid pointless lies like when Corbyn claimed to watch the Queen's speech every Christmas morning, and then turned bright pink when it was pointed out that it is well known for being on in the afternoon. Why he lied about this I have no idea, as literally no Labour voter gives a shit either way and neither do most Tory voters for that matter. But the very fact that his natural instinct was to lie about it was worrying.

[orathaic]

Octavious - it was my difficulty in understanding events in America that prompted me to create this thread.

I'd be interested to hear from a US-based Trump supporter other than ND in this thread. Are you aware that Trump is a serial liar? Do you care? If not, why not?

I think ignoring ND is looking for the forest while ignoring the trees.


https://www.independent.ie/world-news/n ... 13042.html
There have been a number of articles going around about this story, and in at least one a so-called 'evangelical christian' was quoted as saying Trump is actually here saving America, unlike Jesus (or something to that effect). How dare these people question Trump's morales...

This is the kind of reality that many Trumpsters live in, reinforced by media, friends and family. Flat out rejecting anything which contradicts their worldview.

They believe in Trump, and it doesn't come from rational arguments or solid facts. It comes from faith, trust in authority, belief in the American system, patriotism... Amongst other things.

To ignore ND because he's no willing to offer a rational argument is to miss the point.

[orathaic]

I'm a Green as you know, but I'm curious, Octavious. Can you give three good examples of "outright dishonesty" from Labour during the recent election campaign?

Well, off the top of my head you have Labour's spending commitments which were described by the Institute of Fiscal Studies as not credible and by Emily Thornbury (Labour's Shadow Secretary of State) as promising the Earth, Moon and Stars without worrying about how to pay for it.

Then you had the never-ending utter crap that the Tories were planning on selling the NHS to Trump, which anyone with half a braincell knows is utter bollocks.

You even have the stupid pointless lies like when Corbyn claimed to watch the Queen's speech every Christmas morning, and then turned bright pink when it was pointed out that it is well known for being on in the afternoon. Why he lied about this I have no idea, as literally no Labour voter gives a shit either way and neither do most Tory voters for that matter. But the very fact that his natural instinct was to lie about it was worrying.

Spending commitments, not necessarily a lie. A lot of people believed, as you implied, that it was unrealistic, and thus a lie.

The media outlets I've seen indicate the sell off of the NHS has begun... Perhaps furthering the lies?

And lastly let's be fair to Corbyn, he is an avowed socialist, the basic tenants of socialism is that we should live in a class-free society. Which would mean abolishing the monarchy.

So in his defence, Corbyn didn't come out with a plan to hold a Republic vs monarchy referendum, because he actually wanted to win the election... So yeah, he lied, but I don't think that was an issue of party policy (also, as an Irish man, I can forgive this lie. English patriotism and loyalty to the Crown is rather crazy to my mind).

[Octavious]

Ora, if several major political parties says Labour's spending plans are bollocks, it's not proof by any stretch of the imagination but it is worth looking in to.

If your own knowledge of economics and how the world works backs up the claim it's bollocks, that's not conclusive by itself but is a pretty big pointer.

If that is further backed up by the overwhelming number of independent experts who specialise in this stuff, that's enough evidence to sway most independently minded people that it is indeed probably bollocks.

If members of the Labour shadow cabinet then come out and confirm that it is indeed bollocks, I'm not sure how it is possible for anyone other than flat earthers or moon landing conspiracy theorists to possibly come to any other conclusion. It was a lie.

As for the NHS, I suggest that you change your media outlets to something more reliable.

With the Queen's Speech lie, you have missed the point. It was his instinct to lie that was the concern. Very few people give a damn about whether or not he would watch the Queen's Speech.

[Jamiet99uk]

Ora, if several major political parties says Labour's spending plans are bollocks, it's not proof by any stretch of the imagination but it is worth looking in to.

If your own knowledge of economics and how the world works backs up the claim it's bollocks, that's not conclusive by itself but is a pretty big pointer.

If that is further backed up by the overwhelming number of independent experts who specialise in this stuff, that's enough evidence to sway most independently minded people that it is indeed probably bollocks.

You seem to be confusing "lies" with "badly made policy".

If Labour made spending commitments which they firmly believed were the right idea, but which it turns out couldn't be delivered upon without huge increases in national debt, you might say that's bad policymaking. I don't see how it's lying.

David Cameron, who you once greatly admired, said in 2010 that if elected he would reduce net migration into the low tens of thousands. At the time, several commentators suggested that this would be very difficult. As history now records, Cameron's government failed to meet their target. Does that mean that in 2010, David Cameron was lying?

[Octavious]

On the immigration target of 10s of thousands? Of course that was a lie. It was a commitment to a policy that had zero chance of happening. What else would you call it?

[Jamiet99uk]

This is very depressing, isn't it. So back at that time, you advocated for, supported, and voted for someone you considered a liar?

[Octavious]

Yes. I vote based on what I believe the people I vote for will actually do. I am also convinced that all parties and leaders will tell what I consider to be lies. If there was an honest party with reasonable policies I'd vote for them without hesitation, but I've not had that opportunity for some time.

In the last election it became so abysmally poor I spoiled my ballot with a message to the effect of "shame on the lot of you".

[orathaic]

Yes. I vote based on what I believe the people I vote for will actually do. I am also convinced that all parties and leaders will tell what I consider to be lies. If there was an honest party with reasonable policies I'd vote for them without hesitation, but I've not had that opportunity for some time.

In the last election it became so abysmally poor I spoiled my ballot with a message to the effect of "shame on the lot of you".

Let's be fair, if there was an honesty party with policies you disliked, however reasonable, you would likely not vote for them. Because policy is going to trump honest most any day. Or it will for a majority of the population.

[Octavious]

Let's be fair, if there was an honesty party with policies you disliked, however reasonable, you would likely not vote for them. Because policy is going to trump honest most any day. Or it will for a majority of the population.

Well, obviously. No one is going to vote for a set of policies they actively don't want. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. But I think that from the perspective of pretty much everyone a policy that is considered to be reasonable is also a policy that is hard to deeply dislike.

[orathaic]

I don't know, like the green party reason that we must take drastic action no or everyone suffers.

Yet policies based on this reason are not particularly popular with most parties.

And I suspect every party has similar beliefs that they build reasonable policies on.

[Octavious]

I would argue that there's a difference between acknowledging that a party has formed its policy based on reason and saying that you find those policies reasonable. I am quite willing to believe that the Green Party's policies are an honest reflection of reasoned debate based upon their core beliefs and assumptions. They may not be, but it makes no difference to me either way so there's no motivation for me to investigate more deeply, so why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

As I do not share the core beliefs and assumptions of the Greens, it follows that I find their conclusions and policies based upon those conclusions unreasonable. Lib Dem policies, by way of contrast, are built on a foundation of assumptions closer to my own, and as such seem to me to be more reasonable.

[orathaic]

I jist took the green party as an example because I think it is simple to understand their core beliefs, and uncontroversial (I guess the SNP could be the other simple example, with their belief that Scotland is better off independent).

But my point is merely that no matter the honest or not (and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to all parties, as you did). No 'reasonable' argument will make it past your core beliefs.

So it doesn't matter to many how honest or not a politician is. It only matter how confident you are they are close to your core beliefs.

Of course, what has happened recently is campaign's to discredit parties. Life long Labour voters not going out to vote for the party. The Trump campaign targeting specific racial groups to get them not to turn up and vote for Hillary.

As for the Lib Dems, I actually don't know what they stand for, though I suspect they are Tories-lite. Still, despite the diversity of parties in the last UK general election, most people had only a few choices, maybe 5, of whom 2 could probsbly be dismissed immediately (as not worth voting for because they has no chance).

[flash2015]

I would argue that there's a difference between acknowledging that a party has formed its policy based on reason and saying that you find those policies reasonable. I am quite willing to believe that the Green Party's policies are an honest reflection of reasoned debate based upon their core beliefs and assumptions. They may not be, but it makes no difference to me either way so there's no motivation for me to investigate more deeply, so why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

As I do not share the core beliefs and assumptions of the Greens, it follows that I find their conclusions and policies based upon those conclusions unreasonable. Lib Dem policies, by way of contrast, are built on a foundation of assumptions closer to my own, and as such seem to me to be more reasonable.

If Lib Dem policies are closer to your own, why did you not vote for them then? Why did you take so much enjoyment in Boris winning if your position was actually closer to the Lib Dem one?

[Octavious]

I jist took the green party as an example because I think it is simple to understand their core beliefs, and uncontroversial (I guess the SNP could be the other simple example, with their belief that Scotland is better off independent).

But my point is merely that no matter the honest or not (and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to all parties, as you did). No 'reasonable' argument will make it past your core beliefs.

So it doesn't matter to many how honest or not a politician is. It only matter how confident you are they are close to your core beliefs.

Of course, what has happened recently is campaign's to discredit parties. Life long Labour voters not going out to vote for the party. The Trump campaign targeting specific racial groups to get them not to turn up and vote for Hillary.

As for the Lib Dems, I actually don't know what they stand for, though I suspect they are Tories-lite. Still, despite the diversity of parties in the last UK general election, most people had only a few choices, maybe 5, of whom 2 could probsbly be dismissed immediately (as not worth voting for because they has no chance).

Then forgive me for saying so but it was a poor example as their core beliefs are so far removed from the centre.

Most people's core beliefs are broadly centrist. Indeed, that's why the concept of a political centre exists. The centre is the personification of the beliefs of your typical citizen. The core beliefs of the Lib Dems, Centre Right Tories, and Centre Left Labour politicians are by in large consistent with my own. I could not vote for either Corbyn nor Boris, but could happily vote for Cameron or Nick Clegg or (slightly less happily but still feasibly) Tony Blair. I don't think I'm at all unusual in this. The divisions in US politics seem considerably more profound.

[Octavious]

As for the Lib Dems, I actually don't know what they stand for, though I suspect they are Tories-lite.

The clue is in the name. They stand for liberal democracy, and see themselves as centrist progressives. From the outside they tend to resemble the party you're not. For hard lefties they do seem to look like Tory-lite, and are accused of being yellow Tories on a regular basis. I can assure you that there are no Tories that consider them to be anything close to being Tory, who instinctively lump them in with the other progressives (Green and Labour) and view them as being pretty much exactly the same as Labour without the unions.

But they are genuinely centrist, and I suspect their existence has been a major reason why our two main parties don't usually dare to stray far from the centre. It us likely no coincidence that the post coalition Lib Dem weakness has coincided with the Tories and Labour feeling freer to move away from the centre. Hopefully this period of politics will be short lived.