Do Politicians' Lies Depend More on Their Party or the Lie Itself?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of political lies, specifically whether the type of lie or party affiliation plays a more significant role in how politicians are judged. Participants explore various examples from the political careers of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Al Gore, considering the implications of their statements and actions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the type of lie matters more than party affiliation, citing Clinton's lies under oath as particularly significant.
  • Others contend that Bush's alleged evasions and possible drug use were overlooked by the media, suggesting a bias in how lies are reported based on party.
  • There is a discussion about the seriousness of lies related to personal conduct versus those related to government actions, with some ranking the importance of different types of lies.
  • Some participants question why Clinton's personal life is scrutinized more than policy-related lies from other politicians.
  • There are claims that the media's portrayal of politicians can influence public perception and accountability.
  • Participants express differing views on the consequences of politicians' lies, with some suggesting that personal misconduct can lead to job loss in corporate settings, while others argue that it often leads to minimal repercussions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the type of lie or party affiliation is more important. Multiple competing views remain regarding the significance of various political lies and the role of media in shaping perceptions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about media bias, the seriousness of different types of lies, and the implications of political actions, which may not be universally accepted or substantiated.

  • #61
Yeah, and most liberals studiously avoid using the word liberal, concentrate on the economy, maximise exploitation of the weak and poor...
If you think Clinton was liberal, that pegs you waaaayy right of the spectrum. :wink:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Nicool003, either know nothing about Clinton and accept labeling blindly or you missed that he acted like a republican.


How did he act republican? If he acted republican the democrats wouldn't have made him their candidate first off. Second off Kyleb since when did you pay attention? Most of your posts are either insulting, or simple yes or no's or "i'm not sure" or
i think your wrong. Back to clinton. He and Gore are definitely democrat in nature. Oh and both are liars. For instance Clinton said if there was no age limit he would get in the trenches and fight with our troops. What bull crap the wimp ran to Canada to escape the draft! Oh and like zero started the topic with; Gores inventing the internet was SOOOO pitiful. Also, they both stood for democratic things when they ran for president. Especially Gore. And before I read russ's post I was thinking the same thing.


Yeah, most republicans want to cut the military, increase spending on social programs, and ignore foreign policy...

I mean come on Bill clinton totally broke down military! Yeah sure you see President Bush doing that... Only democrats do such things.
 
  • #63
Russ, you'll note I said the Clinton was MODERATE...the middle does exist, no matter how much some radicals on the Right like to pretend otherwise. Overall, Clinton was moderate, not liberal at all. And, heck, the military NEEDS to be cut, there's far and away too much pork involved. Of course, the liars in the Republican party always tell the 'small government' lie, while lining the pockets of contributors, and starting new and improved wasteful programs.

Oh, and Gore was instrumental in the creation of the Internet(along with Newt Gingrich), and NEVER claimed to have invented it...another Republican lie.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Nicool003




I mean come on Bill clinton totally broke down military! Yeah sure you see President Bush doing that... Only democrats do such things.

The LIE is that Bush supports the military...he supports tons of pork, but he also supports cutting VA benefits, reducing wage increases, etc.
 
  • #65
OK, a couple points: first, all of our recent presidents have avoided military service in one way or another. Clinton slipped out of the draft, and Bush's dad got a nice cushy Texas Air National Guard appointment thousands of miles from Nam. Decorated veterans such as McCain lost out.

Second, Clinton was a "New Democrat." This group, represented by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), is pretty damn centrist compared to old Democrats -- this is what I think Zero and others are referring to (right?). As the country becomes more conservative, it is becoming more and more the face of the Democratic Party.

Third, it's not fair to blame Clinton for "gutting" the military. He did commission the Bottom-Up Review, to determine how the military should be reorganized in light of the end of the Cold War. This led to two major recommendations: 1) a higher-tech, lighter, more mobile military for regional conflicts, and 2) cutting the number of heavy Army divisions and bases, esp those in Europe.

IMNSHO this only makes sense: it would be foolish not to seriously alter military spending in light of such a huge event as the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR. The more mobile, rapidly-deployable forces emphasized since then have played a very important role in recent conflicts.

It's interesting to note that Rumsfeld's original big goal as Defense Secretary was to make the military even more light and flexible; a policy that brought him into conflict with many military elites -- just as it did Clinton.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by Zero
Russ, you'll note I said the Clinton was MODERATE...
Oh, did you. Maybe I misread. I thought you said:
Clinton was moderate leaning towards conservative in most cases.
"...leaning towards conservative in most cases" is either bad grammar or a statement that Clinton was a moderate conservative.
Oh, and Gore was instrumental in the creation of the Internet(along with Newt Gingrich), and NEVER claimed to have invented it...another Republican lie.
Oh, c'mon Zero. As the mod of a forum on the internet, I know you must know a little about the history of the Internet. What specifically did Gore do? Did he fund CERN's invention of the World Wide Web? Did he fund Mosaic? Where was he in 1969 when the ARPANET went online? Gore supported ONE bill. I'm sure you know what that bill did. I know you know better than this. If not, HEREis a great little timeline. Notice how much treatment Gore's bill gets. Also notice before Gore's bill there were already more than 1,000,000 hosts online.
reducing wage increases, etc.
Zero, the military doesn't have scheduled pay scale increases. So you can't reduce them. Under Bush there have been 2 increases in 2 years. That quite simply didn't happen during Clinton's term.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero, the military doesn't have scheduled pay scale increases. So you can't reduce them. Under Bush there have been 2 increases in 2 years. That quite simply didn't happen during Clinton's term.

I'll get back to the 'Internet thingy' later...Daily Howler has much to say on the subject...


Military pay raises? Well, I should have said 'cost of living increases', which we got under Clinton, and the rate of which Bush voted to lower.
 
  • #68
The LIE is that Bush supports the military...he supports tons of pork, but he also supports cutting VA benefits, reducing wage increases, etc.

Hahaha! That is so funny! Are you implying clinton ACTUALLY SUPPORTED THE MILITARY?! Bush supports it very much beliebve it or not he is repairing the damage your chimpanzee of a president did. And how did Gore even help with the internet? Give me proof that doesn't come from dirty gore or clinton hands. And I will have to make sure the source you give me is not democratic before I read it.
 
  • #69
Originally posted by Nicool003
And how did Gore even help with the internet? Give me proof that doesn't come from dirty gore or clinton hands. And I will have to make sure the source you give me is not democratic before I read it.
Gore's law funded internet access for schools and infrastructure (maybe a little research too, not sure). Its nice but it has nothing at all to do with the internet's creation. The enabling technologies happened over 40 years and in multiple countries.
 
  • #70
Originally posted by Nicool003
And I will have to make sure the source you give me is not democratic before I read it.

You accept lies or nothing, huh?
 
  • #71
Originally posted by Zero
You accept lies or nothing, huh?
Lies, huh? Speaking of which, you never did get back to me on that Gore & the internet thing...

BTW, I don't accuse people of lying unless they cling to their mistakes (as per the thread on the subject). I believe you are just very often mistaken.
 
  • #72
OK hey, our national energy policy was dictated (literally) by Harken energy, read it in the newspaper - the white house attempted to intervene in a court investigation about it, siting national security. I can't think of a single thing 43 has proposed that was NOT a lie, in some form or another. The right-wing press is a tremendous echo chamber for whatever national sellout the administration is unloading that day.

Despite public delusion, 43 was indeed absent without leave from his duty in the air national guard for a period of about 2 years. Yeah, it's expected to pump up the rhetoric during an election year, and then turn to your real buddies the polluters and hand them most of the national treasure, if you're a Bush.

The wierdest and maybe most desparate was the blatant fabrication of official Iraqi documents designed to lead the UN to believe that Iraq was persuing Nuclear weapons. The IAEA took one look and within a week rejected them as fakes and frauds.

Finally, how is Democracy to be spread by leaders who do not understand its first Principles?
 
  • #73
Originally posted by russ_watters
Lies, huh? Speaking of which, you never did get back to me on that Gore & the internet thing...

BTW, I don't accuse people of lying unless they cling to their mistakes (as per the thread on the subject). I believe you are just very often mistaken.

Alias, you already told me you wouldn't believe anything I said on the subject, so why bother?

For the record, here is what Gore actually said:

"Well, I will be offering - I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead."
H
ere Gore appears to have been caught off guard a bit by the question, rambling a bit as he seeks to vocalize a responsive answer(but he is clearer than Bush has often been, and been forgiven for). He emphasizes his work during his years in the Congress ,as well as his leadership on various issues. He mentions "initiative" three times; clearly his overall message is that he worked hard on a number of issues, and took a leadership position . The overall thrust is that Gore feels he has been instrumental in getting legislation pushed through that helped move the Internet to what it is today, not that he 'invented the Internet'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
OK hey, our national energy policy was dictated (literally) by Harken energy, read it in the newspaper - the white house attempted to intervene in a court investigation about it, siting national security. I can't think of a single thing 43 has proposed that was NOT a lie, in some form or another. The right-wing press is a tremendous echo chamber for whatever national sellout the administration is unloading that day.

Despite public delusion, 43 was indeed absent without leave from his duty in the air national guard for a period of about 2 years. Yeah, it's expected to pump up the rhetoric during an election year, and then turn to your real buddies the polluters and hand them most of the national treasure, if you're a Bush.

The wierdest and maybe most desparate was the blatant fabrication of official Iraqi documents designed to lead the UN to believe that Iraq was persuing Nuclear weapons. The IAEA took one look and within a week rejected them as fakes and frauds.

Finally, how is Democracy to be spread by leaders who do not understand its first Principles?


The experts say one thing, the administration says another...and, as with their economic fiasco, if someone doesn't follow their lies, they are replaced.
 
  • #75
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
OK hey, our national energy policy was dictated (literally) by Harken energy, read it in the newspaper - the white house attempted to intervene in a court investigation about it, siting national security.
That is not new, nor is it illegal.
Here Gore appears to have been caught off guard a bit by the question, rambling a bit as he seeks to vocalize a responsive answer(but he is clearer than Bush has often been, and been forgiven for). He emphasizes his work during his years in the Congress ,as well as his leadership on various issues. He mentions "initiative" three times; clearly his overall message is that he worked hard on a number of issues, and took a leadership position . The overall thrust is that Gore feels he has been instrumental in getting legislation pushed through that helped move the Internet to what it is today, not that he 'invented the Internet'.
Yes. I agree completely with your updated assessment.
 
  • #76
Did I win some points? To be fair, neither side is ever reported on objectively, but the claims of 'liberal media bias' don't explain how people have been dragging around this 'Invented the internet' story without ever looking back on what he actually said. Irresponsible media, is what it is.

I don't really blame any person for believing a lie when it is so well-spread, so universal, and so darned catchy...Gore explained the misunderstanding by saying he had been tired...he was up late the night before inventing the camcorder.
 
  • #77
Originally posted by Zero
Did I win some points? To be fair, neither side is ever reported on objectively, but the claims of 'liberal media bias' don't explain how people have been dragging around this 'Invented the internet' story without ever looking back on what he actually said. Irresponsible media, is what it is.

I don't really blame any person for believing a lie when it is so well-spread, so universal, and so darned catchy...Gore explained the misunderstanding by saying he had been tired...he was up late the night before inventing the camcorder.
Well hey - even you believed it - and you brought it up. I knew what he said and I knew it wasn't a lie - he just said it because he's dumb.

Yeah, I guess you get some points. This falls into that "if you correct yourself, its not a lie" category.
 
  • #78
"That is not new, nor is it illegal."
The NEW part is that the white house is interfering with the justice system that is investigating possible wrongdoings on the part of Harken. It IS illegal or more accurately, undemocratic (contraindicating our system of checks and balances... remember that from school-house rocks?) for the EXECUTIVE branch to interfere with the justice system.

The executive branch acts as if it is above the law. One of the First Principles of a Republic is that a Code of Laws exists, and is enforced, applicable to all citizens. When the Code of Law is not upheld by the government, the Republic ceases to exist, and must default to something like Monarchy.
 
  • #79
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well hey - even you believed it - and you brought it up. I knew what he said and I knew it wasn't a lie - he just said it because he's dumb.

Yeah, I guess you get some points. This falls into that "if you correct yourself, its not a lie" category.

So, if you agree that Gore didn't lie, what do you think of Bush and Co., and their intentional misrepresentation of Gore's comments for political gain?
 
  • #80
Originally posted by Zero
So, if you agree that Gore didn't lie, what do you think of Bush and Co., and their intentional misrepresentation of Gore's comments for political gain?
What misrepresentation? Gore is an idiot. That's all that quote shows.
 
  • #81
Originally posted by russ_watters
What misrepresentation? Gore is an idiot. That's all that quote shows.

You see that he didn't claim to invent the Internet, I see it...so everyone else who spead that he DID claim to invent the Internet was a liar. That covers all of the media, with very few exception, and the Shrub crew took full advantage of a LIE.


Never mind, Russ, go back to the lies you tell yourself.
 
  • #82
Gore probably did smoke a little too much pot during the college years... too bad. It may have injured his killer instinct or whatever. Somehow I remember some video of him saying "we took the initiative to... invent the internet" but clearly the internet was 'invented' by the pentagon in the '60's, the public side was pioneered by local 'BBS's' in the late 70's. What Gore said was goofy, but no major deception. More importantly his statement is relatively irelevant. I believe that you can determine the 'evil' of a lie by the damage it causes, and Gore's statement caused no damage except to himself.
 
  • #83
Originally posted by Zero
You see that he didn't claim to invent the Internet, I see it...so everyone else who spead that he DID claim to invent the Internet was a liar. That covers all of the media, with very few exception, and the Shrub crew took full advantage of a LIE.


Never mind, Russ, go back to the lies you tell yourself.
Zero, I didn't bring it up (you did), I didn't dwell on it during the election, and I didn't see the media or the republican party dwelling on it. Like I said, the reason it mattered to me was not that it was a lie, but that he was too dumb to know he was wrong - and that's all I saw the media and the republicans using it for. Whenever I saw it mentioned it was for a laugh. Thats it.

I don't think anyone (except you maybe - which could be why you are getting mad about it) really believed he invented the internet or believed he believed he invented the internet.

Since you admitted you were wrong about the meaning of what he said, you should also admit to being wrong about how other people USED what he said. The two are the same thing. Or were you tricked into believing it was a lie?

Its so ironic - you complain that others dwell on it when YOU brought it up. So the question is why do YOU dwell on it? You claim others are lying when YOU mis-interpreted it. I think you are lashing out to cover for (save face over) your own mistakes. With that you lose any points you earned by admitting your mistake.

Ugh, this is so pointless. You really shouldn't have brought it up.

And as a mentor, you really should rephrain from direct or even thinly veiled insults.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
You accept lies or nothing, huh?



That's a load of bull who told you that one? No I listen to the truth or nothing. Demiocratic lies and propaganda are lies and therefore are inn the NOTHING category. Bet you guys have missed me...wait till I come back from vacation
 
  • #85
Originally posted by Nicool003
That's a load of bull who told you that one? No I listen to the truth or nothing. Demiocratic lies and propaganda are lies and therefore are inn the NOTHING category. Bet you guys have missed me...wait till I come back from vacation

But to say that, you have already made the assumption that whatever the democrats say must be a lie. You can't determine truth or lie by who says so. That is only a possibility of bias, not such an absolute measure. You don't determine to begin with x is true, and select evidence in that way. Unless you have an obscure definition of truth, you need to display contrary evidence with objectively greater credibility.
 
  • #86
Thanks FZ+, that was exactly what I was going to say. If you are only going to accept as true what you already believe, even in the face of contrary evidence, why even bother posting, or reading, or anything at all?
 
  • #87
But to say that, you have already made the assumption that whatever the democrats say must be a lie.


that's a lie





Haha but actually no I have not made that assumption. Some great presidents were democrats and I'd be behind them all the way. However the democratic party has not been chosing well candidate wise.
 
  • #88
I think Nader was right, just not articulate enough to prove it. Both sides can be construed as being damaging to democracy - the democrats are allegedly not going along with the mandate of the people by blocking the republicans, yet the republicans definitely do not include the wishes of the people in their plans although they say that they do. The fact is that although high-minded, the purported goals of the republicans do not reflect reality (in almost every case!) while their actual goals remain 'secret.'

GWB senior was involved up to his neck in Watergate, he was in charge of Laundering money for Nixon, and later appointed to the CIA. He used Gestappo tactics against the media when running for president (and after he was president), pulling press releases to Newsweek when it ran a 'negative' story on him. During press conferences, 41 would make demagogic statements about the economy, telling flat lies that the nation was in a recovery when it was obviously in a deep depression with millions of lost jobs.

GWB senior's Stalinesque (probably closer to Slobo-esqu) media manipulation makes him the greatest lying politician in modern history. Subject to uncontrolled fits of anger because of a hyperactive thyroid condition, he often made irrational decisions. Luckily, competant military handlers prevented Gulf War from becoming a complete disaster (although the behavior of the US right after is nothing to brag about).
 
  • #89
A Republican LYING? No way, they are all superhero saviors of humanity!

*snickers*
 
  • #90
A Republican LYING? No way, they are all superhero saviors of humanity!

*snickers*QUOTE]


A SEX SCANDAL IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION?! CLINTON LYING UNDER OATH?! AL GORE LYING ABOUT INVENTING THE INTERNET??

NOT THEDEMOCRATS! THEIR SO PERFECT IN EVERY WAY!


*Snickers*






























hungry? grab a snickers:wink:
 

Similar threads

News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)
  • · Replies 293 ·
10
Replies
293
Views
36K
News Why Do Politicians Get More Public Adoration Than Businesspeople?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
8K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Republican lies used to trick the public
  • · Replies 150 ·
6
Replies
150
Views
23K
News What's wrong with the Republican party?
  • · Replies 68 ·
3
Replies
68
Views
14K
News More Americans now call themselves Republicans than Democrats
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
News What if the states had more power and responsibility in governing?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
16K
News Is There Really a Difference Between Democrats and Republicans?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
News Right Wing, Left Wing and world peace
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K