6 ms·

30 years ago was the end of George H W Bush’s era, who among other lies was wrapped up in the Iran Contra affair under Reagan; and the beginning of the Clinton

by dwater 4y ago

30 years ago was the end of George H W Bush’s era, who among other lies was wrapped up in the Iran Contra affair under Reagan; and the beginning of the Clinton era who famously lied about his personal life but certainly had his fair share of political lies as well. In American history it feels like we’ve had more lying leaders than not for a long, long time.

mc32 4y ago
Less than 20 years ago Kerry basically lost due to "flip-flopping". GW Bush as well was almost undermined by some smearing by a reporter -who unfortunately didn't do a good enough job to sink his candidacy. People used to care more about higher politicians' lying. Today, people don't even blink. After Trump's antics, now we have Biden denying something he said the day prior and it's a non-issue at all.
- JellyBeanThief 4y ago
  I feel like, what can I do? If I have a lying red/blue on my hands, my only choice is to swap it for a lying blue/red.
  - sph 4y ago
    Voting gives you an illusion of control over the situation, but in fact blue or red it's the exact same outcome. Your ballot is like the close door button in the elevator.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      That is an often repeated argument, but I don't think the policies supported by the two parties in the US are exactly the same. There is a very large overlap of course, but "your vote doesn't count" only strengthens extremists (on either side).
    - haswell 4y ago
      While we do have little direct control over the situation, and while it's true that both parties lie, lying is not the outcome. Lying is a tactic employed along the way to the outcome. In no way do I mean to imply that lying is is unimportant because both parties do it - it's unacceptable regardless, but I have trouble accepting arguments that point to a shared <bad> thing between parties and then use that to conclude that voting doesn't really matter.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Then why is it that blue states have extended parental leave (18 weeks+), paid parental/family leave, paid sick leave, non tipped minimum wages, non compete bans, minimum salaries, daily overtime laws, access to women’s healthcare (abortion), legal marijuana (civil liberties), expanded Medicaid funding so more poor people can get better healthcare, etc? The new wage transparency laws are coming from Colorado and Washington, also blue states. It seems very clear that at least some priorities of the blue team are pro worker and pro civil liberties. On the federal level, the Republicans have passed two large tax cuts in the last 22 years and entered into two expensive wars. Democrats have passed the only large wealth transfer from rich to poor via Affordable Care Act in 2009, and followed it up with No Surprise Billing Act in 2021, while Republicans have tried to dismantled ACA for 13 years. Democrats passed a bill to expand infrastructure spending in 2021, and tried to pass federal paid parental leave and childcare laws. Republicans spent the same time trying to revoke women’s access to healthcare (abortion) and same sex marriage. Democrats withdrew military from Iraq and Afghanistan. Repubs spend their time defending literal traitors to the country. Obviously Dems are not perfect, but how anyone can say both are the same is beyond me.
      - benj111 4y ago
        Why the downvotes? The parent seemed to give some solid examples of how different parties are in fact different.
      - AdrianB1 4y ago
        They are both the same as in they are both bad, even if in different ways. In my country for more than 20 years people don't vote for a party (and we have more than 2), but they vote against what they see as the worst party. It is negative voting. If I would move and vote in US, I have very strong reasons to vote against both major parties, they look like the choice between getting shot to death or hanged to death: no matter what you choose, the result is bad. Also some part of that enumeration implied as positive changes is not seen as positive in countries that did such things 20-30 years ago and saw the effects. Lots of people seem to wear horse blinders, they do things that were done by other countries ignoring the outcome in these countries. The emperor is naked and nobody wants to admit it.
  - rrradical 4y ago
    I get what you're saying, but primaries are a thing, and the range of choices there is typically pretty broad. It's not like the general election is the first chance you get to express your opinion. And yea maybe you have good reason not to like the finalists, but if more people agreed with you, there would be a different nominee.
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      With no slight intended, do you not remember the most recent election? "The party" not only gets to decide who the candidates will be, but ultimately who the candidate, in the singular, will be. When the people weren't voting like they were supposed to, as informed by the media, "the party" simply had everybody else step down and endorse the chosen one. Well everybody except one token opponent to maintain the charade that the decision was driven by "democracy." And if that wasn't enough they took the unpopular chosen one, paired him with another even more unpopular candidate as a vice president, called that the ticket, and people voted for them, en masse, because "well, they're awful but they're less awful than the alternative."
      - rrradical 4y ago
        It's quite possible you know more about this than me, but that's not how I remember it. Do you have a citation of a reputable source? This kind of reads like a conspiracy theory.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  I saw this yesterday and I was so dismayed. This is something Trump would say: https://youtu.be/_57s3-ne7g0?t=821 https://youtu.be/_57s3-ne7g0?t=821 I really don't want to see this kind of language in any party's politics. How can we hold all politicians to a higher standard? It has become completely untenable. It is a complete shit show. I don't think any President in the past would say something like this, I can't imagine Obama, Bush or Clinton telling the public they feel so much anger at someone that they'd like to shoot them.
  - nirvdrum 4y ago
    Not that it excuses the language, but I'm pretty sure he meant "punch them (in the face) " when he said "pop 'em."
    - daerogami 4y ago
      I agree and it sure seems like people are being intentionally obtuse about this. As if no one has ever expressed exaggerated frustration in this way. Comparing this to Trump is a bit ridiculous.
      - jimmygrapes 4y ago
        I think the issue is that when one person says an exaggerated exasperation expression it's hand-waved away and only slightly reported upon, yet when another person does the same it's traitorous assault on democracy itself tantamount to inciting insurrectional violence which must be investigated for years and is reported upon breathlessly as the most concerning thing since the American Civil War. Yes, the resultant behavior of others due to the rhetoric of each case is different (barely, but less time dependent). But so too is the hand-wringing.
- refurb 4y ago
  Indeed. I just wonder if it’s just more exposure happening and more chatter than actually more lying. There have been massive doozies in the not so recent past.
SoftTalker 4y ago
I think they have always lied. Perhaps in the past the press and the people were more credulous, that era came to an end with Nixon/Watergate and maybe now we have grown numb to it. Certainly there were lies galore during the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam years.
- roenxi 4y ago
  In the past, the press had little competition for getting word out - there is a highly suspicuous lack of sex scandals in the old era, it is obvious from that alone that a lot of misbehaviour was not being reported on. In the past I think it was more likely that the press only made a deal about lying politicians when it was obvious that said politician was on the way out and that created a false effect. Or the scandals that made it through the wall were truly scandalous.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    Sec scandals for many years were considered off limits and "in poor taste"
skywal_l 4y ago
Cynicism has replaced naivete among the hoi poloi without changing anything to the power structure of modern democracies, largely driven by economic incentives.

by dwater 4y ago

mc32 4y ago

Less than 20 years ago Kerry basically lost due to "flip-flopping". GW Bush as well was almost undermined by some smearing by a reporter -who unfortunately didn't do a good enough job to sink his candidacy. People used to care more about higher politicians' lying. Today, people don't even blink. After Trump's antics, now we have Biden denying something he said the day prior and it's a non-issue at all.

JellyBeanThief 4y ago
I feel like, what can I do? If I have a lying red/blue on my hands, my only choice is to swap it for a lying blue/red.
- sph 4y ago
  Voting gives you an illusion of control over the situation, but in fact blue or red it's the exact same outcome. Your ballot is like the close door button in the elevator.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    That is an often repeated argument, but I don't think the policies supported by the two parties in the US are exactly the same. There is a very large overlap of course, but "your vote doesn't count" only strengthens extremists (on either side).
  - haswell 4y ago
    While we do have little direct control over the situation, and while it's true that both parties lie, lying is not the outcome. Lying is a tactic employed along the way to the outcome. In no way do I mean to imply that lying is is unimportant because both parties do it - it's unacceptable regardless, but I have trouble accepting arguments that point to a shared <bad> thing between parties and then use that to conclude that voting doesn't really matter.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Then why is it that blue states have extended parental leave (18 weeks+), paid parental/family leave, paid sick leave, non tipped minimum wages, non compete bans, minimum salaries, daily overtime laws, access to women’s healthcare (abortion), legal marijuana (civil liberties), expanded Medicaid funding so more poor people can get better healthcare, etc? The new wage transparency laws are coming from Colorado and Washington, also blue states. It seems very clear that at least some priorities of the blue team are pro worker and pro civil liberties. On the federal level, the Republicans have passed two large tax cuts in the last 22 years and entered into two expensive wars. Democrats have passed the only large wealth transfer from rich to poor via Affordable Care Act in 2009, and followed it up with No Surprise Billing Act in 2021, while Republicans have tried to dismantled ACA for 13 years. Democrats passed a bill to expand infrastructure spending in 2021, and tried to pass federal paid parental leave and childcare laws. Republicans spent the same time trying to revoke women’s access to healthcare (abortion) and same sex marriage. Democrats withdrew military from Iraq and Afghanistan. Repubs spend their time defending literal traitors to the country. Obviously Dems are not perfect, but how anyone can say both are the same is beyond me.
    - benj111 4y ago
      Why the downvotes? The parent seemed to give some solid examples of how different parties are in fact different.
    - AdrianB1 4y ago
      They are both the same as in they are both bad, even if in different ways. In my country for more than 20 years people don't vote for a party (and we have more than 2), but they vote against what they see as the worst party. It is negative voting. If I would move and vote in US, I have very strong reasons to vote against both major parties, they look like the choice between getting shot to death or hanged to death: no matter what you choose, the result is bad. Also some part of that enumeration implied as positive changes is not seen as positive in countries that did such things 20-30 years ago and saw the effects. Lots of people seem to wear horse blinders, they do things that were done by other countries ignoring the outcome in these countries. The emperor is naked and nobody wants to admit it.
- rrradical 4y ago
  I get what you're saying, but primaries are a thing, and the range of choices there is typically pretty broad. It's not like the general election is the first chance you get to express your opinion. And yea maybe you have good reason not to like the finalists, but if more people agreed with you, there would be a different nominee.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    With no slight intended, do you not remember the most recent election? "The party" not only gets to decide who the candidates will be, but ultimately who the candidate, in the singular, will be. When the people weren't voting like they were supposed to, as informed by the media, "the party" simply had everybody else step down and endorse the chosen one. Well everybody except one token opponent to maintain the charade that the decision was driven by "democracy." And if that wasn't enough they took the unpopular chosen one, paired him with another even more unpopular candidate as a vice president, called that the ticket, and people voted for them, en masse, because "well, they're awful but they're less awful than the alternative."
    - rrradical 4y ago
      It's quite possible you know more about this than me, but that's not how I remember it. Do you have a citation of a reputable source? This kind of reads like a conspiracy theory.
systemvoltage 4y ago
I saw this yesterday and I was so dismayed. This is something Trump would say: https://youtu.be/_57s3-ne7g0?t=821 https://youtu.be/_57s3-ne7g0?t=821 I really don't want to see this kind of language in any party's politics. How can we hold all politicians to a higher standard? It has become completely untenable. It is a complete shit show. I don't think any President in the past would say something like this, I can't imagine Obama, Bush or Clinton telling the public they feel so much anger at someone that they'd like to shoot them.
- nirvdrum 4y ago
  Not that it excuses the language, but I'm pretty sure he meant "punch them (in the face) " when he said "pop 'em."
  - daerogami 4y ago
    I agree and it sure seems like people are being intentionally obtuse about this. As if no one has ever expressed exaggerated frustration in this way. Comparing this to Trump is a bit ridiculous.
    - jimmygrapes 4y ago
      I think the issue is that when one person says an exaggerated exasperation expression it's hand-waved away and only slightly reported upon, yet when another person does the same it's traitorous assault on democracy itself tantamount to inciting insurrectional violence which must be investigated for years and is reported upon breathlessly as the most concerning thing since the American Civil War. Yes, the resultant behavior of others due to the rhetoric of each case is different (barely, but less time dependent). But so too is the hand-wringing.
refurb 4y ago
Indeed. I just wonder if it’s just more exposure happening and more chatter than actually more lying. There have been massive doozies in the not so recent past.

SoftTalker 4y ago

I think they have always lied. Perhaps in the past the press and the people were more credulous, that era came to an end with Nixon/Watergate and maybe now we have grown numb to it. Certainly there were lies galore during the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam years.

roenxi 4y ago
In the past, the press had little competition for getting word out - there is a highly suspicuous lack of sex scandals in the old era, it is obvious from that alone that a lot of misbehaviour was not being reported on. In the past I think it was more likely that the press only made a deal about lying politicians when it was obvious that said politician was on the way out and that created a false effect. Or the scandals that made it through the wall were truly scandalous.
- Aloha 4y ago
  Sec scandals for many years were considered off limits and "in poor taste"

skywal_l 4y ago

Cynicism has replaced naivete among the hoi poloi without changing anything to the power structure of modern democracies, largely driven by economic incentives.