The argument that politicians lied in the past therefore nothing is different about politicians lying today would be a lot more persuasive if people making it d

The argument that politicians lied in the past therefore nothing is different about politicians lying today would be a lot more persuasive if people making it didn't almost always pick from the same half dozen or two examples from the past. Some current politicians can do that many new lies in a month. If past politicians were not matching that then things are not the same today. Also the quality of the lie should be taken into account. A lie like Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction was (a) at least consistent with past experience (he had used poison gas on the Kurds) and (b) there was no real way for the public or press to check to see if it was true. Compare to a modern lie like Haitian immigrants are eating pets. It's not consistent with past experience and it is something the press can actually go check. (That checking was done, it was thoroughly debunked, with even people from the claimant's own party in that area saying it was false...and yet the claimant keeps on making the claim). That's a huge qualitative difference. It used to be to lie successfully you had lie about something where the truth would stay hidden at least for a while. When the truth did eventually come out if you wanted it to not damage you too much you had to be able to explain the lie away as faulty information or something like that. Nowadays you can just move onto a new lie.