Democrats Win Elections By Lying

[NCalif]

CONSERVATIVE SPOTLIGHT | The political musings of Fred Dardick

Excerpt:
An Avalanche of Democrat Lies

From the inconsequential to the almighty huge, Democrat politicians have shown an unabashed willingness to lie their butts off to the American people in order to maintain power.

How many times have we been shoveled the same old tired line that the $787 billion stimulus “saved or created” 3 million jobs? It’s been over a year now and the only thing everyone can agree on is there is no such thing as a “saved or created” job.

Obama has the gall to claim “all” economists agree his trillion dollar boondoggle saved the nation from economic collapse. The fact the statement is in a practical sense impossible, never have “all” economists agreed on anything in the history of civilization, does not stop the man from using it again and again and again.

 

[bcp]

What needs to be remembered is that the majority of those that would vote for democrats, have no clue about anything in the world in the first place.
their momma voted dem, their daddy (if they had one) voted dem, the warden voted dem...

they vote dem.

 

[Mongo53]

Que the leftist dismissal, both sides do it, so lets just drop it. Then we'll get the, this prediction off the evidence turned out wrong, so that was a lie, this republican tried his best but failed to get his campaign promise through, so that was a lie, and equate that with out right intentional deception on the part of liberals. Yep, its all the same thing, both sides do it, so lets just drop it, until we want to harp on a Republican turning out being wrong on a prediction, then we talk about lie, lie, lie all day long.

What needs to be remembered is that the majority of those that would vote for democrats, have no clue about anything in the world in the first place.
their momma voted dem, their daddy (if they had one) voted dem, the warden voted dem...

they vote dem.

And Military votes Republican more often than not, thats why the Pennsylvania Dem Governor delayed the mailing of Military Absentee Ballots so there was no way they could make it back in time to be counted, but broke the law in distributing and advocating absentee vote ballots in the PA Prisons for prisoners. He knows the constituency of each party and pandered to it.

As well as voting dem because "x" votes Dem, there is always the voter that doesn't bother to really find out any details of the issue, they'll just run with the Politician that fires them up about how the other side is evil and just wants to take food out of the mouth of their baby!

 

[SamSpade]

The only thing I've seen economists generally agree upon is that a great deal of TARP probably did stop a major meltdown.

I've seen some economists claim that the stimulus thwarted 16% unemployment or higher, but I find it hard to believe on at least a few levels. One is that absolutely no one was claiming it would ever get that high. Another is that barely any stimulus money was spent, and I can't see directly how it was used that would actually save a job short of just paying the payroll of public servants who might lose their jobs due to states that wasted their money. And third, it would mean that without the influx of the little bit of money that was spent, we'd be facing the worst unemployment that this nation has seen since the Depression, and then only during the worst of it.

Baloney.

 

[Mongo53]

TARP and the Stimulus are 2 different things, NOT claiming you said they were the same.

As much as I dislike TARP, I have to admit that likely things would have been worse if it had NOT been done. What I find more disturbing, is everyones promoting of how it worked, instead of the disdain of why it had to been done in the first place? How did we get there, and what do the economist agree is why we got there, which they don't, but the most informed and detailed opinions I see, is the government intervention into the housing and finicial markets promoting the building of the house of cards that all came falling down, when market realities could NO longer be hidden to pursue government agenda fantasies.

Agree with you on stimulus, Government measurements and tooting of their own horn how this stimulus spending has helped the economy doesn't add up, even with them trying to put the best spin on it. We are coming out with government reports, where if you compare them, it becomes obvious the government is claiming they spent $3M per job they claim to save.

IMO, the Dems had no idea what they were doing for a stimilus, they simply were willing to believe if the Government spent money it would stimulate the economy, and they used that as an excuse to go on an insane spending spree. Spending on pet projects, building/rewarding Dem power bases, personal agenda items they'd like to think make a better society, but have no evidence they stimulate the economy, but since they consider them for the greater good, somehow there must be a link to stimiluating the economy.

 

[Silver301]

All politicians win elections by lying. This isn't news.

The problem is that people don't want rational views which can be logically defended. They want passionate tirades that inspire an emotional response while oversimplifying immensely complex issues ("Yes We Can" and "Drill, Baby, Drill!" come to mind).

 

[Mongo53]

All politicians win elections by lying. This isn't news.

The problem is that people don't want rational views which can be logically defended. They want passionate tirades that inspire an emotional response while oversimplifying immensely complex issues ("Yes We Can" and "Drill, Baby, Drill!" come to mind).

Well, some do it far worse and far more often than others, we should NOT dismiss the worse, because the best are a little like them.

BUT, totally agree, however "Drill, Baby, Drill" most people never considered an oversimplification of a complex problem, its was a simple solution to one aspect of the problem that people kept trying to rationalize away. In this case, properly used, there was nothing wrong with "Drill, Baby, Drill", as long as they didn't act like that was the only solution.

 

[Silver301]

Well, some do it far worse and far more often than others, we should NOT dismiss the worse, because the best are a little like them.

BUT, totally agree, however "Drill, Baby, Drill" most people never considered an oversimplification of a complex problem, its was a simple solution to one aspect of the problem that people kept trying to rationalize away. In this case, properly used, there was nothing wrong with "Drill, Baby, Drill", as long as they didn't act like that was the only solution.

I won't argue that drilling was one way of moving forward...both then and now. Drilling, performed safely and with environmental regulations being observed, is perfectly fine...although it does just postpone the inevitable and allow our nation to continue pretending that petroleum fuel sources will last forever. However, most of those people chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill" were doing it because they oversimplified the problem..."Gas is expensive = Drill for more oil."

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still wrong.

 

[Mongo53]

And drilling for more oil, creates greater supply to meet the demand and drops the price of oil. You don't have to be able to lecture about supply vs demand to understand that.

If, your arguing people thought drilling would drop gas prices overnight, OK, I don't think a lot thought that. That drilling was the only solution needed, again, don't think many people really thought so. But, there will always be a few dolts in a crowd.

No, I'll give you both sides have done it, perhaps there is a better example than "Drill, Baby, Drill" of the right doing it. I'll still maintain the left does far more often and far worse.

Did you ever read Reagans letter after leaving as Gov of California, if I remember correctly, he spoke about the "tough decisions" politicians always talked about, he said they weren't tough, most of them were very simple, you just had to have to the courage to do them. Politicians would make them tough by trying to please everyone, and ended up pleasing no one in the end. Sometimes a simple slogan summs it up rather nice, because sometimes the solution isn't complex, its just having the courage to make the decision and realize your NOT going make everyone happy, you just have to make sure it works. Thats probably the exception more than the rule, I'm only pointing out, that the rare simply solution is NOT necessarily wrong, just because its simple or expressed in simple terms.

 

[Silver301]

And drilling for more oil, creates greater supply to meet the demand and drops the price of oil. You don't have to be able to lecture about supply vs demand to understand that.

If, your arguing people thought drilling would drop gas prices overnight, OK, I don't think a lot thought that. That drilling was the only solution needed, again, don't think many people really thought so. But, there will always be a few dolts in a crowd.

No, I'll give you both sides have done it, perhaps there is a better example than "Drill, Baby, Drill" of the right doing it. I'll still maintain the left does far more often and far worse.

Did you ever read Reagans letter after leaving as Gov of California, if I remember correctly, he spoke about the "tough decisions" politicians always talked about, he said they weren't tough, most of them were very simple, you just had to have to the courage to do them. Politicians would make them tough by trying to please everyone, and ended up pleasing no one in the end. Sometimes a simple slogan summs it up rather nice, because sometimes the solution isn't complex, its just having the courage to make the decision and realize your NOT going make everyone happy, you just have to make sure it works. Thats probably the exception more than the rule, I'm only pointing out, that the rare simply solution is NOT necessarily wrong, just because its simple or expressed in simple terms.

Right, but I'm fairly certain that a good deal of research proved that there would be no immediate relief provided by such drilling and that even if there was, it would be a matter of saving a couple of cents at the pump. There are several problems with "Drill, Baby, Drill" that make it a case of oversimplification. First, it makes it seem as if the amount of oil we could produce by drilling offshore is even comparable to the amount that we ship in from overseas...which it isn't remotely. Second, it pushes the problem off...it's a bandaid which is completely inadequate for the wound of our dependence on fossil fuels. It wouldn't have helped that wound heal...it wouldn't have even kept it clean!

But I digress...as you said, there are other examples from both sides. Honestly, I agree with ideas from both sides of the aisle on different subjects, and I see a lot of hypocrisy that pisses me off. Republicans want to keep the government out of things, unless those things happen to be offensive to their religion. Democrats preach proper government intervention, yet in practice, that intervention usually is ineffective or succeeds only in giving my money to those who are unwilling to work for their own.

I disagree that notion that the left oversimplifies things more frequently than the right, on the grounds that I feel that the right did it first and created the environment in which it was necessary. Obama subscribed to the "Yes we can" nonsense because his strategists learned from Gore in 2000....being brilliant and talking through things isn't enough to get elected in this country. You have to be the kinda person that "Joe Six-Pack" would like to have a beer with.

 

[Mongo53]

I disagree that notion that the left oversimplifies things more frequently than the right, on the grounds that I feel that the right did it first and created the environment in which it was necessary. Obama subscribed to the "Yes we can" nonsense because his strategists learned from Gore in 2000....being brilliant and talking through things isn't enough to get elected in this country. You have to be the kinda person that "Joe Six-Pack" would like to have a beer with.

But who started that over-simplification? Whomever it was, I remember it quickly becoming a prejorative over-simplification the media started to use intead of the trust factor, which Gore was quickly falling behind in.

Most people realize, a President will have to face changing circumstances and new unanticipated challenges, that were never covered in campaigns. They may have to break some of their campaign promises, for good reasons. So, often the biggest thing people decide on who to vote for president, is the candidate they "trust" the most to do the right thing, or do what they would want done, at least. They'll base that assesment off his record, his responses to debate questions, indications from their proposed policies, and for me at least, what they respond to with Moral Clarity and what they respond to with Moral Cloudiness. You can tell what issues they will lead on in the future, and what issues they will vascilate.

We may disagree on how brilliant Al Gore is, or was in the 2000 election, but I think you can make a case that Bush responded with Moral Clarity to issues that resonate more with most Americans, than Gore did, NOT that Gore did NOT develop some trust factor with his base as well.

I respected people that spoke of the concept as a "Trust Factor", I laughed with folks that joked about it as being the "A guy you want to have a beer with" factor, but distrusted the people that expressed it as "Joe Six Pack" have a beer with factor, implying it as a perjorative.