Lies told by prominant democrats

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Mr.Moto

Well, you can believe what you wish. But the thing is in that long debate when that came up, you demonstrated that you didn’t have very much understanding of the Vice-President’s role either, and interestingly enough most critics of Palin in the media and in politics suffered from similar ignorance.

All I said in that thread is that it would have been nice for people in their criticisms of Palin to have done some homework and known what those responsibilities were. That certainly didn’t happen much.

What do you imagine that I have misunderstood about the VP’s role?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Mr.Moto

And where do these “trivial, technical powers” come from?

I’ll give you a hint - starts with a c, ends with an n, and in the middle there’s an itoosh.

What difference does it make where they come from? Who ever said they don’t come from the Constitution? That doesn’t make them any less trivial or inconsequential.

[Knorf]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What’s not true about this?

The lie is that the quote should include: “and make sure that our business supporters in the health care industry make as much money as possible regardless of the needs of the people.”

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It wasn’t accurate. I sincerely believe she had a misunderstanding of what kind of power the words “President of the Senate” really confer, which is very little.

What I think you’re saying, then, is that she was wrong in what she meant. That is, saying “in charge of the Senate” could mean various things, and she had in mind things that were wrong.

I think that’s quite likely.

But it’s not enough to call her answer wrong. I remember when my son was wrong on two digit subtraction problems, and had to figure 31-16. He was stymied trying to remember whether or not he was supposed to subtract 1 from 6 or 6 from 1 and borrow. He wrote down ‘5’ and then asked me, “Is this right?”

And I said, “Yes, but for the wrong reason. You didn’t borrow, make the 1 into 11, and then do 11-6=5.”

So, too, here. Palin’s answer may well have been underpinned by an image of the VP barking orders left and right while the senators scurried about, but what she said didn’t reveal that error. What she said was perfectly defensible, especially in the context of an answer to a third-grader.

[Grumman]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

But it’s not like everyone else’s vote, because as Senators they can vote on every measure. The PotS *only *votes on tie-breaking votes; that inherently makes it a special vote. It’s more decisive than anyone else’s vote because he’s the guy that makes certain the Senate is not stymied by ineffective vote outcomes.

No, it’s less decisive. Anybody, if the votes are tied without them, can break the tie in their favour. But anyone else also gets to vote if the votes aren’t tied without them, which means they can also vote if their side is losing the vote by one. In effect, the VP only gets half a vote.

[XT]

It’s hard to believe that anyone drinks the kool aid enough to think that their party never tells lies, while the other side always does. :rolleyes:

At any rate, a quick check at Factcheck.org shows plenty of times where Dems were caught ‘exaggerating’ or, um, stretching the truth. Here, from Whoopers of 2009:

The more colorful claims about health care may have come from the right, but the left made false and misleading statements, too, in touting the legislation. The highlights, so to speak:

* False Fingerpointing: Obama falsely claimed that an insurance company was responsible for the death of an Illinois cancer patient whose coverage was canceled because he hadn’t reported gallstones. "They delayed his treatment," Obama said, "and he died because of it." Not true. As the Chicago Sun-Times‘ Lynn Sweet reported, Otto Raddatz of Downers Grove, Ill., did have his insurance canceled by Fortis Insurance Co., but the coverage was reinstated in April 2005 and his chemotherapy went forward after only a brief delay. Raddatz lived for nearly another four years and died early this year. Obama got this whopper from an online magazine article; the author later admitted jumping to a wrong conclusion. "Sweet: Another Stretch by Obama," Sept. 13; "Too Good to Check?" Sept. 18
* Double Trouble: Obama exaggerated by at least a factor of two when he said that health care "causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds." And we’ve noticed the claim popping up elsewhere, such as, believe it or not, in a new iPhone app. But data from the U.S. Courts showed about 934,000 total personal bankruptcies in the 12-month period ending June 2008. Even if we accept a Harvard study’s conclusion that half of bankruptcies are related to medical expenses — and some have criticized that study — that would still be only one health care bankruptcy every minute. "Fact-Checking Obama’s Speech," Feb. 25.
* Puffed-up Premiums: We twice caught Obama saying that the "average American family is paying thousands" or "a thousand dollars" in health insurance premiums to pay for uncompensated care for the uninsured. But he used a figure from a group that lobbies for expanded coverage. Nonpartisan experts at the Kaiser Family Foundation put the figure much lower — about $200.  "Obama’s Health Care Claims," June 16 and "Obama’s Health Care News Conference," July 23
* Saving $2,500: Obama repeated his claim that the average family could save $2,500 a year under health care overhaul legislation. We picked apart his optimistic calculations during the 2008 presidential campaign, but he repeated the claim as recently as May 17, saying that "comprehensive reform" and some other private sector measures could save "$2,500 per family every year." Since then we haven’t heard much about this. His claim is not supported by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimated that under the Senate bill (as introduced), there wouldn’t be much of a reduction at all. Those with coverage from large employers would see premium reductions of 0 percent to 3 percent, with the average family premium costing $20,300 in 2016, CBO said. And for those buying their own insurance in the nongroup market, CBO estimated that nongroup premiums actually would go up. That increase would be more than offset by new taxpayer subsidies for most policyholders — but not for all. "Seven Falsehoods About Health Care," Aug. 14

The keen eyed reader will see that there are plenty of Republican ‘exaggerations’ in there too (as well as others from Democrats). Going through the site there are a LOT of instances where FC has found deliberate exaggeration (what some would call a ‘lie’, though there seems to be a rather loose interpretation of what that term means in this thread…loose based on where one seemingly sits on the political fence). Even a cursory glance through the articles seems to show plenty of grist for whichever political mill one wants to grind.

Personally, the way I judge whether or not a politician of either party are ‘exaggerating’ is very simple. Are his or her lips moving? If so, one can be fairly confident that somewhere in that speech there is a certain amount of spin, exaggeration and our right lying going on. Anyone who thinks THEIR party doesn’t do this (while accusing the other party of doing it all the time) has a big anthropomorphic drink pitcher following them around ready to pour for them on a moments notice…

-XT

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Grumman

No, it’s less decisive. Anybody, if the votes are tied without them, can break the tie in their favour. But anyone else also gets to vote if the votes aren’t tied without them, which means they can also vote if their side is losing the vote by one. In effect, the VP only gets half a vote.

I guess, but if everyone votes and it ends up being a tie, than nobody’s vote is all that effective. Except the VP’s vote. The VP is the only guy whose vote never ties up legislative progress. But whatever.

Whatever the case, the ceremonial figurehead/tie-breaker/guy referred to as “president” can reasonably be looked at as the guy “in charge” by a third grader. In charge of what is pretty much what gets Sarah and Dick Cheney in trouble when it is beyond the scope of what the Constitution has laid out, which isn’t much, really.

I’m just saying that nitpicking what she said in reply to a third grader is pretty lame and ignores the really egregious stuff she said in the debate.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

XT, with all due respect, none of your examples have a Dem lying about a Pub. They are all just falsehoods perpetuated by Obama. This thread isn’t about how Obama always tells the truth. Read the OP again and try again.

Oh, and why does it surprise you that there are “kool-aid drinkers” out there? You’ve presumably been here long enough to recognize them even in this small of a community. The law of averages says there are scads more outside of the Dope.

[XT]

The thread description just says ‘Lies told by prominant democrats’, so I went from there. To me it gets into a semantic argument on just who Obama was telling those ‘lies’ or ‘exaggerations’ too…was he not speaking to the country as a whole? And aren’t Republicans part of the country?

At any rate, if it’s direct lies told by Democrats to Republicans then it will get into another round of what is or isn’t a lie, and how and who it was told too. To much parsing and hair splitting for my tastes, so I’ll leave ya’ll too it. Good luck!

-XT

[Ravenman]

@Bricker

What I think you’re saying, then, is that she was wrong in what she meant. That is, saying “in charge of the Senate” could mean various things, and she had in mind things that were wrong.

I think that’s quite likely.

But it’s not enough to call her answer wrong. I remember when my son was wrong on two digit subtraction problems, and had to figure 31-16.

I think the analogy I would use to describe the controversy around Palin’s understanding of the President of the Senate would be to equate the position to the alternator in a car.

An alternator is an indispensable part of a car. A car without electricity simply wouldn’t work, and performs critical duties, just as the Senate without a presiding officer cannot function. However, in no way is the alternator in charge of the car. One would have a hard time saying it is even the most important part of the car, to which I’d correlate the engine and the Majority Leader. And I think we can all agree that the President of the Senate is not the driver.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Who has said their party never lies?

[XT]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Who has said their party never lies?

It’s implicit in the knee jerk defense (by some) for any accusation of ‘lies’ told by their favorite party coupled with knee jerk acceptance (by some) of ‘lies’ told by the enemy party (and I use the word ‘enemy’ here deliberately, since that seems to be the case for many on this board).

If people were REALLY comfortable (and accepting) that their party tells lies (too), then, in this particular thread, Democrats should have come forward and actually answered the OP by giving some of the MYRIAD examples where Dems have also, sadly, told lies in an attempt to spin things their own way. Didn’t happen that way, did it?

Where is YOUR example, for instance, DtC?

-XT

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I don’t have a party, for the record, but I mentioned Maxine Waters way upthread. I’ve also said I’m sure there must be good examples, but I don’t think some of those posited have been very impressive.

ETA the request was for lies by Democrats about Republicans, so if lots of great examples exist, where are yours?

[elucidator]

Or, perhaps, we simply don’t feel the need to publicly polish our non-partisan credentials as often as opportunity permits.

[Shodan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I don’t have a party, for the record, but I mentioned Maxine Waters way upthread. I’ve also said I’m sure there must be good examples, but I don’t think some of those posited have been very impressive.

ETA the request was for lies by Democrats about Republicans, so if lots of great examples exist, where are yours?

Okay, then maybe we can move beyond dismissal into actual discussion. What lies did Maxine Waters tell about Republicans? Please be specific about why what she said was a lie, while all the other examples are not germane.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I mentioned her crack cocaine conspiracy theory. I assume the theory is false. If it’s not false, then I stand corrected and she didn’t lie.

[Shodan]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I mentioned her crack cocaine conspiracy theory. I assume the theory is false. If it’s not false, then I stand corrected and she didn’t lie.

So you consider this to be “about Republicans” - correct? And she counts as a prominent enough Democrat, correct? No more waffling and double standards - anything like this is good enough to count. Correct?

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Ravenman

I think the analogy I would use to describe the controversy around Palin’s understanding of the President of the Senate would be to equate the position to the alternator in a car.

An alternator is an indispensable part of a car. A car without electricity simply wouldn’t work, and performs critical duties, just as the Senate without a presiding officer cannot function. However, in no way is the alternator in charge of the car. One would have a hard time saying it is even the most important part of the car, to which I’d correlate the engine and the Majority Leader. And I think we can all agree that the President of the Senate is not the driver.

Well… no.

This is why the car analogy fails. A car has a single driver. Perhaps we might instead imagine one of those long hook-and-ladder fire trucks, which has a “driver” in the rear as well as a driver up front. The driver in the back controls the back steering wheels. He doesn’t decide where the hook and ladder truck goes, but can create significant changes in how it gets there, or even prevent its arrival entirely. It would not be wrong (although it would obviously be incomplete) to say that the rear driver is in charge of the driving of the hook and ladder.

How to do you reconcile your view of the powerlessness of the presiding officer with the Mondale example?

[ElvisL1ves]

The person best described as in charge of the Senate is the Majority Leader, okay?

Gawd …

[Ravenman]

To the Mondale example, Majority Leader Byrd hatched the plan to rule dilatory amendments out of order. While Mondale made the rulings, it was Byrd who called up the amendments. Just like the alternator cannot make electricity without the engine running, the Senate cannot operate without the Majority Leader and someone in the presiding officer’s chair. In fact, Mondale didn’t even have to be there for that, any Democratic senator could have been in the chair and made the exact same decisions that Mondale did.

Here’s a contemporaneous George Will article. Here is an “official” version of the events that credited Byrd, not Mondale, with the floor strategy:

After the Senate debate had dragged on for twelve days, including an all-night session, Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd persuaded Mondale to cooperate in a daring strategy to cut off the filibuster. On the floor, Byrd raised points of order that many of the amendments should be ruled out of order as incorrectly drawn or not germane. As presiding officer, Mondale ruled thirty-three amendments out of order in a matter of minutes. The Senate erupted into angry protest, with even senators who had not filibustered denouncing the tactic. The vice president was lectured by many senators, including some of his longtime friends, for abusing the powers of the presiding officer. In his defense, Senator Byrd pointed out that the vice president was not there to “pull the rug out” from under the Senate. “The Vice President is here to get the ox out of the ditch.” Although the strategy worked and the bill was enacted, “the struggle had left some deep wounds,” Byrd later concluded.

I’m not quite following how the guy in the back of the fire truck can claim to be “in charge” of the truck, even if the phrase is being dumbed down for a young audience. If I told my 4 year old nieces that I am “in charge” of a fire truck, even they would probably look at me crazy if I told them I manipulate the secondary steering wheel.

FTR: I don’t believe any one person can claim to be the driver of the hypothetical car I’m talking about. The Majority Leader may be the engine, the President the alternator, and committee chairmen could be the tires, but it is all 100 senators who together must constitute the driver. That’s why the Senate goes nowhere, fast.