The Omnibus Political Misinformation Thread

[Lobohan]

I was thinking about political misinformation. The stuff that politicians or their mouthpieces pretend is true to make a point, when it actually isn’t.

Now personally, it seems to me that an awful lot of this happens on the right nowadays, but I’m sure some of it happens on the left. Can we list them for all sides?

Now this isn’t for opinions. Like, abortion is bad. But for factual things that are supported by a clear majority of non-partisan experts. Like Global Warming is happening and man is to some extent responsible. Global warming would be an example of a factual bit of misinformation on the right, since many if not most on the right think Global Warming is a conspiracy by scientists, or something.

Any others anyone can think of?

[Napier]

“Drilling for oil in the US would keep gas prices down.” As I understand, given a global oil market in which the US contribution even if greatly increased would be minor, and given that refineries are a limiting factor anyway (and several are due to go offline soon), US drilling would have little effect on gas prices.

“Voter fraud is a problem and more security measures are necessary to ensure fair elections.” As I understand, research has found on the order of hundreds of cases of voter fraud in the last decade or so, meaning something like one in a million votes is improper, while vigilantes hanging around polls and new requirements for more difficult IDs - for example allowing some school IDs (e.g. University of Georgia) while disallowing other school IDs (e.g. predominantly African American school Spellman) - will have a much bigger effect of discouraging legitimate voting.

[Typo_Knig]

All the birtherism crap, or that Obama is a Muslim. Or that the recent, on-going discussion of reproductive issues in US politics was a “trap” set by Obama/The White House/Romney to make the Republicans (or just Santorum) look bad.

[Blake]

@Lobohan

Any others anyone can think of?

Yeah. Exactly the same arguments, reversed.

Like the issue of Global Warming is completely settled. Global warming is an example of a factual bit of misinformation on the left, since many if not most on the left think Global Warming can be proved by looking melting glaciers or simple temperature records, and there are no competing hypotheses that can possibly explain the observations (all arguments put forward by Leftists in this very forum within the past 3 months).

Global warming really is a great example of how these things work. Al Gore, for example, lied his arse off about global warming, to the extent that in a global warming debate the alarmists immediately disavow him and refuse to even enter into discussions about anything he has said. Yet despite this, you use global warming as an example of political misinformation, and then say that you have trouble thinking of examples used by the political left, despite having a very high profile left wing politician with an easily provable track record of lying on this very issue.

Unfortunately this is the nature of politics. Both sides play up the “facts” to suit their own agendas. I call it a lie when the other side does it, and I ignore it as justified simplification or honest mistake when my side does it. Pretty much any example of political misinformation that you care to throw up will be an example of dishonesty on *both *sides.

The fact is that no side in politics has any respect for facts. They are politicians, and hence magnificent and repetitive liars. Anybody naive enough to believe that any politician has any respect for the facts deserves exactly what they get. I have certainly never sen any evidence that one side is more prone to lying. Left or Right, they are equally dishonest. That is why there are equal numbers of people voting for both sides. If one side was scrupulously honest and the other utterly dishonest, there couldn’t possibly be an even split of voters extending back a century.

The other examples in this thread seem to be either simply disagreements and not misinformation, or political mudslinging.

Just because someone disagrees with you, that does not mean that they are misinforming anyone. If I believe that 1% voter fraud is a major problem in the light of the Bush/Gore fiasco in Florida, then that is my opinion, it is not misinformation. If I believe that it is better to discourage 1000 legitimate voters who couldn’t be bothered to obtain ID than to let in 10 bogus votes carefully targetted at sensitive electorates, then that is also my opinion. This isn’t in any sense misinformation, unless somebody is actually claiming that voter fraud is higher than 1%, which I don’t believe is happening. The same goes for the domestic energy argument. That’s complicated and a minority of economists argue that domestic fuel supplies will reduce oil prices. primarily by mitigating OPEC/Mid Eastern influence. I don’t agree with those arguments, but that doesn’t mean that the economists making such cases are misinforming anyone. Just because I think it’s a load of hooey doesn’t mean that it is misinformation.

Mudslinging is misinformation, but it’s so ubiquitous in politics that it’s gonna be a long night if we start listing every example of it. Yes, it’s nonsense that Obama is a Muslim, and it is equally nonsense that everyone who opposes any Obama policy is a racist, and it was was nonsense that Bush Jr. was a literal imbecile or that Bush Sr’s father bought Jewish prisoners off the Nazis to work in his factories and so on and so forth. As Cecil once said, the great thing about a democracy is that each side gets a chance to drag the other through the mud when it loses power. To me this isn’t strictly misinformation. Sure, these claims are all BS, but it’s personal mudslinging, and very different to actually misinforming people about facts that are actually germaine to policy. Whether or not Bush’s father used Jewish slaves had no bearing at all on whether he should liberate Kuwait, just as whether or not Obama is a Muslim has no bearing at all on his handling of the GFC. The life that the Obama Muslim thing has taken on is puzzling, but in kind it seems like standard political mudslinging and not greatly different from the Left’s attempts to portray Bush’s father as a Nazi who literally worked Jews to death. The only difference is that one stuck in the minds of the public and the other didn’t.

YMMV

[Lobohan]

@Blake

Yeah. Exactly the same arguments, reversed.

Like the issue of Global Warming is completely settled. Global warming is an example of a factual bit of misinformation on the left, since many if not most on the left think Global Warming can be proved by looking melting glaciers or simple temperature records, and there are no competing hypotheses that can possibly explain the observations (all arguments put forward by Leftists in this very forum within the past 3 months).

Of course there is still more to know, but as I said in the OP, the vast majority of experts are in agreement.

There simply isn’t a controversy that it’s happening, but the right just up and lies and pretends it isn’t happening.

Global warming really is a great example of how these things work. Al Gore, for example, lied his arse off about global warming, to the extent that in a global warming debate the alarmists immediately disavow him and refuse to even enter into discussions about anything he has said. Yet despite this, you use global warming as an example of political misinformation, and then say that you have trouble thinking of examples used by the political left, despite having a very high profile left wing politician with an easily provable track record of lying on this very issue.

Uh huh. In any case, I asked for factual information, not your opinions.

Unfortunately this is the nature of politics. Both sides play up the “facts” to suit their own agendas. I call it a lie when the other side does it, and I ignore it as justified simplification or honest mistake when my side does it. Pretty much any example of political misinformation that you care to throw up will be an example of dishonesty on *both *sides.

Again, the right’s stance on global warming isn’t simplification. It’s an outright lie.

The fact is that no side in politics has any respect for facts. They are politicians, and hence magnificent and repetitive liars. Anybody naive enough to believe that any politician has any respect for the facts deserves exactly what they get. I have certainly never sen any evidence that one side is more prone to lying. Left or Right, they are equally dishonest. That is why there are equal numbers of people voting for both sides. If one side was scrupulously honest and the other utterly dishonest, there couldn’t possibly be an even split of voters extending back a century.

The other examples in this thread seem to be either simply disagreements and not misinformation, or political mudslinging.

Just because someone disagrees with you, that does not mean that they are misinforming anyone. If I believe that 1% voter fraud is a major problem in the light of the Bush/Gore fiasco in Florida, then that is my opinion, it is not misinformation. If I believe that it is better to discourage 1000 legitimate voters who couldn’t be bothered to obtain ID than to let in 10 bogus votes carefully targetted at sensitive electorates, then that is also my opinion. This isn’t in any sense misinformation, unless somebody is actually claiming that voter fraud is higher than 1%, which I don’t believe is happening. The same goes for the domestic energy argument. That’s complicated and a minority of economists argue that domestic fuel supplies will reduce oil prices. primarily by mitigating OPEC/Mid Eastern influence. I don’t agree with those arguments, but that doesn’t mean that the economists making such cases are misinforming anyone. Just because I think it’s a load of hooey doesn’t mean that it is misinformation.

Mudslinging is misinformation, but it’s so ubiquitous in politics that it’s gonna be a long night if we start listing every example of it. Yes, it’s nonsense that Obama is a Muslim, and it is equally nonsense that everyone who opposes any Obama policy is a racist, and it was was nonsense that Bush Jr. was a literal imbecile or that Bush Sr’s father bought Jewish prisoners off the Nazis to work in his factories and so on and so forth. As Cecil once said, the great thing about a democracy is that each side gets a chance to drag the other through the mud when it loses power. To me this isn’t strictly misinformation. Sure, these claims are all BS, but it’s personal mudslinging, and very different to actually misinforming people about facts that are actually germaine to policy. Whether or not Bush’s father used Jewish slaves had no bearing at all on whether he should liberate Kuwait, just as whether or not Obama is a Muslim has no bearing at all on his handling of the GFC. The life that the Obama Muslim thing has taken on is puzzling, but in kind it seems like standard political mudslinging and not greatly different from the Left’s attempts to portray Bush’s father as a Nazi who literally worked Jews to death. The only difference is that one stuck in the minds of the public and the other didn’t.

YMMV

My mileage certainly does vary. Your opinions are, I’m sure very dear to you, but I was asking for actual facts. Why not start your own thread that you can gibber-jabber to your heart’s content?

[Lobohan]

I think a bit of misinformation on the left, now that I think about it, might be that renewable energy can scale to provide our energy needs (with present technology). Not everyone on the left believes this, of course. But it is a meme held by many people I tend to agree with normally.

[Typo_Knig]

Does “raw milk is harmless and should be de-criminalized” count as political enough for this thread? It’s some left-wing, tree-hugging, granola-crunching BS, that is for sure.

The “9/11 was an inside job” nonsense. I don’t hear about it much anymore, but I’m sure it’s out there. Again, mostly left-wing, entirely stoopid.

[tomndebb]

@Lobohan

Now this isn’t for opinions.

Really? We have fewer than eight posts and the thread is already mired down in claims that “the other guy” is merely voicing opinions.

Beyond which, I am not sure where we would have a debate if we actually came up with an irrefutable list of false claims.

Off to IMHO.

[Blake]

@Lobohan

Of course there is still more to know, but as I said in the OP, the vast majority of experts are in agreement.

So your definition of misinformation is saying something that 10% of the world’s foremost experts agree is true?

That isn’t a definition of misinformation found in any dictionary. If I claim that humans arrived in North America between ~10, 00 years ago, that isn’t misinformation. It’s a minority opinion amongst the foremost experts in the world, but it is still an opinion held by experts based upon their interpretation of the evidence. There is simply no misinformation involved. The statement is well researched and well referenced and genuinely believed to be true.

Trying to portray minority scientific opinion as misinformation is nothing less than a True Scotsman.

But hell, if we are going to define any minority expert opinion as misinformation, then almost any Leftist economic opinion is misinformation.

There simply isn’t a controversy that it’s happening, but the right just up and lies and pretends it isn’t happening.

Some on the right do, certainly.

And by the same token, there simply isn’t any controversy that the world’s ocean levels are not rising by 6 m in the next century. But the left just up and lies and pretends it is happening. And there simply isn’t any controversy that the world is not going to run out of oil completely within the next 15 years. But the left just up and lies and pretends it is happening. And there simply isn’t any controversy that at least 50% of the Amazon rainforest will still be there in 50 years time, But the left just up and lies and pretends it is happening. And so on and so forth.

The left is at least as prone to these hyperbolic claims as the right, and as in the case of global warming, the claims are made regarding exactly the same issues, just exaggerated in the other direction. As is said earlier, the only difference is that you don;t believe it is misinformation when the left makes such wild exaggerations in direct contradiction of the evidence. It’s acceptable when your side does it, or at least an “honest mistake”.

Uh huh. In any case, I asked for factual information, not your opinions.

Uh huh. And I provided you with factual information. :rolleyes:

Again, the right’s stance on global warming isn’t simplification. It’s an outright lie.

And as I said, the stance of the left is also an outright lie.

Sea levels are going to rise by 6m in the near future, as Al Gore claimed. That is not a simplification. That is an outright lie.

Paleoclimate records do not show that COs increases led to an increase in temperature, as Al Gore claimed. That is not a simplification. That is an outright lie.

A 100 ppm increase in CO2 levels is not “the difference between a nice day and a mile of ice above your head” , as Al Gore claimed. That is not a simplification. That is an outright lie.

And I could keep going all day presenting these lies by leftists such as Gore as they pertain *just *to global warming. Never mind the lies about peak oil, deforestation and so forth.

But, as I said, because you agree with Gore’s politics, you let these lies pass. They aren’t lies. It isn’t even misinformation. This is why you can’t think of any misinformation from the left because when a prominent leftist politician lies, you refuse to categorise it as misinformation.

My mileage certainly does vary. Your opinions are, I’m sure very dear to you, but I was asking for actual facts.

And I gave you actual facts. It is an actual fact that Sea levels are going to rise by 6m in the near future, for example.

Why not start your own thread that you can gibber-jabber to your heart’s content?

Ahh, I see. You posted in GD, but you have no actual ability to debate, instead you want an opportunity to slag off your political opponents without being forced to think about your own position.

Maybe you should ask the Mods to move this thread. Because in here people are going to present you with facts that you will force you to confront your prejudices. Insulting people by calling their posts “gibber-jabber” isn’t going to change those facts, or make it more comfortable when they force you to actually think.

[Blake]

@tomndebb

Really? We have fewer than eight posts and the thread is already mired down in claims that “the other guy” is merely voicing opinions.

Beyond which, I am not sure where we would have a debate if we actually came up with an irrefutable list of false claims.

Off to IMHO.

Good call.

[Tim_R.Mortiss]

Alan Grayson: “If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do. If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: “Die quickly.” That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”

[Blake]

[Mr Gore’s assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said this was “distinctly alarmist” and it was common ground that if Greenland’s ice melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia”.

Mr Gore’s assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Mr Gore’s reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned “swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice”. The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.](BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors')

These are finding of facts by a High Court Judge. But according to Lobohan these are not facts at all. They are just opinions. And despite being found to be outright lies told by Gore with no support at all, scientific or otherwise, they are not examples of misinformation by Gore. They are just exaggerations. Made up out of whole cloth. With the express intent of distorting the public perception of global warming. But just exaggerations.

And they are *certainly *in no way evidence that the left misinforms the public on global warming, because Al Gore is not in any way affiliated with left wing politics.

Isn’t that right Lobohan?

[Accidental_Martyr]

@Typo_Knig

Does “raw milk is harmless and should be de-criminalized” count as political enough for this thread? It’s some left-wing, tree-hugging, granola-crunching BS, that is for sure.

The “9/11 was an inside job” nonsense. I don’t hear about it much anymore, but I’m sure it’s out there. Again, mostly left-wing, entirely stoopid.

9/11 “Truthers” appear to come from all areas of the political spectrum, not “mostly left-wing”. Yes, it’s still out there but something I generally stay away from because it’s so mind-bogglingly stupid.

[Lobohan]

@Blake

So your definition of misinformation is saying something that 10% of the world’s foremost experts agree is true?

Is it ten percent of the world’s experts? Do you agree that we should rely on experts or that untrained people should address the data themselves? Are you aware that untrained people can’t intelligently look at raw data and draw meaningful conclusions?

That isn’t a definition of misinformation found in any dictionary. If I claim that humans arrived in North America between ~10, 00 years ago, that isn’t misinformation. It’s a minority opinion amongst the foremost experts in the world, but it is still an opinion held by experts based upon their interpretation of the evidence. There is simply no misinformation involved. The statement is well researched and well referenced and genuinely believed to be true.

Trying to portray minority scientific opinion as misinformation is nothing less than a True Scotsman.

Nonsense. It’s misinformation because there is no significant group of experts backing the right’s take on it.

But hell, if we are going to define any minority expert opinion as misinformation, then almost any Leftist economic opinion is misinformation.

Again, nonsense. I’d like specifics that you can cite, not your dreams and prejudices.

Some on the right do, certainly.

It’s more than some.

And by the same token, there simply isn’t any controversy that the world’s ocean levels are not rising by 6 m in the next century. But the left just up and lies and pretends it is happening. And there simply isn’t any controversy that the world is not going to run out of oil completely within the next 15 years. But the left just up and lies and pretends it is happening. And there simply isn’t any controversy that at least 50% of the Amazon rainforest will still be there in 50 years time, But the left just up and lies and pretends it is happening. And so on and so forth.

Who on the left is advocating that oil is running out in 15 years? Who is advocating that the Amazon is gone? Specifically? Is it a major group of elected officials or people with a national stage? Because Hannity is claiming that Global Warming is false, who on the left is the analogue for 6m ocean rises?

Details please.

The left is at least as prone to these hyperbolic claims as the right, and as in the case of global warming, the claims are made regarding exactly the same issues, just exaggerated in the other direction. As is said earlier, the only difference is that you don;t believe it is misinformation when the left makes such wild exaggerations in direct contradiction of the evidence. It’s acceptable when your side does it, or at least an “honest mistake”.

Nonsense. The I haven’t seen anything but your assertion that the left is as bad. Overstating intensity isn’t the same thing as claiming something doesn’t exist. If you tell you that your sister has got to be six feet tall and she’s five ten, that isn’t the same as demanding that your sister doesn’t exist.

Uh huh. And I provided you with factual information. :rolleyes:

No, you provided me with nonsense glurge.

And as I said, the stance of the left is also an outright lie.

The stance on the left is that we should cut back greenhouse emissions to cut global warming. Why is that a lie? Who is advocating this 6m rise you are talking about?

Sea levels are going to rise by 6m in the near future, as Al Gore claimed. That is not a simplification. That is an outright lie.

I’m not Al Gore’s keeper, but here is something he wrote last month: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/31/415742/al-gore-rising-seas-antarctica-to-bangladesh/

He is talking about a potential as much as 1 meter rise by 2050. Are you full of shit?

Paleoclimate records do not show that COs increases led to an increase in temperature, as Al Gore claimed. That is not a simplification. That is an outright lie.

A 100 ppm increase in CO2 levels is not “the difference between a nice day and a mile of ice above your head” , as Al Gore claimed. That is not a simplification. That is an outright lie.

And I could keep going all day presenting these lies by leftists such as Gore as they pertain *just *to global warming. Never mind the lies about peak oil, deforestation and so forth.

But, as I said, because you agree with Gore’s politics, you let these lies pass. They aren’t lies. It isn’t even misinformation. This is why you can’t think of any misinformation from the left because when a prominent leftist politician lies, you refuse to categorise it as misinformation.

Neither of us is a climate scientist, so I have no ability or inclination to get into an amateur slap-fight over the data.

My standards are if the vast majority of experts agree, we go on that basis. Since the vast majority of experts agree with the general leftist stance on AGW, only a completely dishonest assessment could suggest that the right’s position (that AGW doesn’t exist and is a conspiracy) has equal merit.

And I gave you actual facts. It is an actual fact that Sea levels are going to rise by 6m in the near future, for example.

That isn’t a fact. In fact, it isn’t what Gore is saying now. So maybe you are subject to some misinformation yourself?

Ahh, I see. You posted in GD, but you have no actual ability to debate, instead you want an opportunity to slag off your political opponents without being forced to think about your own position.

No, I wanted a list of information that was uncontroversial. AGW existing isn’t controversial, you threw up chaff to pretend that the right is just as sound on this issue. And that isn’t true. What I wanted is for ideologues, to not litter the issues with nonsense like you have.

I’m perfectly willing to debate, but not about a subject that’s largely settled. If you want to ply conspiracy theories, do them elsewhere.

Maybe you should ask the Mods to move this thread. Because in here people are going to present you with facts that you will force you to confront your prejudices. Insulting people by calling their posts “gibber-jabber” isn’t going to change those facts, or make it more comfortable when they force you to actually think.

Your posts are gibber-jabber because they seek to cloud issues, not contribute to the thread.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

The idea that the Christian Right in this country or indeed conservative in general are dominated by Christian Dominionists/Reconstructionists. Christian Dominionists/Reconstructionists disagree more or less completely with the Falwell/Pat Robertson type of the Christian Right which has actual political power and are very much a fringe movement: the former tend to be isolationists (due to their strict stance on just war), anti-Zionist if not anti-Semite, are laissez-faire capitalists of the Austrian school, pro “states rights” and have Confederate sympathies (unlike most conservatives who idolize Lincoln), oppose religious freedom (Evangelicals in many cases has shown a willingness to work with Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and even Muslims), and if they support anybody in politics, support Ron Paul rather than Santorum or Romney or Bush.

To sum: the Christian Right do support banning abortion and gay marriage and hyperaggressive foreign policy but they are not going to bring back stoning for adulterers and idolaters or establish a Christian version of Iran.

[Lobohan]

@Blake

These are finding of facts by a High Court Judge. But according to Lobohan these are not facts at all. They are just opinions. And despite being found to be outright lies told by Gore with no support at all, scientific or otherwise, they are not examples of misinformation by Gore. They are just exaggerations. Made up out of whole cloth. With the express intent of distorting the public perception of global warming. But just exaggerations.

And they are *certainly *in no way evidence that the left misinforms the public on global warming, because Al Gore is not in any way affiliated with left wing politics.

Isn’t that right Lobohan?

He isn’t still selling that story.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/69679-judge-al-gores-nine-incovenient-truths look for yourself at the misinformation. They are mistakes of intensity, not kind.

As I said, they aren’t being sold (as far as I know) right now, and they are the results of mistakes Gore (a non scientist) made, not the dismissals of people opposed to the science.

[Lobohan]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

The idea that the Christian Right in this country or indeed conservative in general are dominated by Christian Dominionists/Reconstructionists. Christian Dominionists/Reconstructionists disagree more or less completely with the Falwell/Pat Robertson type of the Christian Right which has actual political power and are very much a fringe movement: the former tend to be isolationists (due to their strict stance on just war), anti-Zionist if not anti-Semite, are laissez-faire capitalists of the Austrian school, pro “states rights” and have Confederate sympathies (unlike most conservatives who idolize Lincoln), oppose religious freedom (Evangelicals in many cases has shown a willingness to work with Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and even Muslims), and if they support anybody in politics, support Ron Paul rather than Santorum or Romney or Bush.

To sum: the Christian Right do support banning abortion and gay marriage and hyperaggressive foreign policy but they are not going to bring back stoning for adulterers and idolaters or establish a Christian version of Iran.

I’d agree that they aren’t necessarily looking for anything that bold. But they are looking to walk us back a fair distance and include more God in the mix. Not Iran, but closer to Iran than we are now.

But yeah, calling the right the Mullahs of Virginia or whatnot is hyperbole, certainly.

[Lobohan]

@tomndebb

Really? We have fewer than eight posts and the thread is already mired down in claims that “the other guy” is merely voicing opinions.

Beyond which, I am not sure where we would have a debate if we actually came up with an irrefutable list of false claims.

Off to IMHO.

That’s like your opinion, man.

As I said, I was hoping for things where fact is settled or close to it. AGW is one of those things, but I guess I was naive in assuming that folks like Blake would let his partisanship rest, instead of demanding that the left *on that issue *is perfectly equal to the right.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Lobohan

I’d agree that they aren’t necessarily looking for anything that bold. But they are looking to walk us back a fair distance and include more God in the mix. Not Iran, but closer to Iran than we are now.

But yeah, calling the right the Mullahs of Virginia or whatnot is hyperbole, certainly.

The best picture of what the Christian Right wants IMO is a rather idealized version of 1950s America as seen in the paintings of Norman Rockwell or TV shows like the Walton’s minus the racism and the anti-Communism.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

That there is any sort of war on religion in America. While much of America’ intellectual and cultural elite oppose Christianity in favour of Oriental mysticisism, pop psychology, and certain forms of skepticism, there certainly is no legal impedement to Christians and even socially most people are at least nominally Christian and churches and ministers wield tremendous moral influence (even amongst the left such as Jim Wallis or Jesse Jackson). The rhetoric of “war on religion” cheapens the term especially considering the actual persecution of Christians in countries like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea.