Maggie's Farm

Re: Republicans Are Addicted to Increasing Federal Spending &
Exit Polls: Republican Voters Feel 'Betrayed' by GOP

George Wallace once said, "there’s not a dime’s worth of difference" between the two parties. I used to think that was ridiculous hyperbole. Not any more though it may be a quarter rather than a dime. Is it any wonder why Republican voters feel betrayed?

Now there seems to actually be some sort of movement to nominate Ryan at the convention! I don't know who wants to blow up the party more: the establishment, conservatives, or the "insurgents."

Of course, the interesting thing is that while Democrats don't necessarily feel betrayed, they're not happy with their establishment either. Clinton is embracing Obama while saying the country is in bad shape. Apparently, they don't want to steal enough from people who have earned it to give to them. On the other hand, Democrats don't need an excuse to blow up something. They've blown up everything they've touched for the last fifty years - including the truth: http://www.democrats.org/about/our-history

Democrats have been blatant liars for generations:
"health care premiums will decrease by $2500 per year", Obamacare will not increase the deficit", "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", "I didn't inhale.", "I tried hard to get a middle class tax cut.", "I did not have sex with that woman.", Kerry threw his medals over the White House fence, Al Gore told the sad story of how his sister died of smoking related cancer while he owned tobacco allotments, "Bush lied, people died" in other words Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, "A video caused the attack at Benghazi", "We didn't lose any people in Libya", with respect to her email server Clinton said "my predecessors did the same thing", "there was no classified material on the server", with respect to several topics including gay marriage that she said she has always been consistent, Clinton said she was under sniper fire in Bosnia, Clinton said she was a critic of NAFTA from the beginning.

And then there's the DNC itself: http://www.democrats.org/about/our-history

It certainly wasn't a complete list, but I shouldn't have left out Kennedy's "Missile Gap".

So be explicit. Which ones are not lies?

For the most part - I'd say all - those were ignored by those on the left.

You're going to have to explain how Democrats leading the fight for civil rights for more than 200 years is not a lie.

Z: (health care premiums to fall $2500) No, but projected to reduce overall healthcare spending. This has been noted in the media many times, and Obama has modified his rhetoric.

Health care spending and health care premiums are not the same thing. Health care premiums (presumably for similar coverage) did not fall $2500.

Z: (you can keep your doctor) True in the vast majority of cases.

It was a blanket statement. It was not true for me and millions of others. Along with the doctor, you were supposed to be able to keep your plan if you liked it. That was not true.

Z: (Bill Clinton's promise of a middle class tax cut) Don't recognize the quote.

Clinton campaigned on a middle class tax cut. Almost immediately after taking office, he reneged on that promise and increased taxes.

Z: (I did not have sex with that woman quote) Please quote it correctly. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", which technically means coitus.

Admittedly, I quoted from memory but to hang the veracity of that statement on such a "technicality" is absurd. Everybody knew what the accusation was and everybody took that as a denial.

Z: (quote that a video caused the Benghazi attacks) Not a valid quote.

You're splitting hairs. She, along with the entire administration claimed for months that the attacks in Benghazi were caused by a video even though she told Chelsea and the Foreign Minister of Egypt following the attack that it was a terrorist attack. In fact she told him, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.”

Z: (regarding Hillary's claim that her use of private email use was no different from her predecessors) She was referring to using private email, which is true.

The issue was about her private server. Neither you nor I know what she was thinking when she said that, but to claim that she was actually referring to something other than the topic at hand is to admit her dishonesty. Her predecessors did not do the same thing. Nobody had ever refused to use the state.gov email account provided for them to use a private, unauthorized server before.

Z: (regarding classified information on her server) False, and since corrected to material marked classified.

At the UN, she said (in some tortured wording) that there was no classified information on her server and that she knew how the classification system works. Information classified Top Secret has been found on her server. To say it might not have been marked is irrelevant first, because she said she knew how the classification system works so she should be able to discern classified information without a marking, second, because she could generate classified information, and third, policy and law do not distinguish between information marked classified or not.

Z: (regarding Hillary's views on gay marriage) Too vague to address.

In 2002, Hillary told Chris Matthews that NY state should not recognize gay marriage. In 2004 on the Senate floor she said that marriage was a sacred bond between a man and a woman. In 2010, she said she did not support same sex marriage. In 2013, she said she supported gay marriage. In a Democratic debate, Anderson Cooper stated that she was against same sex marriage (and several other topics including immigration, and the TPP) and that now her position was the opposite. She said, "I have been consistent over the course of my entire life. I have always fought for the same values and principles"

Z: (regarding Clinton's claim that she was under sniper fire in Bosnia) False, but there was a danger of sniper fire, and she corrected her story within the week.

She had no choice since even CBS News exposed her evolving falsehood about that incident. https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI?t=517

Z: (regarding her being a critic of NAFTA) She was, according to aides in the Clinton White House, however, she supported it once it became law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/17/tracking-the-many-hillary-clinton-positions-on-trade/

Not according to MSNBC: https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI?t=656. Even your link says:

When you defend NAFTA to labor unions, that's not being a critic.

Z: (regarding the Democratic Party's claim to have supported civil rights for over 200 years) Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and was instrumental in the founding of the American Republic. Jacksonian Democracy extended the franchise. While both fall far short of modern standards of democracy, they both extended civil rights far beyond what came before them.

You are delusional. While the Republican Party was supporting freeing slaves, racial integration, and women's rights, the Democrats were against all of them. Republican civil rights legislation was repeatedly filibustered in the Senate by Democrats. The civil rights legislation that Democrats like to talk about was Johnson's, but it had more support from Republicans than Democrats. Interesting you mention Jackson who is responsible for the Trail of Tears. I'm surprised that you didn't mention Roosevelt's internment of US citizens of Japanese decent as "extending the franchise." You don't mention a single instance where Democrats can be said to be promoting civil rights before 1964 - because I don't think you can.

Z: (regarding Bush lied claim) Only said by a small minority of people. It refers to those who think Bush knowingly lied, but also people who think the Bush Administration lied to itself, which is closer to the truth.

That was a constant refrain of the left in general but elected Democrats, many of whom voted for the Iraq war, said essentially the same thing... Bush rushed us into war (even though it took almost a year and a half to start it). Democrats claimed that the Bush administration pressured the CIA, etc. to gen up WMD evidence - investigated and shown false. None of them seem to remember that US policy called for regime chance starting in the Clinton administration in part because they were sure they had WMD and WMD programs. The intelligence agencies of every major country including Israel, France, Germany, Russia, China and others were equally convinced of Iraq's WMD. Bush may have been wrong, but he did not lie.

It all depends on your definition of "lose", "people", and "Libya".

I'm only going to refute individual claims again, but I notice that on several answers you say that someone modified their statement after criticism. In other words, they were caught in a lie and walked it back.

As for Jefferson and Jackson: Jefferson was the founder of the party that became the Democratic party. He tried to outlaw slavery in VA but was unsuccessful. His Declaration of Independence outlined a principle whereby slavery would eventually be ended. There is nothing in the history of the Democratic party over the last 200 years where they even pretend to follow that principle. The Democrat leadership, elected and otherwise, fought the end of slavery, formed the KKK, viewed "Birth of a Nation" in the White House, rounded up citizens of Japanese decent, instituted segregation and defended it, instituted Jim Crow laws, filibustered civil rights laws and in general fought any attempt to bring minorities and women (until Wilson was finally unable to resist signing Women's Suffrage) into the mainstream of American society. The fact that they say they have changed since 1964 does not change the fact of the previous 150 years.

This is truly amazing!

Taking this situation:
A person claims to have rushed into a burning building carrying out a child saving its life. Another person shows proof that the building was never on fire. The first person says, "ok, the building wasn't actually burning, but I did carry a child out of a building similar to that one once."

By your definition, the first person did not lie.

Jefferson owned slaves, arguably, because he couldn't get rid of them. He was broke so his creditors would not have been happy about his giving away what was then considered property. He would also have had to post a bond for his freed slaves which, again, he couldn't have afforded. The fact that he owned slaves isn't much more than a historical irony. If he had been successful in outlawing slavery, there would have been no irony. The fact that Democrats till after the Civil War were pro slavery is not irony. It's more ironic that a Democrat would have integrated the military. Truman was an outlier.

Z: Are you referring to Bush and WMD in Iraq?

No! That's pretty much how Hillary's sniper fire story went, but you seemed to think the evolving story she told was actually telling the truth. I don't.

Z: (regarding Jefferson's owning slaves) Of course he could have. He couldn't get rid of them and maintain the life he had come to expect.

How would he pay the bond for any slaves he freed and what would his creditors have said if he had given away assets when he was deeply in debt? You didn't appear to have even read what I wrote about his not being able to set them free.

Z: In any case, you forgot to address the point. The question isn't whether politicians of all stripes lie or distort the truth, but how the right has given free pass to lies and distortions, with Trump being the inevitable fruit of truthiness.

You have studiously ignored my point. While Republicans may engage in truthiness, the Democrats are bald faced liars. Anybody who supported slavery, formed the KKK, instituted Jim Crow laws, filibustered civil rights legislation, interned US citizens of Japanese decent, fought women's' suffrage be in any way considered to have led the fight for civil rights for over 200 years?