• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why we vote for liars

AdamT said:
It will as there is absolutely no indication that Romney will ever start telling the truth.
Click to expand...
My favorite is the one where they claim Romney lies about his tax plan - citing a study that says just the opposite.
 
Taylor said:
My favorite is the one where they claim Romney lies about his tax plan - citing a study that says just the opposite.
Click to expand...

Romney is lying about his tax plan. That's pretty damned obvious as there is no way to make his numbers add up without projecting totally unrealistic growth.
 
AdamT said:
Romney is lying about his tax plan. That's pretty damned obvious as there is no way to make his numbers add up without projecting totally unrealistic growth.
Click to expand...
3% is not totally unrealistic.
 
Taylor said:
3% is not totally unrealistic.
Click to expand...

You're referring to the Princeton Prof's study? His analysis assumes that Romney is lying about not cutting middle class mortgage and health care deductions. To make the 3% growth figure ad up he *assumes* that people with income over $100k are wealthy -- not middle class -- and thus their deductions can be taken away. But I don't think anyone would seriously argue that people making $100 - $200k aren't in the middle class.
 
AdamT said:
Romney is lying about his tax plan. That's pretty damned obvious as there is no way to make his numbers add up without projecting totally unrealistic growth.
Click to expand...

YEA! Obama told him so and no way could Obama be lying or exagerrating or even just refusing to see anything just to make Romney look bad. no way. uh uh. Obama said it, Adam takes it as the gospel.
 
rocket88 said:
Why do we votr for liars?

Is anybody else running?
Click to expand...

There is that, but we rarely call our own candidate on his or her lies. In fact, many will repeat them if these boards are any indication.
 
AdamT said:
You're referring to the Princeton Prof's study? His analysis assumes that Romney is lying about not cutting middle class mortgage and health care deductions. To make the 3% growth figure ad up he *assumes* that people with income over $100k are wealthy -- not middle class -- and thus their deductions can be taken away. But I don't think anyone would seriously argue that people making $100 - $200k aren't in the middle class.
Click to expand...
He does it both at the 100,000 and 200,000 levels and concludes that it could work either way without "taking away their deductions."
 
Mycroft said:
I don't know who this "we" y'all keep talking about is. The only ones I've ever seen vote for liars are the Democrats and their useful liberal idiots.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously claiming that a Republican would never vote for a candidate who has lied?.....how do you explain Bush?...I don't think Democrats single handedly voted Bush into power, especially his 2nd term.
 
muciti said:
YEA! Obama told him so and no way could Obama be lying or exagerrating or even just refusing to see anything just to make Romney look bad. no way. uh uh. Obama said it, Adam takes it as the gospel.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I didn't even mention Obama. I'm just talking about Romney's tax plan. Oh wait ... are you saying that when Obama says something that's true, it becomes false just because Obama said it?
 
Taylor said:
He does it both at the 100,000 and 200,000 levels and concludes that it could work either way without "taking away their deductions."
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. According to Rosen's study, under Romney's tax plan, with 3% growth, families making more than $100k would end up paying and additional $81 BILLION in taxes.
 
We vote for liars because the truth is frightening and uncomfortable.
 
AdamT said:
You're referring to the Princeton Prof's study? His analysis assumes that Romney is lying about not cutting middle class mortgage and health care deductions. To make the 3% growth figure ad up he *assumes* that people with income over $100k are wealthy -- not middle class -- and thus their deductions can be taken away. But I don't think anyone would seriously argue that people making $100 - $200k aren't in the middle class.
Click to expand...

If Romney's plan is viable, then why is it not an equally plausible possability that he scales back the level of cuts he intends to put on the higher income brackets to the point that it becomes neutral...or makes cuts in spending to offset the decreased revenue...or some other action that you're not accounting for? Is there some kind of magical mandatory rule within the universe stating "If Mitt Romney's plans do not match up with reality in terms of revenue neutrality, he will make up for it by action directly against the middle class"?
 
straykatz said:
Are you seriously claiming that a Republican would never vote for a candidate who has lied?.....how do you explain Bush?...I don't think Democrats single handedly voted Bush into power, especially his 2nd term.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!

Okay...here it goes...I suppose you are going to prove to me that Bush is a liar?
 
We vote for liars because their lies make sense to us where the other fellow's don't. That simple. To those who chose by party, they're willing to accept the lies of their chosen party because those lies speak to what they want to believe is true.
 
Zyphlin said:
If Romney's plan is viable, then why is it not an equally plausible possability that he scales back the level of cuts he intends to put on the higher income brackets to the point that it becomes neutral...or makes cuts in spending to offset the decreased revenue...or some other action that you're not accounting for? Is there some kind of magical mandatory rule within the universe stating "If Mitt Romney's plans do not match up with reality in terms of revenue neutrality, he will make up for it by action directly against the middle class"?
Click to expand...

As I've said several times before, he could break any number of promises to make his tax plan work. What he cannot do is keep all of his promises and make it work. So yes, he could break his promise of not increasing the deficit. Or he could break his promise of not raising taxes on the rich. Or he could break his promise of not raising middle class taxes.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!!

Okay...here it goes...I suppose you are going to prove to me that Bush is a liar?
Click to expand...

Actually....I watched him during the Bush/Kerry debates look right into the camera and tell American's that cheap Canadian drugs are unsafe for Americans.....I do believe in my heart that he believed what he was saying to be true however his statement was false.

At the time I wasn't a citizen so had no right to vote in the US but I still followed the elections between him and gore and him and kerry.
 
AdamT said:
As I've said several times before, he could break any number of promises to make his tax plan work. What he cannot do is keep all of his promises and make it work. So yes, he could break his promise of not increasing the deficit. Or he could break his promise of not raising taxes on the rich. Or he could break his promise of not raising middle class taxes.
Click to expand...


Which he was quite clear about in the debate...He gets to revenue neutrality through manipulating write offs...What's wrong with that?
 
Are most people better than politicians? They lie to get ahead, I think most individuals probably do the same or at least market themselves falsely.
 
ChrisL said:
Why? Is there such a thing as an honest politician? What an oxymoron! LOL!
Click to expand...

I actually believe there is but I am not going to name names because some of you won't recognize who the person was or this thread will degenerate into a no he isn't yes he is.
I have actually met a few as well.
 
wolfman24 said:
I actually believe there is but I am not going to name names because some of you won't recognize who the person was or this thread will degenerate into a no he isn't yes he is.
I have actually met a few as well.
Click to expand...

Not trying to argue, but how would you know if someone is REALLY honest or not. Unless you have had a very close personal relationship with someone, I don't see how you would know if they were truly honest or not.
 
ChrisL said:
Not trying to argue, but how would you know if someone is REALLY honest or not. Unless you have had a very close personal relationship with someone, I don't see how you would know if they were truly honest or not.
Click to expand...

Yes actually. Two of the people I am referring to made promises (real promises) during their campaign and kept everyone of them. They also spoke regularly during their terms about what was needed and how they would vote on various subjects and thatt is exactly what they did. For me that is honesty in politics which is the idea of this thread.

Whether they were "honest" in thier private lives is not my business.
 
wolfman24 said:
Yes actually. Two of the people I am referring to made promises (real promises) during their campaign and kept everyone of them. They also spoke regularly during their terms about what was needed and how they would vote on various subjects and thatt is exactly what they did. For me that is honesty in politics which is the idea of this thread.

Whether they were "honest" in thier private lives is not my business.
Click to expand...

Not naming names huh? :2razz: Now, you've piqued my curiosity!
 
wolfman24 said:
Yes actually. Two of the people I am referring to made promises (real promises) during their campaign and kept everyone of them. They also spoke regularly during their terms about what was needed and how they would vote on various subjects and thatt is exactly what they did. For me that is honesty in politics which is the idea of this thread.

Whether they were "honest" in thier private lives is not my business.
Click to expand...


Ok, so then wouldn't the person in question have to actually hold the office then in order to judge?
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so then wouldn't the person in question have to actually hold the office then in order to judge?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question. I said they were both were elected and held to their promises both during the campaign and while in office. ??????

Read the second sentence "they spoke regularly during their terms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom