CDZ Are candidates truly aided by fabricating facts so they can deride their opponent(s)?

[320 Years of History]

You know, I really hate that I have to "fact check" damn near everything political candidates say. I mean really, is it asking too much for them to simply work with and utter complete and accurate facts? Facts are what they are. If they don't support one's case, well they just don't. One of integrity doesn't think, "Well, there're no facts that (1) come to mind and (2) that support the argument I want to make, so I'll invent some because I am hell-bent to make "this" argument and no other."

For example:

• 3-August-2016: Donald Trump said:
  Iran provided all of that footage, the tape of them taking that money. 'Over there when that plane landed, top secret ... and they have a perfect tape, done by obviously a government camera and the tape is of the people taking the money off the plane, right.
  
  'In order to embarrass us further, Iran sent us the tapes, right. It's a military tape, it's a tape.

Yet nobody else saw or can find that video. It is possible that Trump saw the video during his classified briefing....Unfortunately, nobody who wasn't connected with that briefing would know that. Given the circumstances -- that nobody else can find this video -- how can Trump's having fabricated its existence (assuming it wasn't part of his classified briefing) be beneficial in the long run? Is it so that voters won't ever found out he just made up the video?

• 4-August-2016: Hillary Clinton said:
  As the FBI said, everything that I've said publicly has been consistent and truthful with what I've told them. (FBI Director James Comey) said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.

Okay. I get what she means, but I also know how highly nuanced the statements above are. She's referring very specifically to what she said to the FBI during her interview with them and them alone and on that one occasion; she's not referring to her public comments. I understand that now; I knew that to be the limit of how one could, with any real degree of logical validity, construe her remark. But I doubt most folks are willing, to say nothing of able to, apply that level of precision/cognitive rigor to her remarks, not even most folks who are inclined to favor her over Trump. So again, though not technically a lie, in the eyes of all but the most circumspect listeners, it may as well be. To that end, the same question applies. How can making claims like that be beneficial to her campaign efforts?
​

So what do the examples above show us? They highlight that we are forced to choose between Presidential candidates who land at fully opposite ends of the "apparent honesty" spectrum. At one end we have someone who will say anything regardless of how factually inaccurate it is. At the other end we have someone who pushes to the very limit of what it means to be technically accurate.

With Trump, if one doesn't focus carefully on every last word he says, one will think he's being truthful, all the while one has been misled. With Mrs. Clinton, if one doesn't focus carefully on every last word she says, one will not think she's being truthful and thus feel like one is being misled. The thing is being misled in fact or feeling like one is being misled are, for all intents and purposes, just two favors of the same sickening pill. Aspirin works the same and tastes no different whether it's Bayer or CVS brand.


For us voters, deciding between the two major party candidates -- ignoring any party affiliation or preferences -- takes far more effort than most folks really want to invest in choosing any candidate during an election season. I damn sure don't want to have to do that nonstop for the next four years each time either of them opens their mouth. I'm capable of doing that; I just don't have much enthusiasm for having to do it. And daily, I'm less and less inclined to deliberately make it so that I will have to do so for the next four mails. It is beginning, for me at least, to seem as though I should write off both of them and spend more of my energies getting to know candidates Johnson and Stein.

 

[Dekster]

Yes. Negative ads are effective even when the viewer knows they are false.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes. Negative ads are effective even when the viewer knows they are false.

Well, truly, it's not so much negative ads/remarks that the thread is about. It's really about fabricated facts, be they used to say something positive with regard to oneself or one's ideas or say something negative about another or their ideas.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes. Negative ads are effective even when the viewer knows they are false.

Off Topic:
There have been critical examinations of the effect of negative ads/campaigning, though negative campaigning, in and of itself, isn't the theme of this thread. If negative campaigning interests you, you may find the following documents informative:

• DEFINING NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADVERTISING: DEFINITION, FEATURES AND TACTICS
  
• Keep it Clean? How Negative Campaigns Affect Voter Turnout
  
• How do negative political ads impact public trust in candidates?
  
• The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment
  
• Negative political ads and voter effects: Research roundup

 

[alang1216]

You know, I really hate that I have to "fact check" damn near everything political candidates say.

If you tell a lie often enough it becomes familiar and accepted, not unlike TV advertising. Generally we're too lazy to even look at the fact check web sites. I constantly see posts right here that have old debunked claims offered as support for someone's position. A minute in Google will show the lie but it's just too much trouble for many.

 

[yiostheoy]

Mary Matlin is the GOP expert at lying and spinning.

Someone should ask her why she did it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Mary Matlin is the GOP expert at lying and spinning.

Someone should ask her why she did it.

She does it to piss off her husband and give them something to talk/argue about prior to having great "make up" sex.

You realize, I hope, that I'm kidding, mostly. That was a reason jokingly offered some time back at parties, but she's since changed her party affiliation. I guess that is just one more piece of evidence that sex isn't "everything," least of all strong enough "glue" on it's own to keep a relationship going. <winks>

 

[320 Years of History]

If you tell a lie often enough it becomes familiar and accepted

I don't know why that is. Were a member of my staff or a peer to repeatedly lie to me, belief in him/her and/or acceptance of the remarks or the person is not at all what would evolve in my mind about that person. I'm sorry, but "the dog ate my homework" isn't going to pass muster more than once, if that often.

 

[Dekster]

Yes. Negative ads are effective even when the viewer knows they are false.

Off Topic:
There have been critical examinations of the effect of negative ads/campaigning, though negative campaigning, in and of itself, isn't the theme of this thread. If negative campaigning interests you, you may find the following documents informative:

• DEFINING NEGATIVE POLITICAL ADVERTISING: DEFINITION, FEATURES AND TACTICS
  
• Keep it Clean? How Negative Campaigns Affect Voter Turnout
  
• How do negative political ads impact public trust in candidates?
  
• The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment
  
• Negative political ads and voter effects: Research roundup

Making up things about your opponent is the subject of this thread.

 

[Dekster]

Yes. Negative ads are effective even when the viewer knows they are false.

Well, truly, it's not so much negative ads/remarks that the thread is about. It's really about fabricated facts, be they used to say something positive with regard to oneself or one's ideas or say something negative about another or their ideas.

"....even when the viewer knows they are false."

 

[alang1216]

If you tell a lie often enough it becomes familiar and accepted

I don't know why that is. Were a member of my staff or a peer to repeatedly lie to me, belief in him/her and/or acceptance of the remarks or the person is not at all what would evolve in my mind about that person. I'm sorry, but "the dog ate my homework" isn't going to pass muster more than once, if that often.

If one person repeatedly told you "the dog ate my homework" you'd be suspicious. If several people told you "the dog ate his homework" you would be less certain. Can you check every instance of every story?

It is especially difficult if someone points to another as validation. That's what happens when Trump tweets an internet story he's read. He just says "people are saying...". Is he lying?

 

[320 Years of History]

If you tell a lie often enough it becomes familiar and accepted

I don't know why that is. Were a member of my staff or a peer to repeatedly lie to me, belief in him/her and/or acceptance of the remarks or the person is not at all what would evolve in my mind about that person. I'm sorry, but "the dog ate my homework" isn't going to pass muster more than once, if that often.

If one person repeatedly told you "the dog ate my homework" you'd be suspicious. If several people told you "the dog ate his homework" you would be less certain. Can you check every instance of every story?

It is especially difficult if someone points to another as validation. That's what happens when Trump tweets an internet story he's read. He just says "people are saying...". Is he lying?

Probably....

 

[alang1216]

It is especially difficult if someone points to another as validation. That's what happens when Trump tweets an internet story he's read. He just says "people are saying...". Is he lying?

Probably....

What I find ironic is that this is supposedly one of the most religious countries and yet so many ignore the 9th Commandment about false witness. And there is never a price to pay.