PDA

View Full Version : Dishonesty from Clinton supportor against Sanders



Mark O.
01-24-2016, 03:28 PM
Believe it or not, I look for the truth in any political discussion. However, that is almost impossible to find. Everyone has his or her candidate and the ends justify the means as long as they get elected. This happens every day on both sides. I ran across this FB page and read some of the posts. https://www.facebook.com/GoLeftForever/

It is filled with popular Facebook snippets...the ones with clever little gotcha remarks, accompanied by a picture...which suddenly gives it an air of credibility that it does not deserve. This page I found interesting because it is directed at Bernie Sanders from a Clinton supporter, under the guise of supporting Pro Left politics. One post states that Sanders only sponsored three bills that ever become law. The message is he hasn't done anything important in Congress. What it fails to mention is that Hillary also only had three bills she sponsored that became law. It is very misleading because it doesn't include all of the bills that he co-sponsored. Jeb Bush used the same misleading attack against Clinton, eventhough she had many co-sponsored bills that became law as well. In addition, there are other ways a member of Congress can influence whether a bill becomes law that is different from its original form.

When I pointed this out of the "Go Left" Facebook page, it was quickly deleted and I am blocked from posting.

So how does one know if the source of information is non-biased? I think it should be assumed that the message is biased, and the writer almost always has an agenda. Reading opposing views is a good thing.

S.V. Airlie
01-24-2016, 03:36 PM
I wouldn't rely on FB for anything.

Mark O.
01-24-2016, 04:00 PM
Yes, I agree. Many times I have seen a FB post with the Snopes story auto posted right under it that disproves it...and still people comment on the story. I admit I have used this to judge some of my FB friends...haha. Those are usually far fetches tales that instantly send up the red flag...I have come to learn that some folks just don't seem to have a "gut feeling" for when something is fake.

But spinning or downright lying about a political issue deserves its own condemnation.

wizbang 13
01-24-2016, 05:53 PM
That "go left" page is just bernie bashing.

CWSmith
01-24-2016, 06:17 PM
I am optimistic that lies about Sanders will backfire.

For some reason, lies by the GOP seem to work.

RonW
01-24-2016, 06:34 PM
I am optimistic that lies about Sanders will backfire.

Well let's hope so,...........the Clintonites bashing the bernies, typical dirty liberal partisan politics..

S.V. Airlie
01-24-2016, 06:36 PM
Oh and the Repubs don't. They are such gentlemen!

RonW
01-24-2016, 06:45 PM
Oh and the Repubs don't. They are such gentlemen!

You should know, since you are one of them repub............post # 68 & 69..in your own words........

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?201549-Do-you-think-Hillary-will-lose-both-Iowa-and-NH/page2

Norman Bernstein
01-24-2016, 07:08 PM
Believe it or not, I look for the truth in any political discussion. However, that is almost impossible to find. Everyone has his or her candidate and the ends justify the means as long as they get elected. This happens every day on both sides. I ran across this FB page and read some of the posts. https://www.facebook.com/GoLeftForever/

It is filled with popular Facebook snippets...the ones with clever little gotcha remarks, accompanied by a picture...which suddenly gives it an air of credibility that it does not deserve. This page I found interesting because it is directed at Bernie Sanders from a Clinton supporter, under the guise of supporting Pro Left politics. One post states that Sanders only sponsored three bills that ever become law. The message is he hasn't done anything important in Congress. What it fails to mention is that Hillary also only had three bills she sponsored that became law. It is very misleading because it doesn't include all of the bills that he co-sponsored. Jeb Bush used the same misleading attack against Clinton, eventhough she had many co-sponsored bills that became law as well. In addition, there are other ways a member of Congress can influence whether a bill becomes law that is different from its original form.

When I pointed this out of the "Go Left" Facebook page, it was quickly deleted and I am blocked from posting.

So how does one know if the source of information is non-biased? I think it should be assumed that the message is biased, and the writer almost always has an agenda. Reading opposing views is a good thing.

In any online forum, there are bound to be a wide diversity of viewpoints.... these represent opinions, and although opinions can be intelligently framed and civil... or prejudiciously structured and even offensive, they're still just opinions. In an open forum like this one, there are few bounds on expression. The sources of information are nearly ALWAYS biased... or else they wouldn't be quoted. The determination of whether a quote is true or not, is entirely up to you.

It is also true that there can be forums, like the one you mentioned, which are specifically intended to be prejudiced and unwilling to accept alternate views. The question then becomes this: why would you want to participate in a forum like that?

Despite incessant whining from some people here, no one has ever been denied the ability to express their opinion... you can say what you like here, within the bounds of civility and good taste. If a post offends you, then really, what you need to do is acknowledge that the privilege of using the forum, to express YOUR opinions, extends to everyone else here. Some people just don't get that. The false accusations of people being 'run off' this forum are just that: false. No one is compelled to not participate, except of their own volition.

Mark O.
01-25-2016, 09:22 PM
I think I was blurring the line between opinions as you say in a forums where the source is under no obligation to be neutral vs. journalist sources who should be unbiased unless it's an editorial. I suppose that's not the case anymore with some popular news outlets, on both sides. I have been searching and reading different news sources...
http://blog.debate.org/2012/08/24/a-quest-for-truth-a-list-of-the-top-8-unbiased-news-sources/