How To Argue With An American Conservative
I came across an article on Yahoo called "Roe v. Wade Is Supreme Example of GOP Unreliability". I clicked on it expecting an article critical of Republicans but it was a bait & switch and was actually a terribly misguided anti-liberal piece. The author included his email address and we had a productive and interesting exchange over several weeks. I'm confident you will find the approach I used helpful in dealing with the misguided conservatives in your life. I began with this:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Charles,
In your article you stated "those justices appointed by Democratic presidents have been, with rare exceptions, reliably liberal — which means, in practice, to decide the desired outcome first, then cook up some quasi-constitutional justification."
In fact the exact opposite is true:
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/geof-stone-publishes-acs-issue-brief-behavior-scotus-justices
Conservative Justices Are The Real "Judicial Activists".
"If we judge "judicial activism" by some objective standard such as, say, how often they vote to strike down laws passed by the citizens' elected representatives, the more conservative justices have done so significantly more than the more liberal justices.
"[Professor Geoffrey] Stone concludes that the moderately liberal justices apply an approach in line with the original concerns of the Framers of the Constitution and in their distinctive understanding of the special responsibility of courts in our constitutional system, while the Court's conservatives' votes cannot be explained by any consistent theory of constitutional interpretation but are instead driven by their own policy preferences."
So typical of conservatives to lie like you have.
Priya Lynn
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I got a reply and Charles wasn't accepting anything I said. We exchanged a few emails I haven't posted as I didn't feel the exchange was productive. Some time passed and I read another of his articles "Plunging Into An Authoritarian State" which according to him was what the Democrats were doing to the country and the main evidence proving it was the FBI seizing Mike Lindell's phone at a drive-through instead of at his home. I wrote to him:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Your article "Plunging Into An Authoritarian State"
Hello Charles,
So for a second time I need to call you out on what you're writing for public consumption.
In your article you said "So what’s on [Lindell's] phone? Apparently calls he has made in furtherance of his attack on democracy, which is now deemed a crime."
So you don't think coups should be illegal?? You don't think people should be held accountable for trying to overthrow the government?? I know you wouldn't be saying that if it was a Democrat who sent his armed supporters to the Capitol telling them to "fight like hell" to prevent a Republican president from taking power after winning the election.
You also said "For a long time now progressives, to whatever extent they can seize power, use it to dictate every aspect of life."
You said something similar in your article "Roe v. Wade is supreme example of GOP unreliability" about how Democrats will try to seize power by any means possible when it's Republicans who are trying to seize power by any means possible, including threatening violence.
Trump fired top people at the Justice Department and put in power people who he knew would be loyal to him and not the U.S. Constitution and then pressured the Justice Department's day to day staff to send out reports that the there were serious problems with the 2020 election and to seize voting machines. One by one he fired the responsible people who opposed him and put in completely unqualified people to do his illegal bidding. No Democratic president has done anything remotely comparable.
Trump directed the creation of fake 2020 electors to try to illegally remain in power. He sent his armed supporters to the capitol with thinly veiled calls to violence try and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Trump called election officials all over the country to threaten them and try to coerce them to change vote counts and declare him the winner of the presidential election. And you have the nerve to accuse Democrats of being the ones trying to seize power. The seizure of Mike Lindell's phone is not remotely comparable to riling up armed crowds and trying to let them into the grounds without going through metal detectors.
Democrats have never done anything remotely comparable to Trump, Lindell and the Republicans' broad multi-pronged efforts to try to steal the 2020 presidential election and yet you lie and falsely claim Democrats are authoritarians trying to "seize power". You can't name a single thing Democrats have done to "seize power" remotely comparable to what the Republicans have done. You know you're lying but that is an acceptable casualty for you in your attempts to seize power in any way possible.
In your previous email you said "Garland not getting appointed while Barrett was? That's politics, and both parties do it.".
Both parties most certainly do not do that. If you deny it how about you name one thing Democrats have done that is remotely comparable to the disgusting dishonesty of insisting Obama's nominee can't get a hearing because it's less than a year till the presidential election and then pushing through a right wing extremist Trump nominee in the few days before the 2020 presidential election?
Priya
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Priya,
I fear we inhabit different mental universes, and so be it.
One thing I'm curious about, though - with all those "armed crowds" and "armed supporters" storming the Capitol, how come no one was charged with illegal weapons possession? Is that because no one went through the metal detectors?
Just asking.
Yours,
Chuck
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Charles,
Thanks for your time and consideration. I'm sorry this is longer than I hoped.
I agree, we inhabit different mental universes. I'm disappointed to hear you say "So be it.". In order for society to make the best decisions about how to maintain and improve our lives we need to be operating with an accurate picture of reality. It is certainly troubling to me that one of us must be wrong about who is plunging the U.S into an authoritarian state. I would think that even if you think you're right, it would concern you that much of society has a false view of reality and is making poor decisions because of that. I would think you would want to change that to make life better for us all.
It's clear I'm much more interested in discussing this than you are. I'm confident I'm right so I'm eager to discuss. If you were confident you were right I would think in the interests of society you would want to convince me of that but you seem to have little interest in doing so. I believe in your heart you and Republicans like you know you're ignoring and severely distorting reality in order to seize power, that's why you aren't eager to debate this. The evidence overwhelmingly shows it is Trump and the Republicans who are pushing authoritarianism on your country, not Democrats.
To answer your question, there were many people charged with illegal weapons possession during the Jan 6 riot. You can simply google "Jan 6 weapons offences" and see for yourself. Rioters were armed with guns, knives, baseball bats, rebar, flag poles, pepper and bear spray and tasers. There are pictures of and videos of Trump supporters sitting in trees holding AR-15s. If I remember correctly around 140 police officers were injured that day and some died later on. there were stashes of weapons and bombs found near the capitol and some of the Oathkeepers and Proud boys charged with seditious conspiracy have testified that they brought stashes of guns and ammo to various locations near the Capitol and had plans on how to quickly get them there should the violence escalate.
Are you trying to suggest the attack on the Capitol was legitimate protest? That was obviously not the case. Trump supporters used force to take over the capitol and the Congress people fled in fear of their lives at the urging of the security personnel. The crowd was chanting "Hang Mike Pence" and some who organized the riot had kill lists with them. Lindsay Graham excoriated Capitol police officers for not "shooting the rioters in the head". Kevin McCarthy screamed at Trump "They're trying to fucking kill us!" and Trump told him "Well maybe they're more upset about the election than you are". Many security personnel sent messages to their loved ones expressing the fear that they would soon be killed. All that doesn't happen with legitimate protests.
At the time Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders denounced Trump and said it was his fault. They discussed whether to use the 25th amendment to remove Trump or to impeach and convict him. The cowards say differently now, but at the time they obviously didn't think it was "legitimate protest".
And then you say that it wasn't Republicans trying to plunge you into an authoritarian state, it was Justice Department actions like seizing Mike Lindell's phone for evidence in criminal investigations that proves Democrats are the authoritarians. That's a prime example of the gross distortions you and yours have been pushing about the two parties. Seizing a phone to look for evidence of crimes is a normal and well justified step in the investigative process. Using force and the threat of force to prevent the transfer of power to the president-elect is obviously an existential threat to American democracy, THAT is authoritarianism. Democrats have never done anything close to that to try to prevent a Republican president from taking office but you falsely claim it is Democrats who will do anything to seize power.
Over half of the Republican nominees for office in November say the election was stolen from Trump and Biden is not the legitimate president. 60 court cases and the Republicans lost them because they couldn't provide any evidence of voter fraud significant enough to change the outcome of the election. But despite all evidence to the contrary the majority of the Republican party says they would have overturned the the election of Biden as illegitimate. You can't honestly think Democrats are the ones doing anything to seize power in light of this kind of Republican behavior. You say "Politics, both parties do it", to justify Republican wrongdoings but you can't give any comparable examples of Democrats attacking Democracy like this, can you?
"Politics, both parties do it" is what you said to justify Mitch McConnel lying repeatedly to the public and saying a presidential nominee to the supreme court should not be allowed in the year prior to an election and then pushing through Trump's nominee days before the election. No, most certainly "both parties" do NOT do it. Go ahead, give me an example of Democrats doing anything near that corrupt and hypocritical. You can't because it is the Republican party pushing your country into authoritarianism, not Democrats. And you write dishonest articles saying the opposite is true with incredibly weak examples like the seizure of Mike Lindell's phone for criminal investigations as supposed proof.
I inhabit a mental universe where people have fealty to the truth. Maga Republicans do not. They think it's okay to fabricate whatever story best promotes the authoritarian agenda and to blindly insist it's true despite all evidence to the contrary. There are no acts of authoritarianism by Democrats that are remotely comparable to those by Republicans. Democratic legislatures have not passed laws giving the ruling party the right to overturn the people's votes and unilaterally designate who the winner is, that's what Republicans have done. It's been one threatening dishonest attack on democracy after another by Republicans. Joseph Goebbles propaganda manual says "Accuse others of what you are guilty of" and that is what Republicans like you are doing.
There's a great online book about right wing authoritarians, it changed my life. It goes over research that shows when they control society global threats go unaddressed and the overall well-being of all societies is greatly reduced "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer:
Edit: I tried to include the link but my email won't let me
(here is that link)
TheAuthoritarians.pdf - Google Drive
Again, thanks for your time and consideration,
Priya Lynn
********************************************************************************
Dear Priya,
I appreciate your taking the time to express your views so extensively. I don't think any purpose would be served by countering your views point by point. You think Mike Lindell is some sort of criminal. I think he is a victim of what Lavrentiy Beria said to Stalin, "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." Prominent conservatives must be shown, in the most visible of ways, the error of their ways. The FBI could have gone to his home, presented the warrant for his phone, and quietly departed with it. That, of course, would not have sent the message that a highly public confrontation does.
One point I would make, however: the idiots who stormed the Capitol on January 6 are a gift that keeps on giving to those of you who adhere to the Left. There is nothing, in my opinion, that justified their actions. I would note that the only person actually killed was an unarmed female protestor. Officer deaths, which took place later, involved, as I recall, a heart attack and a suicide.
I agree with you it would be delightful if we could agree on what is true, and think together what might be best for our society. That is no longer possible currently, and let me tell you why I reached that conclusion decades ago.
I decamped from the corporate world (Procter & Gamble) to academia in 1976. Then, as now, college faculties were overwhelmingly liberal. I was one of only two or three conservatives. However, until Reagan's election in 1980, we all got along, much as I take it you would wish. We disagreed about many things, but without rancor. We broke bread together, we taught together, and we were a community despite our differences.
Then came Reagan's election, and it all changed overnight. My liberal colleagues detested Reagan, using many of the same insults altogether too familiar with respect to Trump, plus some unique to Reagan. Dumb cowboy and grade B movie actor. Warmonger. Liar. Lazy. Senile. And so forth and so on.
They, of course, had never liked Republicans. But something about Reagan was different. He was four square against the liberal "progressive" agenda, and made no bones about it. Most of the nuns who ran the Catholic school were very far left, and admired the Soviet Union a la Bernie Sanders. Reagan called it an "evil empire", and that was an existential assault on their neo-Marxism. Nicaragua and the Contras was one of their pet crusades. One nun, in a public meeting, justified the shooting down of a Korean airliner, killing over 200 passengers and crew, as an act of legitimate self-defense by the Soviets. Besides, Americans flying on that plane should have known better than to fly on a "spy" plane.
The Mother Superior of the order, gave a public address concerning how power was the most important thing, and like-minded persons needed to be aware of that, and do what they could to see that power was in the right hands. Remember, this was a woman who had taken vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity - a Bride of Christ, no less - talking about power. And on and on.
After 1980, social interaction largely ceased. Bonnie and I put on the annual Christmas party for the school for several years. The last one we had was boycotted by the nuns because we invited Republican friends to the party, and we never had another one.
Beyond the personal level, the intellectual level opened into an abyss. I was a child of the modern world. They were all post-Modernists. Facts became "facts" Logic became a tool of oppression. Feelings became paramount. We were not yet into "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces'', but the path ahead to this was apparent. "Political Correctness" morphed from a joke, or a right-wing paranoid fantasy to the reality we see today.
So, Priya, maybe in another world you and I could sit down over a beverage and have a reasonable discussion about our different world views, but my experience of four decades suggests otherwise. I regret this deeply, but this is the world we inhabit.
Best Regards,
Chuck
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Charles,
Thank you for your response, I may have harshly judged you too quickly.
You said "I don't think any purpose would be served by countering your views point by point."
I am unaware of any other way an honest search for truth can operate well other than with a systematic point by point debate.
You brought up additional issues which is often done to stop debate on the ones already raised that maybe aren't going so well for a person, like Mitch McConnell's corruption and hypocrisy on Supreme Court nominees. You said "both parties do it" but although I've asked more than once you have no examples of Democrats doing anything similar. I think given that a fair person would acknowledge this and refrain from saying that going forward.
I don't know whether Mike Lindell is a criminal or not, I want to let the investigation and justice system play out. You seem to have taken the position that he couldn't possibly be one or that nothing he has done should ever be considered criminal, or that if you are unaware of any crimes he's committed there aren't any. Your(weak) evidence of his alleged persecution is that they seized his phone in public rather than at his home to "show conservatives the errors of their ways". Likely at most a couple of dozen people personally witnessed this , for millions of American this seizure only became "visible" after later media coverage, something that would have happened regardless of where his phone was seized. Seizing the phone at a drive through wasn't in any significant way more "visible", humiliating or damaging to his reputation than seizing it as his home would have been. A lot of people might have preferred the seizure happen at a drive through rather than at their home or place of work where the seizure in front of family, friends, or co-workers might be the most embarrassing and humiliating - I know I would. If this is the only evidence you have that Democrats are plunging the U.S. into an authoritarian state it's unacceptably thin. It's highly doubtful that Lindell's phone was seized at a drive through to "send a message to conservatives who get out of line". That by itself is in no way indicative of unfair treatment of Mike Lindell.
Seems to me you've pre-judged Mike Lindell's actions as not guilty when there is evidence that he has committed crimes. The Justice Department can't just willy-nilly seize any one's phone, they have to get the approval of a judge(s) by demonstrating probable cause that a crime has been committed and that evidence is likely to be found on his phone. Mike Lindell has lied non-stop about the 2020 election being stolen from Trump by voter fraud. Him and Trump went to court but were unable to provide any evidence to substantiate their claim. Over 60 times they lost and many of the judges who ruled against them were appointed by Republicans and even Trump. I find it very difficult to believe this broad swath of the Judiciary has illegally conspired to rule against Trump despite his claims of election fraud being true but that is what you are suggesting when you claim the seizing of his phone was Democratic authoritarianism.
Mike Lindell advocated breaking the law by repeatedly insisting Trump must be and would be re-installed as president (by various dates) despite there being no legal justification for that. Mike Lindell has put tremendous effort and dishonesty into trying to overthrow the government, It seems highly unlikely to me that he would have refrained from any actions in furtherance of that merely because they were illegal. He is obviously a dishonest person seeking to overturn the will of the people. The suggestion that he certainly must be innocent of any crimes isn't at all credible. I don't know if Mike Lindell committed crimes, but I know he certainly has the character of someone who would. There is no reason to think the Justice system is persecuting him to intimidate conservatives.
Regarding "the idiots who stormed the Capitol" on Jan 6, they were invited to DC by Trump who falsely told them they'd be able to change the outcome of the election. He asked them to march on the Capitol and "fight like hell" even though he knew they were armed and threating violence. He tried to go with them but the Secret Service prevented it. One expert on dictatorships said if he had showed up there the coup would likely have succeeded and Trump would still be in power now. This effort to subvert American democracy is ongoing. To this day Trump and most Republicans continue to repeat the big lie that the election was stolen or questionable and to further damage and attack American democracy. After the election Trump called officials in swing states and pressured them to change the certified results with threats of criminal prosecution and declare him the winner - that is a crime, that is the behaviour of an dictator attempting a coup. If Trump is re-elected he will again do everything possible to remain in power after after his term is over - remember him musing how it would be nice to be president for life like Chinese president Xi?
Tump has pushed out a lot of those election officials that refused his demands to change the certified results and replaced them with his supporters who agree the election was stolen. If he were to lose the election again there is no doubt he would ask those officials to change vote totals and they almost certainly would and that is the end of your democracy. It's dangerous and a gross distortion for you to claim Democrats, rather than Republicans, are the authoritarian threat and I think you know that deep down inside.
The percentage of Republicans who say the riot was "legitimate protest" has increased substantially over the past year. Obviously no honest person would say protesters forcing their way into the Capitol and making Congress flee in fear for their lives is "legitimate protest". The MAGA Republicans don't care about the truth, only seizing power by any means possible. They are perhaps 12% of Americans and they are promoting and seeking violence to force their will on the majority. Historically a lot of times these small numbers of right wing authoritarians are able to dominate the opposing majority in their nation and impose authoritarian rule - don't let them do it.
The minority of Americans who are right wing authoritarians want to turn the United States into Russia, they even have t-shirts that say "Better Russian than Democrat". That's going to result in a big drop in the standard of living and freedom of all Americans except those at the very top connected to the dictator they get into power.
If you wish I am willing to discuss the additional issues you raised after we have had fulsome discussion of the ones we have already been talking about.
Priya
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priya,
You certainly don't spare the time or effort to point out the errors of my ways.
I wish I had the time to respond as lengthily, but I don't.
Just let me say this: if you think Democrat Senators are all as pure as the driven snow, while the likes of Mitch McConnell are corrupt and hypocritical, you and I once again are inhabiting different universes. I might mention the late Harry Reid, when he was the majority leader in the Senate, getting up and in a speech baldly lying about Mitt Romney's tax returns. Later, when asked about his lie, he said, "It worked, didn't it."
In a democracy, voters have the last say. We shall shortly see their verdict.
Chuck
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Charles,
I thought you might be willing to read it, so I wrote out everything I felt was relevant and important. I actually tried my best to keep it short. I put in the time because I'm confident I'm right and that reading it would give you pause.
I certainly don't think Democrat Senators are pure as the driven snow, just a great deal less corrupt than the likes of Mitch McConnell, or all the Senators that voted against Biden's infrastructure bill but now are bragging to voters about the money it's bringing to their states as though they didn't try to prevent that. There have been studies done that show Democratic politicians lie a great deal less often than Republican ones. If you want more info on that just ask.
I am unfamiliar with the incident you're mentioning. If you have a link to a main stream media article about it I'll give it a look. Off the top of my head I'm not aware of any significant impact from this alleged lie that is remotely comparable in impact to stealing a Supreme Court nominee and putting a chrisitian extremest on the court who has stated she believes her job as a judge is "to bring about the kingdom of god".
Priya
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Charles,
As long as you read it all I'm happy with the time and consideration you've given me, no need to respond in detail, or at all. I can certainly appreciate that you don't have the free time that I do and I thank you for giving me what time you have.
Priya
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedar Priya,
Search for "Harry Reid Romney's tax returns" and you'll find numerous articles, including in the Washington Post and Time magazine. Hope those are mainstream enough.
You might find it helpful to read material other than mainstream sources, which are totally aligned with the Democratic party. I've found it useful; to read sources which do not totally agree with my worldview.
Those sources which purport to "fact check" I find are fast and loose with what they consider "facts". As I told my students way back when, don't just read what agrees with you. Read all sides, consider logic, and only then reach conclusions.
Yours,
Chuck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Charles,
I'll have a look. I do look at other sources, I've read 3 of your articles, although you use headlines that imply the article is going to be critical of Republicans so I presume you're trying to get liberals to read your conservative positions. I do regularly read Yahoo articles by Fox news and other articles to see if I think they're reporting honestly and sometimes it's acceptable and a lot of times it's highly misleading or outright false.
My husband makes me watch an hour or two of MSNBC, I'd rather mostly avoid the American news as it's too disturbing to me but they do play a lot of clips of Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, One American News, etc. and there's a consistent flow of distortions and lies coming from them which I won't go into at this point until I've looked at what was said about Romney's tax returns. That may be a while (or not) as I did spend perhaps 4 hours on my email I sent to you yesterday morning and unfortunately much more than an hour or two on the computer on multiple days gives me long duration headaches.
Priya
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priya,
Glad you read three of my opinion pieces. There's another 150 you might consider.
By the way, the headlines I write, and the headlines my editor decides to put on them, are rarely the same.
Chuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles,
Well Charles, I read a few articles about Harry Reid's lie and I'll have several things to say about it later.
As far as your other 150 articles go, if they are anything like the first 3 I read they are gross distortions of the truth and reading them would just serve to upset me for no benefit. After I read the first 2 of your articles I thought "He can't possibly believe any of this, he's just making up whatever story puts Republicans in a good light and Democrats in a bad light and asserting it's true." After our exchanges I'm a lot less sure of that but it's still pretty hard for me to believe you don't know the articles of yours I have emailed you about are exaggerations at the very least.
I've debated a lot of conservatives since '97 or so and a significant percentage are utterly unconcerned with the truth and will make up any story that puts Republicans in a good light and Democrats in a bad light. Wyatt and Regina Hardiman post anonymously at Teach The Facts under an ever changing list of names. They would tell any lie they think helps spread their agenda, even when you've presented proof to them they are wrong they just post the same lie over and over and then bitch to the moderator that he shouldn't allow me to keep posting the same proof over and over. I've been debating these two since '97 and they couldn't care less what the truth is. I've met others like that. I used to spend up to ten hours a day debating people (generally not that much) until after several years of that I started developing headaches that frequently lasted 3 days, sometimes as long as ten days. The doctor told me it might be a benign brain tumor but I eventually put it together that it was reading and writing so much on the computer that was doing it.
I will email you later about Harry Reid's lie.
Priya
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Charles,
I found your 3 articles looking through headlines on Yahoo. I'm sorry this is longer than I hoped it would be. Thanks for hearing me out so fully.
I asked you for an example of immoral behaviour by Democrats comparable to Mitch McConnell lying and saying any Supreme Court vacancy in the last year of a president's term shouldn't be filled until after the election. You gave the example of Harry Reid making the false statement that Mitt Romney had not paid any income tax in ten years. That is a great example of the double standards used to judge Democrats and Republicans and I'm glad you brought it up, those two wrongdoings are far from comparable in degree or consequence.
Harry Reid did make a claim he knew could be false - "He didn't pay taxes for 10 years.". Technically speaking, yes that was a lie. However, Reid immediately followed that with "Now do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain, but obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?". His first sentence wasn't true , but this was not particularly dishonest or misleading as he immediately added he didn't know for certain if that was true. Romney eventually proved he paid taxes in two of those ten years but never did prove he paid a fair amount for the entire ten year period. If he had, why wouldn't he? It's extremely unlikely any one hearing Reid's full statement would have been falsely lead to believe it was an established fact that Romney hadn't paid any taxes during that ten years.
Now for Mitch McConnell's lie about the Supreme Court to be comparably trivial, after McConnell said things like "With less than a year before the election the American people should have a say in who get's to pick the nominee." he'd have had to have immediately followed that with something like "Although I'm not agreeing I'll abide by that rule if there is a Supreme Court vacancy in the last year of a Republican presidency.". He never made such a key qualification, this was far more dishonest than Reid was.
Reid's lie wasn't a gross mischaracterization of reality like Mitch McConnell claiming to believe a supreme court vacancy in the last year of a president's term should be left vacant until after the upcoming presidential election. Or like claiming the justice department seizing Mike Lindell's phone is good evidence Democrats are plunging the U.S. into an authoritarian state (your editor's dishonest take). A fair paraphrasing of the totality of Harry Reid's 2012 statements on Mitt Romney's tax returns is "I believe he won't release his tax returns because they'll show he hasn't paid his fair share, I think he probably hasn't paid any income taxes at all over the past ten years." That was a reasonable and plausible belief given what was known at the time. To call it a lie may be technically true, but is not a fair or honest characterization of the position Reid put on record.
Mitch McConnell's lie about filling Supreme Court vacancies was deeply malicious and harmful to a lot of Americans. Reid's trivial lie was not intentionally misleading in spirit, it was a reasonable characterization of the reality known at the time and mostly of the reality as we know it today. The main stream media that conservatives insist is biased against them rated Reid's statements on Romney's tax returns a "Pants on fire" lie on Politifact and the Washington Post gave him 4 pinnochio's . They both said this was a really big serious lie. Is that a fair characterization of the general meaning of Reid's statements in their entirety over that time? Not by a long shot, Reid's comments were not significantly dishonest. Romney never did prove he paid his fair share of taxes over the ten year period, that makes it reasonable to believe he didn't. That is the essence of Reid's comments on the topic, far from the degree of dishonesty by Mitch McConnell regarding filling Supreme Court vacancies.
The conservative (and some liberal) media's reporting on this story was more misleading Harry Reid's statements themselves were. I got the "He paid no taxes" quote in context from a submission by a conservative on Huffington Post. The American Spectator wrote "Harry Reid: I Lied About Romney, But He Didn't Win, Did He?. That was much more misleading than Reid saying he didn't believe Romney paid his fair share of taxes. They put it in quotes, but it's not even a fair paraphrasing of what Reid said. He certainly didn't say "I lied" and I have little doubt he never believed he had. It was very deceptive of the American Spectator to assert otherwise and not give the context. Reporter: "Some would say this is Mcarthyism." Reid: "You can call it what you like but he didn't win, did he". Harry's implication that his comments on Romney's taxes were the deciding factor in the election aside, they almost certainly weren't. That's another big difference between Mitch McConnell's lie and Harry Reid's lie, the relative impact. Mitch saw that a religious extremist is on the Supreme Court instead of a centrist and that's causing and will continue to cause harm to huge numbers of Americans - big impact. It's not credible that Harry having said "He didn't pay any taxes. Now do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain" instead of "I think he very likely didn't pay taxes for ten years" determined who won the election - no real impact.
Conservatives hold liberals to far higher standards than they hold themselves and we liberals also hold ourselves to higher standards than conservatives. That's what the Washington Post and Politifact did on this story. "Both parties do it", is not generally true. I could keep giving examples of dishonesty by conservatives and asking conservatives for examples of a comparable liberal wrongdoing and an honest comparison would keep showing they're not comparable in degree or impact.
You said main stream news sources are "totally aligned with the Democratic party", that's not true, look at The Washington Post and Politifact unfairly calling Harry Reid a big liar over this, that certainly didn't show favouritism to Democrats. Out of an over-abundance of desire to appear impartial they overcompensated and passed unreasonably negative judgment on Reid's statements about Romney not likely having paid his fair share of taxes.
There is no main stream media source that deceives the public for benefit of the Democrats to the degree Fox News does for Republicans. In the days, weeks, and months after the Jan 6th riot - they repeatedly insisted Trump bore no responsibility for the riot, that he didn't want or expect it to happen and that maybe the rioters were Biden supporters despite their own text messages on Jan 6 saying it WAS Trump's fault, those were his supporters, he needed to stop it, and ONLY he could do so. Can you think of a comparable example of dishonesty by MSNBC to Fox reporting over and over that there was good reason to believe massive voter fraud cost Trump the election? How about Fox reporting over and over that the Dominion voting machines may have been changing Trump votes to Biden votes? They paid out a massive law suit over that. There is no dishonesty by main stream media or Democrats that is comparable in severity or frequency.
Here's another prime example of the huge honesty gap between conservative and main stream media. In 2012 all manner of conservative media repeatedly quoted Obama out of context saying "...you got a business you didn't build that." deceptively encouraging people to believe he meant "you got a business, you didn't build your own business". In reality the "that" he referred to in "you didn't build that" was government built infrastructure like roads, bridges, sewage systems, schools, airports and so on. I'll never forget Ann Coulter making a tv appearance then and disingenuously lamenting "It's so shocking to hear Obama come out and tell business owners "you didn't build that"!". Can you think of a comparably severe example of blatant dishonesty consistently repeated by Democrats or the main stream media? I doubt that very much. The lies, distortions, and misrepresentations in American politics are overwhelmingly coming from the conservative side.
Thanks for your time
Priya
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priya, I've got to hand it to you - I have rarely seen such a fine example of spin in my life.
I suggest you send a copy of this to your local Democratic party operatives, and ask for a job.
Truly impressive! The Sophists of ancient Greece would be proud of you.
Chuck
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles,
I encourage you to give examples of where I am wrong and rebut me. I don't think you can.
Priya
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priya, as I said you are a master spinner. Reid, after the election, admitted he lied and was proud of it, which you spin into not really a lie.
ANYTHING I would point out to you you would spin into its opposite.
As I've said, we inhabit different mental universes. There is nothing we could possibly agree on that has anything to do with politics, or anything else value laden, such as economics, philosophy, or theology.
As I said, so be it.
Chuck
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: spin
Priya, you've got a competitor for spin doctoring. Jill Biden has just pronounced Hunter Biden as innocent, and wrongly pursued.
Gaslighting 101.
Do you believe that Hunter is as innocent as the driven snow?
Chuck
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Charles,
I assure you I am describing the reality I perceive as accurately, fairly, and honestly as I can. I know that can be hard to believe because I initially found it hard to believe you were sincere but I haven't seen any signs of blatant bad faith argument from you.
I think it unlikely there is nothing we could agree on to do with politics or anything value laden. I believe we all have far more needs and desires in common than not. I believe that to have the best possible world, society's highest priority has to be maximizing the happiness for all in an equal and fair way. My philosophy is "Do whatever you want, but harm no one" and "Violence is only ever justified in self-defence.". I'm pretty sure we can find at least a bit of common ground in there.
If you have video or a transcript of Reid literally saying "I lied" about Romney or "I admit I lied and I'm proud I did." I strongly encourage you to bring it forward. I pride myself on my willingness to admit when I am wrong.
From what I found, it is just not true that "Reid admitted he lied" or as the American Spectator fraudulently blared in their headline: "Harry Reid: "I Lied About Romney, But He Didn't Win, Did He?".
I found no examples of Reid characterizing his statements as a lie and from what I saw I find it highly unlikely he believes they were. It is a gross mischaracterization of Reid's "he didn't win, did he?" comment to say he was agreeing he was dishonest. Nevertheless, conservative media repeatedly ran with that deception. The original quote was:
Reporter "So no regrets about [what you said on the senate floor about ]Romney, about the Koch Brothers? Some would even call it McCarthyite."
Reid "They can call it whatever they want, Romney didn't win, did he?"
Reid's demeanor was that of a man tired of being unfairly criticized basically responding in frustration with a "piss off". The conservative media dishonestly spun this as "I lied, so what?" - he never said any such thing, the conservative media just insisted on taking it that way.
Reid said (paraphrasing) "He didn't pay any taxes for ten years. Well, I don't know that for certain". The first statement is technically a lie because he didn't know that to be a fact but given the immediately following statement it's clear there was no intent to deceive and it's highly unlikely anyone listening to his complete comments would have been led to wrongly believe this was a proven fact. So not much of a "lie", if any, unlike Mitch McConnell's statement about supreme court vacancies which was obviously intended to deceive and did deceive. Reid's and McConnell's lies are far from comparable in degree or effect.
Romney released tax returns proving he paid taxes in two of those ten years. What about the other 8 years? If he paid a fair amount of taxes over the whole ten year period why didn't he prove it? The only likely explanation is that he paid little, if any taxes in those other 8 years. Politifact and The Washington Post said it's possible Romney paid no taxes in those other 8 years although he probably did. Reid may have been 80% correct yet both Politifact and The Washington Post unethically asserted Reid told a great big serious lie with no truth to it. How on earth can you honestly go from "He could have been 80% correct" to "This was a great big pants on fire, 4 pinnochios lie."? The main stream media has been so flooded by unsupported conservative allegations of bias that now in an abundance of desire to appear fair they often overcompensate and are unfairly critical of Democrats like they were here.
Priya
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priya,
Yes, we can find some common ground in maximizing happiness. But the slippery part comes with your "in an equal and fair way." What does "equal" mean `` And''fair `` Therein lies the problem.
Not to mention, what is meant by "happiness"?.
Stay tuned for some more columns, in which I will address some of these problems.
Chuck
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles,
Yes, as they say, the devil is in the details, what is equal and fair? And sometimes fair is not equal and vice versa. We argue it out on a case by case basis and we let each person determine what happiness is and take that as our starting point for debate.
Priya
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: spin
Charles,
Do I believe Hunter Biden is "as innocent as the driven snow"? Well, I won't be taking Jill Biden's word for it if that makes you feel any better. I don't believe anyone, including myself, is as pure as the driven snow. And as someone who has had to melt the driven snow to get drinking water I can tell you it is far from pure. I don't know if Hunter Biden is guilty of any serious crimes, let's see the evidence, I haven't so far. Did he play on his father's name to get preferential treatment here and there? Probably, but this was not a crime on the scale of Trump instructing the Justice Department to declare the election was fraudulent and to seize voting machines. Most important of all, this has NOTHING to do with Joe Biden or anything Joe has done. Joe is not responsible for any wrongdoings his son may or may not have engaged in! I'm confident that if Hunter Biden engaged in any serious crimes he will be held accountable for them.
Priya
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priya,
The contents of his notorious laptop would seem to demonstrate a prima facie case of considerable corruption - including the involvement of his father. Whether or not he, or anyone else in his family, will be held accountable remains to be seen.
Charles
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles,
I haven't heard any evidence to support that claim.
Priya
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles,
I'll add that "seem to demonstrate" isn't compatible with an assertion of a prima facie case. I'm highly skeptical that there is any evidence of corruption on Hunter Biden's laptop. I remember all too well Trump and Mike Lindell screaming about how they had tons of incontrovertible proof of massive election fraud in 2020 but they lost 61 court cases asserting that because they had ZERO evidence to back up their claims.
I note you never commented on the ethics of the flood of false conservative media claims in 2012 that when Obama said ".... you got a business, you didn't build that" he was meant "You got a business, you didn't build your own business" when in truth the "that" in "you didn't build that" referred to government infrastructure like roads bridges, airports, waste management systems and so on. I can hear you now "That's politics, both sides do it." but you can't give a comparable example of blatant lying about Republicans by the main stream media, can you?
Priya
---------------------------------------------------------------
I sent that last email to Charles some time ago and I have yet to hear back from him, but what can he possibly say that would be true and yet show I've got it wrong? He stuck it out through a complete discussion taken to its logical conclusion and he didn't have any more counter arguments to offer. I was pleased he appeared to have read all I wrote as I put a lot of effort into it. I hope to see and respond to his promised upcoming articles on what he sees as problems with "what does equal, fair, and happiness" mean?
The consensus is that minds can't be changed but I don't believe that. I think if I am right, and if my opponent is sincere they will have a very hard time not agreeing with me. Charles seems sincere and openminded but deeply mislead. I think I've gone a significant ways towards convincing him things aren't as he thinks they are.
Comments