People who deliberately lie and spread hate (1 Viewer)

[KarmaPolice]

Those are three examples, not close to an exhaustive list.  They were chosen because frankly I'm not sure how you get bigger than those three.  Jesus maybe?

I think a hell of a lot more than 5% believe the new voter laws are racist and the cacophony of voices saying this gives me confidence in that statement.

I think there are a hell of a lot more than 5% that think the election was stolen from Trump.

I think less than 5% of the population thinks that we should require wearing masks on zoom calls so as to not traumatize the other participants.  When stuff like that is posted I don't see people saying crap like that is more than representative of fringe elements of the population 

Fair, we don't agree on those, and not sure how we'd know.  I do hope you are wrong though.  

 

[sho nuff]

Not admitting to anything..but I think you would agree if the so called minority vote went for GOP canidates the IDs would be more important to Dems. Let people have more days to vote so they can vote, but ID to show you are should be mandatory.

Sure its political.  Similarly as I said the reverse would be true that the GOP would be against these laws.

My position on making them accessible and not putting barriers in place would remain the same.

 

[Snotbubbles]

It’s true that voter ID laws can negatively impact minorities; that is why most Democrats oppose them. It’s not true that Democrats believe that everyone who is for them is a racist. It wouldn’t surprise me if (a) some idiot said that (b) some right wing talk show host ran with it (c) you accepted this as being believed by all Democrats because you want to believe it. And that, IMO, creates the divide far more than your assertion: 

Why should we oppose laws that are neutral in enforcement but happen to disproportionately affects a certain groups?  Minorities overwhelmingly think you should have ID to vote (84% in this poll). 

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_062121.pdf/

You know who doesn't think you should need an ID to vote.  The liberal white college grad virtue signalers (according to this poll).  This is one of those political topics that Democrats make a big deal about like they are some kind of social justice warriors, but they are on the wrong side of the national sentiment.  I find it extremely condescending (and I assume many minorities do as well) when the supposition is that minorities can't obtain ID.  

 

[Snotbubbles]

Double post.

 

[timschochet]

Yes that happens, I mean unless you have access to on demand polling for every topic discussed everyone has to rely on what they have.  And I can't defend every single instance used in this forum, I'm sure many were inaccurately extrapolated.  But I am also sure that you concession of 5% is way low in many instances.  

All I can respond to and am responding to is the idea from earlier in this thread that the republican stance on voting laws was driven by racism.  To which, Tim responded

(a) some idiot said that (b) some right wing talk show host ran with it (c) you accepted this as being believed by all Democrats because you want to believe it.

To which another poster referenced entities supporting this argument to include THE President of the United States.  The newspaper that has been around since 1851 and won 132 Pulitzer Prizes and another paper considered the newspaper of record in the US.  5% you say?

Hang on, let’s backtrack:

 @jon_mx began by asserting that anyone who agreed with voter ID laws that was assumed by all Democrats to be racist. I disagreed with that assertion even if some idiot made that claim. Jon then pointed out that Biden and the New York Times used the words “Jim Crow” to describe the new voting restrictions. And that’s true. But it doesn’t prove his earlier comment correct for two reasons: first off the new voting restrictions are not the same as voter ID laws. IMO they are far more worrisome. Voter ID laws have been around as a political talking point for years and I don’t recall prominent Democrats using the words “Jim Crow” to describe them. 
Second, and more importantly: it is possible to call a proposal racist (which is basically what Biden did) meaning that it leads to a racist result, without assuming that anyone who agrees with it is a racist. And that’s where jon and so many others, on both sides err, IMO. As @ekbeats correctly points out, we make these false assumptions about the other side. But Biden is not doing so here IMO. He is calling these laws “Jim Crow”  because he believes (correctly IMO) that they are designed to repress minority voting.) But he is not calling anyone who believes in that law a racist. That’s an assumption jon makes without merit. 

 

[timschochet]

Why should we oppose laws that are neutral in enforcement but happen to disproportionately affects a certain groups?  Minorities overwhelmingly think you should have ID to vote (84% in this poll). 

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_062121.pdf/

You know who doesn't think you should need an ID to vote.  The liberal white college grad virtue signalers (according to this poll).  This is one of those political topics that Democrats make a big deal about like they are some kind of social justice warriors, but they are on the wrong side of the national sentiment.  I find it extremely condescending (and I assume many minorities do as well) when the supposition is that minorities can't obtain ID.  

I wasn’t arguing the issue of voter ID laws. I was refuting Jon’s contention that anyone who agrees with such laws is a racist according to all Democrats. 

 

[djmich]

Hang on, let’s backtrack:

 @jon_mx began by asserting that anyone who agreed with voter ID laws that was assumed by all Democrats to be racist. I disagreed with that assertion even if some idiot made that claim. Jon then pointed out that Biden and the New York Times used the words “Jim Crow” to describe the new voting restrictions. And that’s true. But it doesn’t prove his earlier comment correct for two reasons: first off the new voting restrictions are not the same as voter ID laws. IMO they are far more worrisome. Voter ID laws have been around as a political talking point for years and I don’t recall prominent Democrats using the words “Jim Crow” to describe them. 
Second, and more importantly: it is possible to call a proposal racist (which is basically what Biden did) meaning that it leads to a racist result, without assuming that anyone who agrees with it is a racist. And that’s where jon and so many others, on both sides err, IMO. As @ekbeats correctly points out, we make these false assumptions about the other side. But Biden is not doing so here IMO. He is calling these laws “Jim Crow”  because he believes (correctly IMO) that they are designed to repress minority voting.) But he is not calling anyone who believes in that law a racist. That’s an assumption jon makes without merit. 

Ok, we disagree

 

[DocHolliday]

Politicians have to be divisive in order to get people to join their team.  They want votes and get them in two ways. Votes for their views or votes in opposition to their competition.   The division is only going to grow.  

 

[knowledge dropper]

Did we ever get Schiff included on this list?  He seems to be the poster child. 

 

[Summer Wheat]

Sure its political.  Similarly as I said the reverse would be true that the GOP would be against these laws.

My position on making them accessible and not putting barriers in place would remain the same.

I agree and we are getting off topic here.  That discussion is in another thread.

 

[AAABatteries]

I haven’t read any posts since the thread title was changed but all I’ll say is that unfortunately spreading lies and hate is big business for a lot of people.

 

[bigbottom]

Nah, that's some BS. Why are we looking for excuses to take the flame away from the feet of the people with actual influence and a platform?

Not saying regular people don't play a part, but if tvs or radios or the internet (and the leading personalities/voices of them) just disappeared from the planet for a year, we'd all be in a much more friendly place with each other after that year was up.

These people aren't using their influence in a direction that's productive for society (they're paid not to, they're just doing their job), but the media still has a massive pull on the public and a key role in molding the general temperature of society, and all they do all day is smash the panic button. 

Those people only have influence (with respect to causing division) because we allow them to. And we allow them to sow division because, deep down, we want them to sow division. We have agency. And it’s time to take responsibility for our own actions, behaviors, instincts and predilections. I’m not saying those identified in this thread aren’t worthy of criticism. They are. But it is only through us that they are able to wield the power to divide. Nothing will change until we realize this. My two cents. You are of course free to disagree. 

Edit:  And for the record, the above thoughts are based on the original thread title/question. 

 

[supermike80]

I haven’t read any posts since the thread title was changed but all I’ll say is that unfortunately spreading lies and hate is big business for a lot of people.

And the media.  They live for it.  They need it

 

[identikit]

This thread with its lists reminds me of same pretty horrific times in which the same methods were used.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I don't understand the list.  Is this for people who lie on a regular basis or for anyone that has lied or stretched the truth?

 

[timschochet]

I don't understand the list.  Is this for people who lie on a regular basis or for anyone that has lied or stretched the truth?

Regular basis. But at this point I don’t agree with everyone on it. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

Not admitting to anything..but I think you would agree if the so called minority vote went for GOP canidates the IDs would be more important to Dems. Let people have more days to vote so they can vote, but ID to show you are should be mandatory.

Why?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Why should we oppose laws that are neutral in enforcement but happen to disproportionately affects a certain groups?  Minorities overwhelmingly think you should have ID to vote (84% in this poll). 

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_062121.pdf/

You know who doesn't think you should need an ID to vote.  The liberal white college grad virtue signalers (according to this poll).  This is one of those political topics that Democrats make a big deal about like they are some kind of social justice warriors, but they are on the wrong side of the national sentiment.  I find it extremely condescending (and I assume many minorities do as well) when the supposition is that minorities can't obtain ID.  

So we should repeal the 24th Amendment?

 

[matuski]

Marjorie Taylor Greene 

Ihlan Omar 

Jim Jordan 

Rashida Tliab 

Matt Gaetz 

Lauryn Boebert 

Adam Schiff 

Tomi Lahren 

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez

This list of politicians make me cringe damn near 100% of the time when I hear them speak or read their tweets.  And they love that each other exists, they just feed off of the race to see who can be the most ridiculous.  Mirror images.  Would be impossible to argue that any of these are worse than the other.  The Squad versus whatever you call the right wing nutjobs.

 

[matuski]

Pundits 

Tucker Carlson 

Don Lemon 

Candace Owens 

Joy Reid 

Tiffany Cross 

Sean Hannity 

Rachel Maddow 

If you even bother with any of these fictional characters.. congrats, you've been had.  Hook, line, sinker.

 

[sho nuff]

If you even bother with any of these fictional characters.. congrats, you've been had.  Hook, line, sinker.

The issue is millions do bother with them…listen to them…and believe them.

 

[matuski]

The issue is millions do bother with them…listen to them…and believe them.

True.  

 

[identikit]

I don't understand the list.  Is this for people who lie on a regular basis or for anyone that has lied or stretched the truth?

Yes

 

[timschochet]

I added question marks to those who I disagree with. Let’s take them one at a time. 
 

1. Adam Schiff is best known for his investigation and prosecution (in the first impeachment trial of President Trump.) He is certainly a partisan figure, but I don’t believe he deliberately lies or spreads hatred towards groups of people. His divisiveness , it seems to me, lies solely in the fact that a large group of Americans didn’t like the outcome he was attempting to achieve. So I don’t have a compelling reason to include him. 
 

2. AOC is the most well known member of The Squad, but unlike the other 3, she has avoided spreading hateful and anti-Semitic bile. She is extremely progressive but I do not believe she means to divide people. 
 

3. I think Joe Biden is on this list mainly because some people around here wanted to ruin the list. He’s no more divisive than any other mainstream establishment politician. I believe even his worst critics know this. 
 

4. Rachel Maddow is an affable opinion host. Unlike Joy Reid and Tucker Carlson she rarely if ever says mean things about the other side or attacks them at all outside of policy discussion. She did spend a lot of time over the last few years investigating the suspected, but never proven wrongdoings of President Trump. I can see why some would call that divisive; that’s why she’s borderline for me. (On the other hand, Don Lemon, who undertook many of the same investigations but used catastrophic rhetoric and dire warnings of America ending to describe them, is a much more comfortable fit for my list.) 

 

[Boston]

I added question marks to those who I disagree with. Let’s take them one at a time. 
 

1. Adam Schiff is best known for his investigation and prosecution (in the first impeachment trial of President Trump.) He is certainly a partisan figure, but I don’t believe he deliberately lies or spreads hatred towards groups of people. His divisiveness , it seems to me, lies solely in the fact that a large group of Americans didn’t like the outcome he was attempting to achieve. So I don’t have a compelling reason to include him. 
 

2. AOC is the most well known member of The Squad, but unlike the other 3, she has avoided spreading hateful and anti-Semitic bile. She is extremely progressive but I do not believe she means to divide people. 
 

3. I think Joe Biden is on this list mainly because some people around here wanted to ruin the list. He’s no more divisive than any other mainstream establishment politician. I believe even his worst critics know this. 
 

4. Rachel Maddow is an affable opinion host. Unlike Joy Reid and Tucker Carlson she rarely if ever says mean things about the other side or attacks them at all outside of policy discussion. She did spend a lot of time over the last few years investigating the suspected, but never proven wrongdoings of President Trump. I can see why some would call that divisive; that’s why she’s borderline for me. (On the other hand, Don Lemon, who undertook many of the same investigations but used catastrophic rhetoric and dire warnings of America ending to describe them, is a much more comfortable fit for my list.) 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/adam-schiffs-disgraceful-legacy

As for AOC...just want to be clear...she has aligned herself with anti-semites but isn't one?  You don't find that odd?

 

[knowledge dropper]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/adam-schiffs-disgraceful-legacy

As for AOC...just want to be clear...she has aligned herself with anti-semites but isn't one?  You don't find that odd?

This thread loses any credibility when you go to the mat for Schiff. 

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Adam Schiff went on the Maddow show multiple times and promoted the fake dossier Russian collision narrative. Maddow spent 2 years promoting Russian collusion conspiracies. If you can’t see this as divisive then this whole thread is dog crap.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Here’s one. Asking people that didn’t go to college to bailout the loans of people that did who will go on to earn on average 1 million more in lifetime earnings. 
 

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Glenn Greenwald

@ggreenwald

Replying to @ggreenwald

Notable that Adam Schiff -- who appears on every CNN, MSNBC and Sunday morning network news program as often as possible -- just had his first truly adversarial questioning about his pathological Russiagate lies not on any of those networks but from Morgan Ortagus on the View.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Aaron Maté

@aaronjmate

·Apr 28, 2019Replying to

@aaronjmate

and

@maddow

3/ There was that time in Jan 2017 when you speculated that Putin may use the pee tape & other kompromat to force Trump into withdrawing US troops near Russia. How did that one turn out?

 

[bigbottom]

Here’s one. Asking people that didn’t go to college to bailout the loans of people that did who will go on to earn on average 1 million more in lifetime earnings. 
 

With you on this one. 

 

[timschochet]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/adam-schiffs-disgraceful-legacy

As for AOC...just want to be clear...she has aligned herself with anti-semites but isn't one?  You don't find that odd?

1. I don’t agree with that portrayal of Adam Schiff. 
2. I have no idea if the rest of the Squad is anti-Semitic. I know they have said anti-Semitic things, but that doesn’t make one anti-Semitic. AOC to the best of my knowledge has not said anti-Semitic things. Nor has she said anything particularly hateful. If you have some examples to the contrary I might change my mind. 

 

[timschochet]

Glenn Greenwald

@ggreenwald

Replying to @ggreenwald

Notable that Adam Schiff -- who appears on every CNN, MSNBC and Sunday morning network news program as often as possible -- just had his first truly adversarial questioning about his pathological Russiagate lies not on any of those networks but from Morgan Ortagus on the View.

I would certainly put Glenn Greenwald on the list but he’s kind of obscure. 

 

[timschochet]

Adam Schiff went on the Maddow show multiple times and promoted the fake dossier Russian collision narrative. Maddow spent 2 years promoting Russian collusion conspiracies. If you can’t see this as divisive then this whole thread is dog crap.

We can disagree on a few people and still agree on most that are on the list. 

 

[timschochet]

Here’s one. Asking people that didn’t go to college to bailout the loans of people that did who will go on to earn on average 1 million more in lifetime earnings. 
 

But I believe in that. It’s a debatable issue, but I am on the side of bailing out these loans. I don’t think that makes me a liar or a hater. 

 

[Boston]

I would certainly put Glenn Greenwald on the list but he’s kind of obscure. 

Why would you put Greenwald on the list?

 

[Boston]

1. I don’t agree with that portrayal of Adam Schiff. 
2. I have no idea if the rest of the Squad is anti-Semitic. I know they have said anti-Semitic things, but that doesn’t make one anti-Semitic. AOC to the best of my knowledge has not said anti-Semitic things. Nor has she said anything particularly hateful. If you have some examples to the contrary I might change my mind. 

Saying anti-Semitic things doesn't make you anti-Semitic?  In the words of Ace Ventura...alrighty then...

Your defense of Shiff really makes the rest of this list a moot point to me.

 

[timschochet]

Why would you put Greenwald on the list?

He’s a leftist who goes out of his way to defend Trump: not because he loves Trump but because he wants to make the argument that it is the United States, and particularly our corporate leadership, that is evil, not just Trump. So in perfect to pursue this argument Greenwald has put a really odd spin on the Russian investigation- I think a bogus spin. His attack on Adam Schiff is dishonest IMO. 

 

[timschochet]

Your defense of Schiff really makes the rest of this list a moot point to me.

I honestly don’t understand why. Schiff’s speeches during the first impeachment were, IMO, extremely eloquent. He is highly intelligent and he strikes me as a passionate person of honor. I can’t put him in the same category as consummate liars like Trump, Maxine Waters, or Marjorie Taylor Greene. It’s a different universe altogether. 

 

[Boston]

I honestly don’t understand why. Schiff’s speeches during the first impeachment were, IMO, extremely eloquent. He is highly intelligent and he strikes me as a passionate person of honor. I can’t put him in the same category as consummate liars like Trump, Maxine Waters, or Marjorie Taylor Greene. It’s a different universe altogether. 

Wow.

 

[timschochet]

Wow.

OK we disagree on Schiff. He’s still on the list because a lot of people wanted him there even though I didn’t.

We’re never going to agree about everyone on this list. Im inclined to defend some of the liberals, and I’m sure you are inclined to defend some of the conservatives. But we don’t need to be in 100% consensus. Right now it’s enough if most people acknowledge that there SHOULD be a list, comprised of those who can’t be trusted and who are seeking to keep us at each other’s throats. 

 

[DropKick]

Hang on, let’s backtrack:

 @jon_mx began by asserting that anyone who agreed with voter ID laws that was assumed by all Democrats to be racist. I disagreed with that assertion even if some idiot made that claim. Jon then pointed out that Biden and the New York Times used the words “Jim Crow” to describe the new voting restrictions. And that’s true. But it doesn’t prove his earlier comment correct for two reasons: first off the new voting restrictions are not the same as voter ID laws. IMO they are far more worrisome. Voter ID laws have been around as a political talking point for years and I don’t recall prominent Democrats using the words “Jim Crow” to describe them. 
Second, and more importantly: it is possible to call a proposal racist (which is basically what Biden did) meaning that it leads to a racist result, without assuming that anyone who agrees with it is a racist. And that’s where jon and so many others, on both sides err, IMO. As @ekbeats correctly points out, we make these false assumptions about the other side. But Biden is not doing so here IMO. He is calling these laws “Jim Crow”  because he believes (correctly IMO) that they are designed to repress minority voting.) But he is not calling anyone who believes in that law a racist. That’s an assumption jon makes without merit. 

Biden's use of the term "Jim Crow"... in fact, he actually said the laws made Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle, which was kinda nonsense in it own right... was highly divisive and irresponsible to the people of Georgia.  I would call both Biden and Harris consummate liars as each has plagiarized speeches and anecdotes and played up racial tensions for personal political gain.  My list starts there... 

What exactly do you find racist about the laws in Georgia?

 

[timschochet]

Biden's use of the term "Jim Crow"... in fact, he actually said the laws made Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle, which was kinda nonsense in it own right... was highly divisive and irresponsible to the people of Georgia.  I would call both Biden and Harris consummate liars as each has plagiarized speeches and anecdotes and played up racial tensions for personal political gain.  My list starts there... 

What exactly do you find racist about the laws in Georgia?

Here is a good article that explains the Democratic thinking: 

https://www.newsweek.com/georgias-new-voting-law-racist-opinion-1581772?amp=1

I strongly disagree with your portrayal of Biden and Harris. They’re partisan, establishment politicians. 

 

[DropKick]

Here is a good article that explains the Democratic thinking: 

https://www.newsweek.com/georgias-new-voting-law-racist-opinion-1581772?amp=1

I strongly disagree with your portrayal of Biden and Harris. They’re partisan, establishment politicians. 

What exactly do you find racist about the laws in Georgia?

 

[DropKick]

I strongly disagree with your portrayal of Biden and Harris. They’re partisan, establishment politicians. 

I laugh in your general direction.

 

[timschochet]

What exactly do you find racist about the laws in Georgia?

The reason I posted the article is because it explains it more eloquently than I can. Please read it and then explain which parts you disagree with. 

 

[timschochet]

I laugh in your general direction.

That’s fine, but I would prefer that if you disagree with me you explain why in my specific direction. Then we can have a real discussion and not whatever this is. 

 

[DropKick]

The reason I posted the article is because it explains it more eloquently than I can. Please read it and then explain which parts you disagree with. 

Not looking for eloquence.   An honest opinion would suffice.

For the record, I did read it and it wasn't eloquent.  Slanted and biased is a better description.  Let me start with the term "ethics".  In business, I can't take a material gift from a vendor or contractor as that could be construed as influencing my decisions on using their services.  For very similar reasons, political organizations shouldn't be handing out food or water at a polling place in an attempt to solicit votes.   Fairly obvious rationale, right?  Also recognize that people aren't being deprived as there are provisions for water to be available on a self-serve basis.  And this aspect becomes a "racist" talking point?  Gimme a break.

 

[DropKick]

That’s fine, but I would prefer that if you disagree with me you explain why in my specific direction. Then we can have a real discussion and not whatever this is. 

So a real discussion is you telling us who the liars are and then refuting contrarian responses?

 

[Philo Beddoe]

He’s a leftist who goes out of his way to defend Trump: not because he loves Trump but because he wants to make the argument that it is the United States, and particularly our corporate leadership, that is evil, not just Trump. So in perfect to pursue this argument Greenwald has put a really odd spin on the Russian investigation- I think a bogus spin. His attack on Adam Schiff is dishonest IMO. 

Bogus spin? Come on! The whole thing was a sham!! He was a regular on the corrupt leftist msm until he started questioning them. Your love affair with the corporate media is nauseating.