Well, you're right, but what did you expect? Meanwhile, here's a drinking game for Nosflow to play while he's watching Biden/Ryan.
The media is waiting for you to give money to Obama so he can pay them to run commercials about this.
I'm just having an outsized anger reaction. That's mostly my point.
(Also it's infuriating because run on your goddamn platform.)
This is silly. No one takes platforms seriously so they are a cheap way to throw some bones to the nuttier portion of your base.
5
... And yet I'm finding this latest round of outright lies ...
How do you know it is the moderate Romney who is lying?
4: I don't mean run on your published platform. I mean, run on the policies that you intend to implement.
5: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. There's no way to tell which way he's lying on any particular issue, but where he's making contradictory commitments there's no reason to trust him in either direction.
5: I don't really care which one is lying. I'm infuriated because it seems to be paying off in the polls, and the media adores that, rather than calling him out on his lies.
I know, it's like my friend who always changed the subject when a debate started going very much against her. But sometimes the new subject turned out even worse! And she's like, hey Obama! Why'd you change the subject!
But Obama was always just laughing at her. I wonder if she realized.
That same friend of mine lived in the deep south. She told everyone on the internet how much she hated it! And she told everyone at home how much she hated everyone else. This made her very popular, until Obama put chocolate eclairs on her roof.
I won't roll back abortion rights
Of course, that's not what he actually said. It's entirely consistent with what he said that he'd actually roll back abortion rights more than any other proposal he's aware of. Death penalty for abortion seekers!
Your friend sounds like a total fruitcake.
5: Paradox! (Or maybe, Antinomy!)
"Reveals a lying dickweed asswipe when appended to his earlier quotations" reveals a lying dickweed asswipe when appended to his earlier quotations.
Hey JP, what's it called when one guy is too afraid to give his opinion honestly to another guy's face?
Basically a compliment, right?
She was more like a vacuum tube actually.
I'm generlly not that big of a fan of Bad Lip Readings but this one of last week's debate is great, and I agree with The Rude Pundit that it made me feel better about the goddamned thing.
I had another friend who was training for a marathon! And he was all excited about running ten or so miles one day, so much that he bought a fancy new hat. But when I saw him he sweated all through his new hat and then had to go outside. He was hyperventilating.
Or hostility. "I'll give my honest opinion to your ass!"
It's encouraging that GOP policies are so unpopular that the only was republicans can win elections is by essentially pretending not to be republicans (wasn't "compassionate conservatism" just another version of that ploy?).
It's incredibly frustrating that people seem to fall for the pretense approximately every other election.
19
It's encouraging that GOP policies are so unpopular that the only was republicans can win elections is by essentially pretending not to be republicans (wasn't "compassionate conservatism" just another version of that ploy?).
Not really, GHWB really was to the left of Reagan.
wasn't "compassionate conservatism" just another version of that ploy?
And the fucking fuckheads in the national political media pretended to fall for it. I hope I get to meet David Broder in hell.
8
I don't really care which one is lying. I'm infuriated because it seems to be paying off in the polls, and the media adores that, rather than calling him out on his lies.
One man's lies are another man's changes in position. Romney isn't lying he just changes his position a lot.
I think it's more sexual jealousy plus cowardice or something like that.
What's it called when a man wants to give his opinion to another man's ass?
11: The precise letter of what he said about abortion is irrelevant, as it was a sentence crafted to give people the exact wrong impression.
Also, I'm sure whoever thought it up thought it was exceedingly clever, but I'm not sure it's even Jesuitically true, since "agenda" reasonably means "things you're going to do" rather than "things you're going to push hard for."
16 is correct. Bad Lip Reading palls when it's just one person making a speech, but combining Obama, Romney, and Lehrer was done with a great eye for the absurd.
What's it called when a man wants to give his opinion to another man's ass?
The Aristocrats!
alright, that was both honest and amusing.
24
21: Don't ever change, James.
You don't think GHWB was to the left of Reagan?
James, I'd like your opinion on 26 too. I think you have some insight.
Romney isn't lying he just changes his position a lot.
Great, now I have "I ain't a player I just fuck a lot" in my head.
I'd also like to know what jbs thinks of 14.
I'd like to know what your mother thinks of my mother.
Not really. But more than I want to know what jbs thinks of anything.
My mom likes most people who are nice to her.
What's up with text spouting all this word salad lately? I don't get it. Has s/he been replaced by a chatbot? Is there some some TFA that I should R?
There's a F on which you can ROTL, along with me.
||
Apparently the marshmallow test reflects something deeper than self control - it reflects assessments of the likelihood that the experimenter will deliver on the promised second marshmallow as well.
|>
What's up with text spouting all this word salad lately? I don't get it.
Apparently he used to be funny or something?
"Honour him who was great and is fallen, and him who was rich and is poor", as they say in the Hejaz.
I find 40 super fascinating, and in hindsight obvious.
Right, part of what it measures is trust in the system. Which is what you need to be able to delay gratification.
43
I find 40 super fascinating, and in hindsight obvious.
The study linked in 40 does not show that in the standard setup children's expectations of reliability have a significant effect on the results. It does show that you can cause children to doubt the experimenter's word which isn't surprising.
OP: Obviously Mitt was going to trend more centrist for the general election.
This actually wasn't obvious at all to me the day before the debate. Before the primaries, yes, I assumed with everyone else he'd tack center after he wrapped up the nomination, but then he stayed hard right long after he had to. That post-Benghazi press conference in particular was something straight out of the wingnut id and completely gratuitous.
Also, despite very much wanting him to lose, I've had a hard time getting mad at Romney this year. This etch-a-sketch mentality he's had (and barely bothered to hide) in both the primaries and the general election suggests such a profound cynicism and contempt for the American media and electorate that it almost makes me admire him on some level.
47: You were right until you hit media. The word there would be "familiarity" and not "contempt," much though one might breed the other.
I find 40 super fascinating, and in hindsight obvious.
Agreed, thanks for the link. It isn't surprising to me that expectations would affect the children's behavior, but that they could demonstrate that in a lab setting.
It isn't surprising to me that expectations would affect the children's behavior, but that they could demonstrate that in a lab setting.
It's pretty easy to demonstrate the results of recently-set expectations in the lab. I would be more interested in seeing investigations of the three-way relations (yes, yes) across baseline expectations, performance on marshmallow task, and the established marshmallow/adult performance correlations.
I want to see how substituting meringues for marshmallows affects the results.
Perhaps also macaroons, macarons, and/or pumpkin pie.
Perhaps also a study substituting hitting the Refresh button for eating the marshmallow.
47: Romney's remarks on "the 47%" showed great contempt for the American electorate -- did you find that admirable?
55: No, it showed great contempt for 47% of the American people for no other reason than being poor. That's a completely different thing than what I talking about in 47.
What's remarkable is telling obvious lies right to someone's face, announcing that you're lying, and getting away with it.
On the way into work I saw an SUV with a sticker that said "Abaddon" with the 'o' in the signature Obama style. Underneath it said 'look it up.' I just love the over the top paranoia of some people.
47, 55 - On my bad days, it's easy for me to suppose that the American people deserve Mitt. What percentage of the 47% do you think will vote for him?
59: I suspect it will be very close to the percentage of the 47% who do not realize they are part of the 47%.
59,60: yes, I believe that the especially hilarious thing about that comment was (supposedly) how many non-federal-income-taxpayers belong to the Republican base. So: a lot. Not perhaps 50%, but plenty.
I guess this wasn't so much of an overstatement.
Goddamn liars
Fascinating follow-up to the Marshmallow Test:
You remember the marshmallow test, don't you? Basically, you give kids a marshmallow and tell them they can either eat it now or, if they wait a few minutes, they can have two marshmallows. It turns out that the kids who are able to hold out do better later in life. It's a test of impulse control and delayed gratification, and both those traits are highly useful in modern society.
But hold on. What if you don't trust the researchers? If you don't believe that they really will return with two marshmallows, then there's not much point in showing any restraint, is there? You might as well just eat the marshmallow now. Some sneaky researchers at the University of Rochester decided to test just that, setting up both "reliable" and "unreliable" environments for the kids...
Guess what? When the kids got shafted by the researchers, they all ended up eating the marshmallow. They didn't really believe the extra marshmallow would ever appear. The kids in the reliable environment, where the researchers did what they said they would, mostly waited.
The researchers' conclusion is that self-control isn't a purely innate ability. It also depends on how you were brought up. If things tend to get taken away from you if you don't gobble them up right away, or if adults tend to make promises they don't keep, you're probably not going to be very interested in delayed gratification. In an environment like that, gratification delayed is gratification denied.
(I mean, that's sort of an obvious conclusion, but the experimental results are interesting anyway.)
Sorry, 63; 40 already ate your marshmallow.
You might also find this fascinating.
Definitely one of the more unexpected pwnings.
Let me be the first to say that urple got pwnd.
Protocol: The subjects were provided with a news item interesting enough for it to be automatic for them to immediately link to it within the comment section of an eclectic web magazine. We measured whether or not each subject examined the thread used before making the post to avoid pwnage.
The clip in 52 is actually the sound of an adult trying to resist eating a marshmallow.
The phrase "pwnd" is getting old. Real old. Can we change it to "I ate your marshmallow."?
You know, I'm not sure Mitt has actually moderated, or is literally lying. He's massively misleading, mostly by omission, but has cute little explanations why each supposed deviation towards the center isn't one really. Why isn't his tax cut $5 trillion? Because when you account for the unidentified deduction and loophole closing, and maybe some dynamic scoring, it's a wash. (And, for some reason, no one ever asks him why he's even talking about doing it, if "uncertainty" is such a drag on economic growth, and if it really is going to be revenue neutral by class). How does his plan cover people with pre-existing conditions? Same was current (prior to ACA) law does. He's not planning to ask for legislation restricting abortion (because he'll be too busy creating jobs), but that doesn't mean he won't sign a bill if they send it to him.
Rather than call him a liar, Obama has to show the winks and nods to the conservatives, and expose the parsing. This is a very difficult task, and one he was not at all prepared to do last week. But if he goes with the same response as the Pants On Fire ads, the Broderites are going to whack him but good.
Obviously if the experimenter has been unreliable that's going to make kids less likely to eat the marshmallow. What would be much more interesting is to do the test where someone who isn't obviously related to the experimenter has been unreliable. The experimental design would certainly be harder, but the results would be more interesting.
What would be much more interesting is to do the test where someone who isn't obviously related to the experimenter has been unreliable.
Like Lindsay Lohan?
It'd be hard to quantify, but I'd be particularly interested in comparing kids with 'reliable' caregivers to kids with caregivers who weren't.
do the test where someone who isn't obviously related to the experimenter has been unreliable
Maybe if the experimenter wore a "Romney for President" button on their lapel?
But if he goes with the same response as the Pants On Fire ads, the Broderites are going to whack him but good.
Maybe if Obama just throat-clears "coughbullshitcough" when Romney's talking, then hands him a marshmallow before each rebuttal.
81: Not a marshmallow, an etch-a-sketch!
73: Are you saying that the pwnership society was built on a bubble that's bound to collapse?
Rather than call him a liar, Obama has to show the winks and nods to the conservatives, and expose the parsing. This is a very difficult task, and one he was not at all prepared to do last week. But if he goes with the same response as the Pants On Fire ads, the Broderites are going to whack him but good.
Kevin Drum agrees
[O]ne of the weird aspects of American politics is that voters, no matter how cynical they claim to be, basically accept politicians at their word when they make concrete promises. Romney says he won't raise middle class taxes? Then he won't. Romney says his plan won't increase the deficit? Then it won't. The fact that it might be mathematically impossible doesn't seem to carry any weight. It's all just confusing numbers, after all. What matters is whether you think Mitt Romney would look you in the eye and tell a bald lie. Most people don't, and unless you've literally got a secret video with smoking gun evidence proving otherwise, they consider accusations of lying to be playground level mudslinging.
Maybe that's weird. Maybe that's unfair. But it's reality, and it's a pretty good deal for Mitt Romney.
63: Is this an example of the kind of study that could do lasting damage to a child? The children tricked by the researchers may never be able to trust anyone again, and will be unable to form lasting relationships.
84: That's not right. People don't take politicians at their word about things like taxes and cutting the deficit. They pretty much assume they are all lying. But it's rude to call someone a liar, and being rude is bad.
I don't think I buy Drum's analysis there.
The problem with text's comments is that they're all supposed to end with ".com".
84 -- That's why the attack has to be more subtle. And this is what O tried to do in the first go round, on pre-existing conditions. O correctly stated R's position, and R disagreed, misleadingly stated it. And got what he wanted: approval of his alpha male act.
I think 86 is wrong. I think voters assume trimming and puffery, but not straight up in-your-face dishonesty.
But I think it is a fact that Romney is not proposing a 5 trillion tax cut. He's proposing a revenue neutral tax reform, and has recently seemed to put revenue neutrality as a binding pre-condition over across the board cutting. That he wanted neutrality has always been part of the plan, what's new is his response that if the math doesn't work -- if Congress won't take out enough deductions to justify the rate cut he was hoping to get -- he's going to go with a smaller rate cut.
I don't know if he's exactly right, but there's a breakdown in political discourse around barefaced lies, which is weird, because they're common enough that you'd think it would be a solved problem. There isn't an acceptably polite way to say "Checkable facts show that what you just said isn't true. You know it, I know it, and anyone who compares what you said to [reliable reference] knows it." If you say it elliptically enough to be polite, it bounces off as a disagreement about the facts that's fundamentally unresolvable. If you say it bluntly enough to be clear, it's so rude that it's self-discrediting.
When Romney said his plan meant people with pre-existing conditions would be assured of coverage, there should have been some effective way for Obama to have said "Does not you big liar," but I'm not sure at all how he should have done it.
For the second debate, Obama should wear an Etch-A-Sketch on a big gold chain around his neck, Flava Flav style. Instead of taking notes like last time, he should fiddle with the knobs while Romney talks, and then ostentatiously shake it before starting his rebuttals.
This isn't Obama calling Romney a liar?
90 I'm glad to see your adopting a lot of my positions, up until the election at least.
Oh yeah, in ads and on the stump. But when they are standing next to each other, and Romney is talking about plans as to which he's refused to supply checkable details? That's another thing entirely.
58: Maybe they're just big Buñuel fans.
When Romney said his plan meant people with pre-existing conditions would be assured of coverage, there should have been some effective way for Obama to have said "Does not you big liar," but I'm not sure at all how he should have done it.
Obama did have a good line while on the campaign trail:
But after he said that, then he backtracked and said, no, wait, at least I'll make sure to cover folks with pre-existing conditions. And then I explained, well, actually, your plan doesn't do that. And then his campaign had to come out and say, actually, that's not true, our plan wouldn't do that. So Governor Romney was fact-checked by his own campaign. That's rough. That's rough.
But I think it is a fact that Romney is not proposing a 5 trillion tax cut. He's proposing a revenue neutral tax reform, and has recently seemed to put revenue neutrality as a binding pre-condition over across the board cutting.
The deception lies in the fact that he's trying to have it both ways. "I promise to give everyone a free pony, and I'll do it without raising the deficit. (And if it turns out that closing existing tax loopholes won't offset the cost of the ponies, well, we'll deal with that later. But I'm sure my Republican friends in Congress can find a way to make it work.)" And the deception works because the voters want free ponies, so they think "Hmm, maybe Romney really can give me a free pony."
Oh yeah, in ads and on the stump. But when they are standing next to each other, and Romney is talking about plans as to which he's refused to supply checkable details? That's another thing entirely.
I'm with Carp and Drum (and LB) on this one, I think it's essentially impossible for it to be a productive strategy for one politician to call another politician a liar to their face.
I wouldn't want to say it's impossible -- someone might make it work sometime. But I haven't seen it done effectively.
Speaking of Kevin Drum, this is depressing.
Generally I don't believe that the debate changed the fundamental balance of the campaign in a meaningful way. But those charts are scary.
You have to pre-empt the issue. If there's an opening statement, Obama should announce that he's going to hold up his left hand every time Romney utters a lie, counting them on his fingers. Then follow through.
Instead of saying Romney is lying about the free pony, he should just try to imply Romney will have sex with the pony before giving it away.
97 -- Right, but this is why O can't say to his face 'you're going to cut taxes 5 trillion' but has to say instead 'your plan won't work -- it won't create jobs (because the neutrality you are insisting upon kills the Keynesian effects) and anyway there aren't enough deductions to do anything big. Unless you're screwing the middle class.' And if he says he isn't going to screw the middle class, then just say 'the plan won't create jobs, and no credible economist has ever said it will. Those studies you cite didn't analyze the plan you're discussing here.'
We'll see what looking into the abyss has done for Obama.
(I'm particularly mad at him just right now, but still don't want or deserve Romney).
The time limit on responses in debates has got to seriously chafe in this respect: Obama might have said (to, say, Romney's claim that his plan will cover pre-existing conditions), "It will? Wait, I know you said in your interview with David Gregory that it would, but then your campaign staff came out later that same day and clarified that it would only ensure that people who already have insurance will be covered for pre-existing conditions. That's the same as the law we've already had in effect for 15 years now. Are you changing your policy now, so that people who don't already have insurance can get it even if they have a pre-existing condition? Because those are the people who need the help."
A bit wordy, but that form of response -- "It will/won't? You said the reverse on x occasion. Are you changing your policy now?" -- would seem to stop just shy of "You're lying" by spelling out exactly how Romney's contradicting himself.
STOP LYING ABOUT MY RECORD.
I would adore Obama if he did 101.
OK, I'm going to try to wash my anger away in the ocean. See y'all later.
100: I wouldn't worry; political science has proven that debates don't matter.
I've just had a vision of the future: in the next Romney-Obama debate, Romney pulls the same shit again, and in response Obama trembles with pent-up anger for a few moments and then, in a low voice filled with quiet rage, says, "Fuck you, clown."
Calling someone a liar (and making it stick) is hard. But suggesting that someone is making promises he won't be able to keep seems quite doable.
109: Political science has proven that clowns don't matter.
89: But I think it is a fact that Romney is not proposing a 5 trillion tax cut. He's proposing a revenue neutral tax reform, and has recently seemed to put revenue neutrality as a binding pre-condition over across the board cutting. That he wanted neutrality has always been part of the plan, what's new is his response that if the math doesn't work -- if Congress won't take out enough deductions to justify the rate cut he was hoping to get -- he's going to go with a smaller rate cut.
Biden should go after Ryan on this tonight if he's given an opportunity. Ryan recently said that if the math doesn't work, he'd compromise not on a smaller rate cut (preserving revenue neutrality), but on the promise not to raise taxes for the middle class (preserving the 20% across-the-board rate cuts).
Biden's line: So which is it, Mr. Ryan? Your running mate has said things in direct contradiction to what you say, yet he's also said that if your own budget, the Ryan budget, which has been passed repeatedly in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, were to cross his desk as President, he'd sign it.
In other words: drive a wedge between Ryan and Romney. Ryan will no doubt be able to finesse a gobbledygook-sounding answer, but it will put the seed of doubt in voter's minds, and the media will -- according to this theory -- take these questions up themselves.
voters' minds, that is.
I'm sure this is pie-in-the-sky thinking on my part, but seriously: nail them on their contradictions, and insist that they account for them. Obama failed to do so effectively enough last week. Biden needs to pick it up.
Oooh -- Biden can also say things like "I don't think it's wise to deceive the American people, Mr. Ryan, and it's your and my responsibility to be clear on our positions."
Though Ryan can then say, "You haven't been exactly clear on your proposals, VP Biden: just what is your plan for the next four years?"
Drat.
Biden should of course then have a response to that (infrastructure, jobs bill which has languished in Congress for over a year now, investment in the American people and American industry, just like in Detroit, providing opportunity for our students rather than cutting Pell Grants like you and your running mate propose to do, blah blah blah).
C'mon Biden, you can do this.
Yep. I'm his seekrit debate prep person. If he doesn't follow my advice, it's all his fault.
I am Joe Biden. I do read these comments mostly for parsimon's advice, but as we all know I only follow it about half the time.
Who could have guessed that parsimon wielded such influence?
Also, isn't Romney setting himself up for some straightforward character assassination? He's a rich businessman: he lies (on the campaign trail), he cheats (on his taxes), and he steals (why else do you think he wants to be President?).
I'm second guessing all this second guessing on that other blog. Oh my goodness do you all look foolish given what we've been discussing over there.
that other blog always makes me so sad.
There's another blog? Clearly you wouldn't be calling Facebook a blog.
Anyway, Biden shall take Ryan to task. Unless Ryan renders him gobsmacked via word salad.