Bichon Frise wrote:
And getting back to the subject of the post…
Although the candidate I voted for won the election, I don’t consider it a cause for celebration. Both sides spent unprecedented amounts of money in search of victory. While almost every election reaches new heights in spending, the increase in this election cycle resembles the trajectory of the National Debt. I don’t consider that a good thing.
Both sides were guilty of FUD, although the evidence suggests that one side was much more blatant about it than the other.
My own wish for the election was that people vote for whoever they believed would lead the country to a better place, but that they base their beliefs on facts, not FUD. To that end, I think that the huge amount of FUD presented and dispelled here and in other places may have had an effect on independent and undecided voters. News flash: intelligent people don’t like being misled and will turn against sources of FUD.
So, people vote for whomever you perceive to be "bullshitting" the least? Certainly, Clinton either Bullshit his way out being a bullshitter, or this simply can't be true.
One of the few things I have ever agreed with David Axelrod on is that it is about who was voting. Repubs have a hard time connecting with "minorities." That doesn't mean their policies or direction is right or wrong, just unpopular with a minority electorate. Fortunately for the Dems, the "minorities" today are the majority when they are all put together.
Not quite. It's a matter of voting on real facts in context rather than distorted half-truths. I don't have a problem with a person seeing the same facts as myself but drawing different conclusions. For most of us, our perspective is shaped at least in part by our experiences, and our experiences all differ. It's not so much a matter of voting for whoever lies the least; it's a matter of who you find credible based on patterns of behavior and who's plans you find most viable and constructive after all the FUD is cleared away. But in a sense, yeah, if you BS a lot, you lose cred. After all, if you lie about what the current reality is, you're likely to lie about what you'll do about it.
And, what are the real facts? What VinTek says they are? What Obama says? What Romney says? "FUD" (what I deem to really be BS) is there for a reason. It works. NPR's Planet Money had an excellent show on the focus groups politicians put out there and how to get people to believe the things they say. It's quite interesting.
We all have a hierarchy of what is most important to us. As we go down our list, we probably won't get everything, but we make sure to get the most number of things which are important to us. Whether or not that happens is another discussion. Promises by any politician is as good a frat boy's at 2 am saturday morning.
So, we all say FUD and what the real facts are, but I think even the most educated have a hard time sorting it out. Case in point, I believe there is a thread here rambling on about "good" the President is on terrorism or fighting terrorism or whatever it is they do. The OP credits the President as keeping Guantanamo open and that he (the President) knows it is the correct thing to do. I seem to recall one of the first things the President did in '09 after his inauguration is to announce the closure of Guantanamo. He's never come out and said Guantanamo is the least bad answer we have at this point (I could stand to be corrected, but I doubt it). He's just swept it under the rug. Our excellent (and usually very biased) self-proclaimed FUD busters let that one slip by. So, did the best of the best just miss that? Or did they give it a pass? Or do we have a different view of what the "facts" are? It's probably a combination of the 3, but more the latter. But the point is, we shouldn't assign any negative connotation adjectives to people just because they have a different view of the political world than we do. Or look down our long pointy noses because we think they are buying what is obviously BS to us.