Why are blatant inaccuracies accepted in politics?

[ThePainefulTruth]

I find myself asking that question a lot. Why do we accept statements that are untrue? Further, why do people accept this behavior, or worse, celebrate it? Let's take this example:

"Before Obama came along, we did not have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attacks." - Rudy Giuliani

This moron was the mayor of NYC when 9/11 occurred. Why has the divide in politics become so wide that the voters find this acceptable? What scares the ever living hell out of me, is voters take statements much like this one at face value and vote based on it. What an absolute joke. If we dig I am sure democrats have done some as well and it just an unacceptable.

The question remains though: why is this happening? What brought us here? Why aren't voters holding these individuals accountable? How do they still have any support or credibility at all? I don't understand.

OK, you've established that you're a blatantly inaccurate leftist. 'Nuff said.

 

[Quetzal]

OK, you've established that you're a blatantly inaccurate leftist. 'Nuff said.

You poor thing. I just used Rudy because it was the lowest hanging fruit that helped illustrate my point. It's a shame you missed the point entirely.

 

[fantome profane]

Why are we calling them “inaccuracies”? Saying Pi is 3.14 is inaccurate. Saying there were no Islamic terrorist attacks before Obama is a lie.

We need to call lies lies, and we need to call liars liars.

 

[Tiapan]

Because once the world, not so long ago, was based on truth confirmed by intelligent internet searches.
Now the world is based on perceptions, true or false, compounded by confusion, as internet now disseminates more false information than the truth these days.
Cavet Emptor
Cheers

 

[Revoltingest]

Because once the world, not so long ago, was based on truth confirmed by intelligent internet searches.

This golden age of cromulent information never existed.
Undeniably true fact.....
All of the first 100 posts on the brand new internet were about....
- Pornography.
- Deny the moon landings.
- Engines which burn water.
- Jewish bankers killed Kennedy.
- Alien autopsies.
- Pornography.

 

[Tiapan]

This golden age of cromulent information never existed.
Undeniably true fact.....
All of the first 100 posts on the brand new internet were about....
- Pornography.
- Deny the moon landings.
- Engines which burn water.
- Jewish bankers killed Kennedy.
- Alien autopsies.
- Pornography.

Yes I remember those days, Netscape beta 0.8, but I noticed just like here open discussion/arguement saw truth come through. and while these things are true, it is a little dishonest to presume that these represent the total internet content of the web at the time. Newspapers existed with real journalists, it allowed access to University archives government departments, Teaching Resources and a vast array of amazing information exploded at the end of our fingertips, we even chatted one to one regularly with the space shuttle, but now it is corrupted. This is all part of the evolutionary path we are destined to follow, for good or bad.
I am concerned to now see the "rulers" of the World all freezing free speech and spouting dangerous populist nationalism. Yet who is the biggest liar? Trump, Putin, or Kim Il Sun? And then you have to ask your self which of these recidivist non truthers is smartest, quite frankly I think Trump is at the bottom of that list, he might be great as a used car sales man but his foreign policies don't reflect a particularly intelligent approach.
Cheers

 

[Willamena]

I find myself asking that question a lot. Why do we accept statements that are untrue? Further, why do people accept this behavior, or worse, celebrate it?

That's a question to pose your congressperson.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes I remember those days, Netscape beta 0.8, but I noticed just like here open discussion/arguement saw truth come through. and while these things are true, it is a little dishonest to presume that these represent the total internet content of the web at the time. Newspapers existed with real journalists, it allowed access to University archives government departments, Teaching Resources and a vast array of amazing information exploded at the end of our fingertips, we even chatted one to one regularly with the space shuttle, but now it is corrupted. This is all part of the evolutionary path we are destined to follow, for good or bad.
I am concerned to now see the "rulers" of the World all freezing free speech and spouting dangerous populist nationalism. Yet who is the biggest liar? Trump, Putin, or Kim Il Sun? And then you have to ask your self which of these recidivist non truthers is smartest, quite frankly I think Trump is at the bottom of that list, he might be great as a used car sales man but his foreign policies don't reflect a particularly intelligent approach.
Cheers

"Real journalists", then as now, will at times present opinion as fact, will misrepresent
quotes (by alteration or wrong context), will omit coverage of events, will give preference
to coverage, will use hyperbole which morphs into fact. Sure, sure, the vastly increased
info access has made junk news more abundant, but it has also made suppression more
difficult.
So was the golden age of news when we had few outlets which were very professional in
how they controlled the news? Or is it now, when the careful reader can discover more?
Not that I claim to be correct, but I'd pick the internet age.