I am deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United States

mad_machine wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: When fdr was president they called him a socialist.

And there have been some sections of our political spectrum that have been hard at work to undo all the "socialist" programs he put into place that we all now take for granted and need. If they had their way, Social Security, Welfare, foodstamps, and unemployment insurance would all go away

FWIW, all those social programs were mostly failures during his presidency, WW2 was the only thing that saved his legacy and pulled us out of the depression.

In reply to aircooled:

I have watched the Roosevelts and have come away respecting him even more.

He was out there. But he had a vision of a strong America and what it took for that to be. He made sure that was the governments job during his time in office. FDR did as well.

In a just society, everyone should have the opportunity to rise to the top, and the necessary safety net to prevent them from hitting rock bottom. It appears that America definitely has room for improvement in both areas.

I saw this from the New York Times today.

Thought I would share.

All Politicians Lie. Some Lie More Than Others.

Flight Service wrote: I saw this from the New York Times today. Thought I would share. All Politicians Lie. Some Lie More Than Others.

I saw that a couple days ago and couldn't remember the source. I think it speaks to the original question about if people today are less informed/engaged/etc. than folks were "back in the day".

A major thing this article points out is how much political fact checking has grown and had an influence on politics. That people immediately turn to fact checking sites to judge candidates talking points as soon as debates or speeches are complete. This rise of fact checking has actually changed the political rhetoric because politicians have to more thoroughly vet the talking points and sources in their speeches or get caught in a lie.

In reply to Beer Baron:

I have to ask, does it? I would argue, based on that one piece. That speaking the truth is desired by one demographic and speaking what someones pre-conceived notions are is another. Almost two separate demographic groups.

IMHO I would say it has made one demographic easier to be informed and the other still doesn't care.

Quote an old friend "I reject your reality and replace it with my own! Perception is reality, Facts can be negotiated."

In reply to Flight Service:

I think it does bode well. I think people have never been particularly engaged and have always wanted to have their prejudices appealed to, over reason and facts. I don't think the desire for facts is a schism between people that were previously unified. I think what we're seeing is one group of people who has recognized the value of facts and another that has not yet decided or realized they want that. We're seeing signs of at least one demographic wanting and seeking out facts that did not used to.

Or possibly what we're seeing is two parties that are differentiating themselves not in substance, but in marketing tactics.

In reply to Beer Baron:

I was actually trying to avoid putting party labels on it. Although the schism in that graph can be seen that way. The top two Fallacy Felons (I should trademark that) are non-politician politicians. They have alot of outside the normal voter support.

But I think you nailed it spot on in using different marketing tactics.

The chart shown is interesting. The amount of inaccuracies roughly corresponds to the popularity. Which seems a bit sad, but might also just be a matter of exposure. As far as distinguishing the "groups", I would not get to caught up in that. One of the groups has been getting a LOT more exposure then the other and I highly suspect that has a lot to do with it. The more they talk, the more BS is produced.

I am also a bit curious as to how many of those are actual lies, and how many are miss-information (not sure which is worse).

The concept that fact checking is having an effect on the candidates is interesting, but I am not sure how much of an effect it is really having (based on the numbers still being generated). I will say though, that I suspect the younger generation is likely far more aware of the fact checking.

I have been pretty amazed by the wildly false and easily found to be false "propaganda" that circulates. I feel confident that there are a good number of people (mostly older) who still believe many of these. I guess it's not an unusual coincidence that the average age of a cable news viewer (all networks) skews very old and they seem to thrive on a lesser form of this. Traditional network news viewers I am sure skew rather old also so they are certainly capable of taking advantage of this.

aircooled wrote: The chart shown is interesting. The amount of inaccuracies roughly corresponds to the popularity. Which seems a bit sad, but might also just be a matter of exposure. As far as distinguishing the "groups", I would not get to caught up in that. One of the groups has been getting a LOT more exposure then the other and I highly suspect that has a lot to do with it. The more they talk, the more BS is produced.

I would not say that lies correspond with popularity. Number of lies seems to correspond with most push to drive up attention no themselves and driven down by a brighter spotlight shone on them from being in a public office.

It would be a very interesting, and critical data point to see where President G.W. Bush fell on this.

Shows to me that the VP gets to spin the lies and spread the propaganda that the President is not able to. I'd wager the Pres. Bush lied a whole lot less than VP Cheney.

The more people talk clearly does not produce more lies, because the article notes that Pres. Obama is far and away the most fact checked individual, and shows a very low number of lies.

the original post's concerns i share. but the cause is not wether or not one side is better (even if I think one is).

The electorate does not care about persuasion, therefore the political system reflects that.

If you imagine in your mind someone who has a contrary point of view to you that you still respect, its probably because they either dont sensationalise, or they are making at least an attempt at being persuasive.

those people are the exception, not the rule. Therefore, when trying to gain political power, you go after large blocks with commonalities. And those voting blocks dont get "persuaded" by arguments or points of view.

i have no idea how we correct this.

madmallard wrote: i have no idea how we correct this.

One could argue a population generally well educated in critical thinking would be a strong first step.

In reply to Ian F:

That wouldn't be good for ratings...

Flight Service wrote: In reply to aircooled: I have watched the Roosevelts and have come away respecting him even more. He was out there. But he had a vision of a strong America and what it took for that to be. He made sure that was the governments job during his time in office. FDR did as well.

Same series I was talking about. It just goes to show you nothing has really changed. It was just as bad then as now.

Yes, I am pretty sure people have been saying the country is doomed / going down the drain since right after it was created!

Here is an idea I had that I can hope someone will steal / adopt:

Put a tape delay on any debates, press conferences or speeches. When it airs there is an on screen rating system that rates responses as they occur on a variety of variables:

• Validity of response to question asked (e.g. what is your economic plan? "Well, I was born a poor black child...")
• Any logical fallacies used
• Inaccurate / deceptive statements
• Relevance to powers of position being sought (e.g. ability to do anything about it)

There might be some other variables. The judging of these of course would be tricky and would have to be the result of some sort of average across a number of judges.

It could be quite entertaining and of course could have links to source information via some sort of app / interactive TV.

Beer Baron wrote: The more people talk clearly does not produce more lies, because the article notes that Pres. Obama is far and away the most fact checked individual, and shows a very low number of lies.

That article was written by someone who freely admits she picks what is fact checked. That alone should raise questions about the validity of conclusions reached by any fact-checkers who use a similar methodology. Fact-checking is (conceptually) good thing but it deserves as much scrutiny as those it holds accountable.

I would also suggest that its' not about the number, its' about the magnitude and consequence; ask Bill Buckner.

Also of note is that the President is in an entirely different situation then a candidate. Comparing President to President might be reasonable considering Saws points above.

In reply to oldsaw:

She also admits that there is no way they can fact check everything. They fact check stuff the grabs headlines or is astounding.

I agree a more concrete metric would be better, they did come forward and tell you what they are looking for and that is better than nothing.

If you go to politifact they will give you the statements they fact check know and will accept submissions.

FACT CHECK THE FACT CHECKERS!!!

I am not going to say that the country is doomed.. but I think the republican party as we know it is. It is being torn between by those on the very far right and those who are still "moderate". I think this election cycle may be the one that finally breaks them into two and gives this country three viable parties (for at least a short while)

mad_machine wrote: I am not going to say that the country is doomed.. but I think the republican party as we know it is. It is being torn between by those on the very far right and those who are still "moderate". I think this election cycle may be the one that finally breaks them into two and gives this country three viable parties (for at least a short while)

They may be able to pull it out, but they're doing their best to hurt themselves. They're either going to have to reinvent themselves as a party, or get torn apart from within.

As much as I disagree with the Republican party on many things, I'm not wild about the idea of their party splitting in two. We've had that happen in the past in the U.S. It works out in the end, but is unpleasant in the meantime. The party that doesn't split ends up with a super-majority and just runs things for a while without opposition to temper or balance them. Although I prefer the Democrats, I really don't want them to just get their way on everything.

Nick (LUCAS) Comstock wrote: FACT CHECK THE FACT CHECKERS!!!

anarchist

Nick (LUCAS) Comstock wrote: FACT CHECK THE FACT CHECKERS!!!

Ian F wrote:

madmallard wrote: i have no idea how we correct this.

One could argue a population generally well educated in critical thinking would be a strong first step.

One could indeed make that proposition, and it would be entirely correct. Unfortunately, the only people who have any interest whatsoever in critical thinking are already critical thinkers. Almost nobody else wants to be one - they'd rather be driven by emotion, like we've been raising people to do for generations.

Duke wrote: One could indeed make that proposition, and it would be entirely correct. Unfortunately, the only people who have any interest whatsoever in critical thinking are *already* critical thinkers. Almost nobody else wants to be one - they'd rather be driven by emotion, like we've been raising people to do for generations.

The people who say they make they're driven by critical thinking and everyone else is driven by emotion, are usually just better at convincing themselves that they are less emotionally motivated than they really are.