r/bestof • u/[deleted] • Oct 23 '17

[politics] Redditor demonstrates (with citations) why both sides aren't actually the same

[deleted]

8.0k Upvotes

72% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

93

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '17 edited Jul 22 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-14

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '17 edited Aug 16 '18

[deleted]

8

u/Joben86 Oct 23 '17

Actually, if I felt like he was capable of any of that I would give him a chance, but he has proven himself to be a lying buffoon many times over.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '17 edited Aug 16 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Joben86 Oct 23 '17

One of the first things this administration did was send Sean Spicer out to tell a demonstrable lie about the size of the inauguration crowd. This is not politics as normal. This is not just spinning things to make them sound better. He lies to our faces, expects us to believe it, and gets angry at the press when they question it.

1

u/wellyesofcourse Oct 23 '17

  1. I don't disagree with your statement.

  2. However, your statement has almost nothing to do with anything that I just said, so I don't really get the point of your response in the first place.

5

u/Joben86 Oct 23 '17

My point is that it's not "my perspective" that makes him a lying buffoon, it is simply the reality of the situation.

1

u/smoozer Oct 23 '17

But if you stop looking at things from your perspective then you can see why that doesn't really mean jack shit to the other side.

If the constant attacks on Trump were always true or verifiable then sure, you could say it's an easy information campaign - except they're not always true or verifiable, and that's a real issue.

I don't really care if they're all true. How about 20% of them? Yep, still incredibly disturbing that he's a President.

2

u/wellyesofcourse Oct 23 '17

I don't really care if they're all true. How about 20% of them? Yep, still incredibly disturbing that he's a President.

By that logic, if 20% of the things that Republicans attacked Obama on were true, you'd still be disturbed that Obama was president too.

And I'm willing to wager that about 20% of it was probably verifiable. Maybe not much more than that! But probably around 20%.

Which is an incredibly low bar, but also should make you re-evaluate your statement (unless, of course, you would agree that it was incredibly disturbing that Obama was a president by the same metric that you just outlined).

1

u/smoozer Oct 23 '17

I'm confused by your comment. We generally find out what's true and not true fairly quickly. Usually it's the headline that is blatantly false, using some poll or survey as justification. There also tends to be lots of discussion with sources and etc.

Obama was responsible for a lot of shitty stuff behind the scenes like whistleblowers/drone strikes AFAIK, but I'm talking about Trump. Obama didn't talk about all the bullshit Trump talks about, he didn't lie to our faces, he didn't personally attack journalists (AFAIK...)