Skip to main content

View Diary: Conservatives don't really want the truth (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Truth is part of reality (18+ / 0-)

    so, yeah, at war with the truth.

    If I translate the excerpted paragraph correctly, the rich want assurance of success before they attempt to buy another election.

    •  Risk / reward before investing (10+ / 0-)

      and they cannot properly assess risk if the campaigns themselves don't know or won't reveal their status.

      Would you buy a car without a test drive?

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:10:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They are all used to rigged markets... (19+ / 0-)

      And insider trading.  They don't invest, they put their money behind sure things.  Elections are to unpredictable.

      'Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost' - Ronald Reagan, Communist

      by RichM on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:19:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Now that the have that "Minority right to vote"... (10+ / 0-)

      thing fixed, the Republican donors will come back.

      They don't want to contribute to any election that allows "THOSE" types of people to vote.

      Texas will pass the "You must be this tall to vote" rule and require proof that you paid at least $50,000 in taxes (or to the evangelical church of your choice) the previous year to avoid the completely non-racial poll tax which is slightly higher than the annual income of person who qualifies for food stamps.

      At least all of the "Right" people will get to vote.  You know, the real "Texans".

      "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

      by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:02:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They don't have it fixed; section 2 still stands (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mokurai, Aunt Pat

        Voting rules and regulations that infringe on minorities' right to vote or dilute their vote are still illegal.  Not everything they want is legal, everything they tried is not atomatically ok now.  Sure, it will take lawsuits in many cases, and lots of vigilance, money and volunteers, but discriminatory practices can be beaten back.  It just takes more work now.  Pre clearance is gone, but DOJ can still sue, as can individuals and private groups.  Pennsylvania and Ohio,  for example, gained absolutely nothing by the Supreme Court decision.  Don't concede anything.

        Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

        by Mimikatz on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:31:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  With the law the way it was... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aunt Pat, bryduck

          there were huge lines in minority areas and relatively short lines in conservative areas.  With the laws the way they were, there were millions of voters disenfranchised by false flyers and mailings, illegal intimidation and crazy gerrymandering.

          The southern states not only do not believe that was a problem, they want to take it much further.  As we have seen in past elections, even if they sue, it will be after the fact and we all know that they do not change the results of elections due to allegations of wrong doing even when presented with overwhelming evidence.

          My initial post was intended to be snarky but the effects of this court decision are very real and as you can see by Texas' eagerness to change the laws immediately after it was decided, they believe that it will help them win elections.  Unfortunately, they are correct.

          "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

          by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 03:04:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sort of (10+ / 0-)

      The rich donors just want to know what the risks are and polling is how one determines the chances of winning an election. These people are asking the politicians what their polling is telling them and the politicians are lying to them in order to get their money.

      I don't feel bad for these rich donors one bit because there are ample, non-partisian, proven, pollsters out there they could have looked to but since these people have swallowed the kool-aid they think those pollsters are lying to them and asked the campaigns for the "real" numbers.

      It's a self-defeating feedback loop and I'm laughing at all of them.

      I also often hear about how there "aren't any unbiased news sources" or "all pollsters fudge the numbers" but in reality the people convinced that everyone is biased are simply projecting their own inability to look at facts for what they are. When the facts from one source don't agree with their world view they simply declare "bias" and look for another source. When the facts from a new source do agree with their world view they insist all other news sources are biased. Since each conservative has a slightly different view of the world eventually all sources disagree with them at some point and therefore all sources are biased.

      I'll even go so far as to predict that someone will reply to this message with "all sources are biased" because it's such a prevailing attitude among pseudo-intellectuals. My response is that unbiased news sources, pollsters, people, publishers, etc... aren't always right. The difference between a biased source and an unbiased source is that the unbiased source will go out of their way to correct any mistakes after the fact. An unbiased source will correct their analysis and explicitly identify when they are inserting opinion into a news story, they will identify sources that may have conflicts of interest and just do what everyone would consider to be due diligence in reporting. Unbiased pollsters publish their metrics. That is the definition of "unbiased" reporting. Of course individuals and groups have their own biases and opinions, but an unbiased source giving their analysis of facts will do the above and that is what it means to be "unbiased."

      Meanwhile, liberals are burdened with never having enough facts and over-analyzing even positive news so we all sit on pins and needles on election night not knowing if Obama is going to win when the polling was very clear. "The GOP will sabotage polling places!" or whatever reason we can come with to explain why we might, just maybe, lose the election.

      Given a choice, I'll take reality and a healthy dose of cynicism over denying the truth - no matter how blissful ignorance can be.  ~cue harp music~

      [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

      by rabel on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:02:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site