Is it worth it to call out all candidates lies?

[DaleA]

Beto O'Rourke was on NPR and I am wondering if we should just ignore him or call him out on his lies? It's a genuine question. O'Rourke isn't seen as any kind of a front runner these days so maybe we should just ignore him.

On NPR he was talking about "assault weapons", AK-47's and AR-15's and about the UNIMAGINABLE wounds these weapons cause. He did not mentioning there are a variety of bullets these rifles can fire and that many other rifles fire the SAME bullets and that many, many rifles fire bullets MUCH MORE destructive and powerful.

He also went on about how the framers of the constitution didn't have these weapons in mind when they wrote the second amendment etc. etc.

So, ignore him or call him out? And by call him out I mean writing letters to the editor, posting comments to news stories about him and posting these lies right here on this forum.

The interview is about 6 and a half minutes long and can be found here:
https://jwp.io/s/BVum84Pq
or here:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/7678...onfiscate-some-guns-texas-voters-want-details

 

[Pahoo]

More "Push-Back" is coming !!!

Beto O'Rourke was on NPR and I am wondering if we should just ignore him or call him out on his lies?

Personally, I don't let these talking-heads poison me. I really don 't worry about them as much as I do, the folks that vote for them. Very few Politicians are well informed, on the subject of the Constitution and firearms. little by little, you will see push-back, so be patient. ……

Be Happy and;
Be Safe !!!

 

[Targa]

Is it worth it to call out all candidates lies?

That would be a full time job. As for me, I don’t have the time or energy.

He also went on about how the framers of the constitution didn't have these weapons in mind when they wrote the second amendment etc. etc.

What I am sure of is that they didn’t intend for people to use the 1st amendment to wipe there rear ends with our flag and constitution. They (the Beto types) really are a pathetic group that couldn’t be anymore screwed up if I drew them with a crayon.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Beto O'Rourke was on NPR and I am wondering if we should just ignore him or call him out on his lies? It's a genuine question. O'Rourke isn't seen as any kind of a front runner these days so maybe we should just ignore him.

On NPR he was talking about "assault weapons", AK-47's and AR-15's and about the UNIMAGINABLE wounds these weapons cause. He did not mentioning there are a variety of bullets these rifles can fire and that many other rifles fire the SAME bullets and that many, many rifles fire bullets MUCH MORE destructive and powerful.

He also went on about how the framers of the constitution didn't have these weapons in mind when they wrote the second amendment etc. etc.

My personal bias is that liars should be called out whenever possible.

That said, I think some measure of "pick your battles" applies. First, most newspaper editors are dyed-in-the-wool liberals, so letters calling out the liberals' favorite lies probably won't ever be printed. Second, I think we need to be careful not to delve too deeply into the minutiae of technical "gun" stuff that will leave most fence sitters shaking their heads in total confusion. An example of that might be trying (once again) to explain the difference between a military full-auto rifle and a similar-looking commercial semi-auto rifle. Is it worth pointing out that the AR-15s we can buy are NOT the same as the M16s the Army buys? Of course. Just don't get bogged down in details. Remember that the average attention span of readers today in measured in nanoseconds.

Of most important to me is calling out the lies about the Constitution.

He also went on about how the framers of the constitution didn't have these weapons in mind when they wrote the second amendment etc. etc.

It's worth point out that, in fact, they did have those -- and all new -- weapons in mind. Refer to writings of influential men at the time of the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, men such as Tench Coxe:

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."​

You could then point out that the Founders didn't foresee typewriters and personal computers, but the Supreme Court seems to think that using modern computers and printers to express one's thoughts is a valid activity worthwhile of First Amendment protection. It's obviously unfair and illogical to claim that one amendment protects the use of the most modern technology while another amendment protects only the technology that existing as of 1776.

 

[rickyrick]

All politicians tell lies, commit fraud and so forth. They can even get away with petty crimes. I don’t think calling them out these days will help. Constituents know that their chosen candidate or politician lies, cheats and say whatever they want... most are generally ok with it as long as they follow the agenda.

I grew up, been many years since I was young. None of us believed in propaganda, because we were taught about political rhetoric, yellow journalism and similar concepts and we were taught how to recognize them.
It’s pretty amazing and also mind blowing that so many people actually believe rhetoric, political propaganda and partisan journalism... accepting as fact.

We’ve got much larger problems in addition to proposed gun control, our country is changing, it was designed to change. Who is going to enjoy the new USA and who isn’t remains to be seen.

 

[zukiphile]

Beto O'Rourke was on NPR and I am wondering if we should just ignore him or call him out on his lies? It's a genuine question.

My personal bias is that liars should be called out whenever possible.

I think these matters deserve attention, but I also have a bias against calling these false positions lies.

We've all seen the video of Carolyn McCarthy telling Tucker Carlson that a barrel shroud is the "shoulder thing that goes up". That was false, but probably not a lie. I genuinely doubt that she knew perfectly well what a barrel shroud is, but decided she would deceive. My guess is that she spoke with certainty on a matter about which she was ignorant.

I find minor factual lies (conscious deception) in public life fairly rare. When Camila Harris held a piece paper and asked Brett Kavanaugh if he'd ever had a conversation with someone and warned him to be careful because he is under oath, the implication that she had evidence of such a conversation was a deceit.

Let's assume that Robert Francis O'Rourke believed the falsehood he spoke with conviction. That doesn't get him off the hook. What does this tell us about his other convictions?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Let's assume that Robert Francis O'Rourke believed the falsehood he spoke with conviction. That doesn't get him off the hook. What does this tell us about his other convictions?

But why should I assume that he believed what he said? Especially the part about the Second Amendment not contemplating modern firearms. Believe what you wish; I do not believe for one nanosecond that Mr. O'Rourke is so ignorant of constitutional issues that he isn't aware of at some of the writings by the Founders, and that he is also totally ignorant of the Heller decision.

It's possible that he's that ignorant ... but I don't believe it.

 

[zukiphile]

But why should I assume that he believed what he said? Especially the part about the Second Amendment not contemplating modern firearms.

I ask you to assume it arguendo for the purpose of whether that makes the critique of his comments more or less effective.

RFO spent several sessions as a member of the house, as did Carolyn McCarthy. Remember when a member of the upper house, the Senator from Hawaii, condemned a reference of Jeff Session to Anglo-Saxon legal tradition as racist? That was so achingly ignorant that it was difficult to believe his ignorance was feigned. There may be quite a bit someone in that position doesn't know, or may know that isn't true.

 

[jmr40]

Let him keep talking. He won't be the nominee, but his rhetoric will make it harder for anyone to win that isn't pro-gun.

 

[44 AMP]

I'd say the point of calling him out on his untruths, whether due to ignorance or deliberate lying, is not to convince or educate HIM, but to make others who hear him aware that what they are hearing is bull ..dung...

If you can open the eyes of even one voter, tis a worthwhile thing.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'd say the point of calling him out on his untruths, whether due to ignorance or deliberate lying, is not to convince or educate HIM, but to make others who hear him aware that what they are hearing is bull ..dung...

If you can open the eyes of even one voter, tis a worthwhile thing.

absolutely. It's extremely unlikely that we'll ever change the minds, opinions, or positions of zealots such as O'Rourke. The potential benefit to calling them out -- as politely as possible, using facts rather than calling them ugly names -- is to try to win a few hearts and minds among the fence sitters.

 

[TXAZ]

If it’s a misdemeanor to lie to the cops,
and a felony to lie to the FBI,
then why isn’t it a capital offense for the elected or appointed to lie to the American people?

 

[USNRet93]

So, ignore him or call him out? And by call him out I mean writing letters to the editor, posting comments to news stories about him and posting these lies right here on this forum.

True of any politician these days, yes? Telling lies. Either side of the isle, at any level of the federal government. What is lacking is coherent ideology, what is common is the desire for notoriety, and getting elected or getting re-elected. Desire for power, control, being the guy who is perceived as 'right'.
Media these days is all about talking heads, ratings..on EITHER side of the political spectrum. Again, not about ideology or 'courage of their convictions'...

So, hear something, get all sweated up and indignant and yell, 'gotta do something'..or ignore the circus, and vote on November 3, 2020.

If it’s a misdemeanor to lie to the cops,
and a felony to lie to the FBI,
then why isn’t it a capital offense for the elected or appointed to lie to the American people?

Be careful what you wish for..these days...

Fits here

Whether or not you conclude that he believes what he says, a would be officeholder who rests his appeal on blowing right past legal limits on government power is a problem.

 

[zukiphile]

Let him keep talking. He won't be the nominee, but his rhetoric will make it harder for anyone to win that isn't pro-gun.

That's how I view this as well.

The 2d Am. isn't the only part of the COTUS that RFO seems determined to mangle. He also wants to apply federal income tax differently according to whether he agrees with an organization's stated positions.

Whether or not you conclude that he believes what he says, a would be officeholder who rests his appeal on blowing right past legal limits on government power is a problem.

Casual observers won't know about that problem unless you identify it.

 

[TheGunGeek]

Lies and misinformation should ALWAYS be called out. Otherwise the uninformed can take it as gospel, and then the result is people actually believing this junk.

 

[Pahoo]

Push back in your way and ..... VOTE

Otherwise the uninformed can take it as gospel, and then the result is people actually believing this junk.

I often wonder if these "Liberal" talking-heads, actually believe what they say, think and do. If so, I'm reminded of the phrase;

"Never try to teach a pig, how to sing; It's a waste of your time and annoys the pig"

My push-back is to influence the folks, in my circle and vote on all levels of governments. ……

The first time I was able to vote, I had to get some input from friends as it was somewhat confusing as to how to I should vote.???? I am no longer confused !!

Vote and;
Be Safe !!!

 

[USNRet93]

Lies and misinformation should ALWAYS be called out. Otherwise the uninformed can take it as gospel, and then the result is people actually believing this junk.

True words, for both aides of the isle...

So post right below..and NO, not making ANY statement of political loyalty but I rankle at absolutes of partisan 'decisions' or observations. Really BAD on both sides at all levels these days..in terms of 'truth telling'...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If you are going to call out O'Rourke on the statements you consider to be lies, will you also call out Trump on the incorrect things he says? I am just curious to know if your goal is to ensure truth in politics (a truly noble cause) or if your goals are more politically motivated simply for your preferred party to win, signing off on its lies while calling foul on the lies of the opposition?

 

[Don Fischer]

Waste of time. People that vote for liberals have already made up their mind. Poor people like those getting government benefits have also. They may be good people but are ignorant! They think the way to survive is the guy wanting to give them more. Seem's there's been less talk about that this time and I see where lot of those people are walking away from the Democraps. Hope that's true! But you calling them out simply bring's their name up front and that is what I think they really want! Ignore them.

 

[Mainah]

If you told the truth about the future of entitlement programs and the implications of the national debt you'd never get elected.