[pdkl95]

(Remember, the point was matching "empirical reality")

> Benghazi was the result of a YouTube video!

Meh. Who cares? That was an insignificant event compared to the climate and government policy.

> We're not spying on your emails!

This one uses the NSA's word game where they claim it's only a "search" when a human looks at it. While I suspect many regular politicians (including Obama) don't fully understand the subject, this one should be counted as a lie.

> I never sent classified information on that server!

Hillary still might be indicted for that, though I suspect the "rich and powerful" will trump "rule of law" as usual. It might be useful to stop framing everything as conservative-vs-liberal, and realize that there are rich people everywhere on the political spectrum. Their most successful strategy was getting everyone else to fight between themselves.

As for empirical reality, I have no idea if it's true. If we're (very) lucky, the indictment will happen and the truth will be revealed in court.

> Drone strikes only hit terrorists!

I agree that this is a lie, but it's non-partisan. Drones strikes (and similar war crimes) started before Obama.

> There are no secret "kill lists"!

(same as above)

> With this insurance program you'll get to keep your doctors!

That's true. If you doctor or supplementary insurance decided to drop you instead of meeting the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, that's between you and your doctor.

> We aren't going to make you pay for insurance you don't need!

You plan to never use medical services?

> The SuperDelegates are just a way to amplify Vox Populi!

I'll agree this one is a lie.

--

To summarize, nothing is perfect, but conservatives have a much more serious problem with reality. Most politicians play political games and dissemble to get what they want, but it's disingenuous to claim both side are similarly wrong. Denial of our climate problems, creationist beliefs, and claiming revenue can be increase with tax cuts (the main source of revenue) are in contradiction with reality in fundamental - and easily observable - ways.

[ci5er]

> Meh. Who cares? That was an insignificant event compared to the climate and government policy.

Mostly agree except for that poor video-creating dude who was thrown in jail for a year, plus or minus, as part of cover for a lie during campaign season. Right or left - you've gotta admit that kind of sucks.

[pdkl95]

I forgot about that part, which does suck. Consider my "meh" a statement about picking the right battle.

We can find abuses of power and corruption everywhere in government if we take the time to look for it, but some problems are larger and need immediate attention. As Londo Mollari said (B5 #3.11).

    Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir
    to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war
    on twelve fronts.

Once our climate problems, wealth gap, the growing police/surveillance state, and other large problems are stabilized there will be time for these more mundane problems in government.

[gunshigh]

But here's the thing: drawing the line between "conservatism" and "liberal" is arbitrary. Would you say that 100% of conservative beliefs are false and that 100% of liberal beliefs are true?

The whole point of my counterarguments is that we should always be critical of views and of people who claim to espouse them. The Democratic party is just as corrupt as the Republican party -- just look at the Chicago machine.

[pklausler]

We're not talking about partisan preferences. We're talking about good and bad sources of journalism. News sources that use good journalistic practices (confirmation by second sources, publication of corrections, etc.) and that don't perpetuate debunked misinformation are preferable in my news feed over lower-quality "news" sources. If that penalizes certain partisan or ideological outlets, then tough.