[6gvONxR4sf7o]

On the contrary, reading your side's politicians the way you expect (charitably) and the other side's politicians the way you expect (uncharitably), you end up with the divisions we have now. I'd suggest reading both charitably regarding interpretation, then being cynical regarding whether it'll really happen/whether it's honest.

[edit: (charitably) and (uncharitably), not (charitably) and (charitably)]

[munk-a]

I think that is a noble stance to take and for a long time I was in that pack - but politicians lie a lot so now, whenever it sounds like a politician is leaving themselves an out I will assume they are doing so if they have a past track record of such (even if it is relatively rare).

Additionally, I don't take the words I hear from politicians on my side (if that's really an accurate term) charitably either. I err on reading both interpretations cynically, and one needs look no further than the "hyperbole" of trump's primary rallies to see where a charitable reading fell far short of the truth.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

There's a difference between what they mean and whether they're telling the truth. If Trump says something that you could interpret uncharitably as "I eat babies every night" or charitably as "I eat caviar every night," then it's best to interpret it charitably. But then you call him on his bullshit that no he doesn't eat caviar every night.

Charitable interpretation, cynical trust.

[RosanaAnaDana]

You bring up a good point and I agree, the offering undue charity to persons arguing from a position of bad faith is why were are here.

Biden would veto the bill.