911 WTC collapse (only!)

The statistical fact that the more detailed an answer the politician gives, the less there would be people who fully agree with what is said. Therefore the tactics in the voter-hunting game is to say as little as possible in most issues.


But that's not what you said. You didn't say anything about politicians being taciturn in order to "hunt" for votes. What you said was:


Politicians only say things that are likely to increase their popularity, and do their best to avoid answering (correctly) any question that might compromise their popularity in the eyes of the voters. These are the rules of the game of voter-hunting.


You first said that politicians avoided answering questions correctly and only say things to increase their popularity. You said that was the rule in "voter-hunting." I asked you what evidence you had of this and you now state that politicians say as little as possible and that this is the rule in "voter-hunting."

Which is it? Do politicians lie to avoid compromising their popularity or do they say as little as possible?

And what evidence do you have that this is a "statistical fact"?

Never mind. You don't actually have the first clue what you're talking about. You just type whatever words you think are most likely to get a reaction while doing whatever you can to avoid admitting to yourself that you've been shown to be wrong.
 
The basic assumption is that anyone can be lying in this world. In fact, the more power a person has, the more probable it is that he is not telling the entire truth or his earnest personal opinion about any topic. The game gets the dirtier the higher you get, it has been so since the birth of civilization.

Wow, I never thought of that... :rolleyes:

This is all so useless.
 
Which is it? Do politicians lie to avoid compromising their popularity or do they say as little as possible?
Lying is risky business. Politicians try to avoid lying as much as possible.

Most of the time they simply try to say as little as possible. Sometimes a situation arises where it is impossible (or would look very strange) not to give any comment about an asked issue. In such cases a white lie may slip off the tongue of the politician, to avoid compromising his popularity.
 
Do you think the 200 engineers of the NIST lied?


I think his stance is that since he can't understand their report, and no one seems capable of dumbing down and summarizing 10,000 pages in one forum post, that he has no reason to believe it to be accurate.

...or something.

I fear quantum physics may be suspicious to him, too.
 
JJM:

Might I suggest you read the "Executive Summaries" from each of the NISTNCSTAR PDF Files available at the NIST site. These are long, but not nearly as much as the entire report, and the reading is easy enough that someone with rudementary physics and chemistry knowledge can understand.

TAM:)
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom