• AeonFelis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It’d be more of a spin, or a lie of omission, at most. Either way it’d be less stupid.

    • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      The Republican Party is like the lowest-effort scammers who send you spam full of typos, bad grammar, and an obvious malware link to click on. They don’t want people with an ounce of brainpower voting for them because they’d be harder to fool down the line. By appealing to only the biggest morons who can’t see through the most obvious lies, it’ll be easier for the Republicans to strip away all their rights and kick us all in the face while blaming anyone else.

      Just like the scammers, it’s pathetically sad that there are so many people who barely pass as sentient so the scam can work.

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yes, but a much more defensible one. To refute a lie of omission you need to present the omitted information and show how it is relevant. To refute a lie of actual falsehood you just have to present the truth and point out the contradiction.

        I’m not saying he’s not a liar, I’m just annoyed by his stupidity.