• 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
        ·
        2 hours 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.