No room for error
Why is it some writers to the DRC find everything the president (or his representatives) do or say is done with malicious intent if the outcome is not as first stated?
Benghazi is always a lie. “You can keep your doctor” is always a lie. The list goes on and on.
There is no misstep, no error in predicting the future, and no unseen change of events that is not termed a malicious lie. An honest estimate of a cause or the future or the outcome of something with thousands of unknown variables is always classified as a lie with malicious intent as if the person had knowledge he or she was hiding with the intent to deceive.
The inability for some contributors to find any room for error, honest mistakes or changing events beyond anybody’s control begs reason. All statements that turn out to not be exactly accurate, even after circumstances have changed or new information is gained, are termed a deliberate lie.
I wonder if these same people judge TV weathermen in the same light? Are they given the benefit of the doubt for being honest (but wrong) or is lying part of what weathermen do?
The logic that anybody is always accurate, and if not, is always misleading with intent is incomprehensible. Maybe when you don’t want a reasoned debate the best thing is to keep calling the other person a liar?